glen_johnson

I once posted a comment indicating that some of my friends who had tried 645 had ended up with 35mm and 4x5, just because of this "halfway house" phenomenon. I argued against 645 because it really wasn't as convenient as 35mm, and it really wasn't as good as large format.

 

These arguments still have some merit, but the new Contax 645 offers an excellent compromise, and is a very comfortable halfway house. It handles more smoothly than any of the 35mm offerings that I am aware of (there are no crummy LCD panels, and no impossible to remember custom functions... everything is operated by a button, knob, or switch). But the 645 negative has significantly more useful area, particularly for those of us who do print on the conventional paper sizes, and the slides make a much better presentation on the light table. And with the modern minimal grain films (like NPH 400 and NHG II 800), 645 enlarges beautifully. I can honestly say that, if the Contax 645 had been available in 1996 when I moved into the autofocus world from ancient Pentax and Minolta gear, I probably would have bought it, and never once asked the eternal question "Canon... or Nikon?" I keep telling myself that I want to keep my extensive EOS system because of its flexibility.... but unless I want a long telephoto, a zoom, or a tilt shift lens for a specific project, I tend to grab the Contax just because the larger film format is more comfortable to deal with post exposure - particularly the slides. I never felt this way about 120/220 when I was shooting with TLRs. I loved my 35mm. The Contax lets you think like 35mm, but delivers a much larger piece of film.

 

The biggest drawbacks to the Contax 645 are the lack of a readily available digital back (which I have heard is coming, if its not already here), the lack of long telephotos, and the lack of any zooms. These could be fatal flaws for some users, but many of us can get along OK with 3 primes most of the time anyways.

Of course the whole point is that "all other factors" are NOT equal. These tests do much more harm than good. Second rate manufacturers can, and do, design toward the tests. The tests are published with virtually no explanation of the test conditions. People latch onto the results, and develop a religious fervor in favor of or against one lens or another. Frankly, 99 44/100th % of the folks who read lens test results, in magazines, on the internet, in product literature, etc., are mislead by what they read. Bob, at this point

you must realize that this is true. I know you personally enjoy the resolution testing, and that you have even taken it on yourself to do your own testing. There is nothing wrong with this. But sharing the results as though the results give you some meaningful insight into whether or not one lens or another will be good for the task someone else has in mind is another matter.

 

The most useful test of a lens is the test of time. Was the lens able to capture the intended images in a pleasing way? Did the lens hold up well in the field? Did if function reliably over a reasonable lifetime? if the answers are yes, its a good lens.

 

The short answer to this fellow's original question is: "No, Rollei lenses aren't as bad as you think Pop Photo said." If you think differently, look at the grand collective Rollei portfolio. Mamiya offers very capable lenses as well. I don't know about Kiev. Even if they produce good images at the beginning of their lives, there is something disconcerting about a company who has to run classified ads in the back of Shutterbug asking the question: "Did you lose at Russian roulette? If you did, send your Kiev back to the official importer, and we'll upgrade it for you so that it will function correctly."

One of the neat things about the Contax, that I haven't seen duplicated in any other medium format cameras, is the availability of a vacuum insert for the standard 120/220 back. The vacuum insert takes 220 only (the paper backing on 120 precludes the use of a vacuum to suck the film to the pressure plate). My experience with the vacuum insert is that it makes a difference at the widest apertures, where the depth of the focus field at the film plane is the shallowest. Slides taken with the normal 120/220 insert and the lens wide open are excellent, but slides taken with the vacuum insert and the lens wide open are exceptionally good.

 

Obviously the most important factors in the quality of a slide are the composition, lighting, and timing of the shot. But if all these things are equal, then the vacuum insert gives an additional level of "pop." It follows the classical quality argument, i.e., it provides an unexpected delight, pleasure, or surprise for the customer.

 

I've had my Contax 645 for three months now. I probably won't give up 35mm because of the flexibility (fast lenses, tilt shift lenses, IS lenses, etc. etc. etc.), but I am using the 645 for more and more assignments where I would have historically gone with 35mm.

