Is the Contax N just a big screw up

[afranklin]

Hi Gilbert,

"I shoot slides. When I release the shutter that ends my artistic control."

You can scan film (slides or negatives), and get the EXACT same "control" you can with digitally sourced images.

One advantage of digital is the ability to change ISO on a frame by frame basis. This is, of course, useful for some people, and not so for others.

Regards,

Austin

 

[fotografz]

"That is for YOU, and ONLY YOU. They BOTH have advantages and disadvantages, and to simply believe that everyone else has the same needs as you have is foolish."

My, my such an inflammatory statement. If you would read more carefully, I did say I use both film and digital. And FOR ME digital is winning the debate for "creative" reasons not technical reasons. I never said for everyone, I said FOR ME. However, you are quite wrong in that it winning for ONLY ME. I know a vast number of advanced amateurs and professional photographers that now shoot primarily digital, and some that now shoot only digital. So I am not alone in moving more toward digital.

Also, shooting a commercial catalog with a "Barbie" camera is hardly what I'm talking about, so such exaggerations bear little fruit in a discussion about applications of technology. My Canon 1Ds and Kodak backs are hardly toys.

In fact, anyone engaged in the commercial sector knows that the camera/lens and resulting image isn't the main controlling quality factor in commercial applications of photography... including catalog work. It's the printing itself. Which is now just about entirely digital. You can labor to refine technical aspects of a photo to the point of subtile obsessiveness, only to have it yanked back down by the great equalizer... the mass produced printing process. Yes, standards need to upheld, up to a point.

That point has been reached for many commercial applications, so people aren't really seeing more in digital than it is capable of as you say, rather, digital has reached the point where it can and does deliver to the level that is necessary for the application. More than that is simply time consuming overkill which will never be realized in the final commercial product. Increasingly, it is becoming more difficult to persuade those that know this to spend more time and money on such overkill.

That leaves art photography and personal photography. The latter is primarily going digital because 35mm film is overkill for the billions of 4X6 Wall Mart type images for the family album. The former is a miniscule % of the photographic world's output. It's influence is negligible in the scope of things.

I do agree that immediacy is a driving factor with digital. However, immediacy isn't just some impatient knee jerk desire for professionals or some art photographers. It's a real time creative tool when working out an idea. Digital is moving photography into new realms of creativity because it's getting more like painting or graphic design in it's process. As visual artists we no longer have wait to see.

But to be clear, I am a hold out amongst many of my fellow photographers. I still maintain that the emotional impact of film, it's randomness of grain, it difficult to explain charm, is worth the effort. As is using special gear like Leica and Zeiss. Or I'd sell it all to you folks ; -)

 

[wadennis]

I shoot a Sony for my work as an insurance adjuster. It saves me money, is fast and the carriers have started to accept them in the last couple of years. Prior to that they really did not want digital because of the archival problems they percived. I am grateful that I can do this now.

However, I have had the RTS, RTS II, RTS III, RX, AX, G1, G2 and the N1. I have kept the N1 and the G2. I love both of these cameras for the my personal use for all the reasons stated on this forum. I don't have to make a living in photography and until Contax comes out with a digital that I feel good about purchasing I don't have to do anything but enjoy what I have. I think most of the people on this board are the same way. Most of us don't make a living at it and those that do we greatly appreciate the help and advice they offer us.

By the way, my Horseman 4x5 Large format camera just arrived. Sure am looking forward to learning it.

Best regards to all,

Warren

 

[rfranca]

Hi,
From what I gather there are two different things in discussion here:

1. digital vs. film and the future of digital contax cameras (contax is slowly moving into the digital realm and currently sells two p/s digicams and the 645)

2. contax's af N system and it's future (as a system, which inevitably includes going digital down the line)

I guess nr.2 was the initial question of this thread and probably the most important and so I'll add a few more thoughts on the subject...

Although Leica and Contax apparently feed the same niche, I tend to think that people will generally go for the Leica if they want a status symbol and to Contax if they like to take pictures.

There might be some blind brand followers here as well as some techno oriented equipment buffs/addicts (poor things) but I feel that the first ones will quickly give up supporting a "losing" team and the last will rapidly be disapointed with the rythm at which Contax releases new stuff - and very often this stuff is low tech (you should read that it lacks bells and whistles).

So let's move on to the N system... Looking at the C/Y system, Contax developed a huge lens lineup with lots of primes (small/medium speed lenses and fast ones) of supreme built and image quality, most accessories one would ever need and strong, well designed and built bodies with great bright and big viewfinders (delightfull manual focusing), accurate metering and some customising.
Ok there are a few cons but with any Contax camera you get a fine tool.
You can do studio or street or landscape with these cameras and get great results...

