Contax is giving up on the N digital?

[afranklin]

Marc,

I DID read your post, and I quoted it in my reply:

"Then make the 16 meg., full frame, digital back for it. That is what Leica just announced for the R camera..."

Which, to me, when you say "That is what Leica just announced..." refers to the previous sentence. Obviously, you are now saying that isn't what you meant, and that's fine...but it isn't what I believe you said.

> It shows the technology can be > adapted.

Adapted to what? The Leica R was designed to provide necessary signaling to the digital back's logic. Because they did that, that facilitated the adaptation of a digital back (if the rumor is true that is). That does not mean you can simply adapt a digital back to any camera. You simply can not. I can explain why if you like.

Austin

 

[rico1]

Juan,

I agree that a DSLR with C/Y would be cool, and no more a niche product than anything else coming out of Contax. Naturally, we would pay the brand premium, but the parts and technology are lying around, and they don't need to go crazy with trend-setting features. Just a straightforward box with lens mount at one end and sensor at the other. My wallet offers $5000.

As a current Canon DSLR user, I have basic requirements, the big one being a full-frame sensor. You don't know the incredible annoyance and cost of the 1.6X sensor crop of the D30/D60/10D. Even 1.3X is enough to make wide-angle work a misery. Not everyone is a super-telephoto freak. The D30 forces me to use the 15mm fisheye to shoot interiors. 6 MP, like the ND, would be fine. I'm also a strong believer in lithion-ion batteries: NiMH (which I also use) is garbage.

Sorry to raise a C/Y topic in this forum: now that the ND is dead, we need to talk about the Contax digital future. Contax has a future, right?

 

[jgban]

Rico,
You are right that a full-frame sensor would be ideal, but I thought that technical problems (the size of the bayonet mount?) make it t "impossible" to have a full-frame sensor with C-Y mount. I hope someone may correct me if this is not true. Depending on the physical limitations you may end up with a 1.2, 1.4 or 1.6 ratio. Sure, if it is 1.6 you would need a 15 mm to get a 24mm equivalent (if there was a 17-35 in C/Y, it would become 24-50 equivalent). But if it were closer to 1.2, it would be a compromise many of us would accept (?)...

This may not be the right forum for these comments, I just got intrigued by Dirk's last sentence a couple of posts ago:
"Whether they like it or not, they have to come out with more digital slr models - not only N-based."

Has anybody heard any rumors?

 

[fotografz]

Austin, if you wish to quote me, use the whole context. I clearly stated that the Leica sensor was 24X20. EVERYONE knows a full frame is 24X36. So the reference was a general one concerning the use of a separate back. Sorry you missed that part of the post.

Also, I didn't say fit a digital back on just any camera, but clearly stated a NEW camera. So I don't need a pedantic lesson in why a digital back can't be just slapped on any old camera.
(although you are wrong about that, as the high meg. digital backs for the old Hasselblad mechanical cameras with no data bus proves...where there's a will, there's a way).

I personally have invested a LOT of money in Contax gear. I don't want to see the demise of the Contax brand. This ND marketing blunder has to make it harder for the next step inside the corporation.

 

[afranklin]

> Austin, if you wish to quote me, use the whole context. I clearly > stated that the Leica sensor was 24X20. EVERYONE knows a full frame is > 24X36. So the reference was a general one concerning the use of a > separate back. Sorry you missed that part of the post.

Marc,

No, I didn't miss that. Your statement seemed erroneous as it was written.

> Also, I didn't say fit a digital back on just any camera, but clearly > stated a NEW camera. So I don't need a pedantic lesson in why a > digital back can't be just slapped on any old camera. > (although you are wrong about that, as the high meg. digital backs for > the old Hasselblad mechanical cameras with no data bus proves...where > there's a will, there's a way).

Well, I'm not wrong. I design digital imaging equipment for a living. The reason one shot backs (as opposed to scanning backs) work with SOME Hasselblad cameras is because the ones they work with use a central shutter (leaf shutter), and these backs sync up using the flash sync...and the flash sync on a leaf shutter lense is accurate at EVERY shutter speed. The leaf shutters are open completely at one moment in time, so the one shot sensor, which can only take ONE image at one instant in time, can work. You can use a focal plane shutter camera with SOME digital backs, but only up to the flash sync speed, but typically, you can just use the leaf shutter lenses, and these work fine.

35mm cameras typically do not use leaf shutters, they use focal plane shutters. Focal plane shutters, at above the flash sync speed, use a slit (as do the Hasselblad cameras that use an FP shutter, which is why they only work up to the flash sync speed). This does not work with full frame digital sensors, as the entire sensor needs to be exposed at once.

Scanning backs, on the other hand, require the shutter to just be open for a long time...so this is not an issue, but that type of digital imaging sensor is not applicable to a 35mm handheld camera, though I have a digital camera that is a scanning camera, and is full frame (36 x 24) and takes Nikon lenses...but is only usable for studio work.

BTW, the "data bus" on the newer Hasselblad has nothing to do with digital imaging. It is only used to transmit the shutter speed/aperture, and the ASA/compensation (from the TCC backs only) to the exposure computer.

I, too, have a lot of money spent on Contax gear, and do not want to see them go out of business. I also don't believe the D-Digital is as much of a "blunder" as some people do, but that's a different discussion.

Austin

 

[afranklin]

Hi Juan,

> I thought > that technical problems (the size of the bayonet mount?) make it t > "impossible" to have a full-frame sensor with C-Y mount.

It is not impossible, but what it does is limits the lenses you can use before vignetting.

Austin

 

[jgban]

Austin,
Thanks for the explanation. As you do this for a living, what is your take on the possibility of a C/y mount digital body? Why would you guess they have not tried? Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[coyot]

> John,

My apology to you, but since you had not originally given a source for the news and since your profile seemed blank, I just assumed ...

Sorry,

Michael

 

[afranklin]

Hi Juan,

> Thanks for the explanation. As you do this for a living, what is your > take on the possibility of a C/y mount digital body?

It could be done, no doubt, but as I said, the lense mount will limit the ability to use lenses below a certain focal length...probably 35/28 would be my guess.

> Why would you > guess they have not tried?

We don't know that they haven't tried...but my guess is it's just not an economically feasable product, so even if they did some work on it, it wouldn't have ever seen the light of day in the marketplace.

Regards,

Austin

 

[rico1]

Juan,

The relevant phrase is acceptance angle, the angle off the normal where a light ray will still register on the sensor. This angle is determined by the microlens over the sensor site. The microlens maximizes light reaching the sensor site, and also bends the rays to hit the sensor site perpendicularly. So, marketing excuses about lens mounts and digital suitability is bunkum (to use the scientific term). And I don't believe the N mount was particularly designed to accommodate digital sensors.

With regard to the C/Y mount, bear in mind that light has no problem reaching the film in its 24x36 mm² glory. There are Distagons but no Biogons, so the extreme angles of incidence that might genuinely plague Contax G are not present.

As Marc can probably certify, any Canon EF lens from the dawn of EOS can be used with the full-frame 1Ds, no problem.