 

One other thought on the Contax 645. The mirror torque seems miniscule, even compared to a 1N or N90s. This is a very handholdable camera. It does have a real mirror lock up (at least an electronic lock up that will hold it up for about 20 seconds), and this might be desirable with macro or long telephoto.... but for general shooting, this mirror is about as nice as it gets.

Just a quick observation - the Contax 80 f/2.0 doesn't look to me to have particularly impressive mtf performance (at least not according to the mtf curves packed with the lens), but the slides and negatives are just gorgeous. They sparkle. Above f/4 the slides and negatives are subjectively more uniform from edge to edge than anything I've seen from any other lens. At f/2, the lens has excellent punch, and the bokeh is exceptional. It is perfect for candid portraits, and grab shots at evens with modest light.

 

I appreciate Chris's hard work to do the comparison between the Contax and the Hasselblad mtf curves, but the best way to see that both Contax and Hasselblad can produce outstanding images is to shoot some film. I don't think that either will disappoint.

 

One other point.... a lot of folks have commented on the build quality of the Contax, and on the high price of the Contax lenses and accessories. It is probably worth noting that, if you were to put together a Hasselblad with AE capability, spot meter, motor drive, 90 degree prism, 120 and 220 backs (the Contax normal back will accomodate both 120 and 220), you would end up shelling out twice as much for the Hasselblad and you still wouldn't have autofocus. I don't mean this as a knock against Hasselblad. I just mean to point out that the Contax offers an excellent value at its price point. Obviously you can buy a Hasselblad for less than the Contax, but you can't buy a comparably equipped Hasselblad for anywhere near the cost of the Contax.

When B&H asks this kind of price, it makes the others bolder too. At Midwest Photo Exchange when they are trying to set a price on both new and used stuff, they look at the B&H Shutterbug ad. B&H effectively sets the opening expectation at MPX.

 

FWIW, some of the most beautiful 35mm enlargements that I've ever seen have come from these Leica autofocus enlargers. If I were in the market for one, and I came up on one as you have done, I would probably offer $50 to $100, and see where it went from there.

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.

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 :-).

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.

I think the real flaw in this approach is that macro lenses are typically optimized for their close focusing ability, and tend to sacrifice some sharpness at infinity. Nevertheless, I've seen some beautiful photos taken in the far field with macro lenses, and I used a Minolta macro lens as my normal lens on my SR-T 201 for many years after my other lenses were stolen when I was a student.

 

I guess the other concern would be the cost of the macro lenses. They are typically offered at a premium compared to the regular lenses of the same focal length. Do you really need more than one macro lens, when the regular lenses will do the job in the far field and the macro lens is only actually a plus for close focusing?

The lupe will tell you what's not sharp, but you're already aware of your sharpness problem. If you are on a tight budget, and you spend $200 on a lupe to learn what you already know, it will be a while before you can afford the cure.

 

Sadly, the cure for soft slides is expensive. You will need to discipline yourself to use a tripod, to stay away from the teleconverter, and, more than likely, to dump the 4x zoom, or at least stop it down to f/8 or f/11.

 

The nature photography market is very competitive. If you truly love nature photography, do it for this love. If instead you are trying to figure out how to earn a living via stock photography, pick up a copy of Ron Engh's book, and find a new subject area for specialization.

Regarding Brucellosis, I don't think the concern is that it will be transmitted to milk. The problem is that Brucellosis is also called "spontaneous abortion," and cows infected with it (whether they be cattle or buffalo) cannot carry their calves to full term. Once a cow is no longer able to carry a calf to full term, she can no longer either produce beef or milk, and generally she will end up being destroyed. The idea that brucellosis may be selective, and can't be transmitted to cows from buffalo seems kind of wierd. Cattle and buffalo can interbreed (beefalo, a real product of US College agriculture programs), and the method of transmission used to be believed to be from grazing in a contaminated pasture. Neither cattle nor buffalo are noted for their special attention to hygenic grazing.

 

Farmers have had problems with brucellosis for a long time. It isn't a new disease, but it is a potentially costly one.

