Contax 645 vs. Pentax 645 NII

[peter_gale]

We are looking at medium format cameras and my wife and I will each

expect to use the one we aquire. I've been doing research and asking

questions about the P67II and Bronica SQ-Ai. However, the desire to

use the camera in the field and, on occasion, hand-held, suggests that

a P67 or Bronica SQ-Ai with attendant lenses, equipment, tripod and

head, etc., may be too much to manage in the field. So, we are also

considering the Contax 645 and P645NII, notwithstanding the

considerable difference in their cost (especially for the lenses), the

reduction in image format to 645, and the lack of other features that

characterize medium format.

 

We have several basic questions for those whe may have owned, used, or

tested both 645 cameras.

 

1. We have both handled the two cameras but we'd appreciate hearing

what other have experienced. Do the controls seem more user-friendly

on one or the other camera? Which one do you prefer handling, and in

what respects? Are there things that one has that the other might be

missing?

 

2. My reading suggests that the Contax 645 lenses are generally

considered superior to those for the P645NII. Can we expect to see

that 'superiority' quite clearly in, say, 8x10 prints (b&w and/or

colour) of the same subject taken under similar conditions? Are the

Contax lenses really worth it at double the cost of P645 lenses here

in Canada?

 

3. Regardless of the camera, will the shorter and mid-range zooms for

each (say 45-90; 80-160) offer a visibly less fine quality in an 8x10

print, when compared to the results of similar images created with

fixed focal length lenses equal to the length used when shooting the

image with the zoom.

 

4. I would appreciate being told of any comparisons of the two cameras

that that you recommend and we may not have seen, online or off.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Peter Gale, Toronto

[dave_bazzel1]

Hi Peter, I will not be able to answer your question as you wish it to be answered since I have no experience with the Contax. I would however, like to share a few thoughts if I may. First, I am very certain that neither camera would be a limiting factor to the quality of your photography since most all professional cameras offer so much technology and features these days. Your main limiting factor (and mine too) is your own vision and ability. The only way that I can see the camera system being a limiting factor would be if you can't or won't afford a full array of Contax lenses. I would not! The other idea that sort of came though from your question is the decades-old stigma that German glass is noticeably better than high end Japanese glass. That may have been true in the 50's and 60's but not today. I just can't believe this is still perpetuated. Amazing!! In fact I believe that some of the contax lenses are made in Japan but they just charge twice as much. I suppose it's a similar mindset as used by Porsche (I had one once) that there will always be some group of folks who will be willing to overspend in order to try to make a social statement. As far as user-friendly controls..... you are your own user, only you can decide that one. I have had the Pentax for a year now and absolutely love it. I have no intention to go back to 35mm and see no reason to buy a pricier system as this one does everthing I can dream up and does it well.

[louis_webb]

Any fairly modern 645 camera is going to give you superb results,limited only by your abilities as photographers or the actual film size,I would argue.'Take a look at Darwin Wiggett's work with a Mamiya 645 pro on the Photosig site(or do a camera specific search on this site,bearing in mind that these are scanned photo's).If manual focus is not a problem for you,I would suggest the Mamiya 'Pro and Bronica Etrsi should also be on your short-list,just too.

If you're using a tripod with zoom's,the results should be on a par with primes'-I've a Bronica Etrsi and this is the case with this camera(45-90 zoom).I shouldn't imagine there's any difference with the Contax or Pentax.

[pete_su]

The contax has interchangable backs. That's the only big difference IMHO.

 

That, and the combined AF/MF.

 

The Pentax is tons cheaper and a bit smaller, and doesn't chew the batteries as fast.

 

I doubt the Contax lenses are that much better. But they are twice to three times the cost.

[jeff_drew4]

Peter, I have responded to your earlier posts. To this one, I'll add more qustions back to you and your spouse. I do not shoot 6x4.5 format. For me it is an unnecessary compromise considering the value of 6x6 or 6x7 vs. 35mm, which I shoot a lot of. That said, I have shopped for 645 systems and find them a great idea. If I were starting out in MF today, it would be difficult choosing. I handled a Pentax 645N last week, to go with my P67 outfit. It handled very well and will accept my P67 lenses. A friend of mine is deeply religious about his P645. During coffee one day, several of us agreed that if money were no object, Contax 645 would be a best choice in 645. However, that's because it's glitzy, good quality gear. The Pentax 645 or 67 is not as glitzy or branded as the Contax. We agreed the difference in results, i.e. pictures, there is very little difference in quality. If money is no object do the Contax. You will love it because it has lots of stuff you can buy and collect for it. Is this what your wife wants and likes to do? Is she a gadgeteer, or is she more interested in quality results, ease of use, lower cost? I see a problem in 2 people sharing one camera, unless "we" are using the wife-rationale to buy something? ;-) I did that once. Ouch! Seriously, You can get 2 P645's for the cost of 1 Contax, and all your Pentax accessories will interchange. Nope...I will not be buying into 6x4.5 format anytime soon, but it's a personal choice that I haul my P67. For me 6.45 just does not offer the bang that 6x7 does.

