[Andy Bright]

I have just spent a couple of hours with the Contax SL300T*, and to say I'm impressed with it's digiscoping abilities is an understatement.

This camera is absolutely tiny compared to the Nikons at 100mm wide, 62.5mm heigh and a depth of an amazing 2mm. Weight is 125g, so around 1/3 of the weight of a cp995/4500

It many ways it's like a tiny cp990/995/4500 with a similar design of a rotatable lens section (or rotatable monitor section, whatever way you want to look at it) and the lens is of an internal focusing design like the Nikons. The lens on the Contax is 3x (5.8-17.4mm or 38-115mm in 35mm speak). The ccd is a 3.34mp design, so the same as the cp990/995.

The good news for digiscopers is that the camera comes with a 28mm thread, courtesy of a tiny clip-on adapter... so a typical digiscoping adapter fits straight on. Although the adapter is plastic, it hardly needs to be metal as it's only supporting a 125g camera.

O.K. so what is special about this camera (other than it's size and that it's in production right now, unlike the Nikon cp4500).... 3.5fps until your card is full, Shutter lag that's .07sec and start-up time of less than a second!!!

Forgetting the above specs.... after an hour or two it's sunk in to me that this camera takes good digiscoped photos far more consistantly than my previous cameras have. Every shot has been sharp and I have absolutely no trouble judging focus on it's monitor (1.5 inch and extremely clear). Oddly enough, depth of focus seems greater on this camera than other... possibly a smaller ccd than usual? maybe smaller lens than usual? Whatever the reason, this means focusing doesn't need to be quite as critical for a sharp subject.

There isn't too much in the way of manual controls... but aperture priority is there, so no problem.

Minor quibbles are inevitable, cameras are made for a mass market and not digiscopers! No tripod socket on underside, so cable-release cannot be connected (although my photos have been surprisingly sharp with just a finger on the shutter button today). Internal battery (it is small!!) doesn't power the camera for long, though Contax can supply extra batteries. SD cards need to be used (and fast ones for 3.5fps)

No bird photos today, but I'll get some from this camera in the next day or two.

[IanF]

Sounds like a good contender for replacing the CP4500 unless Nikon come up with something sharpish.

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by IanF

Sounds like a good contender for replacing the CP4500 unless Nikon come up with something sharpish.

Nikon are supposed to have something in the pipeline, though i'm sure it can't be the cp5200.
The Contax may not get Nikon owners throwing away their cameras but it's certainly a very good choice for anyone starting out, especially the genuine birder... it's so easy to get sharp images.
Here are a few photos to show how 'pocketable' this camera is compared to the cp4500 (and I raved about that camera's compact size when it was released!)

[IanF]

I see what you mean about the size, it's pretty dinky.

A shame it's only 3.34 MP but as they say 'size isn't everything' - apart from battery durability that is.

I'd be interested in seeing some bid photos taken with it. As you say though I can't see me rushing out and buying one myself but it does sound a decent alternative to the discontinued Nikon Coolpix range for new to digiscoping photographers.

The launch price is a bit steep too!

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by Andy Bright

I
The ccd is a 3.34mp design, so the same as the cp990/995.

The sensor is smaller. It is about 6.5mm on the diagonal compared to a CP995's 8.9mm. It is a 1/2.7" sensor.

This means it has very small sensor sites which normally would be a bad thing for noise. But Contax/Kyocera is claiming some advanced processing at the analog stage of the sensor before going to the digital domain that reduces the introduction of color noise.

Originally Posted by Andy Bright

Oddly enough, depth of focus seems greater on this camera than other... possibly a smaller ccd than usual? maybe smaller lens than usual?

Yeah. The finer the dot pitch of the sensor the greater the depth of field and for a given sensor resolution (megapixels) the shorter the lens focal length.

Did you add the front filter ring yourself or is that an option?

This camera looks very interesting indeed.

[Jay Turberville]

BTW, I just noticed that there is a Kyocera Finecam SL400R on Dpreview.com. It appears to be the very same camera except that it has a same sized but 3.87Mp sensor. The same pixel count as a CP4500.

[Andy Bright]

The 28mm adapter comes as standardwith the camera.

As well as the increased d.o.f. with this smaller ccd/lens ...it does seem to give faster shutter speeds vs the Nikons.

There is an almost identical version of this camera under the Kyocera name but there are some important differences..... the lens isn't a Zeiss T* type, you don't get a filter thread and I think it doesn't have the 'Rtune' processing that enables 3.5fps with unlimited amount of shots. This is really something to behold when in action... a 256mb card can go in a flash! Don't know if shutter-lag is the same.

