DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax ND

HERE IT IS, FIRST TEST IMPRESSIONS; Contax ND verses the Mighty Canon EOS 1Ds.
Remember, the following should be pretty unbiased. After all, I own both the cameras.

Check the Gallery for images I loaded so you know what was done. Dirk, I'll remove them ASAP, after people get a look at them.

First, lets dispense with any functional differences. The Canon is faster. At everything. Period. The Canon weighs a lot more and is bigger. (see Gallery photo). Preferences: I prefer the aperture control ring on the Contax lenses which are missing on the Canon glass. And purely from a subjective POV, I like the looks of the ND better. For any more spec. stuff, please go to the respective manufacturers' web sites. The main thing here is subjectively/objectively comparing imaging. The end results.

In the Gallery up-loads I explain how everything remained a constant except the camera/lens used. I ended up selecting the Contax 50/1.4 as it is one of the undisputed performers of the Zeiss line up. The Canon Zoom was then set at 50mm where it should be at it's best. Both lenses were set @ f/8.
Some may dispute this as unscientific, but I could care less. These are the lenses I own and use, so it's as scientific as I need it to be.

Celebrate all you Contax ND users, our camera did very well. As I suspected, the Canon was the better imaging machine, but not by the margin one would expect from all the media hype. The Canon was a bit cleaner in the details and the color was dead nuts on right out of the camera. I confess, I did tweak the reds a bit in the ND image by color balancing a touch of cyan back into the image in order to get it to be exactly like the subject.

Over-all the Canon image appears a bit crisper, and in other tests I've already done, the Canon does not color fringe in situations where the ND sometimes does.

For images up to 8X10 few will be able to tell the difference. Maybe even 11X14 (we'll see after I print some). But keep in mind that the Canon will allow deeper crops with less effect on the quality. Today I will do a real world walk around with both cameras. This time I'll use the Contax 24-85 verses the Canon 24-70/2.8.

Go ahead and ask questions.
 
Marc,
thank you for your tests and photo uploads!
Alhough a low-res jpeg can't convey the real differences I think I noticed some very slight points and would ask you to confirm (or not) judging from the original files:

The deep shadows of the ND shot seem to be just a bit smoother and still carry information while the Canon clips them to zero (in the bottle cork).

The super-crop reflects the difference in resolution (6 vs. 11MP) but also is a little softer.

However, both candidates produce a quite steep gradation for the subject shot (at least at the res shown).

Which settings for ISO did you use? Did you shoot both cameras in TIFF mode?

And just a little smiley on your remarks on size and weight: some 100 posts up, I stated that I dislike the Canons for ergonomical reasons... this is one of them. ;-)
 
Christian, The ND was Tiff, the Canon a RAW as it doesn't offer Tiff as an option. Irakly is bringing his ND RAW developer with him this afternoon, I lost mine in a systems crash. So we can do apples-to-apples.

The steep curve of these photos was done on purpose. Harsh whites next to pure blacks with cut glass and printed material are all a digital cameras worst nightmare. Next I have to shoot some tree branches which is also an acid test.

The blacks of the Canon image are smooth and contain detail. It must be a function of the web up-loads. Neither have detail in the base black which is was black velvet material that I used exactly for that reason, as a control. In fact, it is the blacks of the ND that I have experienced trouble with in the past. But I am getting better at the idiosyncrasies of exposure with the ND, and everything is improving.

A few other notes: this is all sort of academic,
what really counts is real world shooting conditions. The Canons' speed of operation alone is worth it, even if the imaging abilities turn out to be equal between the two cameras.
Start up time is instant with the Canon. It shoots instantly, and the ETTL flash control is second to none.

But there is something about this ND, and the images it can produce for those who take the time to unlock it's secrets.
 
Charles,

Thank you for your vote of confidence. While I try to stick to accuracy in facts and honesty in my opinions, I have been known to be wrong at one time or another ...

Marc, my math was done on $8000 for the EOS body and $6000 for the ND. I didn't choose all the most expensive lenses. I guess I cheated a little, but the post didn't specify which lenses
happy.gif
. And thank you for the quick feedback - you're a dedicated soul. It is obvious the EOS is a better fit for your situation. Enjoy the dickens out of it!

I'm looking forward to an ND / 1Ds / 14n comparison, and let's hope Contax take heart and step up to the challenge.

DJ
 
When i talked to blake (contax) about the ND and that it should be at = least half as good as canon, he said,"no; it should be better than canon = period"=20
 
DJ, You can get the ND cheaper at B&H, $5000 minus the mail in rebate = $4500!
 
Right you are - you need to e-mail for the discounted price. Last time I checked it was $6000, a month or so ago I think. Now it's down to $5000, so I guess we can keep the expensive lenses on the comparison
happy.gif
. See, I can be wrong ...
 
Mehrdad,

Blake of Contax is supposed to say something like that. If he would specify the term "better" we all could manage our expectations.

Better in handling speed? Ask Marc!
Better tonality range? In which settings?
Better color reproduction? Which settings?
Better in detail reproduction? See Marc's super-crop upload.
Better exposure accuracy?
Better software?
Better buffer?
Better power source?

Unless someone from Contax comes up with a more differentiated statement (and a concise description how to achieve this "better") this is just unreflected, one-dimensional marketing blabla.

And that is exactly what I don't need! I want Contax to provide crystal clear instructions how to produce images in professional consistency as the results - at least in my workflow - tend to vary more than it is acceptable.
Coincidentially, the ND produces the finest images right out of the box and then again I just get flat, greyish crap I have to work on heavily in Photoshop.
To some large extent I would blame this to the RAW Converter software, that has no comprehensive controls - not to speak of workflow automation.

Please forgive my anger, but when I hear statements like that from Blake, Contax would better put their money where their mouth is and fix the worst bugs. FAST!
Christian
 
Mehrdad,=20

Blake of Contax is supposed to say something like that. If he would = specify the term "better" we all could manage our expectations.=20

Better in handling speed? Ask Marc!=20 Better tonality range? In which settings?=20 Better color reproduction? Which settings?=20 Better in detail reproduction? See Marc's super-crop upload.=20 Better exposure accuracy?=20 Better software?=20 Better buffer?=20 Better power source?=20

Unless someone from Contax comes up with a more differentiated statement (and a concise description how to achieve this "better") this is just unreflected, one-dimensional marketing blabla.=20

And that is exactly what I don't need! I want Contax to provide crystal clear instructions how to produce images in professional consistency as = the results - at least in my workflow - tend to vary more than it is = acceptable.

Coincidentially, the ND produces the finest images right out of the box = and then again I just get flat, greyish crap I have to work on heavily in Photoshop.=20 To some large extent I would blame this to the RAW Converter software, = that has no comprehensive controls - not to speak of workflow automation.=20

Please forgive my anger, but when I hear statements like that from = Blake, Contax would better put their money where their mouth is and fix the = worst bugs. FAST!=20 Christian=20

Exactly, So I and some others are writing a letter(s) to (contax = stating the issues with the ND and ask them how they are planning to fix the problems) and then we plan to deliver them all together to contax. I = will be coordinate the effort once i am back in town in april. my contact info = is msadat@kiakki.net. please join us in this effort christain or anybody = else who is unhappy with their ND.
 
Mehrdad,

please don't get me wrong - I am NOT unhappy with the ND. If I was, I would sell it off and get something else.
I only wish Contax would make even more out of this basically excellent camera system.

The biggest step ahead would be a better RAW software to get consistently good results in less time.

However, count me in on your letter initiative. I will send you a comprehensive report on my findings with the ND and my suggestions for improvement.

Christian
 
Back
Top