[cliff_lesergent]

Peter,

 

I have owned the Pentax 645N and most of the lenses for several years now.

 

I haven't used the Contax 645, but I doubt that the Zeiss lenses are noticable better than the Pentax equivalents. In fact, if you look at the photodo ratings, Contax has one or two real "dogs" (like the 210mm f4) in their lineup. In any case, you would probably need to enlarge prints well beyond 8x10 to see any difference between systems (or between 645 and 35mm, for that matter).

 

With the Pentax zooms, there is no loss of quality when compared with the prime lenses. In fact, the 45-85mm f4.5 Pentax zoom seemed a bit sharper than the 45mm f2.8 I previoulsy owned.

 

What I like about the Contax system, that Pentax lacks, is a fast standard lens (80mm f2) and the interchangeable backs. But, with the money you would save buying the Pentax system, you could easily afford a second body (then you and your wife could each have one).

 

One additional consideration in choosing between systems is customer service. Very few dealers here in Canada want anything to do with Contax any more because of the customer service headaches. While Pentax is not perfect either, their customer service on repairs is very good.

 

The biggest fault (in my opinion) with Pentax is that they are slow in shipping new products when you place an order. I live in Calgary, and Pentax has a fully stocked warehouse in Vancouver. It normally takes them up to a month or more to get items to any of the local dealers. In Toronto, you might have better luck, but now I order all my Pentax gear from Robert White in the UK, or from Delta International. Much cheaper than Canadian retail prices, and significantly faster, too.

 

By the way, where did you get to handle a 645N II? Pentax Canada told me they weren't going to release them until all the old 645N bodies had been sold.

[glen_johnson]

I have a fairly extensive Contax 645 system. I like it a lot. However, if I were on a budget, I wouldn't even think about Contax. I would be buying and using the Pentax stuff so fast, folks would think I'd invented it. The cost difference is huge. I like the feel and style of use of the Contax very very much. I could easily get used to the feel and style of use of the Pentax....within a day or two of serious use. And, as I said, if the budget were an issue, there is no doubt that the Pentax offers the better value. As for the image quality, its up to you. Both systems are very capable. Pentax makes good stuff. To get junk nowadays you just about have to buy stuff from a former or current communist country. If you put a great image shot with the Pentax system up against a great image shot with the Contax system, 95 out of 100 people will admit that they can't choose which was shot with which, and the 5 who say they can tell will argue over which was shot with which.

[joseph_ho]

i shoot a pentax 645n in the feild. do i want a contax 645? no not really. its heavier, chews batteries, and lacks the second tripod thread! body costs twice as much, lenses cost 3 times.

 

i love my pentax 150 2.8, the contax equiv. is shorter and slower. pentax AF is supposedly faster too.

 

what am i missing? a great flash metering system, swappable backs, and mr carl's lenses.

[glen_johnson]

I understand that a 140 f/2.8 is shorter than a 150 f/2.8 (by what has to be considered an irrelevant ammount), but I don't understand why it is slower.... Any insights?

[edward_c._nemergut]

There are only two real differences between the two systems:

<ul>

<li><b>Cost:</b> The Contax is very very expensive.

<li><b>Interchangeable backs</b> The Pentax doesn't offer them. I know a lot of people will say that this doesn't *really* matter 90% of the time; however, I've always found interchangeable backs to be hugely important and incredibly convenient.

</ul>

Why don't you consider the Mamiya 645AF (or AFD). It *has* interchangeable backs and, after assuming you purchase more 3 or so lenses, is thousands cheaper than the Contax...

 

<a href="http://photo.nemergut.com/">ECN</a>

[peter_weimann1]

Hi Peter,

when I was checking out the 3 645 AF Systems (Contax, Mamiya and Pentax) I tested all systems over a weekend with rented units and found out that for my needs the Pentax suited best. The lens range is exactly what I need, I love zooms and don´t like to carry a ton of heavy equipment. Pentax is lightweight, reliable, has now 4 Zooms and outstanding optical quality for a really reasonable price. The Contax has now 1 Zoom lens, it weighs in average double of the pentax (the lenses, not the body) sucks batteries, compared the AF is lousy and what I really don´t like is a manufacturer who lies. On their german website they stated they use Ultrasonic motors! In fact they don´t. After I complained they removed that statement! They use coreless DC motors with a special clutch. During my testing there was no visible difference in optical quality. I liked the handling of the Pentax most. The Mamiya was between those 2 but few photos where just partially out of focus. I don´t know why, may be a flatness problem. Now I have run 100 rolls of film through the Pentax with the first set of batteries and every slide is dead on concerning metering and focus. I love this baby. Concerning digital: Be sure, as soon digital is mature there will be a digital insert. Roumors say we will see one in February 2003. I don´t need it yet. Too much time spent in front of the PC instead in nature.

