Reading mode: Light Dark

Phil, Are you preparing Contax Review?

Go to last post
T

tom jacobson

Leading Member
Messages
516
Reaction score
0
Location
san diego, CA, US
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?

For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera, with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
 
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
What f/1.4 lenses are you thinking of? As far as I know, Contax has no lenses that fast.
 
Jim K said:
tom jacobson wrote:
Click to expand...
: users.ids.net/ chrisat/samples.html
Jim K53618 said:
Jim K53618 said:
I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
What f/1.4 lenses are you thinking of? As far as I know, Contax has
no lenses that fast.
Click to expand...
He is probably referring to 50mm f/1.4 N Planar T*. Here is a picture:

 
Frightened by the high noise of the 400 ASA image you mean? If so, I would agree. The 64 ASA image is much better as one would expect(and hope)for that setting.
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, but for ISO64 it's also awfull.

Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image... (the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area) near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hello Everybody,

I'll have to agree with Moshe on this one I thought the 64 ISO sample was awfull as well. The 400 ISO was frightengly bad that's for sure, but Tom please take another and this time more carefull look at the 64 ISO sample.

That's what I saw on my monitor when I looked it over! And I am not trying to bad mouth Contax but just telling what I see in the 64 ISO image.

Stephen
Moshe Vainer said:
Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and
noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and
higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it
with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image...
(the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area)
near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy
and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide
angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
On A Quest Seeking Vision!

http://www.livick.com
 
Stephen, i sure hope that people would not dismiss my remarks as an attempt to badmouth contax. In fact, if someone looks in my posting history, you might find that before images came out, i was anxiously waiting for this camera, and had great hopes for it. But the proof is in the pudding, and this pudding surely tastes bad...

Rgrds,
Moshe
Stephen Livick said:
I'll have to agree with Moshe on this one I thought the 64 ISO
sample was awfull as well. The 400 ISO was frightengly bad that's
for sure, but Tom please take another and this time more carefull
look at the 64 ISO sample.

That's what I saw on my monitor when I looked it over! And I am not
trying to bad mouth Contax but just telling what I see in the 64
ISO image.

Stephen
Moshe Vainer said:
Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and
noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and
higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it
with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image...
(the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area)
near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy
and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide
angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
On A Quest Seeking Vision!

http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
 
Oh and to answer the original post about the review. I surely don't know for sure if Phil has or has not any given camera for review, but i would guess that the fact that no reviewer has received the camera up to date is actually a tactic (and smart one) by contax. They probably know that they have no way to compare favorably to other DSLRs that are out this year, and count on people buying based on spec and the contax name.

I don't think they want the camera reviewed...
Moshe Vainer said:
Rgrds,
Moshe
Stephen Livick said:
I'll have to agree with Moshe on this one I thought the 64 ISO
sample was awfull as well. The 400 ISO was frightengly bad that's
for sure, but Tom please take another and this time more carefull
look at the 64 ISO sample.

That's what I saw on my monitor when I looked it over! And I am not
trying to bad mouth Contax but just telling what I see in the 64
ISO image.

Stephen
Moshe Vainer said:
Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and
noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and
higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it
with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image...
(the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area)
near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy
and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide
angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
On A Quest Seeking Vision!

http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Moshe,

If you are referring to the ASA 64 Image with the list of problems below, I simply see none of them the way you describe on my monitor. Only issue I find is the Highlights being Blown out on the side of the girls face. No banding(and I see no grey bars at the bottom) or Solarization. Perhaps all of your comments are aimed at the ASA 400 image. The noise I do see, while not as smooth as say a D60 image, does have a nice subtle film grain appearance - similar to what one might see from a scanned film image almost.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Moshe Vainer said:
Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and
noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and
higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it
with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image...
(the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area)
near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy
and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide
angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Tariq, yes i am referring to ASA 64 image.