Next comes the N system... As Canon and Minolta, Contax made the move to AF and that meant the start of a new mount and it would be logical that after the initial rumble Contax users would move to the 'N'ew system...

but in the end what happened is that the new system never became a system: after starting off with a few zooms, Contax launch a facade statement million dollar lens and went to sleep.

and now what? this seems to be the question most of us would want answered. is it a screw up?

as for the digital N, some of us need it (not me, at least right now - I want an N system first) and some dont. with the advent of digital photography camera manufacturing has reached new heights: nowadays who doesnt have a digicam. million dwell internet forums showing pics of their cats and comparing how well cat hair looks with this or that lens (dam that moire), man has found THE way to becoming even more consumist and everyday he wants a new body with more better pixels. at least film users only need to upgrade their film.

good shooting,
ricardo

p.s.: leica is suffering as well, but there are still many great photographers shooting with the M and a few also shoot R.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/magazine/Reflections.html

 

[jsmisc]

Good morning Austin,
I suppose that immediacy is one of the elements of convenience and I'd agree that it can be a factor in favour of digital but there again, you don't get negatives. Probably we shouldn't pursue film/digital comparisons in this thread and there are so many variables to discuss.
But initial outlay is more since digital cameras are much more expensive than film cameras but understandably so since they are much more complicated.
Running costs are lower if you simply show your digital pictures on the computer (and don't spend time manipulating/editing them, which isn't really a cost for an amateur).
I still think that the marketing blitz and the normal human desire to have the latest innovation plus, as you say, the immediacy is why digital compacts are taking over from film compacts even though you need a computer (apart from Pictbridge and minilabs processing from memory cards) which is an extra expense, as well as some computer skills in order to benefit.
Regards,
John

 

[fotografz]

This is an interesting discussion.

I do agree with Austin that technical aspects both pro and con need to be forthcoming in order to make the decisions that are correct for each individuals application. But blanket statements outside the context of creative application do not provide the whole story. For ex&le, to separate creativity from technical aspects in photography as in this statement:

"The discussion in this thread has not been artistic, but technical with claims that problems that exist, don't... which is simply wrong."

doesn't that lessen what the tools are actually for? IMO, photographic equipment is engineering in the service of creativity, not the other way around. Contax cameras have traditionally been tools of personal creativity more than they have been tools of commerce. That context keeps being extracted from the discussion when IMO it should be the point of it.

Now applying that principle to the original thread's question of "is the N system a screw up?" I would say no it is not a screw up. Not if you position the N system as a creative tool rather than a tool of commerce. Many of it's controls like DOF bracketing are quite thoughtful touches when applied for certain creative applications. IMO, the dual focus feature is much nicer than that provided by Canon lenses, as is the real aperture ring instead of a finger wheel. It all feels more like you are in control when making creative decisions.

The look that Zeiss glass produces has an aesthetic appeal that obviously has it's draw for all here. However, not having certain lenses in a system that appeals to more artistic pursuits is a mistake IMO. Especially in the wide angle primes. Yet. I must say that the 17-35/2.8 and 24-85/3.5-4.5 are quite good when compared to many other offerings out there. My main concern with wide zooms has been barrel distortion, especially with some Canon offerings. The N wide zooms seem to suffer from this less than the Canons in my experience. Vignetting does seem to show up on some of the faster Zeiss offerings, noticeably the 50/1.4 @ 1.4. Not unusual for really fast lenses. But in many applications where light is low, vignetting doesn't even show up as a distraction due to dark backgrounds.

IMO, the N system is a very personal kit, and not for everyone.

If there has been a "screw-up" with the N it was with the positioning and marketing not the camera itself.

 

[rfranca]

But would you agree that the N system is in desperate need of a boost, and that the boost is much more in the filling of the enourmos gap of the present lens line-up than delivering a dslr?

 

[lotusm50_is_Jensen]

I think it needs a boost in BOTH areas -- lens line-up and a DSLR.

 

[coyot]

I don't think you guys get it. The N line does have a DSLR. It is called the ND. The first full frame CCCD with a wide range of lenses, access to the 645 lenses via a NAM adapter, and of course you call use a film back (the N1) on the same set of lenses.

Just in the N series of lenses there is a range of 17mm to 400mm. Not to bad! Sure, more lenses will be nice, and I bet they are forthcoming. But the main point is that there are alot of focal lengths availble for the N series and there is a DIGITAL DSLR!

As a side note, I just went through 10,000 photos I have scanned during the last 22 years to compile a "100" best of series. The Contax ND was responsible for generating over half of the final shots I selected. And when you consider that I have only had the ND for less then ten percent of those 22 years, that says something for the ability of the camera! (or could it be the photographer???).

Michael.

 

[lotusm50_is_Jensen]

Last I heard the ND was discontinued and widely considered (although certainly not by all) to be failed product. So, I would say it does need a boost in the DSLR area (especially since -- whether rightly or wrongly -- that is where the market is). As for the lenses just because you can cover the 17mm to 400mm focal lengths with 3 zoom lenses doesn't mean you have a good lens range -- even after you add the measly 3 fixed focal length lenses (as fine as they are). There are lots of holes in the lens line-up.