New Contax 645

[glendon_combs]

Has anyone seen or tested the new Contax 645? I am trying to decide

between the RB67 or the new Contax 645. I mainly do protrait work. I

like the idea of more negatives (16) with the Contax but the camera

and lenses are expensive. I also like the big negative (6x7) that

you get with the RB67.

[steve_singleton1]

Before laying your money down, why not invest a few dollars in renting

both systems? Many big city camera stores have rental departments that

will certainly have RBs for rent and certainly a local pro will have

one and might let you handle it a bit, maybe shoot a roll of film. I

have rented from Calumet in the past and found the prices pretty

reasonable when compared to the cost of a mistaken investment. By the

way, I believe you can get a 645 back for the RZ series Mamiya. Good

luck.

[john_hicks___]

I'd suggest you consider the RZ67 rather than the old RB; many of the lenses are newer designs than RB lenses and you'd have the advantages of electronically-timed shutters etc.

Perhaps the most important question you need to answer is whether or not you intend to handhold the camera very much; if so, give a lot of thought to the size and weight of the RB/RZ.

Also, currently, the Contax doesn't have any leaf-shutter lenses.

[joe_tom_easley1]

I played with a preproduction sample of the Contax 645 recently at Wall Street Camera in New York. A Contax representative was there passing the sample around. Because the stats look very impressive I was expecting to lust after the camera. But I was disappointed. The AF was very, very slow. The Contax guy said that the production cameras would be faster, but I would want to see it to confirm before buying. The Pentax 645N AF is at least twice as fast, if not more. My other disappointment related to the body. It is all plastic, and does not feel substantial. And the prices Contax has set are out of sight: $4000 for a kit with the camera, one 120 back, and a standard lens. Are they trying to get all their development costs back the first year? If I wanted a 645 AF I would go with Pentax, and just live with the non-interchangable back.

[mike_hogan]

There is no one medium Format system! There will always be a compromise

I've worked with most systems...Hasselblad-No Multi Expose....Pentax 67-great ambient light camera, but 1/30th flash sync.....Mamiya RB- great all rounder but to big......Bronica SQ Fine but "Pertoing" there goes another button.....Pentax & Mamiya 645...Have one in your bag & one for repair.....I would desperately love for the new Contax 645 to be the one. However what is the point of AF if its that slow and why have outstanding 35mm gear and not apply the same strengths here.. I'm

going to wait for Mark II & then Chuck both my Nikons & Blad......Oh! Improve the Flash Sync speed, Contax boys.........Heres to still travelling with too much gear.................

[pete_awasthi]

Let there be no doubt - the autofocus of the Contax is light years ahead of the Pentax 645 system. Here is why - the aotufocus motor is located in the Pentax body and uses cheap screwdriver technology for focussing. Ergo slower focussing, hunting and cheaper lenses.

 

The Contax has a micro motor built into each lens - hence it is faster, more accurate and exhibits no inherent hunting. This partly why the lens are costlier.

 

The RB67 handles like a dinosaur compared to the Contax.

 

Hope this helps you make up your mind,

[morthcam]

One of the respondents said that the RB lenses are of an older design than the RZ lenses; this is certainly true for the older "C" and "non-C" lenses, but the new KL lens line for the RB supposedly is the same optical design as the new RZ lenses.

 

It seems to me that Contax 645 vs. RB/RZ comes down to three issues:

 

(1) How much money do you have to spend?

(2) Do you want a camera that you can handhold and use for candid and/or action shots, or will you be happy using a tripod for 95% of your pictures?

(3) Do you need AF?

[morthcam]

...okay, 4 issues: + (4) negative size.

[andy_shaw1]

pete awasthi's post is a little bid misleading

 

The location of the motor has nothing to do with hunting - that is related to the PIN values in the algotithum and the lens used and the design of the cams in the lens) - the values should be tuned for each lens (simple control theory stuff).

 

You should also note that a critically damped system that does not hunt at all can take a near infinite time to focus - whereas a slightly underdamped system can achieve faster focus at the penalty of some hunting.

 

Motors in lenses do have advantages - the motor can be tuned to the lens and with current designs the motor can "sense" manual intervention and disengage allowing manual focusing without having to move a switch. They also have disadvantages - primarily the lenses cost more, and in the case of the contax/Pentax comparison A LOT MORE.

 

You should also note that the "screwdriver" type motor coupling does not prohibit the use of motor in lens systems (see Nikon for many examples).

 

The things you should be looking at are:

 

a) autofocus accuracy (there are many studies of 35mm systems, but I haven't seen one for MF yet)

 

and

 

b) if the autofocus speed is sufficient for your purposes.

[juraj_salak]

Hi,

 

I cannot tell you anything about RB67,

but I had the pleasure of testing the Contax 645

for 2 days.

I found it wonderfull.

The negative notes in previous responses

concerning autofocus speed must

have come from pre-series times,

where the autofocus was reportedly working very slow.

Now it is working almost as good

as autofocus in cheaper CANON4s works (I have pair of them).

It is reasonably quick, silent, and - most important of all

- very sure. Comparing with my friends Pentax MZ-5

its is a bit slower, but more reliable - for me the CONTAX AF

would be the choice over Pentax (And Canon4s surely

still over Contax)

 

The camera is as easy to handle as most of 24x36 SLR4s are.

There are no messy menus4s or double-usage knobs.

Add robust mechanics, very good viewfinder,

fine lenses and large amount of $$$,

and you have the correct picture of the camera.

 

For me maybe the single drawbacks are missing of multi-field

light measurment and AF support light for autofocusing

in darkness.

 

Bye

Juraj

 

P.S. for e-mail responses use please: salak.juraj@eunet.at

[glen_johnson]

Some of the comments about slow autofocus speed have been generated by people who were "dry firing" the camera when they handled it without film in camera stores. If there is no film in the camera, when you press the shutter button, the camera tries to wind the film. After a couple of seconds, it figures out that there is no film, and that someone is just trying to dry fire it. So it then cooperates and autofocuses normally. Normal autofocus is fairly fast, but the sensor is not as sure as the sensors in a 1N are when an L series lens is mounted. If contrast or light are low, autofocus can hunt more than I like, but probably not much more than an A2E with a consumer zoom. On the bright side, you can get around this by using the Manual Focus feature. In manual focus, there is a button on the back of the camera that will activate "one time" autofocus. If you autofocus with this button, like CF4 in the EOS system, then you can easily touch it up if you want by taking advantage of the "full time manual" capability of the usm equipped Zeiss lenses. In practice, the autofocus is pretty good, especially compared to Hasselblad and Rollei medium format Zeiss lens autofocus :-).

[glen_johnson]

I did not mean to imply that anyone in this thread had drawn conclusions by dry firing. I only meant that I have heard this comment made in other conversations by people,and even sales people, who had never actually handled the camera with film in it.

[paul_goodman]

I have been a corporate photographer for 20+ years and recently bought

the Contax 645 package + several lenses.

I have owned several medium format systems over the years and found

none to be perfect. Aside for missing the square format, I have no

complants about the Contax 645. In my opinion, the camera is made far

better than any other 645 on the market today. The optics were the

reason for my purchase and stand on their