The gray bars are to the girl's left (your right) if you were to rotate the image correctly, or at the bottom of the image. If you look carefully at them you would see noise and grain that is more appropriate for ISO400 image than ISO64.

The "solarization" may be is a wrong word, but look at the girl's hair to her right (your left) where it touches her face. If you enlarge your view to about 300%, you should be able to see

1. banding in the hair about at the same height as her nose end. The banding is subtle, and you might not see it at 100%. I do.

2. Her face turns solid gray at once, hence solarization - no smooth gradient transitions as there should be

3. The shade on her face just before it turns gray displays a lot of chromatic noise - again more appropriate for ISO320-400 shot than ISO64.

Please understand, problems do not start all of a sudden at ASA400, they gradually increase as you increase your ASA setting. If ASA400 is equal in noise to ASA1600 on other cameras, there is a very high probability that noise at ASA100 would be similar to ASA400 on those other cameras. The same goes for banding and other problems.

Rgrds,
Moshe
Tariq said:
If you are referring to the ASA 64 Image with the list of problems
below, I simply see none of them the way you describe on my
monitor. Only issue I find is the Highlights being Blown out on
the side of the girls face. No banding(and I see no grey bars at
the bottom) or Solarization. Perhaps all of your comments are
aimed at the ASA 400 image. The noise I do see, while not as
smooth as say a D60 image, does have a nice subtle film grain
appearance - similar to what one might see from a scanned film
image almost.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Moshe Vainer said:
Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and
noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and
higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it
with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image...
(the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area)
near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy
and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide
angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tariq, i cropped the problematic spot, exagerated it a little bit by adding contrast and gamma, and enlarged 3 times without interpolation in order to make it easier for you to see it. I also marked the banding lines with pink dots. Hope now you will be able to see what i am talking about..



Rgrds,
Moshe
Moshe Vainer said:
The gray bars are to the girl's left (your right) if you were to
rotate the image correctly, or at the bottom of the image. If you
look carefully at them you would see noise and grain that is more
appropriate for ISO400 image than ISO64.

The "solarization" may be is a wrong word, but look at the girl's
hair to her right (your left) where it touches her face. If you
enlarge your view to about 300%, you should be able to see
1. banding in the hair about at the same height as her nose end.
The banding is subtle, and you might not see it at 100%. I do.
2. Her face turns solid gray at once, hence solarization - no
smooth gradient transitions as there should be
3. The shade on her face just before it turns gray displays a lot
of chromatic noise - again more appropriate for ISO320-400 shot
than ISO64.

Please understand, problems do not start all of a sudden at ASA400,
they gradually increase as you increase your ASA setting. If ASA400
is equal in noise to ASA1600 on other cameras, there is a very high
probability that noise at ASA100 would be similar to ASA400 on
those other cameras. The same goes for banding and other problems.

Rgrds,
Moshe
Tariq said:
If you are referring to the ASA 64 Image with the list of problems
below, I simply see none of them the way you describe on my
monitor. Only issue I find is the Highlights being Blown out on
the side of the girls face. No banding(and I see no grey bars at
the bottom) or Solarization. Perhaps all of your comments are
aimed at the ASA 400 image. The noise I do see, while not as
smooth as say a D60 image, does have a nice subtle film grain
appearance - similar to what one might see from a scanned film
image almost.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Moshe Vainer said:
Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and
noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and
higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it
with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image...
(the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area)
near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy
and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide
angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Stephen Livick said:
Hello Everybody,

I'll have to agree with Moshe on this one I thought the 64 ISO
sample was awfull as well. The 400 ISO was frightengly bad that's
for sure, but Tom please take another and this time more carefull
look at the 64 ISO sample.
Click to expand...
Ok. I took another look and even printed out the image. I have to agree (but not awful by any means) after all that the 64 ISO exhibits some of the problems of the 400 ISO. After seeing the samples on the website, I was just thrilled to see something that looked good for once. On close inspection there are some problems. It is still a very good camera, but I feel it has a small niche. I am not a Contax basher, have a three or four Contax cameras and several lenses. I was looking forward to the Contax Digital and would have bought one if it was spectalular.

