Contax N-System

[Guest]

Following my last posting about the possibility of a "messy axe murder", I have to report that I have been cleared to buy an N1 by my ever-loving wife, who took one look at the results of a test I set up between the G2 and Biogon 21mm, and the Minolta 17-35mm G lenses. I shot the same subjects, in the same light. The difference in sharpness, instantly visible in the prints by my wife and son, has persuaded her that there is no substitute for Zeiss quality, even though she too shoots with a Minolta. I plan to run the same test again, with Provia instead of Kodak Gold, and project the results on my two Leica projectors, side by side.
My question now is, does anyone know anything about Contax bringing out an N2 at Photokina ? I would really kick myself if I tied into an N1 now, and an "improved" version arrived in September ! Would anyone (except Peter !) have an opinion as to whether an NX and the two AF/MF lenses would hold me until the "new" body arrives, whether I should just get on with it, and have the N1 while I can. Trouble is, I just cannot afford to make another expensive mistake, and to some degree I am regressing back to a heavier, larger kit than the Dynax 7 I have now. I rate the camera design, and the dimensions and weights very highly - it is just the result of the lenses that let the whole package down. I have been used to Leica quality for nearly 50 years, followed by Zeiss with the G2s, and want more of that quality from an SLR.
Help, please !
Robin

 

[dirk]

Hi Robin,

many issues in one posting

Although we can not be absolutely sure, it is unlikely that there will be a new Contax N analogue body this year. This is different with a new digital N. There are rumors that a cheaper N digital with a full size chip will come this year.

The N-lenses are very good in image quality and the manual focussing feeling with the "dual focus mechanism" lenses is great, BUT I doubt that you will have the same optical result like the Contax G-lenses. The new N 17-35 does not have the same image quality as the Contax G21.

Additionally there will be another N 17-35 (hopefully this year) with a different aperture range and I guess similar to the 2 other cheaper N-zooms without Dual focus mechanism. I guess it will be something like 3.5-4.5 aperture, weight less and with a smaller filter size.

dirk

 

[Guest]

Hi Dirk,
Thank you for your very prompt and helpful reply to my "cry for help" on the quality of my Zeiss G2 lenses versus the N1 zooms. Since then, I have had some advice from the Minolta side of the fence, suggesting that it was an unfair test to compare 8-element G2 FFL Zeiss lenses against the 14-element Minolta zoom, even at the comparable focal length. The Minolta advice now says I should invest in higher quality Minolta zoom lenses (the pro level range, also called G lenses) before I bin all the Minolta kit at a huge loss, to restart with Contax N1.
All my instincts say "Go for the N1 - it's what I wanted in the first place". But the Minolta handles so well, and is the weight I want to carry. So - how much worse than the Zeiss G lenses are the N1 zooms, 24-85 and 70-300 ? Is the difference really discernible ? I look at Simon Lamb's photos on this site taken with N1 and his three lenses, and marvel at how good the originals must be, when the quality on the screen after scanning is, to my eyes, absolutely stunning.
With the Minolta, I do not wish to reinforce failure and incur further useless expense, but am reminded that Minolta used to make the Leica R lenses (or at least some of them), and getting back to the Leica quality I have been used to is my current minimum requirement. I sincerely hope that this requirement would be exceeded by switching to Contax N1 and that the N1 glass is better than even the pro range Minolta lens range. I still need an SLR to get pictures out beyond the range of my 90mm G2 lens.
BTW, this site of yours is superb. I get more useful information off it that any other Contax source I have so far tried. Many thanks for all your hard work.
Robin

 

[dirk]

Hi Robin,

thank you for the compliments to my site. I agree that it would be unfair to compare Minolta zooms with primes, especially with those primes of the G2. In my opinion, there is always a possibility to find excellent lenses in each system.

The question is more whether you will have the luck that your item is one of those. The quality control in the mass production of Canon/Minolta/ Nikon is definetely not as good as at Zeiss, but this is among others the reason why they are also cheaper. If you want to have the best lenses in their line, you also have to pay a lot more and there is almost no difference in price between Minolta et al. and Contax. If they then still match Zeiss image quality I can not tell you for sure.

The difference of the N-zooms and the G prime lenses depend largely on your shooting style and knowledge. Handheld is less difference then with a tripod etc., the fim is also very important and lightening situation of course. Look in the overview folder for more information. I put there some articles about that.

