First Impressions: Mamiya 645 AF vs Contax 645

[tom_thurston]

This is not really a question, but rather a discussion topic that has been focus of some speculation. I feel that it merits discussion based on actual experience, rather than the speculation I've seen previously.

<p>

I've spent an hour or two with each of these cameras at a local dealer and was

able to shoot a roll of film with each camera. I'm still a bit unsettled about

my impressions, but I'll try to summarize them here.

<p>

Both cameras felt quite solid, more so than my current 645 Pro.

<p>

Both cameras felt comfortable to hold and use. The controls on the Mamiya were

somewhat easier for me to use, since they operate more like those on my Canon

35mm camera.

<p>

The Mamiya autofocus seemed to be a bit better -- less likely to hunt. The

Mamiya does auto focus with slightly more noise, but no more so than my non-USM

Canon lenses.

<p>

The Mamiya uses a motor in the body to to drive the lens focus (with a

corresponding mechanical coupling), while the Contax has drive motors in the

lenses. I worry a bit about this mechanical coupling in an otherwise fully

electronic system. The reason I worry is that my Canon (electronic) system has

been more reliable than my Mamiya 645 Pro -- where the mechanical couplings

between the body and back have given me problems.

<p>

For some reason, I had an easier time with the viewfinder information in the

Mamiya; it was easier to see. I think the numbers are slightly larger, and

perhaps brighter. The pseudo bargraph to show exposure level in the Contax

seemed to be harder to use than the corresponding bargraph in my Canon, or than

the digital exposure level reading in the Mamiya.

<p>

I liked the optional thumb button to activate auto focus on the Contax. There

is nothing like it on the Mamiya body. However, the long Mamiya lenses (210

and 300) allow you to slide the focus ring on the lens out (away from the body)

to disable auto focus and allow manual focus. It was quite nice to use. This

feature is not available on the shorter lenses.

<p>

It's nice that the Mamiya shutter opens automatically when you remove the back

-- less risk of damage to the shutter when the back is off. The Contax does

not do this.

<p>

I quite liked the Program AE mode on the Mamiya -- and the way you can shft it

to bias towards high or lower shutter speeds. I probably use P mode on my

Canon more than Tv or Av (although not as much as M), so I'm sure I'd use it on

the 645. It's not available on the Contax.

<p>

In M mode on the Mamiya it displays the difference from the metered value in

1/3 stops (+/- 0.3, 0.7, 1.0, etc), but the aperature and shutter speed

controls operate in 1/2 stops. This is strange. In the high end Canon bodies,

you can select 1/3 or 1/2 stops for your metering and contols, but they stay

consistent. On the Contax, the metering and aperature use 1/2 stops, and the

shutter uses full stops.

<p>

The Contax uses a mechanical film counter in the back (and mechanical film

speed dial). The Mamiya uses an electronic system, so it requires a small

battery in the back. The Mamiya rep told that the life of the batter is

supposed to be about 3 years. The LCD on the back is supposed to start

flashing when the batter is weak.

<p>

I think the on-film data recording system of the Mamiya is somewhat nicer, with

the option of using date and index number. However, the Contax does allow

recording the lens type, but the Mamiya does not.

<p>

[tom_thurston]

I'm mostly a nature and wildlife photographer, so I don't feel qualified to

comment on the relative merits of the flash systems. Neither one seems as good

as the E-TTL system on my Canon.

 

I tried using one of the lenses from the 645 Pro on the Mamiya 645 AF and found

that it was not easy at all to work with. The aperature stop-down button on

the 645 AF body did not stop down the Pro lens. You had to use the manual aperature

lever on the lens itself, which I found much more difficult to do. My feeling

was that it would be quite a chore to try and use the old lenses with the 645

AF body. I wouldn't care to try.

 

I was only able to try the 80mm lens on the Contax. It was nice and bright at

f/2, but extremely shallow depth of field at that aperature. I noticed some

vignetting and edge softness when I used it wide open.

 

On the Mamiya, I tried the 45 f/2.8, the 55 f/2.8, the 80 f/2.8 and the 210

f/4. They all seemed well balanced. I appreciate the fact that the

Mamiya lenses are generally considerably lighter than their Contax

counterparts. As an exteme example the Mamiya 210 f/4 is about 400 g lighter

than the Contax 210 f/4. The Contax 210 is nearly the weight of the Mamiya 300

f/4.5.

 

The Mamiya lens lineup currently has no offering between 80 and 210, while the

Contax has both a 120 macro and 140. Mamiya has announced that they are

working on AF 35 f/3.5, AF 150 f/2.8 IF, AF 55-110 f/4.5, AF 105-210 f/4.5, and

MF Macro 120 f/4. The 150 is supposed to be available in the spring of 2000.