I'll post some shots as soon as possible

[christineredgate]

What is the price of this camera,Andy,is there a preview on Dpreview .com?.Or has it not yet been released as yet to the general public to buy.It sounds very interesting.Look forward to seeing your shots from it.It needs to be user friendly though!!.

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by christineredgate

What is the price of this camera,Andy,is there a preview on Dpreview .com?.Or has it not yet been released as yet to the general public to buy.It sounds very interesting.Look forward to seeing your shots from it.It needs to be user friendly though!!.

It's has been recently released but not too sure how much they sell for... think I saw it somewhere for £399 but I couldn't say if that's typical. I'll get back to you on that.
One thing I can promise is that it's very very simple to use.

[Andy Bright]

Actually, around £325 online

[Henry B]

Wats a t* lens please..

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by elgin5050.fsnet

Wats a t* lens please..

It's a multi layer lens coating used by Zeiss, increasing light transmission.
Regards,
Andy

[Henry B]

Thanks Andy...

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by Andy Bright

The 28mm adapter comes as standardwith the camera.

There is an almost identical version of this camera under the Kyocera name but there are some important differences..... the lens isn't a Zeiss T* type, you don't get a filter thread and I think it doesn't have the 'Rtune' processing that enables 3.5fps with unlimited amount of shots. This is really something to behold when in action... a 256mb card can go in a flash! Don't know if shutter-lag is the same.

You've got me intrigued. The Kyocera website confirms that the Kyoceras don't have the 28mm adapter, but the Contax does. However, the Kyocera's do have the Rtune innards. The 4Mp version runs at 3.3 fps, slightly slower than both of the 3Mp versions.

So for those wanting more pixels, it'll come down to how much better the lens is and whether that little 28mm adapter will work on the Kyoceras and if it can be obtained separately.

Either that, or perhaps they will releas a 4Mp version in the Contax T* form.

Regardless, this looks very interesting.

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by Jay Turberville

You've got me intrigued. The Kyocera website confirms that the Kyoceras don't have the 28mm adapter, but the Contax does. However, the Kyocera's do have the Rtune innards. The 4Mp version runs at 3.3 fps, slightly slower than both of the 3Mp versions.

So for those wanting more pixels, it'll come down to how much better the lens is and whether that little 28mm adapter will work on the Kyoceras and if it can be obtained separately.

Either that, or perhaps they will releas a 4Mp version in the Contax T* form.

Regardless, this looks very interesting.

I'm not sure 3.34 or 4mp will be much of a deciding factor to most birders, it certainly shouldn't be. You do wonder if such a tiny lens would benefit a 4mp ccd anyway... it is minute. I'd guess that with a lens as small as this, the very best quality would be appropriate.
Contax have a reputation of producing specialist use cameras, and they may just be the manufacturer to respond to our needs in future designs.

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by Andy Bright

I'm not sure 3.34 or 4mp will be much of a deciding factor to most birders, it certainly shouldn't be. You do wonder if such a tiny lens would benefit a 4mp ccd anyway... it is minute. I'd guess that with a lens as small as this, the very best quality would be appropriate.

No it shouldn't. Its only about 10% more linear resolution. But all things being equal, I'd rather have 4Mp than 3Mp.

Yes. With the very small and fine resolution sensor, the optical resolution becomes increasingly important. When you consider the combined pieces of a digiscoping rig, the T* lens may provide a legitimate and perceivable benefit.

I'm also curious if this smaller lens requires less eye relief than the Coolpixes. It seems likely. So this camera may work better with scopes having eye reliefs shorter than 20mm.

[Andy Bright]

Although very dark and wet for most of the day, I've decided to put a photo up from the little Contax... it's a little unfair on the camera as it's taken at iso200 and this reduces detail to some extent.

I could've cleaned it up in neatimage and quantum mechanic pro but decided not to. This image is resized to 800 high from a 1500 high crop from the original.
Remember that this is without a cable-release.

Exif:
Model : CONTAX SL300R T*
ExposureTime : 1/180Sec
FNumber : F2.8
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 200
DateTimeOriginal : 2004:07:02 12:21:39
MeteringMode : CenterWeightedAverage
FocalLength : 13.10(mm)

[Doug Greenberg]

Your woodpecker photo is excellent. How good are non-digiscoped "regular" photos, especially as compared with any of the Coolpixes?

Is the level of noise really "reduced" (as compared, I assume with other small digicams), or is this claim marketing puffery?

You mention that a "typical" digiscoping adapter (or eyepiece?) would fit onto the 28mm. threads. Do you see any reason for there to be exceptions to this general rule?

