Anyone ever used A Contax 645?? IF so what did you think?

[flipflop]

Just wondering what peoples thought are about this camera. I know this is not a rangefinder camera, but I know people on this site use more than just RFers and I trust your opinions...for the most part 🙂

Thanks!

 

[DougK]

I know nothing first-hand, although I seem to recall reading a review somewhere that mentioned it eats batteries at a ferocious rate. Otherwise the reviewer seemed pleased with the camera. If I can find the review I'll post a link.

 

[DougK]

Aha! Google comes to the rescue again: http://www.dannyburk.com/contax_645.htm.

 

[flipflop]

thanks but I was kind of looking for user reviews

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've never taken a picture with it, but I've handled it --doesn't count much. And coming with a Hasselblad 500 c/x and Rolleiflex Automat background, and having at one point owned the "original" Pentax 645, I thought it was a bit too much. I think Medium Format and Auto-Focus are kind of [>>insert cataplectic or controversial adjective here<<] together, but that is just me.

Something like a Cadillac Escalade, which may not be a fit if what you're looking for is just a good old BMW motorcycle. That's probably a lame... no. It is a dumb analogy, but it's late anyway, so there it is.

 

[sf]

Contax 645 . . I have used it a bit.

Heavy, pretty dismal AF - slow, easily tricked, not easy to get focused on a detail like eyes.

Not much shutter shake, which is nice. Wonderful lenses. Auto everthing. Ability to focus manually while in AF mode - and it works well that way if you have good eyesight.

Can get digital backs for it.

Dark slide, interchangeable backs - very very useful. Oh, for an RF that would do that for me.

not very ergonomic, in my opinion, having handled all the AF 645 cameras. The Pentax 645nII is actually the best one in terms of practical design, size, ergonomics - by a long shot. Mamya 645 AF is the least ergonomic.

Overall, it is built very well - metal and very strong rubberized materials. Built like a vault with glass in it. Heavy, though.

Bottom line : if you want an AF 645 camera, go with the Pentax 645nII. . . I found it much more reasonable to use. The Contax was second, then the Hassy, then the Mamiya. BUT, the Pentax will not allow you to change film mid-roll - no interchangeable backs.

 

[Dougg]

This is an interesting viewpoint on the Contax 645...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/contax-rip.shtml

 

[Avotius]

I have used the Contax 645 a lot in the studio. Its kinda oldschool when compared to the Hasselblad H1 which I have also used a lot. The Hasselblad in my opinion is a better camera, it feels more together and complete. For some reason I never could get used to the contax and foudn myself using a mamiya rb67 more just because it was simpler. One thing I didnt care for a lot was the autofocus but then again in the studio who needs that.

 

[cjago]

Contax 645 user

Contax 645 user

I have a Contax 645 and it has been in regular use for about 18 months now. I didn't try the suggested Pentax because the interchangeable back was essential for what I wanted.

You ask a very open ended question. Do you have specifics that you want to know? Might be best to PM me as I don't visit RFF as often as I use the Contax.

Summary: excellent camera, well built, and easy to use (dials not buttons). Lenses good. People debate for ever the merits of Zeiss lenses on the Contax versus Zeiss lenses on the 'Blad. They do have different characteristics.

 

[StuartR]

I rented one last weekend, and I really like it. I did not have any real problems with the focus, though it does hunt in low light. I basically used the AF to get the focus in the right general area, and then modify if necessary. My exposures were good on both slide film and negative film. I used the 45, 80 and 120 lenses, and they were all excellent. Bokeh looked great, the lenses are fast, and they are built well. I am considering renting the Hasselblad soon to familiarize myself with it, but if I go for a 645 AF system, I think I will probably go for the contax.

One nice thing about the Contax is that it has a focal plane shutter, so you can actually use the fast lenses wide open outside. You have 1/4000th and f/2 as standard instead of 1/800th and f/2.8. Also, I can use my Hasselblad FE lenses on it, while the H1 has no shutter so I can't use the 110/2 or 50/2.8 which I already have. And of course, the hasselblad costs around 7000 for the kit, while the Contax can still be bought new for around 2800. The H1 viewfinder and autofocus are vastly better than the contax, but I am not so sure about the lenses. I am looking forward to the comparison I will make. Ergonomically, the H1 feels nice, but I would much rather have the normal shutter speed dial and aperture ring that you have on the contax. It just works better for me. I would consider the Pentax if it had a removeable film back, but it doesn't, which is totally unforgiveable for me. Not only do I want a digital option for the future, but I often shoot both black and white and color at the same time, so I always want at least two film backs. In 35mm rangefinders I carry two cameras, but that is not really practical with cameras this large. And frankly, other than hasselblad it is doubtful that any of them are more future-proof than the others. Contax is dead, but Mamiya was sold yesterday, and Pentax's future is questionable. I would rather have one shutter that might fail than one for every lens. But any way, those are just some reasons that I would probably go for a 645 if I went for a 645 AF.

