Professional Web Applications Themes

No more Contax... - Photography

"Ben Rosengart" <br+com> wrote in message news:panix.com...  Cool. What camera did you use?...

  1. #21

    Default Re: No more Contax...


    "Ben Rosengart" <br+com> wrote in message
    news:panix.com... 

    Cool. What camera did you use?


    Steven Guest

  2. #22

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Ben Rosengart wrote:
     


    I like the second one very much.



    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  3. #23

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:49:18 GMT, Steven M. Scharf
    <net> wrote: 

    Sigma SD9, kit lens.

    Just kidding. 20D with the Canon 28mm 1.8.

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  4. #24

    Default Re: No more Contax...


    "Lourens Smak" <nl> wrote in message
    news:euronet.nl... [/ref]
    of [/ref]
    noisy [/ref]
    to 
    >
    > Instead of reading reviews, I actually use the E-system, (among other
    > camera's) and I can only say it has surpassed all my expectations by a
    > wide margin. The E1 is a high-quality pro-level tool. (unlike Canon's
    > offerings on the same price-level) It beats the Nikon D1x hands down,
    > and this was the top level Nikon up to a week ago. E1 production has
    > already stopped by the way, expect some interesting news in a few
    > weeks/months, while stock is being cleared. You are so hoplessly
    > misinformed it isn't even funny. Admit it, peanut-brain, you are just
    > repeating nonsense you heard on the web, like a parrot. Does your mother
    > know you are using her computer?
    >
    > Have fun looking through your plastic f/5.6 20D kit-lens. Now THAT is an
    > example of an overpriced lens... $100 optics and Canon sells it for
    > $500. They must laugh their asses off.[/ref]

    I don't know that you're smoking but it's sold for $100, the kit lens is the
    18-55.

    Greg


    G.T. Guest

  5. #25

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <net>,
    "Courtesy Assured" <com> wrote:
     

    duh.... I am a pro; I have used (and still use) anything from
    medium-format digital backs to a D1x or 1Ds, including the E1. I have
    shot digitally since 1992. I will also use film if I have to, but only
    6x6 or 4x5". 35mm is history. I use my E-system for travel photography
    and some magazine assignments. (glossy mag type) My stock-agency sells
    about 600 E1-images at the moment (mostly travel) and I haven't had a
    single reject yet, and quality-control is very strict with this company.
    (one dust-speck on a single image, and you can resubmit everything...)
    There are even a few iso 800 shots among those 600.

    Here is a sample magazine shot I did:
    http://www.myfourthirds.com/files/0277/LPIC0035.jpg
    page is 24x34cm.

    So I guess I must know something they don't... fact is when you have to
    shoot at f2.8, with a wide lens, the E1 can outperform even the original
    1Ds. I can spot 1Ds images in print by the purple fringing. And I prefer
    low-iso + f2.8 over high-iso, must be because I come from the slide-film
    days. High iso looks bad with any digital camera, one camera is just
    slightly less bad than another. Not just because of noise, but color and
    dynamic range suffer also.
     

    Again, why are you doing this? I am telling you I own one, and that it's
    a great machine. Why can't you believe that? Do yourself a favor, remove
    the lenscap from your brain.

    I am not alone, in fact it is pretty easy to find proof of that on the
    web, here's an example from today:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=12509485
     

    How about this? Do you believe this?

    14-35mm f2.0
    http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2005-02/21/E14-35mmF2.JPG

    35-100mm f2.0
    http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2005-02/21/E35-100mmF2.JPG


    90-250mm f2.8
    http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2005-02/21/E90-250mm.JPG
     

    What do you mean? By releasing an overpriced 6MP body in 2005 that is
    based on an antique amateur-Nikon?

    Lourens
    Lourens Guest

  6. #26

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Lourens Smak <nl> wrote in news:smak-70C05C.12412604032005
    news.euronet.nl:
     

    I have seen them. Nice!

    But not nice enough. F2.0 for a 35mm and 100mm 2-3x zoom for a small
    sensor/format has been out there for a long time for movie cameras.


    /Roland
    Roland Guest

  7. #27

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <euronet.nl>,
    Lourens Smak <nl> wrote: 

    Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I
    saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that
    one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    something?
    Chris Guest

  8. #28

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Lourens Smak: George Preddy for 4/3rds...

    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  9. #29

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <panix.com>, br+com
    says... 
    >
    > Sigma SD9, kit lens.
    >
    > Just kidding. 20D with the Canon 28mm 1.8.[/ref]

    Cool. Did you use the native B&W conversion or process later in RAW?
    Brian Guest

  10. #30

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Chris Brown <no_uce_please.com> wrote in
    news:dyndns.org:
     

    Kodak had the DCS100 (1991) and DCS200 (1992).
    Both somewhat more than 1 Mpixel and bot using
    Nikon bodies.


