Regarding Contax N digital and Leica digital back

[fotografz]

I agree with John. Please take your non informational squabble off-line (if you wish to continue the torture), and get back to something relevant.

I had to grin at Richard's Pogo quote, and add one of my own favorites..."We have seen the enemy, and they is us." Leave it to Pogo to cut through all the BS and state the obvious.

Now to the TVSD verses the Canon S-50 that Richard evoked. I currently have both cameras and have provided as neutral of a controlled test as I could manage, with results anyone can evaluate in the test Gallery here. Actually, I first purchased the S-50 and was later given the Contax for a 10 day trial, so Richard was correct in that there was some bias going in, but in favor of the Canon S-50 I had already purchased. For the uses I have for a P&S pocketable digital, the differences were enough to warrant keeping the TVSD. So, anyone interested in a hardly used Canon S-50 e-mail me. Richard?

In prolonged use of the TVSD, I now admit having missed a RAW option a few times. Mostly in hurried circumstances where being able to correct some aspects after the fact would be nice. However, the Canon RAW developer program for the S-50 (and G-5) is not as comprehensive as with other Canon SLRDs using the same program. A fact not openly revealed as a fault in the few reviews I've read. The primary missing RAW correction is the inability to correct exposure levels. This shocked me when first encountered as I think that is the primary advantage of shooting RAW. It basically leveled the playing field (for now) as I found the TVSD J-Pegs as easily corrected in PS-7 as the S-50 RAWs in the Canon developer...and the TVSD files are much faster to process due to working immediately in PS. That, with the superior lens performance of the TVSD, made it the choice.

If I am missing something about the S-50 RAW developer and exposure control PLEASE
fill me in. I even tried to open a S-50 RAW file in the new Adobe RAW developer to no avail.

Back to the original post on this thread before it got hijacked by the endless squabble.

Shu-Hsien, there was a mention by you (or your friend) that the ND runs hot. I have not experienced that even in hot situations. What was that in reference to?

I do agree that the ND has a better over-all ability for contrast control than the 1Ds, which both you and I have called "dynamic range" for lack of a better term. I have demonstrated this with a number of photos taken recently in LA at noon in the beach area of Santa Monica (see pix in my regular gallery portfolio). I own both cameras, so this is not uninformed speculation. Why this is so would be nice to know, but not critical to picture taking for me as the images tell me what I need to know. It is this ability of the ND that has kept it as part of my tool kit...especially for B&W work where, IMO, it actually excells compared to the Canon 1Ds. I actually think of the ND as my B&W digital camera.

Lastly, where can one get a RTS converted to a DSLR? What are the specs? I could not think of a more killer set up than a RTS digital with a few of the legendary lenses that Zeiss produced in the past (55/1.2, 85/1.3, 135/2, 70-210/3.5, for ex&le). I'd have to sell a LOT of gear to get such a set up, so it just won't happen...but it's fun to dream.

 

[loom]

Dear Mark,

I would like all these stuffs to be over as well. However, something I believed wrong had been done and even up till now I don't feel good about it. Recall the 500,000 demonstration in Hong Kong on the past July 1?

Few months ago on a Taiwanese Contax Forum there were a comparison of different Contax mailing lists. Some guys decribed one of the forums (not this one) as "monotoned, uniform and strictly controlled by some picky completists". This place, however, had been pretty nice.

Alright, return to the photography issues.

The heating problem of the Philip sensor that Finney mentioned does not implies that you'll feel heat from the camera. The consequence of the heat is that it would increase noise level. In MF digital backs there is space to add good cooling devices, but that was not the option for a "small" camera like N digital. That had much to do with the limited ISO ability of N digital. One of the reasons that Kyocera pulled back the N digital is to add better cooling devices, according to Finney. He has not yet, however, heard about which sensor Kyocera is going to use in the next generation digicam. In his opinion Kyocera is going to be very conservative this time. BTW, just in case you've read it, Finney told me that the NuCore website, which he refers to the noise control stuff, is not that accurate. It happens all the time when marketing persons are writing the technical details.

Finney mentioned a noise reduction software called Neat Image Pro which he believes to be one of the best around. It might be worthwhile to try it out.

About the digital conversion of RTS III, I am sorry that I really have no idea. Since I personally don't own any C/Y equipment I didn't ask Finney further about the details. He's out this weekend and I'll ask him later. In my feeling the conversion has nothing to do with Kyocera itself, but some third party vendors.

Shu-Hsien

 

[djg]

OK, Marc, out with it. Where in heavens did you get an 85/1.3? And we do have an 84/1.4 N-mount (well, I don't - I wass really ticked that was the only lens they didn't give a rebate on

- I did get the 50, which was really cheap with the rebate). Are you implying a difference in performance, or were you being generically nostalgic?