 

[flipflop]

Basically, the reason I ask this is. The cameras I have liked using the best are Contax cameras. It just seems that everything is in the right place and I take my best pictures with them. The lenses are awsome and I dont know if Contax ever made a crappy lens?? I have yet to see it.
The problem for me is the price of these cameras and lenses...you get what you pay for. Looking at the prices of the other lenses besides the 80mm, they are all very costly. Truthfully I dont really need AF I just wanted to have a Contax medium format camera, because I know it would be a joy to use. I have owned the Pentax 645...non AF and liked it but because it did not change back mid roll...I didnt like it, and sold it.

Anyone have any other recomendations for a handholdable med format camera? I was thinking maybe the Bronica RF but I dont like that it shoots vertical shots

 

[sf]

Basically, the reason I ask this is. The cameras I have liked using the best are Contax cameras. It just seems that everything is in the right place and I take my best pictures with them. The lenses are awsome and I dont know if Contax ever made a crappy lens?? I have yet to see it.
The problem for me is the price of these cameras and lenses...you get what you pay for. Looking at the prices of the other lenses besides the 80mm, they are all very costly. Truthfully I dont really need AF I just wanted to have a Contax medium format camera, because I know it would be a joy to use. I have owned the Pentax 645...non AF and liked it but because it did not change back mid roll...I didnt like it, and sold it.

Anyone have any other recomendations for a handholdable med format camera? I was thinking maybe the Bronica RF but I dont like that it shoots vertical shots

Mamiya 6. No compositional necessity to twist your arms. And of course the TLRs. Mamiya TLRs are good cameras and go for little. Honestly, though, if you want a hand holdable 645 camera, and AF is not vital, and the RFs turn you off, buy the Mamiya Pro 645/TL camera. Everything but AF, and tons and tons of accessories.

Hand holdable. . .honestly, I didn't think the Contax was all that hand holdable. Heaviest of the 645AF cameras, it seemed to be. BIG glass, which is mostly why.

The Bronica . . . well, you probably know how I feel about that.

 

[flipflop]

Shutterflower,
If you had to choose your an Xpan or the Bronica which would you choose?

 

[Avotius]

Summary: excellent camera, well built, and easy to use (dials not buttons). Lenses good. People debate for ever the merits of Zeiss lenses on the Contax versus Zeiss lenses on the 'Blad. They do have different characteristics.

The contax lenses are made by zeiss, it is my understanding however that the lenses made on the H1 are made by fuji even though they say hasselblad on them, just like the xpan

 

[Dougg]

Anyone have any other recomendations for a handholdable med format camera? I was thinking maybe the Bronica RF but I dont like that it shoots vertical shots

Well, like George I'm very fond of the Bronica RF. The frame orientation is no big deal for me; indeed for people pics is often preferable. I've looked back over my contact sheets and thumbnails to get a feel for how often I shoot a vertical pic vs a horizontal pic, and it's pretty even. So I should be as unhappy about turning a horizontal camera to get verticals, as vice-versa with the Bronica. The only escape is a square format, but that has its own peril, as I find myself composing square shots! 😀

As to other handheld medium-format cameras... and this thread is about SLRs huh... All I can say is "Pentax 67". I bought my first one used in 1976, the second one used in 2003, and I just took delivery of a (brand new, finally!) 67II. All have TTL meter prisms. I still use the oldest one too; right now I'm trying a 120mm Pentax Soft lens on it. This is a superb field camera, obviously designed to be used hand-held, and it's a honey.

I don't often use the Pentax as a daily carry-anywhere rig, as it IS on the bulky side. That's where the Bronica shines. But when I have a specific goal in mind the Pentax is a great choice. Tough, reliable, easy to handle (if you can run a manual 35mm SLR, you'll be fine though film loading is different of course), very high quality construction, big juicy negs, and used prices are incredibly low.

Here's a shot I made with the second 67 only a couple hours after picking it up from its previous owner, and the 45mm lens that came with it.

 

[StuartR]

If you are looking for a hand-holdable MF camera and don't want a vertically aligned camera, shutterflower is right -- go for the Mamiya 6 or 7 series. They are just big rangefinders, though they are much lighter and more ergonomic than the fuji rangefinders. They are quieter than a Leica, the negative is 4 times larger and you can handhold down to 1/30th with smashing quality using some of the very best lenses of medium format (43mm, 80mm and 150mm are all extraordinary by my personal evaluation, while the rest are great from other's comments).

 

[RObert Budding]

The Bronica RF645 is fantastic as a carry-anywhere camera. The body and 3 lenses are as light and compact as most 35mm SLR kits. Granted, it's not as versatile as my Mamiya 645. But I am much more likely to have it with me.

As for the Contax 645 - a friend of mine shoots with one. Excellent lenses and a really nice camera to use. But the AF is not as fast as a 35mm SLR, so I can't really use it to shoot my kids' soccer games.

I opted for a Mamiya 645 Pro TL because the lenses are very g, very good and the prices are low - I only paid $225 for a 55/2.8 "N" lens (latest version). Yes, the Contax is nice. But those Zei$$ lenses are a bit expensive.

 

[cjago]

Lenses

Lenses

The contax lenses are made by zeiss, it is my understanding however that the lenses made on the H1 are made by fuji even though they say hasselblad on them, just like the xpan

I was referring to the 6x6 'Blad lenses, which are (mostly) Zeiss. I've not used the H1.