• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

The amazing Contax SL300RT* (1 Viewer)

Doug Greenberg said:
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.

Doug Greenberg said:
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?
 
mcdowella said:
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.


IanF said:
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 ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
I think I know where you're coming from now... the photos I've posted could give the impression that the square lens hood actually protrudes into the filter adapter... it doesn't and is no different to that of the coolpix 4500 lens/thread.

does this shot give you a better idea
 

Attachments

  • contaxfilterthread9.jpg
    contaxfilterthread9.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 293
Here a couple of digiscoped shots taken with the Contax SL300RT in combination with the Zeiss Diascope 85T*FL & 20-60 zoom e.p. @20x

Dull conditions, shutter speed for Blue Tit was 1/125 and the Woodpigeon was 1/45 ... without cable-release, so proving how easy it is to get a reasonable shot with no added extras (Blue Tit has a bit of motion blur around head).
Some sharpening applied but no neatimage or similar. 800x800 (the max for BF) and jpg @ 8 in ps7
 

Attachments

  • bluetit.jpg
    bluetit.jpg
    172.4 KB · Views: 340
  • woody.jpg
    woody.jpg
    145.4 KB · Views: 323
Jay Turberville said:
Are these crops or have they been resized? So is it your impression that the images are in the same ballpark as the CP990/4500?
Yes, they are crops (that's why they're square format ;) Both are just square crops from the originals so they'd both be about 1500x1500 before resizing. I'll upload some full images to my website, where I have a page on this camera... though I may regret it when I see my monthly bandwidth useage.

As for overall quality vs the other cameras... I'd say it's very close to the 3.34mp cp990, though maybe running out of resolution a fraction. I don't see this as a major factor for most and is outweighed by the speed of the camera and ease of use and consistant results.

BTW, Oly 5060 hopefully on it's way.

Regards,
Andy
 
Andy Bright said:
Yes, they are crops (that's why they're square format ;)

I suppose I should have asked if they were 100% crops. :)

I was just curious if the pixels are at a 1:1 ratio to the original.

Andy Bright said:
I'll upload some full images to my website, where I have a page on this camera... though I may regret it when I see my monthly bandwidth useage.


If bandwidth is really an issue, then full resolution crops should do fine. The bandwidth on my home based, DSL powered, webserver is not measured. You are always welcome to store such things there.

Andy Bright said:
As for overall quality vs the other cameras... I'd say it's very close to the 3.34mp cp990, though maybe running out of resolution a fraction. I don't see this as a major factor for most and is outweighed by the speed of the camera and ease of use and consistant results.

BTW, Oly 5060 hopefully on it's way.

Regards,
Andy

Thanks for the info. I'm very curious about the Olympus.
 
Andy,were you the usual digiscoping distance away from the subject.The shot of the Collared Dove,looks very close,unless it really is an amazing camera.I thought it was originally mentioned that no adaptor is needed,or have I got that wrong.I have actually seen this camera advertised.But those shots,Andy,really are very clear.Have just been to your Digiscoping site ,Andy and yes have seen it does use an adapter.
 
Last edited:
Jay Turberville said:
I'm very curious about the Olympus.

Ditto!

Although I'm off on holiday in a couple of days so might have to scroll through a few thousand posts to find any review Andy may do in the next couple of weeks!

Adey
 
Contax SL300RT etc

Hi all,

Just read through this thread and I wonder if anyone can answer the following questions:

1) (General) What do you mean by "image noise"?
2) I have a Sony point-and-shoot Cybershot DSC-P1 - getting on now at two years old, but I don't think I have an ISO setting on mine - unless anyone can correct me? I do have a manual exposure setting - is that the same?

3) Specific; Does the Contax have a macro on it? If so, what is it like? My Sony's is rubbish compared with the Nikons.

4) Would the Contax work with my Kowa TSN 824? ( I currently hand-hold when digiscoping, so an adaptor would be a breakthrough for me)

Thanks

Sean

ps how do I put nice maps and pics next to my name in these postings?
 
Sean can't answer the digiscoping part, but may be able to help with the nice maps and pics bit.

Go to the red bar above this thread. Click on "My Profile" (second from the left), then choose "Edit avatar". When you get to the edit avatar screen, you will see a section that says "browse". Go and select your pic from your computer, making sure it is no larger than 80x80 pixels (I think - someone correct me if I'm wrong) and upload it.

Good luck.
 
I haven't had much time of late and also had the pain of a damaged phoneline, so sorry I haven't done much with this thread.

