Mamiya 645AF or Contax 645

Hi..

I'm hoping to break into MF...I am also breaking into digital with

the Canon 20D and some L series lenses...I currently own an EOS 3

with a few L and non L lenses...I love film with it's clarity,

contrast and colors...I am getting into digital mostly for the

convenience of the system...

 

I love the larger negative provided by the MF system...I would use

it for both portraiture and outdoor scenics....I like the idea of an

interchangeable back...

 

Now, the big question...I can not afford the Hassey H1 although it's

supposed to be the cat's ass of 645 MF cameras...I'm looking at the

Mamiya 645AF and Contax 645 systems...I've been told the Mamiya

lenses are quite good and the Contax lenses, although imprinted with

Zeiss, are made in Japan with Japenese components and

glass...Probably the same mfr as the Mamiya glass...Given these two

cameras...what are the benefits of one over the other or is it 6:1

half dozen to the other?

 

Thanks ...

Chuck..

"I've been told the Mamiya lenses are quite good and the Contax lenses, although imprinted with Zeiss, are made in Japan with Japenese components and glass...Probably the same mfr as the Mamiya glass" Charles, think again!! Contax glass does not look like Japanese glass at all. Contax is stunning, same as Hasselblad, I use both, often on the same assignment and both in my opinion are better than Mamiya 7 glass which is way better than Mamiya 645.

The Carl Zeiss lenses for the Contax are made in Germany. The Contax 645 is a terrific

camera system but it is not very well supported right now and there have been rumors of

it's demise in the near future. The Contax 645 has not been updated in awhile. Yesterday

there was a thread here relating to Contax having a new distributor in the USA.

 

There are several companies that make optical glass in japan. More than a few of them

make lenses at least as good as Zeiss or Leica do.

it is funny that you would worry about a japanese originated lens for the Contax but not

about Japanese poured glass for Canon or Mamiya.

What about the rhighly regarded Pentax 645N/NII camera and it's AF lenses? Do you really need the interchangeble back capability of Contax of Mamiya AF systems? If not, make sure you check Pentax out also.

Now would be a good time to wait and see how things shake out.

 

If you are not willing to do that then pick up a used Mamiya AF kit which you can sell

pretty easily in the future for a 100% return on your money if you buy right. Given

Mamiya's recent moves in the MF digital arena it's a solid choice.

 

You may like the Mamiya just fine and decide to keep it. You may decide MF isn't really

worth it for you. You may love the format but not the camera and decide to move up

later when it shakes out which MF companies are going to remain strong.

 

If you could scratch up the cash you can't go wrong with Hasselblad given their recent

developments.

 

Contax is a giant 'Who Knows' right now but the lenses are to die for.

I used all three of them on daily basis ( h1, afd and Contax ). They are all

good cameras but non of them is perfect. It all depands on your application.

If you want to record the reality than Contax is your camera of choice. The

lenses are superbly sharp and unforgiving. I use Contax 645 for male portraits

. H1 is very fast and with its 1/800 sec. flash synchro is the pro choice for

exterior shots with strobes. The lenses however are very expansive and a bit

too harsh. I have the 35, 50, 80, and 150 and do not really love any of them.

Mamiya has very soft lenses that are greatly applied in female fashion and

portreture. I has been said long time ago that Zeiss records reality while

Sekor creates it. I had been professionaly shooting for 30 years making a

great living by doing what I love to do. If I can give you one advice it would be

to get a camera and make pictures. Some of my best images that I display in

galeries are made with 1970 Pentacon 6 ( current ebay price - $200 )

Remember each of this cameras is as great as you are.

If budget is limited and quality important that get Rz67 - you will love your

results.

If you want to see my work go to www.MissObiektywu.com

Charles,

 

Rent the systems or loan-use if you can, then decide. Every user will have their own likes and diss-likes.

 

No matter how old asystem is, if it's good it's good.

 

If you're just looking at the Mamiya and Contax - and the price is NOT an isue - the Contax (to me) feels right, performs right and is digital ready. The lenses are very good to great and well built.

 

With the adaptor for the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses you can use all the Hassy lenses on the Contax and by doing that also achieve high flash sync through their leaf shutters - if you know what you're doing.

 

The greatest advantage of the Mamiya is price, and that IS always an isue.

 

Regards

Hendrik,

 

How do you use the leaf shutter in Hasselblad lenses when you put them on the Contax 645? I have such an adapter, but see no way to fire the lens' shutter.

Charles:

 

Just as Andre pointed out, the Mamiya lenses and Contax lenses are of different merits, even though they may be equally of high resolution. Contax's Zeiss lenses are of good contrast, low distortion, and give you a sense that you are looking at the images with your own eyes, not through a lense. Mamiya lenses give much softer images, lower contrast.

 

However, since the whole world is changing into digital, you may think twice or three times before buying into a MF film camera. A whole system (even used) would cost you $10K easily, much more expensive than a 35 mm system. If you like digital, you may later find shooting MF film, (wait for a whole roll to finish if you are not shooting professionally) then have the film developed, scan them, and lastly load them into a computer is much less efficient than a high end 35 mm digital SLR. Those 4000 dpi film scanners in the market are not giving you true scans of 4000 dpi. Maybe 2400 dpi max in reality, due to the lost quality in the extra scanning process. I heard 22 MP digi SLR may rival (barely) the quality of MF film if prints are only up to 20x24. Digital backs for MF cameras are very very expensive. I have the Contax 645 and love it, but also love the convenience of digital. What keeps me from going totally digital is the cost of MF digital backs and doubts about the quality of a less-than-full frame 22 MP sensor.

 

So think it over and, enjoy shooting!

William.

 

For the past few months I am using Sinar 54M digital back with all of my

cameras since this is multi platform back . Previously I use Phase One H20

with Rz/503cw. The quality of the pictures from Sinar back exceeds thouse

from a MF scan. I used to scan my work on $25,000 Eversmart scanner. I had

1ds mark II for 3 weeks and hated the results. You can not compare them to

MF digital back. Some people do not see the diffrence, yet to some people

pixel is a pixel. Sinar back is only $15K for 22mp and with ISO 25 I printed

posters 40x60 and they look as good as from 8x10 chromes. I am as obsesed

with quality as any of you can be. Digital is here to stay.