Contax 645 Versus Mamiya 645 AF

[steven_kornreich]

I realize the Mamiya 645AF is not available until Mid October but was

wondering if anyone could add any insight on comparing the two

systems?

Here are list prices I got from B&H

List for Body = 3359.00

List for kit with body + 80/2.8, 120/220 = 4829.00

 

 

45/2.8 = 1329.00

55/2.8 = 1189.00

80/2.8 = 779.00

150/2.8 = ????

210/4 ULD = 1919.00

300/4.5 APO = 3989.00

L I S T P R I C E S

[konrad_beck]

Currently we can only speculate and compare announcements for the Mamiya 645AF, and thus this post will be of rather temporary use. I will first just type in what I can get out of the ads from Japan: introduction: Sept. 1 (and when they write 09/01, then they mean 09/01!; U.S. I think is Oct 28, and with this I am not so convinced on the meaning). Prices (all list): body (incl. winder and finder, the latter one in contrast to the Contax seems fixed to the body) Y273,000; 120/220 magazine Y50,000, 80/2.8 Y62,000 adding up for a basic outfit to Y385,000 ($1=Y115). As in another post you seemed quite unhappy over the weight of the Contax outfit, which in the ads available to me is stated as 1370g, just get a good workout: the Mamiya basic outfit comes to 1730g (and this with a 80/2.8 lens instead of the 80/2.0 Contax lens). A tiny bit of the additional weight might come from the Magnesium cover of the body (so not ALL plastic, but the rest of it I guess). Initially the folowing lenses are announced (as this might be important for you, I incl. the weight in [g] in paranthesis): 45/2.8 (480) Y100,000; 55/2.8 (430) Y90,000; ULD 210/4 IF (720) Y143,000 and APO 300/4.5 IF (1280) Y300,000. For the (near?) future they mention a 35/3.5, 150/2.8IF, 55-110/4.5, 105-210/2.5, 120/4 macro and a 2x converter (these numbers indicate that they will be basically AF versions of the current manual lenses). In contrast to the Contax lenses, the Mamyia ones look in their design very much like 35mm AF lenses in that they have only a very thin ring for optional manual focus. The current MF lenses seem to fit the bajonet but they appear as usefull as M42 lenses adapted to 35mm cameras (i.e. step-down only measurement). Whereas the Contax has a nice dial for exposure times, the Mamiya has an LCD display with little bottoms labeled "BL, F2, F1, SET" on top of the winder to be adjusted -I guess- with your thumb (will be fun to use with gloves at <25 oF, I can imagine). A further LCD screen is on the magazin displaying ISO, 120 or 220, exposure #.

 

If you now guess that I am not too impressed on the Mamiya, you are right, but (a) I am currently not interested in going into AF, and (b) I am quite satisfied with my Mamiya 645Pro. I would like to see the 300/4.5 lens as a manual focus version.

[akos_buzogany]

Hi Steve,

 

Before buying AF, look out for lens tests. As far as I know, AF lenses are seldom as good as MF ones, regardeless of manufacturer!

 

Akos

[glen_johnson]

I have the Contax, but I would expect the Mamiya to be a worthy competitor.

 

The idea that has been repeated in this forum on a few occasions that autofocus lenses aren't as good as manual focus lenses is something you can believe if you want a reason to not lust after new gear. But it simply isn't true. The current high end offerings from Canon and Nikon are as good or better than anything they've ever offered. If you don't believe it, look at the quality of the work that is being produced every year. It gets better and better and better... mostly because of the skills of the photographers, rather than due to the lenses. But the current crop of AF lenses from major 35mm brands is an excellent crop. In medium format, there is really only one data point. Pentax autofocus lenses are reportedly excellent, but even if they weren't, it wouldn't prove anything about Contax or Mamiya autofocus.

 

One thing I really like about the Contax compared to the Mamiya is the fact that the Contax has NO LCD panels. I hate these things. What I like about it compared to the Pentax is that it has real interchangeable backs, and real interchangable finders. I use these features, and I would miss them if I didn't have them. Being able to change backs in mid-roll, whether its for polaroids, or for a switch from NPH 400 to Astia, is really something I would hate to give up.

 

I think that medium format autofocus is primitive compared to the best available 35mm autofocus at this point... but I am thrilled that medium format is getting into the game of autofocus. The current generation of users may think it is a waste of money (at least until their own eyesight fails and they need it). I predict that 25 years from now even Hasselblad will offer some sort of autofocus option. When you stop and think about it, it makes sense for Zeiss to start their venture into autofocus with a new brand (Contax), instead of taking a risk with either Hasselblad or Rollei.

[jeff_drew3]

I will concur with Glen on the quality of AutoFocus lenses vs. Manual Focus lenses. I had several Nikon AF lenses and the quality was excellent. I sold them all. I HATED the narrow focus rings, the "cheesy" feel in manual mode, the selective focus on auto and the LCD with several modes on the N90 body. All the pictures turned out technically correct and I impressed the masses with my professional look. I like the slower, more methodical approach that manual stuff offers. I worried more about the camera & lens in auto mode than I did about the pictures I was taking.

