Contax 645 that good?

[nbagno]

While looking for a potential 645, I was surprised to see the premium price these cameras command. Are the prices based on performance of the camera/lens or inflated for some reason or are they just that good?

 

[RobC]

they were very good with superb zeiss lenses. But be warned, repair and parts are difficult if not impossible to lay your hands on and most of them were used by professional photographers so will have been very well used. i.e. hammered.

 

[mexipike]

I've never had the chance to use one but have always wanted too.
I think they have really gone up in price recently in part due to the wedding photography film craze. Jose Villa raves about them and inspired many to use them. I'm sure they would be great for weddings: serviceable autofocus on a medium format body with zeiss lenses and beautiful out of focus areas. Though I also wonder if a Mamiya 645 AF wouldn't do the trick for about 1/10 the money.

 

[yashima]

They are that good. You dont get autofocus Zeiss lenses anywhere else, and they hold up to the latest digital back. The camera body is very intuitive, responsive. Only if the AF could be a little faster.

 

[RattyMouse]

They are that good. You dont get autofocus Zeiss lenses anywhere else, and they hold up to the latest digital back. The camera body is very intuitive, responsive. Only if the AF could be a little faster.

They eat batteries like crazy from what I read. Astonishing battery consumption.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The single most significant advantage of Contax 645 cameras is no longer available. Unlike almost every other reverse-curl 645 medium format roll film back (Rollei's for its 6008 is alleged to have designed around the problem by means of roller placement geometry), which suffer from film bulging toward the lens after taking a "set" on their feed rollers, Contax's 645 220 vacuum back was immune to that problem. The flat, precise film plane location this afforded disappeared when 220 film was discontinued.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I sometimes backpack with a friend who has been shooting this system for quite awhile. But the lenses are quite expensive (but truly sharp), the rig weighs just as much as the 4x5 system I carry, and frankly, if I wanted something arcane this size, the Rollei SL66 would be more appealing due to its front tilt option. He's never complained about short-lived batteries, even though he shoots a lot of film on each trip.

 

[Alan Gales]

If they are anything like Contax 35mm cameras then they are a joy to shoot. A Contax always felt better in my hands than any other 35mm camera. You get Zeiss glass and you can use a digital back with the Contax 645.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...the Rollei SL66 would be more appealing due to its front tilt option...

Note that the SL66 doesn't offer front tilt. The only movement possible with that camera is combined front tilt and rise/fall. Tilt is not independently available.

 

[cramej]

I wanted a Contax when I was looking for a 645af but I couldn't justify the cost. Waaayyyy too pricey for my small wallet. I ended up getting a Mamiya 645afdII in trade for a D200 and $200. In my opinion, I got the better deal because the D200 was already at least 5 years old, probably more. I've been very happy with the Mamiya and, with the right Metz module, TTL flash is great. Just as good as with my Nikons and a SB-800 (that I very much regret selling...). If you can't find the 3952 module, Auto flash works well, also. The only problem I have is that I can't find a replacement darkslide. Mine is bent and both of the ones I've ordered that are supposed to be for the AF is wrong. You also get a wider lens selection with the Mamiya since you can use manual focus 645 lenses on it. The AF focusing screen isn't too bad to focus with but I have noticed a few errors when I use the 150 manual focus lens.

 

[Tom Duffy]

When I used my 645 regularly the battery, 2CR5 I believe, lasted about 10 rolls of 120 film almost doubling the cost per shot over a manual advance camera. I think the auto-focus lenses were the real power drain. I bought the separate battery pack which uses rechargeable AA batteries but adds considerable bulk weight to the package. I remember the Hasselblad ad response when the 645 came out, "Bigger is better, up to a point."
The 645 was truly exceptional for its time. Exposure info printed between the frames, 120/220 film with the same insert, built in flash meter, Program, Aperture, Shutter modes, Auto-focus or auto-focus at the push of a button, standard or electronic cable release, great microprism focusing screen, used the same flash as the 35mm Contax line and had a superb set of lenses including a zoom.
I don't even want to know how little they cost now since I bought mine new with three lenses as soon as it came out.