I took some shots this evening to compare the Contax with the cp4500 .... a unfair match as the cp4500 is a 4mp camera. Both shots were taken using the self-timer on the cameras with scope at roughly 35x (the selt-timer on the Contax takes 3 shots in fat shooting mode). The target is a chimney stack, some 100yrds away. The Contax was at full zoom (3x) and the cp4500 at roughly the same.
I just couldn't get a decent shot from my cp990 which was a shame as it's 3mp ccd would've been a better comparison... maybe my cp990 is showing it's age.

Both images are Jay-pleasing 800x800 cuts from the originals and both saved at same jpg compression (level 5) in PS7. Sharpening was difficult as the Contax doesn't have an off setting, just a -1 setting. I think I've done a reasonable job in getting very similar sharpening applied to both images.

The CP4500 naturally enough resolves more detail, but it is surprising how little noise is present in the Contax shots... certainly walks all over the cp990 in terms of noise (image noise is a grainy effect). I have reduced the in-camera saturation level in the Contax, as the densely pixel packed mini ccd of this camera was showing a bit of colour bleed.

As stated before, I had many more good shots with the Contax than with the cp4500. Incidentally, the 3.5fps of the Contax enables you to do a sort of manual version of Nikon's BSS system.... it's very quick to go through the images checking the file size, and keeping the largest one, which is often the most detailed.
 

Attachments

  • Contaxchimney.jpg
    Contaxchimney.jpg
    187.8 KB · Views: 312
  • cp4500chiimney.jpg
    cp4500chiimney.jpg
    144.5 KB · Views: 305
Andy Bright said:
Both images are Jay-pleasing 800x800

That has a rather nice ring to it. :)

Andy Bright said:
As stated before, I had many more good shots with the Contax than with the cp4500. Incidentally, the 3.5fps of the Contax enables you to do a sort of manual version of Nikon's BSS system.... it's very quick to go through the images checking the file size, and keeping the largest one, which is often the most detailed.

The Contax certainly seems to be holding its own. Its image seems more contrasty - though I'm assuming that the Contax shot got direct sunlight while the CP4500 shot had a tad of overcast? The shadows are much better lit in the CP4500 as a result. This is also supported by the much faster shutter speed used by the Contax .

There is quite a bit of good detail in these shots, especially considering the fairly high magnification that was used.
 
I have just bought the August issue of "What Digital Camera" (UK) and it contains a one page 'Quick View' of the Contax SL300RT* camera.
'Pros' - Good ISO range, speed, design.
'Cons' - Noise, image quality, no optical viewfinder.

Roger
 
I picked up a (melanistic variant) SL300RT* on Thursday evening (T4 Cameras, £350). I'm no digiscoper, but I would certainly recommend it for recording the landscape, flora, and just carrying on the off chance:

The minature camera credo has two parts:
a) Any camera whatsoever - that you have with you - is better than any camera whatsoever - that you left behind.
b) It's up to the camera to give you good A4 pictures when you use all of the frame. It's up to you to make use of all of that frame.

This camera is almost exactly the same size as an audio cassette tape in its case, so you can find out for yourself how easy it is to carry (it is heavier than a cassette tape - it has quite a nice solid feel, for its size). At 2048x1536 pixels and with a Zeiss lens, it is more than capable of producing a good A4 picture. White balance problems are sorted too - this camera has a preset white balance option - point it at a white card and ask it to set the white balance so that it comes out white. Stuffed into the inside cover of my diary I have a rectangle cut from a photgrapher's 50% grey card, so if I take just a little bit of time to set the camera up I can wave goodbye to white balance problems.

The macro mode will focus down to 20cm according to the manual. At A4 print size, this gives you a picture slightly bigger than the original. Not staggering, but I know from experience with 35mm that trying to get closer than this gets complicated pretty quickly - you have to worry a lot more about shading the subject, shake of all sorts, depth of field, and so on.

Minuses - there is no optical viewfinder, and the LCD viewfinder isn't as easy to use in bright light - unless I improve with practice - In fact, I've lost a shot due to that already. I have my doubts about battery life, but it may be OK in practice as long as you don't use flash. At least with Lithium-Ion batteries, you can top them up quickly, and I don't think you have to worry so much about memory effect.

Don't know yet - I need to wait till next June to see if it can take the red poppies in my garden properly, but so far it seems to be handling deep reds OK. My mouse map is a colour chart of all the browser-friendly colours (www.visibone.com). A picture of this is slightly lacking in contrast, but otherwise very good. I could play with the contrast, but it's close enough and I'd rather be that side of exact faithfullness than the other.
Some pocketable cameras can take being banged around all day, and some can't. I had no problems with a Minolta 16 sub-minature, and an Olympus Pen EE2 half-frame, but I lost two Minox 35mm cameras with the same fault - the front element of the lens came loose, and on one camera eventually dropped off. With a metal body, and the Contax name behind it, I'm hopeful.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top