Extension tubes are a cheap route to greater than 1x magnification. There is also a reversing ring for EOS (I think it is marketted by Novaflex - Calumet sells them). A third option would be the old FD series gear. You can get the EOS-FD macro adapter, the FD bellows, and the 20mm or 35mm special bellows mount macro lenses. All are available from B&H. You can go to very large magnifications with this set up. If you want to read about EOS macro photography with the various types of equipment marketted by Canon for the EOS system, you might want to purchase the EOS Macro Book, also available from B&H and other suppliers (typically for less than $20).

This lens is turning out to be an excellent choice for photographers in sports where 100 might be good if you can get close enough, but 400 might be necessary sometimes - horse racing for example. These guys were often using the 70-200 f/2.8L with a 1.4x or 2x converter. The new lens is definitely sharper than the old zoom and tc combo, and the IS mode is a plus too. This lens will log a lot of time at the track this season.

 

<p>

 

It doesn't seem all that hard to find, and $1700 isn't much in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to the cost of the hotel, transportation, food, etc. associated with a trip to shoot at a major event.

Most of these positive comments about the Velbon have already appeared in other threads. There were also a few negative comments. Personally, I've had one for a good while. If you want both forward AND side to side motion, there aren't a lot of choices, and the Velbon seems to offer good value for its modest price.

I guess I'm surprised that the results with the 1.4 were OK, but with the 2 weren't.

 

<p>

 

I would guess either of two answers.

 

<p>

 

1. Your 2x TC and camera combo weren't working right. Is this the Canon EOS 2x? If yes, then you also had an extension tube in there. Maybe the contacts were dirty on something.

 

<p>

 

2. Are you sure the 1.4x results were good? Were the negatives thin? Were you close to the toe of the characteristic curve for the film? f/16 is pretty small. Its common for macro work, but it is still small. The ML3 has a very low guide number. It can't put out much light. Compared to the 540EZ, the ML3's output power is sort of like a match compared to a bon fire. If the negatives were thin with the 1.4x, my guess is that you just snuffed them out entirely with the 2x. Try again, with a tripod. Use Av instead of 1/60th and f/16. Set f/8 or f/5.6. Be prepared for a long shutter speed because ambient light may make up a significant fraction of your exposure.

Bob, you mention the Cd'I tests. And you know that I strongly believe that tests are silly when used to judge the general utility of any lens. However, didn't PP test the IS lens, and didn't they come up with pretty decent results? I only mention this, because you imply that tests give one conclusion and users give another, and I don't think this is strictly true. The other issue, of course, is the one we've thrashed through a thousand times, and that is that the tests aren't even a valid measure of the limited descriptors that they perport to enlighten us on, since the sample size is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

Yes, the confirmation light will light when the camera thinks its focused. But when you do use tilt, you are trying to achieve focus on a specific oblique plane. If you come at the focus from the far field, the confirmation light may go on at one point, and if you come at focus from the near field, it may go on at a different point. It just depends on the convergence criteria for the focus light turn on algorithm. After you tilt, you want to carefully check focus to confirm or fine tune.

 

<p>

 

The nice thing about the 1N is that the finder has a built in, continuously adjustable diopter correction, and it is also quite bright. Once I had the 1N, I never wished for a split image micro prism anymore, and I had wished for one with the A2E. Philip mentions that the wide angles are hard to focus with his 5 too, but he doesn't carry it any further and seems to assume that this is a characteristic of the system, rather than of his particular body model.

Bob: I got the impression that it was during system building that Rod made the decision to switch. Many nature shooters start out with what they can afford. For most people this means NOT having a 500 f/4, or 600 f/4 or whatever at the start. These lenses are very expensive. Look at all the questions we get from aspiring nature photographers who want to know if its OK to get the 400mm Sigma, for example. I think it was Don Baccus who once noted that long glass is necessary, and that its better to have a Sigma than nothing. And that it would be better to have manual focus long glass than no long glass. If it wasn't Don, I apologize. If someone started with the EOS system, and then worked up to the point where they realized that they really needed a long lens, but just couldn't justify spending what it would take to buy a new EOS big gun, it could be incentive enough to get them to dump the EOS system in favor of manual focus Nikkors. Particularly for guys who are going to set up in a blind with a tripod and sit and wait on animals day in and day out. In this kind of shooting, if your eyes are good, autofocus may not be terribly useful. Of all the guys who used to post pictures here, the only one who ever made me want to hang his work on my wall was Dan Smith, and, if I remember it right, Dan's work has largely been prepared without autofocus. Another thought on this. Dan has often said that the Tilt Shift lenses were an incentive to be in the EOS system, but he was able to get his little spider on the race track photo with a 20mm Nikkor, and it had incredibly ground plane depth of field, so it is possible to get good depth of field by other methods that have been historically available to 35mm photographers.