Greetings

Peter

[juan_mateos_hernandez]

i have owned both of them. Pentax 645 was a wonderful camera with a relative low price. Contax is more expensive and it does not deliver better performance; what´s more, i dare to say it is not up to the standards for medium format. I will explain: batteries only last aprox. ten 120 rolls, camera powering up takes at least four or five seconds -you miss the picture, vacuum insert is not worth the money -does not make vacuum properly, readings inside prism finder do not appear frequently after detaching it ,autofocus is pretty poor...

I didn´t have a good experience with Contax. Bought a Hasselblad 503cw and never looked back. Anyway, i would choose Pentax 645 without hesitation.

[rick_falck]

Another difference is that all Contax lenses have a built in shutter, so they can all sync at faster flash speeds. Pentax has only two lenses that do this, the 75mm and 135mm lenses with a leaf shutter. With the Pentax ones you need a special cord that mounts in the flash mount and connects to the lens to get the higher sync speeds. The other Pentax lenses sync at a max to 1/60th.

 

I have the Pentax 645N with 35mm, 45-85, 80-160, and 300mm manual focus lenses (I started with a 645 but traded up to the 645N because of its other cool features). I could not afford to do this with the Contax.

[wim_van_velzen]

Rick, your making a mistake, I am afraid.

<p>

None of the Contax lenses has a built-in shutter. Zeiss lenses for Rollei and Hasselblad have; Hasselblad lenses can be used on the Contax with an adapter.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[george_pappas1]

Peter,

 

I have used the Pentax, Mamiya, and Contax systems. I rented them before making my purchase a couple of years ago. Although some of a camera system's strengths and weaknesses can only be found out over time, I would highly recommend a rental if you can arrange it. A week spent with a body and a lens or two will provide real clarity on many of your concerns. You can't successfully make an investment like this off of a spec sheet or third party reviews. I'm not sure if Lens & Repro in New York will ship/rent to Canada, but they are well stocked and their weekly rental fees are reasonable. Check their website.

 

I chose the Contax system. The main reason was its superior (for me) ergonomics. I found that the way the manual/auto focus, exposure lock, autobracketing, and exposure override controls worked was so much more fluid for me than the Mamiya and Pentax that the rest of the comparison wasn't even close. The Contax also has excellent flash metering and auto flash exposure lock which can be very important depending on your subject and circumstances. Mamiya's first 645AF, while a good camera concept, suffered the most from clumsy ergonomics (my opinion...they have since addressed exposure lock and overrides with a new version that I have not tried).

 

I also found that the contax's weaknesses were more than offset by its strengths. I prefer to use the camera on MF mode with the AF button and get plenty of rolls of film per battery. When shooting in faster moving situations, I keep the camera "powered up" to avoid the auto-battery shutoff by lightly pressing the shutter release. I own fewer lenses (45/80/140)with the 1.4x converter so my outfit is lighter weight. Regarding lens cost, they are not cheap, but many international sellers on Ebay offer contax lenses at much more competitive prices than in the past. I also combined an old Pentax 6x7 shift lens with a Zoerk adapter to get shift capability that I use a lot.

 

Other Strengths? I like having interchangeable backs; alot. I also like the idea that I can benefit from the innovation of multiple digital back makers if I want a digital option in the future. The fact that Pentax could bring out a digital insert is nice, but if digital were important to me, there is a larger risk with the Pentax that there will not be a palatable digital option. I called Pentax to ask this question and of course got the standard "no comment"....

 

Your question about lens quality is moot in my opinion. You will not see any difference for most work. At this point, both lens lines are excellent. I noticed some differences in lens contrast, but this is due to the preferences of each manufacturer. The images were all great.

 

I don't have firsthand experience with the zooms...sorry, no feedback here.

 

Bottom line, if one of the tangible differences including system cost, interchangeable backs, or flash metering capability don't drive your decision, then you should find a way to use each one before making your purchase.