 

I suspect that the reason the 150 is not available currently is that Mamiya

planned to make an AF version of the current manual focus 150 f/2.8. However

the current lens is not internal focus, and I imagine that the found that the

drive motor in the body didn't have the power to move all that heavy glass, so

they needed to go back and design a new IF version. My speculation on this

point is based on my comparison of the original brochure which lists a 150 2.8

(not IF, although both the 210 and 300 are IF), and the new, bigger brochure,

which no longer lists the non IF 150, but lists an IF 150 as under development.

 

 

Both the Contax and Mamiya lenses seemed quite sharp in the non controlled

situations under which I was able to use them. One thing I partularly liked

about the new Mamiya long lenses is that they have much better close focus

distances than the corresponding non AF lenses for the 645 Pro. The AF 210

will focus at 2m, versus the old lens at 2.5m. The AF 300 f/4.5 will focus

at 3m verus 4m of the old 300 f/5.6.

 

The close focus distance of the Contax and Mamiya lenses are mostly about the

same, and quite good. The exception is the Contax 210, which my brochure

reports will focus at an amazing 1.4m. I wonder if this is really true. If

so, it may explain why this Contax lens is so much heavier than its Mamiya

counterpart.

 

All the Contax lenses (except the 35) use the same 72mm filter size. Canon

uses 3 different sizes (58, 67, and 77) for the limited selection of 5 lenses

currently shipping. This is a nice touch on the part of Contax.

 

The Mamiya lenses all come with a hood -- either built-in on the long lenses,

or as a bayonet attachment for the normal and wide lenes. The hood for the

Contax lenses is an expensive additional purchase.

 

The price of the basic kit for both cameras is comparable. The corresponding

additional lenses are quite a bit less expensive for the Mamiya.

 

So what's the result of my experience with both of these cameras? Well, I came

away feeling like I would prefer the Mamiya system, although I would miss a few

things from the Contax. However, I also came away feeling that neither of

these AF systems was so great that I needed to replace my current 645 Pro

system. I'll check back again when the additional lenses are available for the

Mamiya.

[ShunCheung]

I played around with both systems at the Photo + Expo in New York in late October, 1999. Keep in mind that it was merely a few minutes for each system. The Contax lenses are heavier because they use a lot more metal parts. The Mamiya AF lenses have plastic barrels. As far as AF speed goes, both systems are OK but neither one is as fast as a modern 35mm AF system. The Contax focuses a bit faster while the Mamiya reminds me the AF speed of my Nikon N8008 (F801) from 10 years ago. It is noisy and slow but certainly useable.

[michael_abraham]

The website camerareview.com has ten reviews on the Contax 645, many of which point out that the Contax 645 autofocus is faster than the Mamiya AF 645 as well as the obvious advantages of better integration of autofocus, ziess optics, and other superior features. These reviews, many of which are by professional photographers, come to different conclusions than Tom's conclusions. Since Tom wanted to start a discussion, you may want to read these reviews as part of the discussion.

[andrew l. booth]

Michael is just plain wrong in his above posting.

<p>

On the cameraview site there are currently no reviews of the Mamiya645AF, and on the Contax review page, there are no comparisons with the Mamiya (there is one comparison with the motor wind speed of the Mamiya 645TL winder - but this isn't what we're talking about). This seems to be a case of over-zelous Contax fandom...

<p>

This doesn't detract from the strengths of the Contax of course - which appears to be a superb camera. I haven't tried it, but I have tried the Mamiya (had a play with it at a recent UK camera show). I was suprised that Mamiya had gone for AF motors in the body, however with the standard lens this provided quick, accurate and reasonably quiet focussing. The body seemed solid and well made.

<p>

I found the handling of the Mamiys a little odd - the grip is placed at the front of the mirror box (which is different to the Pentax and the accessory grips for Mamiya and Bronica's that I've used before which are placed further back). I also didn't like the focus ring of the standard 80mm lens - it's too narrow and too flat - manual focus doesn't have a great feel (kind of like the early Nikon AF lenses).

<p>

On the subject of autofocus, I read some interesting comments in the UK 'Amateur Photographer' magazine (which I quote verbatim):

<p>

<i>

'The other area I expected trouble was the camera's AF setup. Mamiya was unable (or unwilling) to tell me if the camera uses a proprietary AF system or one that's been bought in. Whichever is the case, it works damn well. I did have some AF hunting problems on very brightly backlit scenes and in continuous AF mode the AF would contine to drive the lens after an exposure was taken - even though I had not pressed the shutter release again.

<p>

However, shooting birds in flight in continuous AF mode, the final images were crystal clear. Using the continuous AF felt as though the lens was moving for a long time, making it seem slow. The only other AF setup I can think of that works in a similar manner is Minolta's latest AF system (perhaps this hints at the Mamiya's AF origins). It feels like the camera is working hard to keep up, but in reality it is just making more frequesnt corrections so the final 'snap' into focus, as the image is recorded, is actually much quicker - well that's the theory. And it did work very well in this test. [Doug Harman]'</i>

[ShunCheung]

At least for people who are planning to buy the Mamiya in the US, just like other Mamiya cameras, Mamiya USA is setting the 645 AF's prices quite a bit higher than the equivalent prices in Asia and the UK, making it not as attractive.

