What's new
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

Marc, I agree with your point. I absolutely love my C645 and the 120 APO lens. Even when I used the 80mm or 120mm lens on the N1 with adapter, the results are just outstanding. I am playing wait and see game for digital since we are in such a transitional phase, for me anyway. For the time being, I will just slowly build up my 645 lens collections. I can then use these lenses on the N or 645 system. That's the beauty of Contax.
 
Marc, I am like Paul and Albert, sitting on the fence on the ND or the Kodak back for the 645. I understand your point about the quality of the pro back, I have studied your posted photos made with the ND and the Pro back. There is no question that the Pro Back has more depth and tonality. (Photos you posted of session with Iraky). However, I shoot mainly landscape and architecturre, therefore, muliplication factor is a big concern. I can't find that info on the Kodak site. Is it 1.5? Also, dust is a problem in the field. Is it easier to keep the Pro back clean versus the ND? Thanks
James cheng
 
James, all digitals potentially have to deal with dust.
35mm format SLRs because you change lenses, backs if you remove them from the body. The SLRs are a pain to clean, the backs are easy.

Yes, the lens factor on the 4X4 back mounted to a 645 is 1.5X. So, the 35mm equals a 50mm. But there is a good side effect: you are dealing with less edge distortion and light fall off with W/As. And the longer lenses really pump up nicely. My Zeiss 350/4 APO equals a 525mm, f/4...and with the 1.4X APO it's a 735mm, f/5.6. Absolutely awesome long lens nature shots!!!
 
>Marc, >

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about when you say the "ND isn't that good". Here again, it does have some shortcomings. All the digital cameras do. All 35mm equipment has some limitations. Each format and technology has strengths and weaknesses. That is why there is a myriad of choices. The ND takes some GREAT shots. You are just plain wrong.

michael.
 
Michael, cool down my friend. The statement was made in response to Albert posting that he would dump his Contax 645 in favor of the ND....to which I replied " the ND is not THAT good"...meaning it is good, but not as good as the 645 with a 16Meg Kodak back (which is Alberts' alternative).

Stands to reason doesn't it? 16 Meg verses 6 meg? Much larger 4X4 sensor verses 24X36? You're still using Zeiss glass either way, it's just that the capture is bigger (smoother tonal graduations) and higher resolution (yeilding 94 meg, 16 bit Tiffs).

Still think I'm wrong? If so, that is your right.
 
>I have a Contax RTS III and I like it very much. I looked at the Contax N-1 and I didn't think it had the type of advanced technology I was looking for. When one of the contributors to this chain mentioned the Sigma SD9 I decided to look at it. I was very impressed basically because they use the type of detector that eliminates all of the problems with the traditional methods of digitally imaging color. It does mean that one must buy another whole set of lenses and all the other stuff, but I believe that the results are worth it. I can send anyone an image I have taken if they wish but I don't think that I can attach it to this message. > >William > >
 
>Marc, >

I'm cool, I'm cool. And of course I understand the point of the16 Meg vs 6 Meg argument. But on the flip side, the 6 Meg offers advantages. Great image quality up to11x14 ... with the ability to shoot hundreds of shots in a session on a few compact flash cards. It is just back to the old 35mm versus large format (or medium format) arguments. Each format offers advantages. Figure out what you want to do with the output AND what technology can help you get the shots It would be rediculous to think that you could effectively shoot a sporting event very easily with a large format camera. But of course if your shooting landscapes, then the large format has several advantages ...

Sorry if I jumped the gun in criticising your statement, but there are those that blast the ND without even using one!

If I were Albert, I would absolutely not dump the 645, but instead if finances can afford the investment, keep the 645, and purchase the ND. Get use to digital techology with the ND, and then in about 2 years get a digital back for the 645. By then the back will be way down in price with alot of technical advantages.

michael.
 
Hi William,

You say the Foveon "eliminates ALL of the problems with traditional methods of digitally imaging color". Well, what problems? I believe much of the hype about this subject is Foveon or "friend of Foveon" generated, and is a red herring or a straw man (as in long ago solved, or simply doesn't exist).

I would strongly suggest you compare the IMAGES from different cameras, not the hype. Also, compare images YOU take and process. If you compare others images, you may find a master with the Nikon D1x and a fool with a Canon D60...hardly a valid comparison.

Regards,

Austin
 
Marc,
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately 1.5 factor will turn the extreme wide to a moderate wide, which is not great for interiors. So I may have to go with the ND. By the way, have you checked out the s&le photos of the new Kodak 14b on their web site? I would like to hear your opinion comparing their 14 meg images to either the Kodak 645 and the ND. It seems to me that the skin tones of your photos are more natural then the Kodak pics.
James Cheng
 
James, yes really wide glass is a problem if you need it for architectural work. I don't do much of that, so it isn't a problem for me. If on occasion I do need something really wide, I just pop the back off and put on the film back. And when doing interior stuff, I use a Hasselblad Mutar PC on the 645 with an adapter.

I'm fairly sure that there will be a full frame 645 digital back for the 645 cameras by next year. Sinar has 22 meg one already. Kodak makes the sensor, but Sinar has an exclusive for one year...then it probably will be available for other applications.

The Kodak uploads are pretty bad. I think an engineer shot them, not a professional photographer.
The lighting is one source and is awful. Evidently, the new 14n camera needs the 3rd version of the software to realize it's full capability, so they are delaying delivery until that is perfected. Those s&les were J-pegs with the big ones converted to Tiff. They are suppose to replace those there now with images captured in the RAW mode and corrected with the newer software. So, we'll see. I have one on order to suppliment my D1-X for wedding candids in color.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top