CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Why Contax and/or Zeiss at all?

shyatt3

New Member
I think we could all sit here for days discussing why one camera is technically "better" than another. But let's talk about photographers. I know Pentax K1000 users taking better photographs than Nikon or Leica users. It's the mind behind the camera. It's what you do with it and not necessarily what it is. If a camera "fits" you and your style, then it is better than any other. I use a Contax G for a reason, it suits me best of all the cameras I have used. Do I find it better than Leica? Obviously, yes, or else I would have never sold my Leica equipment for Contax. Let's not get overly involved in the technicalities, if you can't do photography then a Leica, a Contax or anything else is not going to pick up where your photographic skills end.
 

colin

Well-Known Member
Rico, I'm quite aware that mechanical devices with alignment adjustments may require adjustment.My original comment was that I am not aware that this is or was an inherent problem with Leicas.My car's doors have alignment capabilities, though I have never found it necessary to realign them.It's reassuring to know, though, that should they or my Leica ever need such correction, it is available and as the website states"Once aligned, seldom needs re-alignment." I still don't see it as an inherent issue and my 40 years of Leica owning/using,(not wrapping them in cotton wool) bears that out.
Colin
 

colin

Well-Known Member
Tom, Leica's ability to accurately focus the f1 is due to the long base length of the r/f.Though not as long as the original Contax r/fs. Leica does not produce f1 or f1.2 "R"lenses due to the short base r/f in the reflex system. Leica do say in their literature(since 1965) that from 90mm up, reflex focussing is more accurate
Colin
 
F

fastfashn

"No viewfinder display, no shutter release. Nothing. Still had readout as to "Single Shot", "DX code" etc but no other function. Oh, the battery icon was flashing, so I thought--batteries dead."

Computer may not have had time to reset completely. When low voltage conditions occur the processor can get into a very odd state, and until the capacitance voltage in the system was fully discharged that state may have been unrecoverable.

Consider it like having a lack of O2 to the brain...

Dana Curtis Kincaid Pinnacle Systems Technical Support Indy
 
D

davidw

I too had a similar problem with the focusing on a single stroke M3 about 10 years ago.
o Neither Contax nor Leica are perfect.
o The optics are excellent for both systems
o The extra you pay for Lieca may be for longevity, (certainly for resale value)
o ContaxG may well be as sturdy, but it's too early to tell.
o I've enjoyed using both systems
 
S

scaramouche2001

I suggest that any Contax generated slide when scanned at 2900 d.p.i. or better will ultimated yield a print superior to the product of digital cameras costing less than a small automobile and the slide is easier to store.
Cheers,
RER
 

coyot

Well-Known Member
> My pesonal experience has shown me that I can produce an image with a scanned negative at 3600 dpi that is equal or better than my shots with my Contax ND. However; there are several shortcomings:

The process of scanning is burdensome, and you have to deal w/ dust and scratches.

The time it takes to handle/scan 100 slides would be approximately 25 hours at 15 minutes a slide. Whereas, 100 digital images would take about 3 hours at 3 minutes per digital images. (Review, modify conrast, save, print proof).

The workflow of handling negatives (or slides) is much slower.

Your comment that slides take less storage space is true, but remember, slides fade ... a digital file will never fade.

And isn't it amazing that we are discussing that Digital cameras can equal a film camera? Just several years ago, nobody would have been suggesting that there was any parity between digital and film!

michael.
 
S

shingx

Michael,

You comment that digital file will never fade. That is true, but what are you going to store these digital files in. CDR disc only had a life cycle of about Five years if you take care of it. So slides fade over times you still able to see somethings with it, but with digital files store in CDR, once any problems occur fading of dye you lost not only one shot but almost all of it, expect you known how to recover as much as you can!

Shing.
 

coyot

Well-Known Member
>Shing,

Hard drives typically last 5 years. My experience with CD-ROMS is that they are suppose to last 20 to 100 years! I have a cd-rom I used recently that was at least 6 years old w/ no problems. And magnetic tape last about 20 years.

So ... I would feel much, much more secure w/ a digital file then a slide if I had good backups in place.

Michael. B.S.C.S.
 
S

scaramouche2001

Tonight I had an opportunity to photograph Jeddah at night. I chose negative film over slide film with my RTSII or my non Contax digital camera because I knew that a tripod would attract police attention and that wider sensitivity range of negative film would guarantee more usable frames. I would love to have an n digital but doubt that it would be useful at hand held night photography. BTW you all might benefit from Neat Image Pro, it removes noise from your digital files. Good shooting to all.
Cheers,
RER
 
F

fastfashn

" Hard drives typically last 5 years. My experience with CD-ROMS is that they are suppose to last 20 to 100 years! I have a cd-rom I used recently that was at least 6 years old w/ no problems. And magnetic tape last about 20 years.

