Contax

[zincman]

Do any AK memebers follow the Contax board? If you did not know Contax is shutting down. Oh my what do I do with my old junky TVS and T2.

[one1speed]

What's this? Contax is shutting down? What a drag, I like their camera's. I had a T2 and T3, great cameras, the T3 had even sharper optics that the T2.

So what are you going to do with your "junky" old camera's??

[zincman]

Well someone has to hang on to the JUNK. Actually service will never be a problem, but don't expect to see anything like the great classic Contax cameras. I am an owner of T2, TVS, G1,G2, all of which have superb performance and value.

[Photobitstream]

If Contax is shutting down can Leica be far behind?

As much as I hate to see Contax became a part of history, the market reality is that well-off hobbyist photographers are going digital, and Contax blew it big time with the Contax N, their try at a digital SLR. How many do you suppose they actually sold? I've never seen one.

Even medium format, the previous playground of rich hobbyists, has fallen out of fashion in favor of high-end digital SLRs from Canon and Nikon. Have you priced used medium format gear lately? You can buy an excellent Hasselblad 500C/M kit with one lens and two backs for a bit more than $1,000. I know because that's all I could get for mine a few years ago when I sold it to buy a Canon EOS D60. I hated to sell the Hasselblad, but people pay me for the photos I take with my Canon gear.

Which comes back to why Contax is going out of business. They've never been a player in the professional market, and they released an overpriced under-performing digital SLR. Leica hasn't been much of a player in the pro market since the 1950s, and they had better release a killer digital camera soon or they'll become nothing more than expensive rebadged Panasonic digital point and shoots.

It is sad to see these historic and fine brands head to the graveyard, but the reality is they cannot compete in a fast-changing market.

[zincman]

It makes you wonder. I think the semi pro ,serious amatuer will find themselves out of luck before too long. I have owned many superb Leicas as well and would hate to see them shutdown. But alas ___________progress___________digital

[one1speed]

I'm a Leica man myself. Well, a struggling one anyway. I picked up the Panasonic DMC-LC1 (Digilux 2) and it is pretty amazing. But, with the way the market is going, it's a good think Leica does more than just camera's.

Anyway, been thinking of selling off the LC1 for a DSLR, as I want something a bit quicker with better manual focus. I've done some research and found that there are converters to use the Leica R lenses on the EOS bodies. I'm pretty excited about this and think I'm going to head down that path. The Leica R-Modul is pretty amazing, I'm sure, but too pricey for this guy.

The only drawback I see is that I can handhold the LC1 at pretty slow speeds with good results, (and the bounce flash is wonderful). The mirror slap on a DSLR will most likely make slower speeds a more of a challenge, more like a regular SLR. But, I think the advantages will be in the favor of the DSLR in the long run.

Now, if Leica does come out with the M-series digital eventually...

[Photobitstream]

Most semi-pro serious amateurs are going digital, which is why Bronica is history, Contax is going and Leica is in trouble. Most of the pro photographers I know have already gone digital. I know I could not have made a living the past four years if I had to pay for film. When I'm shooting 100,000+ photos per year digital is the only way to make a profit.

And, for the vast majority of my work, digital is superior to film. I can make killer 20x30 prints off a 6MP digital file. You cannot do that with 35mm film. But when I want to slow down and shoot landscapes I miss the Hasselblad system. Composing photos through a big viewfinder, especially low angle shots, was much easier and enjoyable with the Hassie. I hate crawling on my belly to look through an itty bitty viewfinder.

I wouldn't worry about your Leicas. Even if the company goes away the cameras will still be in use 50 years from now. Look at all the M3s still out there being used.

[Photobitstream]

I've done some research and found that there are converters to use the Leica R lenses on the EOS bodies.

Why would you want to do that? The Leica R lenses are excellent, but the Canon L lenses are every bit as good and cost less to boot, plus you retain autofocus and the full metering capabilities of the camera body. And Canon makes L lenses you cannot get from Leica at any price.

Do you really think the Leica 21-35/3.5 Vario Elmarit is worth $2,000 more than a Canon 17-40/4L? See this: http://www.caliach.com/paulr/articles/html/leica/html/compare.html

I have experience printing many other photographers' film, and from that experience I can guarantee you cannot tell what lens a photographer used by looking at a print, as long as you're comparing high-end lenses from various camera manufacturers, not 28-300 zooms. Those I can spot on 5x7 prints. Canon, Contax, Minolta, Leica, Nikon, Pentax... doesn't matter.

Don't waste your money putting Leica lenses on Canon bodies. If you want to use Leica lenses use Leica cameras.

[one1speed]

I agree that all the major manufacturers make good lenses, no doubt. Why would I put Leica on a Canon? First, it allows me to get a camera that may be out of my reach if I also had to buy lenses. This way, I can buy lenses as I can afford them. Secondly, I've grown quite accustomed to the way the Leica lenses capture color and contrast, in addition to their sharpness.

For instance, my mom has a Canon G6 and loves it. I send her picts from time to time. She's really into the whole digital thing and runs her picts through a couple steps in photoshop before she prints or sends them. She's run mine through the same process and she said there's basically no change ever made to the images.

I realize this isn't apples to apples, but I believe that different companies lenses are made to reproduce things differently. The lens on the Panasonic is Leica and reproduces color a certain way, that aspect of the camera I like.

Bottom line is that I'll probably give this a shot and see how it goes. Others on pro shooters forums have tried this with great success. They say the better the body, the better the results with this direction.

[Photobitstream]

I didn't realize you already owned the lenses. That changes everything.

Go have fun. That's what it's all about.

One thing to consider, though. If you can get a good price for your Leica R lenses you can probably replace them with Canon lenses and have money left over for a better Canon body. Don't rush out and do so on my suggestion, but it is something to keep in mind. The 17-40/4L is only $700, and is a superb lens, especially for the EOS 20D. If you get an EOS 1D you won't need anything that wide, and the 1D MK II is an excellent camera. the EOS 1Ds MK II is my dream camera.

[VinylHanger]

Of course you could get a Hassie digital back for an affordable 16-19,000 dollars, then you have the best of both worlds. :D That would be my dream system...... though I don't think they make enough pipe for that dream.
On a serious note, I just aquired a Mamiya 645 from an AK member, but haven't had a chance to give it a fieldtest yet. I am having digital withdrawal. With digital you can basically shoot all day for free, not so free with film. But the Mamiya was my dream since I was kid in Jr. High, so I will be using it. Now if they would only come out with a 300 dollar 8 mpxl back, I would be in heaven. :yes:

[one1speed]

Nice! You should post some picts once you do some shooting. Medium format is really nice, no question. You can't touch the resolution or depth of color and detail with digital. I like digital for most of my current needs, but film is still king.

[zincman]

I have to agree that film in my opinion is king. But for everyday shooting, since I am an old man digital sure is more forgiving.