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 N Lenses vs Canon L Lenses

Ben,

> I agree with Gilbert:"If you have to > go digital with new lenses why not buy those specifically designed for > digital?",

But that premise is simply wrong. None ARE designed "specifically" for digital, except as noted for the purpose of reducing the MTF for use with Interline sensors. The issue with the WA lenses does exist, but that does not mean the issue requires lense redesign for all other focal lengths specifically for digital...and interestingly enough, Canon hasn't redesigned their WA lenses specifically for digital...so where are all these lenses "specifically designed for digital"?

As I said, Nikon has specifically introduced new lenses to simply take into account the smaller image circle of the smaller sensor...having nothing to do with the use of a digital sensor, it has the same "effect" (purpose) if the camera simply used a smaller format film.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin:

In some way I do agree with you, but I think the reason that the digital camera is not yet design for the digital photography is that the market has not yet invented this new model yet! We are still using our old conservitive mind and think that a good camera is an SLR camera. There are pros/cons for SLR and for film photography the market accepted it as the best design, hence the volume. For digital photography however, because the size of the sensor, and the electronic, an SLR may not be the best design for it, IMO, because of the smaller sensor size and there is no need to have mirror for the "reflex" action, the digital camera can be design to a much smaller item which the main market in the future will be accepted as the main stream. There really is no need to have a big item such as the SLR that we are currently using! Again IMO, I think Sony will do quite will with their new 8M camera which is CZ T* lens. If I were contax, I may not be putting a new SLR NDX or whatever, I may be think more on a GD! I think there is one last issue with digital photography, this is the colour reproduction. The film is still far better compare to digital and when that last issue is solved, then we can say bye bye to film and SLR

Ben
 
I thought that the new Olympus lenses for the E1 were specifically designed for digital. From all accounts, it is quite something although expensive.
John
 
> Hello all I bought into the N system (not having a good 35mm system at all) because I wanted Zeiss glass. I had used some older Zeiss contaflex cameras and loved the images I got. I figured hey why not get the N system, instead of the old, so that in the future I can take advantage of the new digital bodies.

Well, now I am wishing I had gone with the old mount. I am not happy with the NX I bought and dont think that the N1 is enouph of an improvement to justify spending the extra money. I might spend that money if I felt secure that this system was going to meet my needs in the future (inexpensive digital body etc..)I want a good MF 35mm body that doesn't use a ton of batteries. I wish to god that Contax would release a good manual focus basic body, possibly w/manual shutter much like the Nikon FM3a for the N system. I would have bought into the Nikon system had I been impressed with any of the glass I had used with it. I am wishing I would have investigated the Cannon or Leica system more before going with Contax as I may have been happy with that glass.

regretfully yours Kevin
 
Well, there are always the S2 and the S2b.... See the review/discussion o= n Photo.net re comparisons with the Nikon.
 
> Kevin, I don't own the NX, but do have the N1. I have found it an exceptional camera, with the only flaw that autofocus in low light can sometimes hunt. But, unlike other brands, you just manually focus, without having to hit any switch on the lens! There is no, I repeat NO terrible battery consumption. It works great. I use the "M" setting on the back of the camera, and hit the back button to autofocus. This works great. This is the same way I have set up the AX to autofocus. I have no complaints about the N1. Great, great camera. Sorry your NX is disappointment.

Michael.
 
Kevin,

It has an electronic shutter (albeit with fixed-speed 1/50th sec emergency manual speed) and no shutter priority mode, in case you care about that, but it sounds like you need an RTS II. There are plenty of good ones still around, and they aren't that expensive. The build quality is second to none, and the handling -- well I can't think of a camera that is more natural to use or seems to ellicit fewer operator errors (not something I could ever say about my EOS-1v, much as I love that camera for what it's good at).

HTH

-= mike =-
 
Hi John,

> I thought that the new Olympus lenses for the E1 were specifically > designed for digital.

I would believe they were designed for the E1/E1's sensor size...but as far as being "designed FOR digital", I'm skeptical.

Regards,

Austin
 
Kevin,
For what it's worth, I was somewhat disappointed initially with my NX, but now that I am used to it I am very happy. I just wish it was easier to switch metering modes (and I wish it had real spot metering...). I bought it hoping to invest on the N lenses for when the ND came along.
Alas, the ND came and went, and now we can only hope Kyocera will not opt out of the digital SLR business...What are your specific complaints abot the NX?
(We should move this to another thread)

Juan
 
I have only VS28-70 and 70-200 with NX. The image quality outperforms Canon's 28-105 IS and 80-200 F/4 (on EOS 3). I mainly shoot casual portraits and make enlargements to 12" by 18". The resolution, color rendering and contrast goes to Zeiss, but the L lens wins the color saturation. As I do not have a chance to use the higher end of CZ lens, but these lower end can at least rival to Canon L lens. (I still wonder why N series do not have fast lenses with constant - not floating - aperture, which has long been achieved with all secondary lens brands like Sigma, Tamron etc.).

However, NX the body is not so easy to use. While it's good to have CF functions, there's no hints telling what is what on the LCD. (Minolta does a good thing with its Dynax 7). The switches for Focusing mode, Metering mode, Exposure mode and Drive mode is really a mess (the adjustment differs with white and green modes). As a remedy, it has two program modes: the white and green, thus you can easily switch between certain sets of combination.

In green mode I choose: Programed Exposure and Evaluative Metering (and display and exposure difference with Spot metering for judgement aid); in white mode I choose: Av Exposure and CWA Metering (needs AEL when recomposing). The bad thing is that I can only read the exposure compensation on the top LCD, just a pity neither N1 nor NX provide two sets of CF memories. Another convenient function is the one time AF mode which set you free from locking the focus).

To echo previous post, I found the Spot meterig gives almost similar exposure values to the CWA one. I doubt the CWA weighting should be no less than 80% for the centric parts, and the remaining 20% is inadequate to influence the minimum 1/3 or 1/2 Ev value -- in calculation it takes as much as 2.5 Ev difference from the centric to influence 1/3Ev adjustment for the overall exposure value: (1.33-0.8)/20%). I guess this is why the two metering fall in the same results.

If you like CZ lenses, you've got to live with the bodies. Things are just not perfect (if it were anyway, why would there be competitors), which gives fun to the fans of various brand names. After all, differences are not so important whereas they're not handicaps.
 
Back
Top