But for your information: Minolte DESIGNED the following lenses for Leica/Leitz.But I am not sure whether Leitz or Minolta PRODUCED them. The year is the year of production start:

2.8/16 of 1975 2.8/24 of 1974 8.0/500 of 1980 3.5/35-70 of 1983 and 1988 4.0/70-210 of 1984 4.5/75-200 of 1978 4.5/80-200 of 1974

I have these information from the Erwin Puts book. He has the information directly from the archive of Leica, so they should be valid. These lenses are NOT among the best Leitz lenses, but Leica had neither the capacity nor the know how to do it alone. By the way Zeiss made also lenses for Leica. Schneider and Sigma too. The same counts for the R bodies. The R3 was designed from Minolta and all others til the R7 follow the same road. I think Minolta is really great in Camera bodies. All Minoltas I have used are very good in handling (x700, Maxxum9000, 7xi, 9xi)and innovativ for their time.

So at the end of the day it brings you nothing to know who made for whom something. Every manufacturer has a very good know how. The target sales-price is determing the image quality to 90%. You have to take both systems, Contax N and Minolta in your case, for a day and shoot with them. Just the real life results will help your stomach

I will probably organize later this year shooting trips (one day or so) with Contax eqipment for members in differnt countries. But this is for the moment just phantasy and depends on the demand and how to make it cost-free. But this would definitely help you a lot. In the meantime go to your dealer and ask him for renting. This is so much money, he should do it.

Dirk

 

[Guest]

Robin:

Weight was a great concern to me too when I moved over from Nikon to the N1. The N1 is no lightweight but actually comes very close to that of the F100 (a comparable camera in the Nikon line, I think). The 24-85 is big and heavy too, BUT it is so good that you don't need anything else in that range - and the Nikon AF-S equivalents, if there is such a thing, are even heavier. Now, I do have trouble with the weight (and price) of the 70-300. I used to own the Nikon F2.8/80-200 - fantastic lens but MUCH too heavy to my liking. The Contax 70-300 is a little lighter but not enough to pursuade me to buy it, because I know I will not like to take it with me on hikes. Moreover, the 200-300 range is difficult to use without a tripod and I don't like to carry those either. I have decided to, eventually, go for the 70-200; it is much lighter and cheaper, and it is reportedly excellent. That makes an N1, 24-85, 70-200 and TLA 360 combo which is doable in price and weight, and probably takes care of 99% of your needs (mine at least). Just my opinion.

 

[Guest]

.... I totally agree to the points of Otola. Look for a comparison between the N70-300 and N70-200 in the N-lens folder of this Forum...

 

[Guest]

Hi Dirk and Otola,
My thanks to you both for all the information and advice. I am nearly there, making the decision to go for the N1. The thought about the 70-200 is also good thinking. Let us just hope that Zeiss come out with a decent 1.4x Mutar for the N range at Photokina !
Albest, Robin

 

[Guest]

Hi Robin
Before buying, try the 200mm 2.8 G along with matching x2 for the Minolta (Dynax 9 in my case - as good as N1, 100% viewfinder is superb). I have this combination along with 100mm 2.8 macro and 50mm 1.4 standard. Great combination and matching the quality in most respects (not quite the 3d of Zeiss lens). I find better and lighter to handle than the zoom and when matched to G2 with 21mm lens what a combo.
Give it a try.
I'm sure either way you'll end up with a fantastic system.
Good shooting
Simon

 

[Guest]

> Hi Simon,

Many thanks for this excellent lateral thinking. I bought the Dynax 7 for the knob controls, and obviously considered getting the Dynax 9 for the viewfinder etc. Prime lenses would give me better results than a zoom, I think, except that Zeiss appear to be altering that train of thought with the high quality of the 24-85, as reported on this forum. I shall give your input much considered thought, and thank you again for your helpful contribution. Albest, Robin

 

[Guest]

Following on my last post, I thought about the Minolta, and decided that the siren song of Zeiss was too strong. I have ordered the N1, with 24-85 zoom. I also ordered the FX1 screen. The longer lens will have to wait until after we see what comes out at Photokina.
My thanks to everyone who has helped to make up my mind to go totally Zeiss/Contax. I really appreciate all the advice I have been given. Now - can anyone tell me how I should scan pictures to put them on this site, so I can show off the results from the (coming next week) N1 ?
Albest to you all, Robin