Cheers,

DJ

 

[fotografz]

DJ, sorry, it's a typo...I meant 85/1.2 (Zeiss AE Lens made in Germany). I had this lens for years and used it on an RX and AX. The little cowgirl shot, the Western bride, and the B&W of two western folks talking at a fence were shot with that lens (in my gallery portfolio). It renders light in a way I've only seen with a few Leica M lenses like the 75 Lux. Don't get me wrong, I love the 85/1.4 N but it ain't no 85/1.2.
The 55/1.2 is even more rare, and is even better than the 85/1.2. These Zeiss/Contax lenses are legendary, and command huge premiums when and if they ever go up for sale. I learned about them from a NY fashion/lifestyle pro.

Shu-Hsien, thank you for the response. I've heard about Neat Image Pro and will investigate further. I've been using PS plug-ins from Fred Miranda, but they are designed specifically for each different camera (mostly Canon and Nikon DSLRs...with Contax absent from any consideration).

 

[loom]

Dear Richard,

I too am looking forward a digital G, and heard about lots of the limitations of converting it into digital (the light angles, the XXX, etc.) The only light in this is the Sinar digital back attached to the Alpa camera, which has a Biogon 38/4.5 in its lens lineup. There are some s&les on Zeiss web, however, they're only of thumbnail sizes!

In my two cents a G digital would not do harm to the N system, just like the relationships between G and C/Y.

Best, Shu-Hsien

 

[loom]

Dear Richard,

Forgot one point....I too believe the reviews are subjective. Moreover, regarding image qualities, most online reviewers do not conduct their experiments correctly. For instance, most reviews use some rulers when evaluating the resolutions. However, most cameras' "brain" can recognize this pattern and are optimize for it. It would be a totally different story if you use sine waves.

 

[afranklin]

Shu-Hsien,

> That had much to do with > the limited ISO ability of N digital.

I heard (from a contact who works for Contax US) that the limited ISO ability of the N Digital was simply an issue with sensor noise, and the noise was not claimed to be heat related.

> One of the reasons that Kyocera > pulled back the N digital is to add better cooling devices...

Again, I have not heard this (I am not saying that this statement is wrong, just that it is not what I heard). Is this an opinion/speculation or is this based on some fact?

IMO, it would be good if that was "the" issue, and they were "fixing" it, as that would mean that the N-Digital was not dead as a product, at least as far as Kyocera was concerned. With it's current price though, and limited lenses, and not very good support, it's not near, IMO, as attractive as the Canon...except for the Zeiss lenses...but at 6M, I'm not convinced (as in doubt very much) that you'll really get to take advantage of the quality of the Zeiss lenses.

Keep in mind the full frame sensor of the N-Digital is far larger than that of the D-60, which uses a sensor that is 1/2 the size (so the sensor elements/photosites are larger for the N-Digital, ~11.8u vs ~7.4u)...so though it has been noted that the L series lenses show an improvement in the images with the D-60, you can't directly relate that to the N-Digital, at least as far as resolution goes.

Keep in mind, you can ask one Contax/Kyocera person if the N digital is still a product, you will get varying answers, and the same is probably true with questions/claims like this...equally true for my information from Contax as well.

As a suggestion, this might be easy to test/get more information on. Anyone who has an N Digital, have they reported that the higher ISOs work noticeably better (with respect to noise levels) in colder weather?

Austin

 

[hdfuhrman]

Dear Richard and Shu-Hsien,

Like you and countless of other G owners and users, i want love a digital G, uses all of
the CZ G-lenses. Although I have absolutely no inside in information, I am not too optimistic. On other threads, I have read that light must come in at 90 degrees, eliminating the use of CZ wide angles. Until that gets solved, our WA lenses may be unusable with a digital G. Further if they use a smaller than a full-sized 35mm sensor, the focal our G-lenses will have to be multipied by a factor (1.5, 1.7,etc) . If all that is true, the value of WA at best are diminished. On the bright side with a big factor, some users will finally get a 135mm or 150mm lens equivalent that they have been asking for.

Howard

 

[afranklin]

Shu-Hsien,

> For instance, most reviews use > some rulers when evaluating the resolutions.

They use standard optical test patterns, that take into account many different optical characteristics. They certainly don't tell everything there is about the lens/camera/sensor, but they do give what invormation they do, and it is very useful information.

> However, most cameras' > "brain" can recognize this pattern and are optimize for it.

I believe I understand what you are claiming, and I disagree. I do not believe there is anything intentionally "built in" to the camera to "recognize" a standard optical test pattern, and optimize for it. If you had any concrete ex&les, I'd be interested in seeing them. Perhaps you can elaborate on this claim?

> It would > be a totally different story if you use sine waves.

The patterns on the test charts are the equivelent of sine waves...unless I miss your meaning here.

Austin

 

[John_bird]

Hi think you will find a full size ccd sensor is imposible with any current SLR or range finder camera as the lens throuts are to narrow to permit light to reach the cornors of the sensor at an angle usable to the sensor. As for Cmos I think you will find that they need to be exposed compleatly at one time and with focal plane shuters this means that they can only function upto the X sync speed of the shutter.
P.S I am not an "expert" so please if anybody has conflicting info please inform.