Contax 645 + Phase One P45+ still viable mf system?

[fotografz]

As a former owner/user of the C645, I can say the set as listed is a very useable kit. Even though I had every lens they made for that camera, those 3 lenses were the most used by far, (depending on your personal intent and applications). $15K seems about right in this crappy economic environment, IF the kit isn't in "beat to death" condition (which makes newer offerings seem outrageously expensive ).

If I did that deal, I'd immediately look for a second C645 body to protect the investment longer term and set it aside for future ... the P45+ back is interchangeable.

If you depend on AF for your type of work, the C645 AF is no-where near the performance of your Nikon. To get closer "usable" performance (but still not equal), you'd need one of the more modern MFD cameras. It was the main reason (maybe the only reason), I opted out of the Contax system in favor of the Hassey H. Slow, but accurate is not how I would describe the C645 AF ... in any slightly challenging light where the fast aperture Zeiss lenses came into their own, it hunted like crazy ... and I had 3 different bodies ... all performed the same. I found the viewfinder a bit to dim to use Manual Focus well in those type conditions, even with a Bright Screen installed. But in good "fat" light, it performed okay, not fast, but well enough.

If Kyocera had continued developing the C645, and utilized advancements in AF sensor technology among other modern developments, IMO, they would be the market leader, Hassey would be scrambling, Phase One probably would have hooked up with Contax leaving Mamiya to fend for itself ... and personally, I would be shooting with a Contax 645/MKIII and Phase One P65+ back

As a former Nikon D3X shooter using the best optics Nikon now produces (AFS 14-24, 24-70, 100/2.8 Macro VR, 200/2 VR with nano coatings and all that), I'd fully agree with Jack's assessment of the difference between a top pro DSLR, and a MFD 39 meg back (which I also use). The caveat to that would also be dependent on the shooting conditions you tend to face in terms of high ISO response. But at base ISOs for pure IQ there is no comparison IMHO ... everything we technically look for in a photo is improved: DR, tonal gradations, color, minute detail, blah, blah, blah ... and the more you crop or enlarge, the more the differences become apparent. MF files are also more data rich for further creative manipulations and applications in post.

-Marc

 

[thomas]

Slow, but accurate is not how I would describe the C645 AF ... in any slightly challenging light where the fast aperture Zeiss lenses came into their own, it hunted like crazy

I'd like to second this.
Sometimes even in critical light the AF might work okay - but sometimes not.
Too, I am finding the tolerances of the AF are a bit too high for a high res back like the P45. So all in all the AF of the Contax is not really good enough to rely on.
Now... without spilt image screen (I use 3 different split image screens but no MFS-2 or clear screen) I'd feel like blind with the Contax. With the prismfinder magnification is not really great; with a magnification eye piece it's much better. The waist level finder helps a lot here due to the brighter and larger finder image.

 

[T.Karma]

The one thing that is really missing on the Contax are P/C Lenses.
Forget about shooting table top, architecture and things like this, where you such lenses.
Also, I have to say it: Digital backs are really not competetive. Yes, IQ is better. General 'look' is a lot different. But thats it. They loose the contest in about every other department to DSLR.

 

[carstenw]

...there is the Hartblei in Contax mount. I have mine listed in the B&S if anyone is interested.

 

[T.Karma]

I'd like to second this.
Sometimes even in critical light the AF might work okay - but sometimes not.
Too, I am finding the tolerances of the AF are a bit too high for a high res back like the P45. So all in all the AF of the Contax is not really good enough to rely on.
Now... without spilt image screen (I use 3 different split image screens but no MFS-2 or clear screen) I'd feel like blind with the Contax. With the prismfinder magnification is not really great; with a magnification eye piece it's much better. The waist level finder helps a lot here due to the brighter and larger finder image.

I am not sure how are you using the AF, but the one thing that makes it different for me is when you point the center section on verticals if you hold the camera normal, and if you point it to horizontal target lines if you hold the camera in portrait orientation.
Like this I have no hunting AF, except in really low light situations.

 

[thomas]

Also, I have to say it: Digital backs are really not competetive. Yes, IQ is better.

OMG ... but if this is exactly what you are up to... you won't even think about a DSLR.