 

[GRHazelton]

You might look into the Pentax 645n or 645nii. Both are autofocus, with the proper lenses, of course, both yield 16 or 32 exposures on 120 or 220 film, both have a good assortment of excellent lenses out there, from a truly excellent 35mm wide angle, through normal, zoom, and telephotos. With an adapter lenses from the Pentax 67 can be used. The 645s run on AA cells; they handle much like a big 35mm. Given the introduction of the Pentax 645 digital cameras which share the same lens mount, prices for the older AF and manual focus lenses have increased.

 

[pentaxuser]

In addition to what GRHazelton has said the P645N does not seem to be a drainer of batteries. Admittedly I have probably shot very few rolls compared to some other users but I bought mine secondhand with what I think were then new batteries in February 2011 and I shoot with the same batteries now.

I cannot now, after seven and a half years, estimate how many rolls I have taken and it may be no more than Pentax states is possible on one set of batteries but clearly there is no drain at all on the batteries while it sits idle. I was playing with it a few days ago in low light and changing ISO speeds for fun to check on what shutter speeds were available but not taking pictures and everything worked fine

pentaxuser

 

[J 3]

I've owned a Pentax 645 but not the Contax so grain of salt... My impression is the Contax just gets that extra 10-20% right over cheaper options - It's got a removable back for swapping film mid roll and a digital back. It's got a removable viewfinder (though how likely would you want a waist level finder for this camera). It's still relatively light and nimble. There are no duds in the lens line up. The viewfinder covers more of the image. The sound is much less intrusive if you're shooting a wedding or something. Etc. It's got a 4000th of a second shutter too but I've read its unreliable at 4k and 2k. That and the battery life are it's downsides. I've left a set of AA's in the Pentax with the camera on by mistake once and they were still alive nearly a week later by comparison. If you need any of these features then the Contax is a really nice camera, and people seem to really love using it, but if you don't then it's not a great price to performance trade off IMHO.

 

[J 3]

Forgot to mention, you've also got that fast f/2.0 80mm lens if you do shallow depth of field or low light photography. There are not a lot of options for f/2.0-ish medium format lenses. The Hasselblad H1 100mm is f/2.2. The Mamiya 645 80mm is f/1.9. Pentax doesn't have one.

 

[GRHazelton]

Forgot to mention, you've also got that fast f/2.0 80mm lens if you do shallow depth of field or low light photography. There are not a lot of options for f/2.0-ish medium format lenses. The Hasselblad H1 100mm is f/2.2. The Mamiya 645 80mm is f/1.9. Pentax doesn't have one.

Yes, a fast normal lens for the P645 would be lovely. Pentax could certainly have made a fine one, considering their excellent fast 50s for 35mm.

 

[spijker]

The Mamiya 645AFD series has the same features as the Contax but for less money. There is a rechargeable Li-ion battery for it that lasts a long time. Self discharge is very low. No Zeiss glass but the Mamiya AF and AF-D and Phase One lenses are very good too. If you're patient, you can get used lenses for a decent price. AF speed and accuracy is supposedly better than the Contax but I've never used the Contax. Compared to a DSLR it's slow and noisy but it does the job for me. I have the AFD3. DOF at 80mm F/2.8 is shallow enough for me and already tricky to get sharp so I wouldn't be interested in a F/2.0 Lens. See https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/julianna.56189/

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, a fast normal lens for the P645 would be lovely. Pentax could certainly have made a fine one, considering their excellent fast 50s for 35mm.

True but I wonder if the cost and price v sales of such a lens would give a return on investment. If you are using B&W D3200 then at f2.8 the shutter speeds are pretty impressive at f2.8. In the kind of situations where f2 is needed I wonder how many would be using MF compared to 35mm. In MF except at very big enlargements, the grain in D3200 is still very acceptable.

Even with colour neg Portra 800 is still probably pretty good at EI1600 but I speak here from negs I've seen rather than ones I have taken myself as I have no experience of Portra 800 film at all let alone at 1600

pentaxuser

 

[J 3]

I'm guessing that was Pentax's thinking on not offering a f 2.0 lens. There were not too many people using these cameras handheld indoors and in full sunlight even Velvia 50 requires a 1/4000th shutter or a ND filter to use wide open. The shutter would have been expensive to develop on a camera that isn't going to move anywhere near the numbers a good 35mm would. And the faster lens would be harder to focus as well. Pentax wasn't trying to be the do-everything camera. They were trying to be the good enough for most in a reliable and affordable package I think. The target was people who needed a nimble 35mm slr like handheld but with a bit more image quality at the end.

