Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, are you implying that image quality is not as important in the film camera arena as in the digital arena?Contax has always been a little lost when it comes to marketing and
understanding the consumer. In this case my opinion is Contax
thought they could just throw together a digital SLR and be able to
sell it to the same crowd for $7k because it has the Contax logo on
it. This isnt going to work in the digital arena. The image quality
has to be there as well.
--Hello Everybody,
What will be the point of owning a brand new Porche if the engine
is problamatic and tends to stutter and stall out just when you
need it. (metering problems)
Sure I know you can always fix it in Photoshopwe all love doing
that don't we. Just look at the Contax display images sitting now
on the Kyocera web site. And go ahead and tell me the interior
image is well and properly exposed. And that the middle one is not
too magenta and a tad underexposed. Even the still life looks a tad
under on my monitor. Could be me I suspose.
Go ahead guys have a good look and see for yourself, or simply
ignore the signs at your own expense. ;)
Stephen
--
On A Quest Seeking Vision!
http://www.livick.com
Since Contax is so inferior, and I have used them professionally
for 23 years, without major incident ( I also use Nikon,
Hasselblad, Contax 645, Fuji 680, Zone VI 4x5, Minox, Polaroid 20
x24, Print 3 color carbons, Platinum palladium, Albumen, and work
in Photoshop daily) and that there meters are not up to Nikon and
not 1 of my clients ever gave a rats behind what camera I used , or
that Contax has bad pr, marketing, and poor judgment in the
selection of web images that may have been color corrected
improperly or that
they choose to go 1-1 first, and since a partial list of my clients
are
Coke, Mercedes Benz, Budwieser Busch, Italian Vogue, Warner Bros
records, Sony, Traveler Mag, BMG, Miller Genuine draft, Nike,
Bloomingdales, AT&T, Capitol Records, Patagonia........
I'd say it's safe to use Contax and you won't get any better
results with any other camera line that in the end makes any
difference AT ALL! Contax has worked just as well if not better
than any of the cameras listed above for me. Just as reliable. I
won't go into how many F3's we had to send back when they first
came out do to failures!
Way to many people have a bug up there but about the tools they use
on this board and like bashing Contax. If your any good at all, you
can make any of the top 5 systems work just fine. Get over
yourselves about these insignificant things. The meters are not as
good, Please. How many people shoot E6 nowadays. How many of those
so called professional labs are right on line Everyday? Answer
None. How often does your work get published and all that effort
for perfection gets turned into a Litho? How many times do you see
some tech head take an average picture but uses some painful
process ( Platinum etc. ) But still has an average picture in the
end. How many times do you see some guy talking about quality but
is shooting 35mm instead of a larger more appropriate, better
quality format.
Nikon and Canon and Contax are all quality cameras. They all make
lemons.
Hello Zoo
We believe you Zooxx ;) ;) however you might be a little more
crediable if you use your real name. Hiding behind your zooxx name
as I see it unfortunately is the Achilles heel of your little rant.
To be correct about it, I never said Contax was an inferior camera,
I said the metering system on the Contax cameras I have carefully
tested out was always very inferior to others I have used. The
lenses are very good I agree with that, but there are just not
enough of them.That's yet another problem for demanding
professional situations.
And we all know that the metering system is very important for any
one using their 35mm camera properly. And are not depending on a
hand held meter for their readings. Nothing wrong with hand held
metering but a gray card read through the lens using spot is much
better for 100% accuracy when using that type of method is possible.
Otherwise one must totally depend on your meter as well as the fill
flash metering. That's the problem I had with Contax, and any one
who hasn't tested this out using the Nikon system as a comparison
does not know what they are missing out on.
Stephen
Save your breath. Those Contax bashing folks would not care. Ask
them to try a Contax G2. They would complain like hell. Focusing
problems, metering problems, flash problems, not fast for motions,
…etc. I did have that kind of feelings when I first used my
Contax G2. But after some serious shootings, I have gradually
learnt about the characteristics of the camera and have largely
overcome these problems. Well, not all the problems. The G2 is not
good in shooting fast actions, much inferior than Nikon and Canon
in this aspect. But that is not what the G2 is designed for. You
would be amazed at the image quality produced by this comparatively
small camera and it is much cheaper than the Leica M6 system in
every aspect, the body and the lenses.
These folks bash not just the Contax but also the lenses. Ask the
Sony folks about what is the part that they love most of their Sony
digicam. Most of them would say the lenses. I guess that these Sony
folks must be all blind.
If you bash the Contax, you may as well bash the Leica as well.
Manual focusing, very outdated (only introducing automatic metering
in the newly arrived M7), no comprehensive range of lenses, not
good for fast action, the price is way too high (much, much higher
than Contax), not much digital offering, …. One has to be silent
when facing a giant.
Well, Contax also has itself to be blamed in the handling of the
Contax N Digital business. Dragged on too long and set the release
dates immaturely. The Contax N Digital must be good when it comes
out. If it is not, Contax better cancels it, counts the loss,
learns the experience and starts to work on another one. A bad
Contax N Digital would only ruin its name, which is really hard to
establish.