 

<p>

 

As for the 24mm TS-E, I have owned this lens for two years. When I bought it, I was told by others that shift would be very useful, but tilt wouldn't be. Nikon, and others, who don't include tilt, were cited as examples of proof that tilt wasn't necessary. As I have used this lens, I have found exactly the opposite to be true. I can nearly always figure out a cheat for shift - move the camera, mount the 17-35L and back off to a lower focal length, etc. The only cheat for tilt is a small f/stop, and then you don't get the selectivity of plane of focus. I think tilt is more valuable than shift, for both nature and product photography. Shift is useful, but tilt is more unique.

 

<p>

 

Is tilt shift a reason to be in the EOS system? I dunno. Maybe it is. If Nikon is adding TS capability, then maybe they think so too. Certainly these lenses are built beautifully. They are the only modern lenses that I personally consider to have an adequate depth of field scale. A lot of people might like them for that reason alone. My last comment on this is that TS lenses are heavy (goes with the build quality), and once you've become addicted to autofocus, or once your eyes start to go, the manual focus can be a hassle. I found focusing to be a hassle with my EOS A2E, but not with my 1N's.

Sorry guys, but a few years ago you could buy manual focus big Nikon lenses for less than what you could buy Canon's big usm lenses. Even Philip mentioned this in some of his earliest Nikon vs. Canon spiels.

 

<p>

 

Everybody starts with some budget. If you can't get what you want within this budget, you have to decide to want something else. I'm not here to debate Rod's logic. The decision to bail from Canon made perfect sense to him when he did it, with the exception of the Tilt Shift lenses, which he kept. Who knows. Maybe he will follow Art Wolfe, and others, who have decided to switch over to EOS. I don't know or care. I doubt that Rod cares. This whole line of discussion is silly.

 

<p>

 

Now there isn't much price or performance difference between the high end big Nikkors and the Canon L series, and in fact, the Nikkors are often priced even higher than the L's. So it wouldn't make sense today, unless someone wanted to go with the old manual focus Nikkors, and used gear. If this were the case, you could build a fairly decent system out of F4's, F3's, FM's, etc, and used manual focus Nikkors.

 

<p>

 

Rod commented that he, and John Shaw, were both thinking about bailing on the F4's, rather than just having F4's as backups, just because of the fact that the F5 felt more like a Canon, and it was hard to go back and forth between an F4 and and F5.

 

<p>

 

Who cares. How useful is Tilt and Shift? It depends on what you want to do. Anyone who is at the level where they are asking this question isn't ready to exploit tilt or shift anyway.

 

<p>

 

Doesn't this sort of discussion make you absolutely HATE camera gear?

Well, I know that you're right about the move in this direction. Rod Planck also keeps an EOS body for the tilt shift lenses, and this is after he sold all his other Canon gear to move to Nikon because of the cost differential between the big glass in the two systems (pre Silent Wave lens days).

 

<p>

 

You can do some neat things with the Tilt Shift lenses. Tilt shift and Image Stabilization are both really neat features of the EOS system, and they really have no competition in either area right now.

 

<p>

 

If someone is "hell-bent" on using tilt or shift in 35mm, it would be worth picking up the tilt shift series and a body. If I were doing this, I think I would go on and spring for a 1N body, just because of the 100% finder and the lack of pop up flash to get in the way of the controls. The whole system will set you back about $4700 at current prices - not too much more than you would have to spend for a 300 f/2.8L usm all by itself.

