Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

Hey guys, fellow reduser Steve Das shared this with me:

https://vimeo.com/62832482

This is a commercial shot on Alexa with Cooke S4 primes (A-Cam), that is intercut with a BMCC shooting Contax primes (B-Cam). They are pretty hard to tell apart. I don't care about the cameras, but I'm happy the Contax primes held their own alongside the Cookes. I consider both lenses pretty "organic", so this paring kind of makes sense to me.

If you are curious which shots are Alexa/Cooke, and which are BMCC/Contax, here's the breakdown (according to director):

1 BMCC
2 BMCC
3 Alexa
4 Alexa
5 BMCC
6 Alexa
7 BMCC
8 BMCC
9 Alexa
10 BMCC
11 Alexa
12 BMCC
13 BMCC
14 BMCC
15 Alexa
16 Alexa
17 Alexa
18 Alexa
19 Alexa
20 Alexa
21 BMCC
22 BMCC
23 Alexa
24 Alexa
25 Alexa
26 BMCC
27 Alexa
28 BMCC
29 Alexa
30 BMCC
31 BMCC
32 Alexa
33 BMCC
34 BMCC
35 BMCC
36 BMCC
37 Alexa
38 Alexa
39 Alexa
40 Alexa
41 Alexa
42 Alexa
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
Hey guys, fellow reduser Steve Das shared this with me:

https://vimeo.com/62832482

This is a commercial shot on Alexa with Cooke S4 primes (A-Cam), that is intercut with a BMCC shooting Contax primes (B-Cam). They are pretty hard to tell apart. I don't care about the cameras, but I'm happy the Contax primes held their own alongside the Cookes. I consider both lenses pretty "organic", so this paring kind of makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Glad to see Leica's and Contax intercut well together.
Something I haven't tryed properly yet.
Thanks for the link Nick.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Hey guys, fellow reduser Steve Das shared this with me:

https://vimeo.com/62832482

This is a commercial shot on Alexa with Cooke S4 primes (A-Cam), that is intercut with a BMCC shooting Contax primes (B-Cam). They are pretty hard to tell apart. I don't care about the cameras, but I'm happy the Contax primes held their own alongside the Cookes. I consider both lenses pretty "organic", so this paring kind of makes sense to me.

If you are curious which shots are Alexa/Cooke, and which are BMCC/Contax, here's the breakdown (according to director):
Click to expand...

WTF?! Is it just me or does that kind of intercutting in the same scene and same room make absolutely no sense at all? BTW they do hold up nicely against each other.
 
Jesper Sichlau said:
WTF?! Is it just me or does that kind of intercutting in the same scene and same room make absolutely no sense at all? BTW they do hold up nicely against each other.
Click to expand...

There's a sentence I've heard producers say, "We'd like to have a B-Camera for some 2nd angles. We probably won't even use any of it. But just in case." Which sometimes turns into 50-50 intercutting the two cameras. Which I would guess is what happened above. The BMCC/Contax rental would cost a fraction of what the Alexa/Cookes go for, so it's a "negligible" cost for the possibility of some 2nd angles "just in case."

And then turned into 'Half the spot' in the edit.
 
Nick Pasquariello said:
There's a sentence I've heard producers say, "We'd like to have a B-Camera for some 2nd angles. We probably won't even use any of it. But just in case." Which sometimes turns into 50-50 intercutting the two cameras. Which I would guess is what happened above. The BMCC/Contax rental would cost a fraction of what the Alexa/Cookes go for, so it's a "negligible" cost for the possibility of some 2nd angles "just in case."

And then turned into 'Half the spot' in the edit.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't it be easier to just use the same camera.
 
André Lindholm said:
http://petapixel.com/2013/01/25/grandson-of-zeiss-lens-designer-was-left-a-holy-grail-of-zeiss-lenses/

Came across this article,
Click to expand...

Wow. Holy shit. The "mythical" 18 2.8 and 25 1.4!!!!!

I've only "heard" of these, never seen pics before. Thanks for sharing Andre!! Why these never went into production, we can only imagine. Too expensive maybe?

Here are the pics, so everyone can drool....and dream:

CONTAX 25 1.4 (pre-production model)

zeiss4.jpg




CONTAX 25 1.4 (pre-production model): SIDE VIEW

zeiss5.jpg



CONTAX 18 2.8 (pre-production model):

zeiss9.jpg



CONTAX 18 2.8 (pre-production model): SIDE VIEW

zeiss8.jpg



Dr. Erhard Glatzel's PERSONAL COLLECTION of CONTAX GLASS (one of Zeiss's famed designers). Includes:
18 2.8 (pre-pro), 25 1.4 (pre-pro), 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 180 2.8, and a small Distagon at the bottom, the size of a 28 2.8, but with a pre-pro serial number "1010003" (what is THIS lens?? An early copy of a 28 2.8, or 35 2.8? Thoughts?)


zeiss3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jesper Sichlau said:
But wouldn't it be easier to just use the same camera.
Click to expand...

Yes. If you intend to do a full, 2 camera shoot, and have the proper budget for it. If the intent is "Maybe we'll use one or 2 shots from the B camera", it doesn't make sense to have a full second camera setup, budgetarily.

Once you move into edit, client will ask "Don't we have another angle of that? Don't we have another angle of that? Don't we have another angle of that?" and before you know it, half your spot is from the B Camera.

Of course it doesn't make complete sense. But that's just how things end up working out.

TL;DR version: You're completely right, except people do things this way anyway.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Wow. Holy shit. The "mythical" 18 2.8 and 25 1.4!!!!!

I've only "heard" of these, never seen pics before. Thanks for sharing Andre!! Why these never went into production, we can only imagine. Too expensive maybe?

Here are the pics, so everyone can drool....and dream:
CONTAX 25 1.4 (pre-production model)
CONTAX 25 1.4 (pre-production model): SIDE VIEW
CONTAX 18 2.8 (pre-production model): CONTAX 18 2.8 (pre-production model): SIDE VIEW
Dr. Erhard Glatzel's PERSONAL COLLECTION of CONTAX GLASS (one of Zeiss's famed designers). Includes:
18 2.8 (pre-pro), 25 1.4 (pre-pro), 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 180 2.8, and a small Distagon at the bottom, the size of a 28 2.8, but with a pre-pro serial number "1010003" (what is THIS lens?? An early copy of a 28 2.8, or 35 2.8? Thoughts?)

Click to expand...

Yeah, that 25 would be amazing. Really to bad it never made it to production.

Its looks kind of strange... like its got two focus rings

Saw now that the 18 2,8 has a very low serial number. Or is it a special serial for prototyps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top