Is the Contax N just a big screw up

[afranklin]

Hi again Marc,

"Another piece of info shows the advancement of the digital onslaught: Kodak has evidently now solved the full frame issue using smaller lens mounts."

Solved is a relative (and rather amorphous) term. Some solutions are better or worse than others. It's a matter of whether you can work with/accept the disadvantages of a particular solution that "solve" it for you, and that doesn't mean it's "solved" for others.

Because there is a "solution" that works for some, that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, and that the "solutions" are the same as not having to find a "solution" at all.

Digital is a funny thing. This is a general statement about these types of discussions that I've seen over the years, not directed directly at you, Marc. It has simply amazed me that people who have fussed for years about this and that seeking the highest quality of images on film (Leica and Contax), now accept what is clearly a lower fidelity image with digital, and especially with WA lenses... Something is very strange about this, and I've yet to be able to understand it. Obviously, it isn't logical. It's like people "will" digital into being "better"...
Regards,

Austin

 

[fotografz]

Dirk, obviously guys like me and Irakly agree with the Zeiss look, or we would have bailed out long ago.

But we both use Canon also, and get some pretty darned good results from it. I use a 16-35/2.8 zoom and haven't experienced any severe vignetting (or actually any of any consequence more than with an EOS 1V film camera) Perhaps it's the lenses verses the mount. If you put a Zeiss lens on a 1Ds it's still the same sized mount and mirror box depth, so I don't feel there would be that much difference in terms of light cut off due to mount issues. I know people who used their Leica R glass on a Canon with no visible improvement over a good L lens. The 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2 are considered leaders in their class... especially the 135/2.

You shouldn't rule out the ND quite yet. The new Adobe RAW developer we're testing promises to be a solution to the RAW file issue with the ND. I posted some shots in the regular gallery as a quick review of some low light situations that use to be problematic with the ND before. Irakly is initially impressed with it also. It remains to be seen, but the ND is actually becoming more useful than when it launched. To bad they bailed on it.

 

[afranklin]

Marc,

"The notion that the Canon EF mount works "more or less" for full frame digital capture suggests that it is a compromise. I see little or no compromise at all with my EOS 1Ds using L primes. Nor do thousands of other professional photographers using the camera."

I have seen, and heard, may people complain about the vignetting with the WA lenses and the EOS 1Ds, so obviously you and I hang with different people and read different references ;-)

"If you look at, and measure, the Canon EF and Contax N mounts side-by-side, they are exactly the same size."

Are the exit pupils the same size? Also, is the mounting plane the same distance away from the film plane?

You know, the reasons/issues for any of this stuff isn't simply magic and wishful thinking, it's based in hard reality backed up by facts, believe it or not.

Regards,

Austin

 

[jsmisc]

Doesn't it all boil down to convenience, Austin and lower costs after initial outlay?
Plus perhaps the fact that digital is so heavily marketed and film now isn't.
John

 

[fotografz]

Austin, I don't think the issue is people lowering their desire for excellent images. I still shoot film with Leicas, Contax and Hasselblad... especially for my personal work. But I now use digital even more. The reasons are creative, not engineering in nature.

Obsession with minutia is a trait found with certain kinds of photographers, but certainly not all. Artistic content and control is also a trait of many other kinds of photographers. Digital has opened up new worlds of expression to these folks.

Irakly and I were talking about this just yesterday. We're not performing engineering feats here. We're involved in an artistic expression, and the stuff is just tools to do that. Sure, we want what is necessary to accomplish that... and that might involve a Holga, pin-hole camera or a Contax 645. Were not out to prove a camera system as a superior engineering accomplishment. We are making photographs to fit our vision. In a growing number of cases, digital is doing that faster with more artistic control.

To us, if it looks good, it is good. For ex&le, I've won "best of Show" honors in some very difficult photo/artistic competition using a normal 35mm and drug store 4X6 prints. The judges neither put a jewelers loop to the images, nor cared about the pedigree of my equipment.

The idea that superior gear makes for a superior photographer
is both historically inaccurate and utter nonsense in every sense of the word.