[fotografz]

Like George, I choose the Contax and went a similar route with the lenses

using a 1.4X Mutar to fill in the gaps. While the battery situation isn't

ideal, I get a lot more rolls of 220 out of the camera then has been quoted

here. Besides, it takes all of 10 seconds to switch batteries (Contax also

makes a AA battery grip for extensive shooting). Lens sharpness is a toss

up, but I prefer the tonal gradations of the Zeiss lenses which lean

toward the German ideal. Plus every Hasselblad lens made fits the camera

via a Hasselblad branded adapter. I extensively use the Hasselblad

F-110/2 which produces a look like no other. It's actually better than

using a Hassy F camera because of the Contax 1/4000th top shutter

speed and 1/125th flash sinc.. I use the in camera flash meter all the time,

especially when using filters. Finally, all things being equal

( which I do not subscribe to), I wanted a camera that could go digital.

[tom_applegate1]

Now that I know how lousy my Contax 645 system is, it�s hard for me to walk by those 24x36 inch photos I have hanging on my wall. The ones that I thought were pretty spectacular and sharp as a tact! And to think that I previously owned all of the better camera�s all along is really a let down.

 

Tom Applegate

[raymond_petty1]

You've got some great answers to your question but let me add my .02 regarding my experiences. The bootom line for me (which may or may not relate to your needs) was ease of use and cost.

I shoot many shots of my young children (Three of them at under 7 years old!) and absolutely need auto-focus for most of my shots. Obviously more formal portait style is a different matter.

I shoot a lot of black and white and even though most will tell you that you cannot tell much difference between MF and 35mm at 8x10 I was continually bugged that my favorite 3 1/2 x 5 proofs always seemed to lose something at 8x10.

A fortuitous combination of me acquiring a little "extra" money and finding a Pentax 645N demo at literally 1/2 off from a reputable dealer allowed me to take the plunge. Boy do I love the results!

 

 

If you want an "over-sized" 35mm type SLR that is actually more intuitive than my Nikon N90s with a somwhat slow, but certainly adequate for my needs, auto-focus (these are little kids not the Kentucky Derby) then look seriously at the Pentax 645NII.

Interchangeable backs would be nice (but out of my price range) although for my personal needs I'm not so sure that the decreased size isn't actually better.

Of course Contax lenses are going to be better. But for 8x10 prints? Hard to justify at that price difference.

Search the archives for plenty of working pros who will sing the praises of newer Pentax glass. From what I have read the zooms are all wonderful performers and I wouldn't hesitate to get one if it fit my needs (I'm saving up for one as we speak).

Good luck!

[bob_chong]

"Now that I know how lousy my Contax 645 system is."

 

Please, please--no one else add any more personal opinions. It might hurt poor Tom's feelings. He may have to go on a sarcastic tirade again because two people found his system not to their own liking.

[tom_applegate1]

OK, OK, Maybe I had that coming Bob. It�s just that I have owned both the Pentax 67, 645, Hasselblads, and Rolleiflexs and have enjoyed all of them. I just don�t like to see some people flame one certain brand because we are talking about some very high end cameras here and they all have their good and bad points. For example, the Contax�s AF is slightly slower because the lenses are built heaver and are tighter, but built like a tank and will take a lot of punishment. Also, Contax my have some dogs on the Photodo lens tests but if you notice they also dominate in having some of the best lenses tested. But tests are tests and I personally couldn�t tell the difference between a photograph taken with a Pentax 645 or Contax 645. The reason that I�m defending Contax is because I find them very reliable and I like the superb ergonomics of the camera. Cost being to high? Not a big deal because they hold their value.

 

Tom Applegate

[garvey_p]

<i>I just don�t like to see some people flame one certain brand because we are talking about some very high end cameras here and they all have their good and bad points.</i><br><br>

 

Truer words have rarely been spoken on this forum.

[kyle_nagel]

Let me start out by saying that I have owned a Pentax 645NII for about 3 or 4 months now and have had an oppertunity to shoot several rolls of film, I also have one of there newer zooms (33mm-55mm) as well as a 75mm and the 150mm, as has been mentioned by a couple of our Contax fans here we are talking about Professional Medium Format cameras made by leading manufacturers, these are all great cameras but there will always be Pros and Cons, The Contax has mid roll Interchangeable backs(how often do you realy use that feature?), the Pentax is smaller and lighter(are you really going to climb Everest with it?), etc. so here is what it boils down to, are you really willing to spend THREE TO FOUR TIMES as much for bodies and lens', that MIGHT take images that are 3 or 4 percent better?(thats if you blow it up larger than a 8 x 10, and view it with a loop) or would you rather spend all of that extra money on film and maybe even a few photography expiditions(Banff is really great in the Fall)? Not a very hard choice is it? it wasn't for me, and I have been completely Happy with the results from my NII