Consider this: with this camera we have lost two fold. First, we lost depth of field, because we have to use longer lenses for a normal. Second we lost ISO. This is not a great action or hand held camera. TJ
 
Moshe Vainer said:
Oh and to answer the original post about the review. I surely don't
know for sure if Phil has or has not any given camera for review,
but i would guess that the fact that no reviewer has received the
camera up to date is actually a tactic (and smart one) by contax.
They probably know that they have no way to compare favorably to
other DSLRs that are out this year, and count on people buying
based on spec and the contax name.

I don't think they want the camera reviewed...
Click to expand...
What is the basis for this claim? You admit that you don't know if a particular reviewer has a camera for a review, then say that it is a "fact that no reviewer has received that camera up to date".

On the contrary, a poster at the Contax forum (www.contaxslr.com) Michael Wilkinson, has said that the British Journal of Photography has been supplied with a camera for review. Other reputable reviewers may also have cameras. And since the camera has been released, how can you claim that the camera has been kept from reviewers? Or that the company has some smart tactic to obfuscate careful analysis of the qualities of the camera?

it seems that any thread here discussing this camera attracts people with some axe to grind against Kyocera. Every time someone makes a negative comment, the choir seems to respond with "me too".

The camera will sink or swim in the marketplace. There are few people on the planet that can afford to waste thousands of dollars on a tool or a toy that doesn't work. Those that can will waste their money on any basis they wish. Some others, like me, want to find out some facts about the imaging qualities of this tool, and perhaps hope that it will raise the bar so that we all benefit.

By all means express your opinion on the quality of images that actual users of the camera provide, but please spare us from "facts" that you make up.

Brian
 
Brian, i have no slate against any company. I worded myself wrongly, what i meant to say was - "that the fact that no reviewer has reviewed the camera up to date"...
Please excuse me being contradictional in my post. Try not to nitpick the words.
Brian Slater said:
Moshe Vainer said:
Oh and to answer the original post about the review. I surely don't
know for sure if Phil has or has not any given camera for review,
but i would guess that the fact that no reviewer has received the
camera up to date is actually a tactic (and smart one) by contax.
They probably know that they have no way to compare favorably to
other DSLRs that are out this year, and count on people buying
based on spec and the contax name.

I don't think they want the camera reviewed...
Click to expand...
What is the basis for this claim? You admit that you don't know if
a particular reviewer has a camera for a review, then say that it
is a "fact that no reviewer has received that camera up to date".

On the contrary, a poster at the Contax forum (www.contaxslr.com)
Michael Wilkinson, has said that the British Journal of Photography
has been supplied with a camera for review. Other reputable
reviewers may also have cameras. And since the camera has been
released, how can you claim that the camera has been kept from
reviewers? Or that the company has some smart tactic to obfuscate
careful analysis of the qualities of the camera?

it seems that any thread here discussing this camera attracts
people with some axe to grind against Kyocera. Every time someone
makes a negative comment, the choir seems to respond with "me too".

The camera will sink or swim in the marketplace. There are few
people on the planet that can afford to waste thousands of dollars
on a tool or a toy that doesn't work. Those that can will waste
their money on any basis they wish. Some others, like me, want to
find out some facts about the imaging qualities of this tool, and
perhaps hope that it will raise the bar so that we all benefit.

By all means express your opinion on the quality of images that
actual users of the camera provide, but please spare us from
"facts" that you make up.