1. I really think you are pushing the limits when you stick a 2x Tele-extender on any 300mm lens.

 

<p>

 

2. IS is good, but it ain't THAT good. My experience suggests that, at least for my hand holding style, it poops out above 300mm. On a monopod I can still get decent sharpness with 300 and 1.4x, but if I am bold enough (spelled foolish enough) to mount the 2x tele-extender, then I have to really pick my shots. Focusing is very difficult because of the speed of the helix and the complete lack of depth of field. Edges are super soft. Centers are nice for soft portraits, but no one would call them sharp.

 

<p>

 

If you want to use the 300 f/4L IS and 2x Tele-extender, you really ought to still use a tripod. If you want to have autofocus, just pick up an EOS 3. That's a lot cheaper than a 300 f/2.8. If you want sharp, good 600mm shots, you really need to be thinking about getting a 600 f/4L.

Paul, it isn't a question of whether or not tilt shift lenses are

feasible for Nikon. Obviously they are. If they weren't, no one

would bother to even make an adapter for the old FD Tilt Shift lens.

 

<p>

 

My question is, how significant will the movements be? The range of

movement that you can get on an EOS mount before light fall off

becomes a problem is limited. The F mount will be even more limiting

in this regard.

 

<p>

 

I still think that the best way to get movements is to forget 35mm,

and just go straight to a 4x5 monorail.

 

<p>

 

When you get right down to the initial question, i.e., "How useful is

Tilt and shift?" sic, the answer is this. Most 35mm nature images

are NOT made with either tilt or shift. The images sell fine, and

people readily buy photo compilations that are made without such

movements. On the other hand, most large format nature images

probably involve tilt, and might involve shift as well, either to

control the plane of sharp focus, or to minimize reflections, or to

handle a particularly tall subject, etc. etc. etc. History has shown

that, if you give the photographer movement capability, he or she

will eventually use them, regardless of the format. If you give a

photographer a box without movement capability, he or she will

eventually figure out how to coax good images out of that.

 

<p>

 

I don't think the existence of the tilt and shift lens series is

critical for a 35mm system. Nikon hasn't historically thought it

critical either. Canon has developed this capability, largely

because they have historically been second dog in the fight, and they

have to prove their worth by "trying harder."

 

<p>

 

So what.

Well, the idea of tilt shift lenses being available directly from Nikon will certainly be good news for the folks who now limp along with an old FD 35mm TS and an adapter.

 

<p>

 

I wonder how they are going to work the image circle problem. It could be an unsubstantiated rumor, I suppose, but one of the reasons give for Canon's ability to design and use a complete Tilt Shift system of lenses is the enormous diameter of the EOS lens mount. Will the new Nikon lenses be TS in name only, or will they also be significantly functional.

Maybe this is why a 20mm lens is so popular for 35mm format

landscapes. Depth of field can be very high, even with apertures as

wide as f/5.6. If you further agree to make the compromise to use a

faster print film, instead of slide film, you can probably get the

shutter speed up high enough (typically 1/250th) to get rid of the

wind motion.

 

<p>

 

Fuji's NPH 400 and NHG II 800 both offer excellent grain performance,

which is typically a big issue for landscape photographers. There

are many good b&w emulsions available too. Of course, if you've got

your heart set on Velvia, then you're going to end up disappointed. I

think you just have to skip these shots, or pretend that you like the

blurring. If you want to experiment with the blurring, you might

check out the workshop review on Maria Zorn's techniques to create

"artsy" images by using the wind as a creative tool.

The window issue that Sean mentions can be real on any line. I've even seen it in some parts of europe. When I've ridden the CalTrain line from San Francisco to Palo Alto, I've noticed that the windows were often significantly below "average."

 

<p>

 

My experience watching folks with cameras on their first train ride is that they can burn a lot of film, but they don't get many keepers. Enjoy the ride, and don't worry too much about the photos on the train. Get shots when the train is stopped. If you do have an open observation car option, you won't have to fight with bad windows, but you will still have to deal with composition issues, and most people have trouble when everything is standing still - it doesn't get easier when everything appears to be moving.

 

<p>

 

High shutter speed, longer lenses that will allow you to fill the frame with something, and fast film, will all increase your odds of success. As someone suggested above, don't forget the interior and exterior shots of the train, passengers, and crew.