What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Is the Contax N just a big screw up

Martin .... I agree with you .....even though I am guilty of hopping in on these debates, thus prolonging them ..... I just can't sit there and ignore fruitless whingeing about this or that "Kyocera" product or strategy!

I am glad you spoke up .... hope you don't think bad of me for taking the bait (yet again)!

Cheers, Kyocera Kid.
 
While I haven't participated in this "debates" I am sympathetic to both sides. Kyocera's execution and strategy have left something to be desired, but they products they do have are pretty good.

The ND2, if it ever emerges (and it would be a big mistake for Kyocera if it doesn't) should have the 11 MP chip brother of the 6 MP full frame Dalsa (nee Philips) chip used in the ND. Further they should take that same ND2 body put a manual focus AE/MM CY lens mount on it and satisfy all the manual focus folks going over to the dark side (Canon). Finally, they should take the 6 MP full frame chip in the ND and make a digital G body -- if Leica and Epson/Cosina can do it so can Kyocera. If they have to bring in help to do it -- say Leaf, Imacon, Magnavision, or even Kodak or Sony, then so be it. Just get it done. The longer they wait the more customers they loose that they may never get back again.

Why do we keep going on and debating this? Because we hope that Kyocera and Zeiss are reading.

If they are reading, here is a plea to Kyocera/Zeiss --- Please don't force me to buy a Canon!! ( or an Olympus or even a Pentax for that matter)
 
I agree with Lotus m50.

I am happy with my G2, and I also use some medium format. I do not want to be forced to buy a Canon when I go digital. But I will, if Contax does not produce a user friendly G3 or ND2.

A full frame 8MP chip would be enough to produce outstanding images.

It seems to me that Contax has about another year to produce one of these things, or it will start losing devoted customers.
 
Hi guys,

thanks for replying. Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy your N-bodies and N-lenses, for heaven sake, don't sell them.

With respect to Contax loosing devoted customers I am under the impression it is happening at lightening speed. The UK market is full of used stuff (YC and N), prices are spiraling down (A Tele Tessar 300/4 in YCMM in a shop window for £350 was the most extreme I have seen) and it is not selling. On the web one can read statements from Kyocera (sorry can't relocate the link, but I guess most people here have seen that), that Kyocera is concentrating on digicams, I understand there is no commitment to either of the N, G and YC system. To be honnest I am quite impressed with your optimism about a forthcoming ND-2.

In this situation I stumbled across the link, showing that the Distagon 21/2.8 beats the pants of the Canon stuff (I understand the Canon 17-40/4 is designed with Digital in mind, the Zeiss is not). This just shows to me that (admittedly with hind-sight) it is now possible to do a full frame digital body for YCMM.

To me this web-link show that the arguments that Kyocera had to go for an incompatible solution when introducing the N-system, because they needed a wider mount, was wrong. Who in this forum wouldn't have liked to be able to put some of his YC lenses into an N-body? There will not be lenses like a small (and affordable) 85/2.8 and 45/2.8 in the N-mount. Paying three times as much for a P50/1.4 in N mount than in MM is a bad joke. (I spend quite some time comparing the MTF graphs on the Zeiss server for the two Planar 50/1.4 and could not see any significant difference. Actually I am under the impression it is exactly the same graph, but it they are not, I would like to learn about it.)

I just feel sorry for these wonderful Zeiss YCMM lenses, which will (for no good reason) be mostly unused in a few years time. I am way more prepared to accept such an outcome for the G-system, because of the well known problems with rangefinder lenses. FYI, the G-system is what is really close to my heart.

As I wrote earlier: Your mileage on the topic might vary. Thanks for sharing your views.
 
Joachim,

I wish that Austin would comment on your assertion that the YC/MM lenses s/b able to handle w/o problem a full frame sensor. I know this has been covered before ... the technical reasons that this is impossible. That is exactly why the N-Mount was created, to allow for the ability to do a full frame sensor!!! So, please quit stating that "it is now possible to do a full frame digital body for YCMM". I don't believe that this is true ...

Any clarification from anybody that "Knows" the technical reason for the inability to do a "full frame CCCD sensor" would be appreciated.

I am still awaiting an answer to my question as to whether or not you have ever used an N1 or an ND?


Thanks,

Michael.
 
Hi Michael,

"I wish that Austin would comment on your assertion that the YC/MM lenses s/b able to handle w/o problem a full frame sensor."

It is a fact, that the CY lense mount is narrow, and a wider mount would be necessary to avoid severe falloff when using wide angle lenses without the use of microprisms. Microprisms work OK, but they are not the same as not using microprisms. There were many other reasons to change the CY mount to the new N mount, one very compelling one is simply electronics, for both autofocus and lense information (aperture chosen, min aperture and even focal length for zoom lenses).

"the technical reasons that this is impossible."

Not impossible, but would allow severe falloff with wide angle lenses...starting at about 28mm would be my guess. There are solutions to this that don't require larger exit pupils, one is simply using gain on the periphery, but this has the effect of exacerbating noise, so that, IMO, isn't the best choice. Second is redesigning the lense to allow more perpendicular rays...but I'm not sure how this effects overall image quality when you do it with a smaller exit pupil. Another is to reduce the well depth of the sensor, but that can only be reduced so far, and, unfortunately, you are limited by what manufacturers and technology offer. And another is to use microprisms to re-align the light rays so they are more perpendicular, but this does in fact introduct some degredation into the image, but how much is really open for discussion and I have not analyzed it at all. My first choice would be widening the lense mount to allow for lenses to be designed to have a more perpendicular exit pupil.

Regards,

Austin
 
Who needs a technical run down as to why Michael? Just look out into the market place. If it was easy to produce a full frame capture using a smaller lens mount, Nikon would have done it by now (instead of getting their tush kicked by Canon). Canon has the R&D money and so does Kodak. Contax took a risk, didn't have enough to finish the job right, and is paying dearly for it.

And least we forget, the planned Leica R modular back isn't planned as a full frame either. Could it be the lens mount?

It'll be interesting to watch that development, as it appears a new sensor technology is allowing Leica to make a digital M, which previously was not possible due to the W/A lenses resting so close to the sensor. Leica's President wants a full frame 8-10 meg digital M. Hmmmm, delicious. We'll see.
 
I have a story I have not told anybody, may be because I did not believe it myself when I heard it. The norwegian Contax importer/distributor said that he had seen a digital G in US. It must have been about 2 years ago now. I have searched for information on internet and elsewhere that could confirm this, but nothing. And that makes it harder to believe. The project was stopped because it was differcult to meet the standard Contax wanted for a digital G (dust problems?).
But this story made me think of Contax and autofocus. I also have been told (and have read it in photo magazine years ago) that it was not Canon or Nikon that built the autofocus into the camera for the first time, but Contax. That project was also stopped because the af-lenses did not met the Zeiss standard for lens quality.
Do we see history repeat itself?
May be we will see a digital G and, if Contax/Kyocera want to stay in photo busines, there will surely be a new digital SLR. That's my opinion. And I look forward to it. In the meantime I use my N1 and scanning film.
I believe Contax will use the N-mount when the new DLSR comes (full frame I hope) and then I can use the same lenses for film and digital.
Let's hope. When and where will the next big photo exhibition finding place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top