Brian
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Moshe for the Example. So is this at 800%? Most any image at such a high Magnification will show artifacts of course. Try Interpolating the image up by 110% increments to arrive at the same magnification. If the noise is still there, then there is an issue. Also, I have additionally noticed that any of these Digital SLR's will show all sorts of issues in the image when you exagerate their intended Gamma and Charecteristic Curves. Most times even doing a slight correction with levels on an underexposed image will start to show noise. I'm not trying to "take up" for the Contax particularly but just trying to judge it by what I have seen with other Digital SLR's such as the Nikon D1x, Canon 1D, D60 and the sample images from the Fuji S2. I agree the Higher ASA Contax images are bad but I would like to see more Lower ASA Samples. After seeing the output from so many of these Digital SLR's, my gut feeling is that the Contax may have much more Color Depth at lower ASA's than the competition most likely due to the larger Sensor. If the Contax can only really be used at ASA 64 or 25 to show it's advantages, then this is most definately a Limited use Camera.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Moshe Vainer said:


Rgrds,
Moshe
Moshe Vainer said:
The gray bars are to the girl's left (your right) if you were to
rotate the image correctly, or at the bottom of the image. If you
look carefully at them you would see noise and grain that is more
appropriate for ISO400 image than ISO64.

The "solarization" may be is a wrong word, but look at the girl's
hair to her right (your left) where it touches her face. If you
enlarge your view to about 300%, you should be able to see
1. banding in the hair about at the same height as her nose end.
The banding is subtle, and you might not see it at 100%. I do.
2. Her face turns solid gray at once, hence solarization - no
smooth gradient transitions as there should be
3. The shade on her face just before it turns gray displays a lot
of chromatic noise - again more appropriate for ISO320-400 shot
than ISO64.

Please understand, problems do not start all of a sudden at ASA400,
they gradually increase as you increase your ASA setting. If ASA400
is equal in noise to ASA1600 on other cameras, there is a very high
probability that noise at ASA100 would be similar to ASA400 on
those other cameras. The same goes for banding and other problems.

Rgrds,
Moshe
Tariq said:
If you are referring to the ASA 64 Image with the list of problems
below, I simply see none of them the way you describe on my
monitor. Only issue I find is the Highlights being Blown out on
the side of the girls face. No banding(and I see no grey bars at
the bottom) or Solarization. Perhaps all of your comments are
aimed at the ASA 400 image. The noise I do see, while not as
smooth as say a D60 image, does have a nice subtle film grain
appearance - similar to what one might see from a scanned film
image almost.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Moshe Vainer said:
Specifically look at the following
  • flat dark green area around girl's hair has a lot of grain and
noise for such a low ISO setting. It is quite similar to ISO200 and
higher from current crop of 6mp DSLRs, and they manage to do it
with smaller sensor...
  • There is banding in the gray bars at the bottom of the image...
(the banding is actually everywhere, but is less visible...
  • The transition from girls chick to her hair (to the dark area)
near her eyes and shoulder at the top of the image is very noisy
and SOLARIZED!!!, where is the supposed dynamic range?.
  • The wb is actually ok...
The only use for this camera as i see it, is if you must have wide
angle, and can live with low image quality....

Rgrds,
Moshe
Marshal said:
tom jacobson said:
I wonder if Phil, who has been very quiet these days, has a Contax
in hand and is waiting to spring a review in the next couple of
days. Or,....has he PO'ed Kyocera?
For those of you who have missed it, there are some full res
samples on Chrisat's site:

http://users.ids.net/~chrisat/samples.html

I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jim K said:
Jim K53618 said:
I am very impressed with the low ISO image, and frankly frightened
by the 400 ISO image. Maybe this will be a studio only camera,
with high powered strobes. Or, how about those F1.4 lenses wide
open in daylight!!!
--
TJ
Click to expand...
What f/1.4 lenses are you thinking of? As far as I know, Contax has
no lenses that fast.
Click to expand...
As well as the 50mm Planar, there is the recently released 85mm Planar.

http://www.kyocera.co.jp/news/2002/0204/0404-e.asp

Brian
 
Tariq, this is 300% enlarged, not 800 as you suggest...