For me, this digital/verses film debate is being won by digital. I'd never go back to just shooting film (except on the days when something breaks down ; -) I like the creative control and options as I create with digital. And I am getting pretty good at making it more and more difficult for even nit-pickers to tell the difference. But not as good as Irakly. His digital work is simply amazing.

 

[fotografz]

Austin, the context was wanting to use C/Y lenses on a digital camera and being "stuck" with no digital body to do that made so due to the smaller mount. Same with the FD lenses (which most likely could be adapted to an EOS body perhaps... but why?)

There may be a ton of FD stuff still floating around (they were made quite well), but how much are really being used in comparison to the EF mount lenses and bodies... a tiny amount I'd wager.

 

[afranklin]

Marc,

"Austin, the context was wanting to use C/Y lenses on a digital camera and being "stuck" with no digital body to do that made so due to the smaller mount."

They are no more "stuck" with them than any other manufacturer who switched over from manual focus lenses to autofocus lenses. Don't you get that there was more than one reason for the change? Contax wanted to come out with a modern camera (film AND digital) and in order to do that, they NEEDED autofocus and electronic contacts. This was the primary reason for the change in mount. It also made sense at that time to widen the mount to aleviate the WA "issue", which, by any account, was a wise decision to do.

"There may be a ton of FD stuff still floating around (they were made quite well), but how much are really being used in comparison to the EF mount lenses and bodies... a tiny amount I'd wager."

Quite a large amount, I'd wager...I'm on two Canon FD mailing lists, and there are a lot of people on these lists. The stuff is holding it's prices quite well as well.

Regards,

Austin

 

[afranklin]

Marc,

"The idea that superior gear makes for a superior photographer
is both historically inaccurate and utter nonsense in every sense of
the word."

To a point, that is true, and I've never said anything to the contrary. You can't shoot commercial brochures with a Barbie camera. Superior gear DOES allow you to make superior photographs. It does not guarantee it though.

The discussion in this thread has not been artistic, but technical with claims that problems that exist, don't...which is simply wrong.

How much a problem that exists effects you is entirely subjective. Some people may not care about the vignetting with WA lenses, and some people may.

As a camera manufacturer though, it is in their best interest to only produce equipment that meets their standard levels, which may or may not meet yours. Contax/Zeiss have, typically, had much higher standards than other manufacturers. Holgas work, so do Canon EOS Rebels...and so do Hasselblads. It's up to you to determine the tool that works for your needs.

"For me, this digital/verses film debate is being won by digital."

That is for YOU, and ONLY YOU. They BOTH have advantages and disadvantages, and to simply believe that everyone else has the same needs as you have is foolish. Not understanding those advantages and disadvantages means you are making an uninformed decision. Understanding them can only help make a more informed decision.

Too many people what digital to be more than it is. As I've said, to me, it's really quite funny. Digital is what it is, as is film, and trying to make either something that they aren't, to simply justify one's beliefs, really does a disservice.

Regards,

Austin

 

[afranklin]

Hi John,

"Doesn't it all boil down to convenience"

Film is far more convenient for some people, and there is a LOT of overhead with digital that does not exist with film.

"...and costs after initial outlay?"

That is a myth for most all, but the most avid shooter. No one seems to factor in the ancillary time/cost that digital involves. That does not surprise me. Again, I see a lot of people trying to believe digital is something it isn't, and these are two things where people seem to forget reality.

It's the immediacy that I think people like (and most won't admit) more so than any other factor, and will "exaggerate" other factors to justify digital use. There really is nothing wrong with admitting that one likes the immediacy, that is the proper use of a tool when it meets a need, and if immediacy is the need (or help business), that only makes sense. But, it doesn't make for better images, nor does it make the issues that exist go away.

Regards,

Austin

 

[gjames52]

Film vs digital

I think it would be better stated if as photography vs computerography. I have never read or heard of that word, so if you haven't then perhaps I made a new one.

A bit of perspective, I shoot slides. When I release the shutter that ends my artistic control.

Digital cameras offer or require additional computer software for correction (or artistic expression) as the darkroom did before.

Digital won>

Perhaps in this world of instant gratification and the cheaper is better mentality of business. Justify it anyway you want, but the bottom line is money for those in the business.

I glad I am not.

Regards:

Gilbert