So ... I would feel much, much more secure w/ a digital file then a slide if I had good backups in place.

Michael. B.S.C.<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• is this fungus that eats CDs... Also, I don't doubt there will be a form of CD (data) in 20 years, but I wonder if the readers in 20 or 30 years will read your CD? Right now DVD is in process of wiping out the standard CD reader. There is a blue laser DVD player coming out soon that will allow for much greater storage on DVDs, so the current DVD players probably have another five good years of life left before they are phased out. Let's say that in twenty years there are three generations of format between the current CD and whatever comes out in twenty years...

Maybe everything will go solid state - some kind of high density EEPROM in the terabyte memory range range - so you can download and save directly to solid-state Ipod-like device that has no place to put a spinning disc all.

Computer hardware manufacturers are in the business of making profits, not keeping old format storage media alive. Even if you still have an old, working CD reader, will Windows or a Mac OS support it with drivers for OS-XVII?

Dana Curtis Kincaid Pinnacle Systems Technical Support Indy
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Those are pretty amazing, and perhaps frightening suggestions. If it = is possible that they might come true (and I am sure that it is) would = it not be sensible to keep shooting on film as I am doing and using a = scanner since properly kept slides and negatives will last for years and = years and will always be "readable". That way you have the best of both = worlds.

John
 
O

ou1954

Posted by John Strain on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 7:20 pm:

Those are pretty amazing, and perhaps frightening suggestions. If it is possible that they might come true (and I am sure that it is) would it not be sensible to keep shooting on film as I am doing and using a scanner since properly kept slides and negatives will last for years and years and will always be "readable". That way you have the best of both worlds.

John

Well, I've had some sad things happen to slides. If you want to look at what might happen to some slides in 40 or so years, have a look here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Those were Ektachrome 64 slides properly stored. In some cases nothing bad happened. One interesting thing is that all the Agfachrome 64 slides taken during that same time frame, 1963 or so, never developed any problems.

Don Williams
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Thanks Don,

I will have a look at your site if I may. Some of my slides have = deteriorated as well but at least is possible to get information from = them and pictures from the 19th century still amaze me - not mine I = hasten to add. If in the future it might not be possible to read digital = images at all, this might be something of an artistic disaster.

John
 

coyot

Well-Known Member
>Dana,

Take a look at 8 mm film. 8 mm systems have not really been sold for over 20 years, yet you can find services to convert 8mm to Video (or DVD).

Owning over 200 CD's w/ data, you can be sure that I am not going to discard ALL my systems with cd-readers in the future. I'll keep something around, tied to my network, that will read cd's.

No sweat. Being able to get digital files of your photos in the future (i.e. 20 to 30 years) will not be an insurmountable task.

The worst case secnerio would be to copy you old stuff to a new medium (such as copying your cd-roms to dvd media).

michael.
 
O

ou1954

Thanks Don,

I will have a look at your site if I may. Some of my slides have deteriorated as well but at least is possible to get information from them and pictures from the 19th century still amaze me - not mine I hasten to add. If in the future it might not be possible to read >digital images at all, this might be something of an artistic >disaster. > >John

John,

I suspect that digital storage will continue to improve faster than most prints and digital images degrade, so I don't see any real problem with either medium.

One interesting point, true or not. I just had some work done by a private lab which claims 500 years life on digital prints made with pigmented inks. We won't be able to fully test that however unless some improvements are made to human preservation at the same time.

I do have a box of old prints, including tintypes, which are probably 100 years old. Haven't looked at them in a while but I would bet that even the tintypes have recoverable images.

Don Williams
 

colin

Well-Known Member
Don, As a diehard Kodak user,(Kodachrome only) until Velvia came along, I have only ever shot one roll of Ektachrome in my 49yrs of photography and the samething happened to some of my slides. Film was used in the early 1970's
Colin
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Don,
A 500 year life would be amazing. I wonder how they test it to arrive at their estimate.
John
 
D

dxl

Well I would like to thank Dirk for his original post why he chose Contax. I have spent months scouring over the internet searching for information about what it is in the glass that makes contax lenses produce the quality of pics they do and have learned more from his article than months of searching have left me. I have not been able to find much information concerning what actually is different about the glass. Must be closely kept guarded trade secrets? There is a difference I can tell that I do not see in other brands excepting possibly Leica however Leica costs are prohibitive to me. Thanks Dirk.......regards dxl
 

coodeville

Well-Known Member
Here's why............
 
Top