Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Contax IIa first samples gallery
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:22 pm    Post subject: Contax IIa first samples gallery Reply with quote
Linked to the thread on Rangefinder forum:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,136003.html#136003





















PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ouch! that's shocking good!
what film did you use ?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks very promising! The shots are lovely.
I'm amazed by the signature of the 1.5/50. A lot of guys at RFF talk about that 50 Sonnar look.
I guess this is why Zeiss re-introduced it in the ZM line.
Sorry to hijack but I want to post 2 of mine to see if you notice the same "look" from the same lens model.
Mine is Opton version I think yours is also.

How did you like the camera? This one is a Contax II correct? I have a IIIa and like it very much.
The IIa would be my first choice honestly. The meter on the IIIa is not reliable. The non metered body is much nicer in use as it is more compact.







PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shocked

there's nothing to touch a film ...

tf


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very punchy photographs, especially the first one. Looks very 3-dimensionally, like the cat would jump out of the frame. Film-grain is wonderful to see ...

Cheers
Tobias


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice ones! Nice to see Melissa out! Monica shoot also well done! I wish to see you again...


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, striking colours from that lens - allowing for the film, processing, etc. Would you say the RF is front focusing slightly?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
ouch! that's shocking good!
what film did you use ?


Thanks! It's Ferrania Solaris 200, a cheap italian film:
http://www.ferraniait.com/Solutions/photography/photograph.htm

F16SUNSHINE wrote:
I want to post 2 of mine to see if you notice the same "look" from the same lens model.


Yes I remember your nice shots! Yours look clearer than mine, probably because you used a better film. I am not sure if I can define already a style of this lens, because did not use it very much. But I love what I am seeing and surely I will use it a lot more in the future!

Quote:
Mine is Opton version I think yours is also.


Yes and I thank you every time I look at this beautiful lens! Smile

Quote:
How did you like the camera? This one is a Contax II correct? I have a IIIa and like it very much.
The IIa would be my first choice honestly. The meter on the IIIa is not reliable. The non metered body is much nicer in use as it is more compact.


I just love the Contax IIa. I think it's SO sexy! The most beautiful camera I have for sure. The mechanical functioning is perfect after more than half a century! I mean it feels like if it could never break.
However, I have to agree with Rick (Oleson) when he says that the Kiev is a friendlier camera to use. It feels cheaper than the Contax, but the viewfinder of the Kiev is 10 times better.

Attila wrote:
Nice ones! Nice to see Melissa out! Monica shoot also well done! I wish to see you again...


Thank you Attila! I too would really love to meet you again.
Let's hope we have the occasion soon!

Thanks to Trifox and Tobbsman also. Long live film !


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
Orio, striking colours from that lens - allowing for the film, processing, etc. Would you say the RF is front focusing slightly?


Dave (and Ireply to Andy also), I would say that perhaps when I focus close, if I set focus to say 1 meter, the real focus fall on 0.95, that is, a little before what I thought.
BUT ! The real point is, it's very difficult to read the viewfinder of my Contax correctly. The viewfinder is weak to start with, and the vertical is out of parallax. So I have to focus based on horizontal only. So what you see as missed focus, might as well be me reading badly the view finder.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's Jupiter-9, not lucky with this lens yesterday, but one thing I seem to understand, the bokeh on this rangefinder version seems less "busy" than that of the reflex version:










Zeiss Jena 2/50 Sonnar, this seems to be a quite flaring lens:





PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As a final comment to this roll I can say that the quality difference between the Zeiss-Opton Sonnar on one side, and the Jupiter-9 and Zeiss Jena Sonnar on the other, is self evident. Not that the Jup and the Jena are bad lenses, they are good (the Jup especially, very sharp), but to me the Opton seems to play in another quality league, I don't know if you think the same.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love the 3rd shot with the J9! The hilly countryside is awesome. I wish I could see it in person it looks so inviting!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Third with J9 for me too - it has such atmosphere and depth. Great surprise from the J9 frankly

The B+W of Monica is superb - you must print it and hang it up in plain view


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you!
I always get angry at Monica because I always tell her when we go out "wear some nice female dress so that I can take some nice photos of you for a change, instead of the usual ugly sweaters" but she always grunts "no" Mad


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I always get angry at Monica because I always tell her when we go out "wear some nice female dress so that I can take some nice photos of you for a change, instead of the usual ugly sweaters" but she always grunts "no" Mad


Hah, I got some experience. But now my wife knows and will bring some nice dress automatically once I bring SLR and lenses with me when we're out. She knows "we can not waste films". Great shot and nice Contax IIa, Orio.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Love all of these and still can't get over how great Ferrania film is for being so cheap. I'm thinking of looking for the Kiev 4a which I believe is
the clone to this one. (?)


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wonderful results, Orio. Really good!

As for bokeh, I think this is one big advantage of film, that bokeh often is much smoother with film shots. But perhaps that's only me seeing it wrong.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

As for bokeh, I think this is one big advantage of film, that bokeh often is much smoother with film shots.


I agree, that is my experience also.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

As for bokeh, I think this is one big advantage of film, that bokeh often is much smoother with film shots.


I agree, that is my experience also.


It is mine too in crop camera sensor and logical one if you think that DOF is also larger. Adding to it small sensors has a disadvantage in handling highlights properly. Already going from 12 to 14 bits for pixel is helping a lot in giving a lot more of those "invisible" middle tones which are instead extremely visible to the trained eye.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think film bokeh is better in full frame also and the explanation I give is that maybe (it is just my assumption) the light on the chemicals of the film tends to spread a little more due to fact that chemicals are a whole surface not one composed of divided cells.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just bought a Kiev 4. If it can produce just half of this quality I will be happy.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Impressive shots!
I love that first one (but then I love cats Smile ). Hmm, I only have SLRs, but I definately have to shoot more film (as opposed to digital).


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lahnet wrote:
I just bought a Kiev 4. If it can produce just half of this quality I will be happy.


A lot crappier built, the Jupiter 8 lenses aren't Sonnars, but actually there's also a lot of difference between the Sonnar 50/2 and the 1.5, and I guess between identical models too. For example I have a pre-war Sonnar 50/2 and it's nowhere near at what I saw from the Sonnar Opton 50/1.5 of Orio and Andy.

I should also try the Jupiter 3 50/1.5 though Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to disagree with Alessandro about the Kiev 4, I find it to be a very nice camera. Of course the mechanics do not feel like those of the Contax. But the rangefinder of the Kiev is better, and this is not a secondary point.

As for the quality, well, it depends all on the lenses that you will use.
If you can find a Sonnar 1.5/50 for a good price, you will get the best lens.
But I have a Jupiter-8 also (50mm f/2) and I prefer it over the Jena Sonnar 2/50 (which I also have).
So don't underestimate the Jupiter-8. It is very cheap but it will make great photos. At least, this is my personal experience, maybe others might disagree.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
Page 1 of 1