Too, I think this recompose AF thing Hasselblad just introduced is very competetive compared to multiple AF points of DSLRs (if it's working fine).

 

[T.Karma]

...there is the Hartblei in Contax mount. I have mine listed in the B&S if anyone is interested.

Yes, but that is a wide lens. How do you do when you need a normal or light tele?

 

[thomas]

I am not sure how are you using the AF

I'm not using it at all
I know what you are talking about however this is not always practical. I much prefer split image + microprism screens and fine adjust manually.

 

[T.Karma]

OMG ... but if this is exactly what you are up to... you won't even think about a DSLR.

That is why I do bother to find a digital back.
The strength of the Contax are in its lenses, the look of 'liquid sharpness' and the vivid colour rendition.

 

[thomas]

That is why I do bother to find a digital back.
The strength of the Contax are in its lenses, the look of 'liquid sharpness' and the vivid colour rendition.

That's a nice thing about the Contax - you can use almost all digital backs, except of Hasselblad. So you really have the choice. And you'll have a Kit that is - within the above mentioned limitations - still up to the task (especially due to its lenses) but at really affordable prices.

 

[Aaron]

So I guess the question I ask myself is how much more detail and over all IQ would I see on my prints from my HP3200PS printed at 20x30 would I get from going to MF 39mp over 21mp I get with my D3x?

I have compared 20x30 prints, both inkjet & Durst from the D3x and P45 (not +).
The P45 files were cropped to 3:2 to match the D3x.
The differences in print at that size were not huge. The P45 print was better but marginally.
looking at the D3X prints on their own it would be hard to ask for more really. And at about a viewing distance of 30 inches there was nothing in it.
I think if i had your lens lineup (as listed on your sig) and didnt plan on printing larger, i would keep the 15 grand!

(what an unjust world though where Contax dies and Mamiya lives- just kidding mamiya users!)

 

[fotografz]

I'd like to second this.
Sometimes even in critical light the AF might work okay - but sometimes not.
Too, I am finding the tolerances of the AF are a bit too high for a high res back like the P45. So all in all the AF of the Contax is not really good enough to rely on.
Now... without spilt image screen (I use 3 different split image screens but no MFS-2 or clear screen) I'd feel like blind with the Contax. With the prismfinder magnification is not really great; with a magnification eye piece it's much better. The waist level finder helps a lot here due to the brighter and larger finder image.

Yep, I also used the flip-magnifier on the C-645 ... the factory stock Contax one was pretty squinty and liked to break frequently ... I don't know if Bright Screen makes one of their excellent Accurfocus versions for the C645 ... but they are pretty pricy.

All this reminds me why I moved on for my type of work ... ... others may find it just fine for what they do. I didn't.

-Marc

 

[PeterA]

I have a Contax body which I use with lens mount to shoot V lenses with - unecumbered by the clumsy CF adaptor on my H series Body.

I am in a mind to sell it - there is NO comparison in functionality between the H and Contax body - none - nada ..but it is a fine camera body in its own right.

It all boils down to individual preference - all these bodies are capable of using various backs from various manufacturers and all the glass is good enough to make great shots...

why the H preference? - boils down to the best viewfinder by far - only waist level finders like my Hy6 or 200 series cameras vaguely compare and even then - it is I suspect the 6x6 size that fools the eye here..I am not a fan of the H series waist level finder for example - and I think the Contax waist level finder is no better ..

Cameras are like Golf Sticks - one persons great five iron - is another persons shank pony.

 

[T.Karma]

Quote: "Cameras are like Golf Sticks - one persons great five iron - is another persons shank pony. "

Please stick to car comparisons, that I can follow. No idea about golf rackets.

BTW, lenses are best compared to microphones, but that is problematic as well, cause there are few who can share.

 

[T.Karma]

FWIW, regarding the viewfinder:
Now it sounds here as if the viewfinder of the Contax is the most horrible event since the launch of the APS format. To put it into perspective, I have to say that focussing the 5D with Canons manual focussing screen is still more challenging than focussing the Contax with the standard screen, for me at least.

 

[carstenw]

I quite like the viewfinder of the Contax, and use manual focus even with my AF lenses, but it is a little dim, yes. I don't get many OOF images though.