Regards,
K. Tse
Since Contax is so inferior, and I have used them professionally
for 23 years, without major incident ( I also use Nikon,
Hasselblad, Contax 645, Fuji 680, Zone VI 4x5, Minox, Polaroid 20
x24, Print 3 color carbons, Platinum palladium, Albumen, and work
in Photoshop daily) and that there meters are not up to Nikon and
not 1 of my clients ever gave a rats behind what camera I used , or
that Contax has bad pr, marketing, and poor judgment in the
selection of web images that may have been color corrected
improperly or that
they choose to go 1-1 first, and since a partial list of my clients
are
Coke, Mercedes Benz, Budwieser Busch, Italian Vogue, Warner Bros
records, Sony, Traveler Mag, BMG, Miller Genuine draft, Nike,
Bloomingdales, AT&T, Capitol Records, Patagonia........
I'd say it's safe to use Contax and you won't get any better
results with any other camera line that in the end makes any
difference AT ALL! Contax has worked just as well if not better
than any of the cameras listed above for me. Just as reliable. I
won't go into how many F3's we had to send back when they first
came out do to failures!
Way to many people have a bug up there but about the tools they use
on this board and like bashing Contax. If your any good at all, you
can make any of the top 5 systems work just fine. Get over
yourselves about these insignificant things. The meters are not as
good, Please. How many people shoot E6 nowadays. How many of those
so called professional labs are right on line Everyday? Answer
None. How often does your work get published and all that effort
for perfection gets turned into a Litho? How many times do you see
some tech head take an average picture but uses some painful
process ( Platinum etc. ) But still has an average picture in the
end. How many times do you see some guy talking about quality but
is shooting 35mm instead of a larger more appropriate, better
quality format.
Nikon and Canon and Contax are all quality cameras. They all make
lemons.
Yes..
You can stick film in a $99 Rebel G and get the same results as
with a $2000 1V quality wise. Film is film regardless of the camera
it is used in. The quality of the film does not vary depending on
which camera you use it in.
In the digital world the imager is not interchangeable. It very
much depends on the internal processing, the efficiency, the nosie
reduction alogirthms etc etc. What you see is what you get.
Whatever Contax has done they have not done it well so far in the
digital arena. In the digital world they cant just stick a Contax
logo on a mediocre digital SLR and expect it to sell for $7000
because it is a Contax. That will work in the film world but not
digital.
Mike, you are judging a cameras' quality based on three 1:14 to 1:7 compressed JPEG file from 14 MB TIFF files?If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck...its
a duck.
The samples from the Contax N digital are terrible.
--If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck...its
a duck.
The samples from the Contax N digital are terrible.
Yes..
You can stick film in a $99 Rebel G and get the same results as
with a $2000 1V quality wise. Film is film regardless of the camera
it is used in. The quality of the film does not vary depending on
which camera you use it in.
In the digital world the imager is not interchangeable. It very
much depends on the internal processing, the efficiency, the nosie
reduction alogirthms etc etc. What you see is what you get.
Whatever Contax has done they have not done it well so far in the
digital arena. In the digital world they cant just stick a Contax
logo on a mediocre digital SLR and expect it to sell for $7000
because it is a Contax. That will work in the film world but not
digital.
Whatever Contax has done they have not done it well so far in the
digital arena. In the digital world they cant just stick a Contax
logo on a mediocre digital SLR and expect it to sell for $7000
because it is a Contax. That will work in the film world but not
digital.
Yes..that is what I am saying. In terms of quality it really doenst matter which camera you put film in. Outside of optical differences with the primary lens flim exposed to light using the F5 will not look any better than film exposed to light in a $20 point and shoot. Yes the F5 will have a faster shutter and more features and a fast focus but the film doesnt all of a sudden change its properties because it is in an F5. Light exposed to film for the same amount of time with the same lighting will behave exactly the same whether or not it was taken with a $10,000 or a $20 camera. The F5 will give you a much better tool to work with to capture the light but the film doesnt care which camera body it is in when it is exposeAlso you have given us all your complete understanding of "image
capture" by stating that IT DOESN'T MATTER which camera you put
film in to obtain the same results? So (for you) 160 fuji pro
yields the same results in say a (whatever brand) $20 camera as
opposed to a Nikon F5? Okay ...
--If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck...its
a duck.
The samples from the Contax N digital are terrible.
Mel
--Yes..that is what I am saying. In terms of quality it really doenstAlso you have given us all your complete understanding of "image
capture" by stating that IT DOESN'T MATTER which camera you put
film in to obtain the same results? So (for you) 160 fuji pro
yields the same results in say a (whatever brand) $20 camera as
opposed to a Nikon F5? Okay ...
--If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck...its
a duck.
The samples from the Contax N digital are terrible.
Mel
matter which camera you put film in. Outside of optical differences
with the primary lens flim exposed to light using the F5 will not
look any better than film exposed to light in a $20 point and
shoot. Yes the F5 will have a faster shutter and more features and
a fast focus but the film doesnt all of a sudden change its
properties because it is in an F5. Light exposed to film for the
same amount of time with the same lighting will behave exactly the
same whether or not it was taken with a $10,000 or a $20 camera.
The F5 will give you a much better tool to work with to capture the
light but the film doesnt care which camera body it is in when it
is expose
With the digital SLR you are stuck with whatever sensor the
manufacturer decides to use in place of film. You cannot change
this property like you can by switching film. All I am saying is
Contax is way behind. They assumed at frst that digital was a
novelty for the P&S crowd that would never catch hold in the
professional community for which they market. They got caught with
their pants down and are scrambling desperately to put something
out. It is too late IMHO. They will never get a foothold in the
digital world.
Mike