 

[GLS]

The price the Contax 645 is commanding now is pretty ludicrous considering the fact that if the electronics fail you have an extremely expensive paperweight. I'm sure the Zeiss lenses are fantastic (and of course that 2/80 lens is really the reason to own the system), but for the same or less money you could get a Hasselblad H2 or H3 and still be able to shoot film should you wish, but have a system that is still supported. The autofocus of those cameras is also much better than the Contax by all accounts.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on your philosophy. Some people like all the bells n' whistles, electronically. But for me, the simpler, the better.

 

[Down Under]

I very briefly considered buying one with the 80mm lens when I retired from architectural work in 2012, but quickly decided not to, mostly for the reasons already stated by other posters in this thread.

A Melbourne camera shop had one on offer at a surprisingly good price, which led me to suspect it had been used almost to death for weddings or club photography or some such high-volume photo operation. the ergonomics were okay and weight was manageable for a then 65 year old (I wouldn't care to lug it around now at my advanced age of 71). This particular camera seemed to function well, but it did look somewhat weather-beaten, which further fueled my suspicions that it would probably not last long.

My other reasons for nixing the offer were -
High camera prices for used models, few turned up in secondhand shops in Sydney or Melbourne.
Lenses for were limited in selection and equally hideously expensive. Ditto accessories, few and far between and very pricey.
The leading camera repair shop in Melbourne told me confidentially that if it were to malfunction or break down, it would most likely sit gathering dust on one of their shelves for a very long time while they sourced parts for it.
A pro I knew at the time advised he'd had one for a year, but unloaded it as (in his own words "the electronics were all over the place" and he believed the cameras were basically unreliable for fast shooting in the field.

Someone else bought this camera and, I later found out, returned it after a few weeks. As it was been a consignment item, the shop refunded the sale (most reluctantly I think, knowing the shop owner) and removed the item from sale.

I agree with one poster that the Contax 645 is by now basically an overpriced toy. In its day, well, it would have been ideal. Now, we have all moved on (mostly to digital MM) and all-electronic cameras like this surely do not age as well as my ever-reliable, always dependable 1961 Rolleiflex 3.5E2.

By then I had also decided to limit any further purchases in MF film cameras anyway, largely due to the ridiculously high cost of 120 roll films in Australia.

I went digital instead, with Nikon FF. Have never regretted my decision as the results I get from my D700 are, I think, as good as. Well, almost as good as. Without the charm or elegance of film, but all the more kudos for its reliability and quick and reliable servicing if needed.

 

[GRHazelton]

I'm guessing that was Pentax's thinking on not offering a f 2.0 lens. There were not too many people using these cameras handheld indoors and in full sunlight even Velvia 50 requires a 1/4000th shutter or a ND filter to use wide open. The shutter would have been expensive to develop on a camera that isn't going to move anywhere near the numbers a good 35mm would. And the faster lens would be harder to focus as well. Pentax wasn't trying to be the do-everything camera. They were trying to be the good enough for most in a reliable and affordable package I think. The target was people who needed a nimble 35mm slr like handheld but with a bit more image quality at the end.

I think Pentax was after the wedding photo market and such. It isn't a studio camera, but is wonderful for field use, which describes wedding shooting. Certainly with its ease of handling, autofocus or really good focus verification, quick reload via preloaded backs, TTL exposure and flash (the AF400T is a real paint peeler) and excellent lenses would have made it a good choice. When good digital cameras came out the various P645s and their lenses came onto the market and were pretty affordable; that's when I bought my 645n and several lenses. When the 645d digital box appeared, using the same lenses as the prior 645 film boxes, the older lenses jumped in price, especially the AF versions. Still a fast normal lens would have been fun....

 

[RalphLambrecht]

they were very good with superb zeiss lenses. But be warned, repair and parts are difficult if not impossible to lay your hands on and most of them were used by professional photographers so will have been very well used. i.e. hammered.

all of that and I think, it's relatively simple to get a digital back for them.