 

[routlaw]

There has been some excellent advise given here by folks who have owned way more gear than I. Allow me to offer up yet another possibility which might be a viable option for you. FWIW I have sweated bullets making the same decision you are going through and for the most part have not been completely convinced of the MFD advantage... until just this week. But my conversion comes with a substantial caveat.

Currently I am demoing a new Leaf Aptus II-5 22 mp back with the older Phase/Mamiya 645 AF. Let me tell you in no uncertain terms the back is fabulous, with exceptional image quality especially at ISO 25, which I just love. Makes me feel like I am working again with Kodachrome II/25... sort of. The camera and Leaf software, well that's another story altogether. So for me the question is what do you put this thing on in order to have the same warm and fuzzy feeling I have with my Nikons. I feel like the kid getting ready to say his bedtime prayers, "lord if you just let me... I will never ever complain about my Nikons again" :ROTFL:

What I am about to say next will most likely offend those who own this camera, and will sincerely apologize to them right up front for doing so. Understand its meant to send a message to the MF camera manufacturers (not that they are listening) to get their act together and produce Nikon/Canon pro body equivalents, and not as a way of offending the end user. To the point this camera is a cruel joke compared to the D3/D3x, no idea how it compares to the Contax. If it were not for getting the picture taken there would be very little to rejoice about with this camera for me. The newer AFD is supposed to be much better.

Back to the fun stuff. To the point I have a hard time believing D3x would equal the image quality of the Aptus II-5 back, short of stripping the AA filter off and using the absolute best glass for the D3x. The Aptus 5 files are incredibly smooth with very natural looking detail and textures. The least digital like I have personally experienced short of my Betterlight scan back. Combine this back with a tech camera, Rodenstock/Schneider glass and stitching capabilities and it would be all over but the song and the dance, even though the MP count is much less than the P45+ you are considering.

The Aptus 5 back appeals to me on many levels, first are the fatter pixels at 9 microns, smaller files for those times when you don't need the extra data and then end up downsizing by large margins anyway, ISO 25, very wide dynamic range, a sensor which does not put nearly as much stress on the lens as the smaller pixel pitch sensors do, and last but certainly not least is the ability to stop down to smaller apertures before hitting diffraction issues, very important for landscape work. On several test I ran at F16-22 with some quick backyard shots the image quality held up quite nicely, excellent in fact. Also shot some 30 second twilight exposures @ F11, cars with headlights passing & dark towering spruce trees and the highlight to shadow detail from those car lights and shadowed tree trunks left my jaw agape. Perhaps the D3x could equal this, but I have some serious doubts.

And just for grins and giggles I upsized a table top image yesterday to 150% which is equal in file size to my scan back shot at 100%. Normally I am not in favor of interpolating files up but figured what the heck lets see how far I can push the envelop on this critter. The file quality was certainly not in the same league as the scan back but was amazed how how good it looked and would have no problems making large prints this way. My D3 certainly would not have held up as well to a 150% bump in size. And all this for $8 grand list. If only one could hook up this back to my Nikons, woo hoo!

Hope this helps.

Rob

 

[kuau]

Hey Rob, anyway I can get my hands on some of the raw files from your Leaf Aptus II-5?
Woud love to see one.
My other thought was to go tech view camera so I still have access to shift and tilt was looking at a used silvestri bicam
Funny you mentioned about removing the AA filter from the D3x, I was considering doing that for $450.00 I know one person who did it and he said it's about 5-10% sharper. hmmm

Steven
ps. where are you demoing the leaf aptus from?

 

[Bill_Green]

Funny you mentioned about removing the AA filter from the D3x, I was considering doing that for $450.00 I know one person who did it and he said it's about 5-10% sharper.

I would tend to recommend against that. I'm not sure if the AA is the same as the Sony or just the sensor, but I get some mild moire with sony on pinstripe fabrics. The Leica DMR doesn't have an AA and I never had moire issues there.

Just FYI.

 

[T.Karma]

Rob,

I have considered the Aptus II 5 as well, but have not got a demo yet. Did you check ISO 100, 200, 400 as well ? Did you try to use live view?

Would you like to tell a little more about it?