[jim_chow]

There's a comparison in a recent Asahi Camera magazine among the Contax 645, Pentax 645n, and Mamiya 645AF. The article contains side-by-side images taken w/ the same film/exposure/subject w/ a variety of equivalent focal length AF lenses representing each system. The bottom line is that the Pentax and Contax were close in image quality...different color, but sharpness is comparable. The Mamiya 645AF lenses were clearly inferior. This is the only article I've seen that contains side-by-side image comparisons between these three systems. Most articles are useless and just discuss features/specs. In fact, this is the second or third test involving the Pentax 645N and Contax 645 this year in Asahi Camera. Another test from a spring issue tested specifically portrait lenses from each system.

[michael_abraham]

In an earlier post, I suggested that individuals may want to read the reviews of the Contax 645 on another web site to add to the discussion started here. Unfortunately, I suggested individuals look at the camerareview.com site when the reviews I was referring to were on the photographyreview.com site. As mentioned in my earlier post, many of the reviews come to different conclusions, including the fact that the Contax 645 is faster than the Mamiya AF 645.

<p>

<i>[Editors note - <a href="http://photographyreview.com/reviews/mediumformat_cameras/mediumformat_cameras-4472.asp">Contax reviews may be found here</a>]</i>

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

With all due respect to Mr Michael Abraham who seemed well-intentioned, I must urge readers to take the reviews that appear on photographyreview.com (which are cribbed from camerareview.com) with a huge dose of salt. Please regard them with caution as the credentials and methods of many of its 'reviewers' are highly suspect.

[glen_johnson]

Before the Mamiya came out, I really thought the Mamiya would be a strong competitor because of the expected backwards compatibility of finders, backs, lenses, etc. At it turns out, since they seem to have swept the slate clean and started fresh, I don't see them as having any inherent competitive advantage. Their new system isn't that much cheaper than the Contax. They do have some nice lenses that aren't available in the Contax system, but additional lenses are coming for the Contax. As it looks to me at this point, there are three legitimate 645 autofocus options on the table. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Each will appeal to a different group. My guess is that, once again - just like in 35mm-, most of the people who make a buying choice will end up happy with their decision, and some people who make a buying choice will end up with buyers' remorse, and will second guess themselves over and over and over again.

 

For myself, I thought that when the Mamiya eventually came out, that it might be clear that it would be the winner. Now that its out, I don't see it as "the winner" at all. I'm happy with the Contax. If I were buying again today, with the Mamiya available, I would still buy the Contax.

[alexander_cheng]

With reference to Jim's comments on Asahi Camera magazine articles - would any kind soul like to share with us more about the contents of the articles? The comparison of the portrait lenses and the 3 systems / lenses all sound very interesting and informative. Thanks a lot in advance!

[henning_wulff]

Sorry for the late response... I've been away from the list for a while.

 

The German magazine 'Color Foto' recently had a test of the Mamiya 645AF, and the Contax and Pentax systems were often referenced. On the whole they liked the Mamiya better than the Contax, which in turn got a better mark than the Pentax. This is a little surprising since the tendency for this magazine is to rate all Contax stuff very high, second only to Leica. I know these are good brands (and I have lots of Leica stuff) but their allegiance seems a bit excessive at times. Anyways, they said that the autofocus speed was slightly better than that of the Contax. Which lenses they used for this test was not mentioned. They noted especially the high focus accuracy, and the excellent tracking. Additionally, they liked the exposure memory feature, which allowed comparisons of a past exposure value with the present one, the half stop adjustment of aperture and shutter speed, the automatic advance to the first frame, the traditional Mamiya center weight/average metering, imprinting between frames and general handling. They didn't like the fact that the finder is no longer interchangeable, but accepted that this camera system is designed for good handling and handholding, so that the fixed prism was acceptable. In any case, this is the only one of the three that got their top rating (five stars).

 

I have a Mamiya 645 system right now, but since my subjects are generally sedendary (architecture and construction) AF is not that important to me. The inconvenience of using older lenses on this camera will probably prevent me from upgrading at present.

 

Henning

 

http://www.archiphoto.com

[ShunCheung]

To add to Glen's point, I would like to specifically point out that the Mamiya 645 AF isn't completely compatible with the older Mamiya 645 cameras. The lens mount remains the same so that you can mount an older non-AF lens on the AF body, but obviously you won't have AF. The AF film backs are not compatible with the previous Mamiya 645 film backs at all. So if you are an existing Mamiya 645 owner and want to get a new AF body, you'll need new film backs. The AF viewfinder prisem isn't interchangable, so there are no compatibility issues there.