    /Roland
    Roland Guest

  11. #31

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Brian C. Baird <no> wrote in
    news:verizon.net:
     

    Actually Lauren is not really wrong. The Oly E1 is not all
    that bad - really. It has its virtues. Unfortunetely, it
    is not enough to compete. It is more a matter of money
    and inertia than the 4/3 system being all that wrong.
    On the other hand - Oly has hyped the 4/3 system in the
    same stupid way as Sigma/Foveon did. Thinking people
    do not believe that a new format can make all that wonders
    that were claimed. It is simply not possible.


    /Roland
    Roland Guest

  12. #32

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <dyndns.org>,
    no_uce_please.com says... 
    >
    > Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I
    > saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that
    > one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    > nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    > something?[/ref]

    I think it was the digital camera made of of bull.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  13. #33

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <dyndns.org>,
    Chris Brown <no_uce_please.com> wrote:
     
    >
    > Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I
    > saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that
    > one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    > nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    > something?[/ref]

    I had the original Leaf DCB back ("the brick") serial number 0000017 or
    so, to work with, with version 0.96b of the software. The first one in
    my country, actually.

    Lourens
    Lourens Guest

  14. #34

    Default 20D B&W

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:37:29 GMT, Brian Baird <right> wrote: 

    Later in RAW. I don't like the results from the native conversion.
    I usually switch to LAB color, delete the A and B channels, then
    switch to Grayscale and then to RGB. (If anyone knows how to make a
    Photoshop Action out of this, I'm all ears!) Then I monkey around
    with levels/curves/contrast, and maybe do a little dodging or (more
    frequently) burning.

    I'm still a rank beginner at Photoshop, and I'm pretty sure I could
    get better results than these, but for the most part I like the
    results pretty well.

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  15. #35

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <133.1.4>,
    com says... 

    Weren't those things about 25 grand a piece at the time?
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  16. #36

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <dyndns.org>,
    Chris Brown <no_uce_please.com> wrote:
     

    We introduced the Rollei 6008 SRC with ScanPack in 1988. That was pretty
    high resolution color even by today's standard.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Guest

  17. #37

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <DUPVd.8956$news.prodigy.com>,
    "bmoag" <net> wrote:
     

    The Contax 645 is actually very widely used in some areas of
    professional photography. It is one of the best and most modern
    medium-format systems around.

    Lourens
    Lourens Guest

  18. #38

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Darrell wrote: 

    Zeiss, Leica, Nikon and Olympus all make high margin optical devices like
    lenses for wafer steppers, and (digital) microscopes.
    See for example Leica's new ~$1,000,000 flagship microscope:
    http://www.confocal-microscopy.com/WebSite/SC_LLT.nsf?opendatabase&path=/website/pressrelease.nsf/(ALLIDs)/2D05C56DD7402F1CC1256F39005654F7

    Leica camera might be doomed, but the other branch is very much a leading
    edge company.
    Healthy revenues from other branches do not mean these four can afford to
    fund unprofitable camera lines. With the exception of Zeiss, maybe, but
    probably not under the Contax name. Still, a Contax phone with a vario sonnar
    might sell well in a couple of years.

    -- Hans
    HvdV Guest

  19. #39

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <133.1.4>,
    Roland Karlsson <com> wrote:
     
    >
    > Actually Lauren is not really wrong. The Oly E1 is not all
    > that bad - really. It has its virtues.[/ref]

    Thank you Roland; that really was all I was saying. I wasn't saying the
    E1 is the best camera ever made, or anything like that. Btw I plonked
    Brian a long time ago already; he's full of it.
     

    Well for me it was competitive... but I have to say that some very
    specific features weighed in a lot, like the 3:4 aspect ratio that is
    much more practical for magazine use, (now try to find a 2:3 image in
    the average mag...) and very nice for vertical portraits where 2:3 is
    too narrow for my taste. (I really am a 6x6 person...) I have also
    spotted far more dust-specks on images than I would have liked.
    (D1x...need I say more.)

    The E-system is also fairly cheap, if you ask me. I don't get it that
    people say it is expensive... When asked to explain, most people seem to
    mean there's no el-cheapo Soligor or Tamron crap available to fit the
    E1, which is something different.

    Lourens
    Lourens Guest

  20. #40

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    Ben Rosengart wrote:
     

    An inefficient way to just click on "desaturate". (When you set a and
    b to zero and retain L "from LAB" step copies the CIE "Y" value to all
    output channels ... which is basically what you get when you
    "desaturate" an image in RGB space.)

    eawckyegcy@yahoo.com Guest

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Contax Bodies
    By Miro in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 28th, 03:38 PM
  2. Contax question
    By Peter in forum Photography
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 8th, 11:13 AM
  3. Contax RX II
    By Peter in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 7th, 09:59 PM
  4. Contax SLR AE and MM lenses
    By Chris Wakeen in forum Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 11th, 06:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139