I agree that one can play with any image if the goal is to get bad results, and one will definetely achieve them if desired, however, as i already mentioned, i started this test after seeing the problem at 100%. All is comparative, and when i compare contax output with other cameras available today, it's image quality is considerably worse than what is achievable by others now. If this camera would be shipping 4 years ago at the same price, it would have been a hit, today i really can't see a reason for it. As for dynamic range - i am undecided. On the first samples that contax has shown, there definetely was a lot of dynamic range, more than on other cameras, however, since then they tweaked their algorithms, and what i see in the only sample we have (the girl at asa64), is that they cut the color very early on to avoid noise, and go B&W from that point and to complete black. I find it totally unacceptable.

To show you some more, i have decided to crop the sky from the second ISO25 shot on contax site, and a bit of leaves. Hope that crop that size would not constitute an infringement. See the sky and leaves, and remember that this is ASA25!!!. All the others have clearer skys even at ASA200.



I still hope to see some good samples from the contax, but find it hard to believe i will ever do.

Rgrds,
Moshe
Tariq said:
Thanks Moshe for the Example. So is this at 800%? Most any image
at such a high Magnification will show artifacts of course. Try
Interpolating the image up by 110% increments to arrive at the same
magnification. If the noise is still there, then there is an
issue. Also, I have additionally noticed that any of these Digital
SLR's will show all sorts of issues in the image when you exagerate
their intended Gamma and Charecteristic Curves. Most times even
doing a slight correction with levels on an underexposed image will
start to show noise. I'm not trying to "take up" for the Contax
particularly but just trying to judge it by what I have seen with
other Digital SLR's such as the Nikon D1x, Canon 1D, D60 and the
sample images from the Fuji S2. I agree the Higher ASA Contax
images are bad but I would like to see more Lower ASA Samples.
After seeing the output from so many of these Digital SLR's, my gut
feeling is that the Contax may have much more Color Depth at lower
ASA's than the competition most likely due to the larger Sensor.
If the Contax can only really be used at ASA 64 or 25 to show it's
advantages, then this is most definately a Limited use Camera.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Click to expand...
 
Moshe,

I saw this sky sample a while back and noticed the same noise as you - not very impressive to say the least. I think these are the samples that Contax pulled right after they posted them. Frankley, I have yet to see a nice, smooth high dynamic range blue sky out of any Digital SLR shooting 6MP's. The Canon D60 shows a very slight, annoying Solarization(or dynamic range clipping) in the ble Sky shots I have seen. I was wondering what monitor you are viewing the Contax images on. I hooked up my Mitsubishi Diamondtron CRT to more critically look at your problem areas with the Contax. There still is an issue with clipped Dynamic Range on the Highlght side of the girls face BUT I'm wondering if the transitional area on the other side of her face which you think looks solarized in the shadow may be due to either:
A: looking at the image on an LCD screen
B: Converting the Color space when importing the image into Photoshop.

Just curious as I still don't see the other problems to the great extent which you are seeing them.

Thanks, really looking forward to seeing an objective review of the Contax here at Dpreview.

Tariq
 
Moshe Vainer said:
To show you some more, i have decided to crop the sky from the
second ISO25 shot on contax site, and a bit of leaves. Hope that
crop that size would not constitute an infringement. See the sky
and leaves, and remember that this is ASA25!!!. All the others have
clearer skys even at ASA200.
Click to expand...
Moshe Vainer said:
I still hope to see some good samples from the contax, but find
it hard to believe i will ever do.

Rgrds,
Moshe
Click to expand...
Here we go again. The images posted at the Kyocera site were low res photos manipulated for a print brochure and for fast display on a (slow) web site. This fact has been consistently stated by Contax reps. They were never meant to be downloaded, cropped, and critically analyzed in comparison with other cameras, and were pulled from the web site. You may well be correct that noise, processing artifacts and other flaws will doom this camera, but it is not honest or useful to continue to disect these images and reach sweeping conclusions.

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top