Finally: the camera is selling for $430 at B & H in New York, and there's an ebay listing for a U.S. warrantied Contax for $400.

[mcdowella]

I have been comparing the picture with the Collins guide because I have a Sony DSC-P71 (just for ordinary photography) which I find OK, except for one very annoying problem - lots of things I see as saturated red it sees as orange e.g. the poppies that flowered a few weeks ago, and redcurrant berries. I suspect that this is better, but can't be completely sure - to me the photograph makes the guide look a little bit exaggerated. What do you think of its colour faithfulness? Is red => orange a well-known problem with some digital cameras?

[IanF]

I'd say it performed well considering the conditions. The noise from the 200 ASA setting cleared up nicely in NI. For me though I'd almost certainly need to use an adapter and a cable release of some description.

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by Doug Greenberg

Your woodpecker photo is excellent. How good are non-digiscoped "regular" photos, especially as compared with any of the Coolpixes?

You mean not put the camera up against a scope? It's certainly an intriguing idea I'll give it a try

I presume you're referring to some noise reduction in the camera mentioned earlier in the thread? It's a bit hard to say as I've never used anything with such a small lens or ccd as this, other than a mobile phone. Given the problems of noise with a tiny ccd, lens and ccd heat during 3.5fps shooting it seems excellent... iso 100 shots look similar to shots with a Nikon cp990 in terms of image noise.

Originally Posted by Doug Greenberg

You mention that a "typical" digiscoping adapter (or eyepiece?) would fit onto the 28mm. threads. Do you see any reason for there to be exceptions to this general rule?

Don't quite understand the question?

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by mcdowella

I have been comparing the picture with the Collins guide because I have a Sony DSC-P71 (just for ordinary photography) which I find OK, except for one very annoying problem - lots of things I see as saturated red it sees as orange e.g. the poppies that flowered a few weeks ago, and redcurrant berries. I suspect that this is better, but can't be completely sure - to me the photograph makes the guide look a little bit exaggerated. What do you think of its colour faithfulness? Is red => orange a well-known problem with some digital cameras?

Yes, this a fairly common problem... in fact most digital cameras struggle to reproduce reds faithfully, in this case I don't think iso200 has helped matters and auto white balance may not have read the scene perfectly (there's the typical white balance options, including manual).

Oddly enough, I did take some digiscoped shots of geraniums and they looked pretty good... but that may have been iso100. Maybe I shouldn't have been so quick on the delete button with those shots.

Originally Posted by IanF

I'd say it performed well considering the conditions. The noise from the 200 ASA setting cleared up nicely in NI. For me though I'd almost certainly need to use an adapter and a cable release of some description.

Shooting a stream of shots at 3.5fps seems to get at least one sharp image when using slower shutter-speeds with a finger on the shutter-release button.

As I pointed out before, I don't see the Contax as bettering the coolpix cp4500 in terms of image quality. It's strengths are in it's ability to take good sharp digiscoped images extremely easily for the birder whose aspirations don't run to quality A4+ prints. The 3.5fps and minimal shutter-lag are a major bonus for anyone though, and flight shots could be a real possibility .... though a cable-release would be to die for

[mcdowella]

Thanks for the info - I will try playing around with manual ISO 100 on the P71. I don't have poppies on hand, but I just took a shot of my redcurrants on auto, and they don't look too bad. The Contax does look nice, though, and I would gain preset white balance as well as compactness. I've had a look at the manual and I am decidedly tempted.

[Andy Bright]

I don't see any photos of this camera in it's black finish, but this is an option, maybe more appropriate for birding. It's a tough beast with an all magnesium body. I'll just have to keep it out of the reach of my girlfriend, she'd love this in her handbag.

[Doug Greenberg]

You mention that a "typical" digiscoping adapter (or eyepiece?) would fit onto the 28mm. threads. Do you see any reason for there to be exceptions to this general rule?

Don't quite understand the question?

What I see in the photos of the camera appears to be a 28mm. thread surrounded by a kind of square-ish lens hood. My question relates to the possibility that whereas the threads will accommodate filters and other narrow objects, the hood's construction may render it difficult to accommodate an adapter whose diameter increases rapidly very close to the threads. Am I making myself clear? This issue is similar to the problem of trying to fit a big, fat mirror lens on an SLR that has a pop-up flash unit that overhangs the lens mount. Some combinations of SLR and lens simply won't work because the overhang bumps into the large-diametered lens.

Basically: does the lens hood theaten to interfere in the mounting of some eyepieces or adapters?