I currently use a couple of Fuji GW670 rangefinders. Manual Focus is a breeze and very quick.

For sports & wildlife, tho', I still miss the autofocus stuff.

Why is it that some Nikon MF lenses retain higher prices as used vs. new AF models?

[raymond_valois]

I agree totally with Glen and Jeff.

 

I have the Pentax 645N. I purchased a 2nd lens, the AF 200mm. I really wanted the 150mm but it was on a 6-month backorder! The AF 200mm was purchased on a ten-day trial. Shot photos under studio conditions with floods, maually metered using a Sekonic 380BII, the only automation being used was the autofocus, with the focus on the eyes. However, I found the lens too long for portraits and weddings.

 

So, I returned the lens and purchased the AF 80-160mm and did the shots again under the same studio conditions. After enlargement to 11x14 and under a 5.5x loupe, you can still see the eyelashes tack sharp, absolutely no loss of color saturation. This with BOTH lenses.

 

Some of my photography buddies, some professional, cannot tell the difference of which photos were taken with which lens.

 

This is not a very scientific test, but it is what our eyes see. I really don't know how a photo can be sharper than these. These buddies, by the way, use Contax, Bronica and Blads. They really were very impressed.

 

My .02 cents (Canadian dollars)

 

Ray

[greg_lawhon]

I wonder if the "quality difference" between AF and MF lenses that Akos alleges actually is about focusing accuracy rather than quality of the glass. While I know none of us here read it - :) - Popular Photography's September 1999 issue tests the accuracy of autofocus cameras (or at least the Nikon F5, Canon EOS-1, and Minolta Maxxum 9), and concludes that autofocus isn't very consistent and isn't as good as careful manual focusing. Of course, Pop Photo goes on to note that not all photos are taken of non-moving subjects with cameras on tripods and with all the time you need to get the focus right, so autofocus may very well outperform manual focusing in many real-world situations. But it made me wonder whether the issue is focusing accuracy rather than inferior potential lens performance.

[Robin Smith]

Most lack of sharpness issues are due to camera shake, inadequate depth of field, or inaccurate focusing - manual or autofocus. Autofocus makes plenty of mistakes - as we also do when we manually focus.

[chris___6]

In PopPhoto's test, they used a magnifier and took a lot of time to

fine tune the focus of the MF shots. The report says that in practice,

AF still does a better and more consistent job.

[rich_t]

Wanting to move up to medium format, I spent 2 hours testing the Contax 645 and Mamiya 645AF in a poorly lit showroom. With the 140mm 2.8 on the Contax, it wouldn't focus on my friend's face who was 10 feet away, nor in dark corners. The Mamiya with a 150mm 4 was also disappointing, but a little better than the Contax, we guessed because it employed its IR assist. I couldn't justify spending ~$4K when these AF systems disappointed me, and I was about to give up. Then the salesman let us try a 645N from his rental department (Showroom was out of stock). WOW! Fast, tight focus, even in dark corners, even on black clothes, using the FA200mm 4 lens! I was awed when the fabric weave came into focus on my friend's black shirt, when the Contax wouldn't even focus on his face in that same light and at same distance. Admittedly, this wasn't a scientific comparison between the 3 cameras, but it was an exhaustive showroom trial with a very patient salesman and my pro-photographer friend guiding us all the way. We were all pleasantly surprised by the little 645N, and I'm going to buy one as soon as they're in stock. I won't miss having removeable film backs and other "high-end" features on the Contax and Mamiya, knowing that in a low-light duel, I'd be clicking away and they'd still be trying to focus. Plus having access to bargain non-AF Petax645 and Pentax67 lenses is nice (including shift, fisheye, more macros, and extreme telephotos -- which can be easily rented).

[rich_t]

Wanting to move up to medium format, I spent 2 hours testing the Contax 645 and Mamiya 645AF in a poorly lit showroom. With the 140mm 2.8 on the Contax, it wouldn't focus on my friend's face who was 10 feet away, nor in dark corners. The Mamiya with a 150mm 4 was also disappointing, but a little better than the Contax, we guessed because it employed its IR assist. I couldn't justify spending ~$4K when these AF systems disappointed me, and I was about to give up. Then the salesman let us try a Pentax645N from his rental department (Showroom was out of stock). WOW! Fast, tight focus, even in dark corners, even on black clothes, using the FA200mm 4 lens! I was awed when the fabric weave came into focus on my friend's black shirt, when the Contax wouldn't even focus on his face in that same light and at same distance. Admittedly, this wasn't a scientific comparison between the 3 cameras, but it was an exhaustive showroom trial with a very patient salesman and my pro-photographer friend guiding us all the way. We were all pleasantly surprised by the little 645N, and I'm going to buy one as soon as they're in stock. I won't miss having removeable film backs and other "high-end" features on the Contax and Mamiya, knowing that in a low-light duel, I'd be clicking away and they'd still be trying to focus. Plus having access to bargain non-AF Pentax645 and Pentax67 lenses is nice (including shift, fisheye, more macros, and extreme telephotos -- which can be easily rented).