Tariq Gibran wrote:
Interesting question and it brings up a few questions of my own. Why has not Zeiss made available to/or Sony chosen to use more of the primes in the Zeiss line for the Alpha system? Because of AF? I'm also curious as to who make the Zeiss Sony AF lenses. Cosina? or are they licensed only and made by Sony/Minolta themselves?
Sony is in complete control of virtually every aspect of the ZA lenses. Not sure who the OEM is to Sony for the ZA lenses. It could be Tamron (Sony is their largest non-financial shareholder), it could be KonicaMinolta or someone else. But they are clearly made for Sony and not made for Zeiss.
It not clear whether Sony prevents Zeiss from producing ZF lenses in the Sony/Minolta lens mount. If Zeiss is able to, and decides to, they would be quite a different undertaking and quite independent for the current Sony ZA lenses. If Sony is preventing Zeiss from making them, I think they are making a mistake. Their availability would increase the attractiveness of the alpha system, hekp stimulate converts to the system, and pay Sony long-term benefits.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Sony is in complete control of virtually every aspect of the ZA lenses. Not sure who the OEM is to Sony for the ZA lenses. It could be Tamron (Sony is their largest non-financial shareholder), it could be KonicaMinolta or someone else. But they are clearly made for Sony and not made for Zeiss.
So, Zeiss designs the optical formula, then Tamron/KM/Cosina manufactures the lenses (and glass?)? That makes sense, but then I wouldn't exactly claim that Sony controls "virtually every aspect" of the ZA lenses. The optical formula/design, after all, is of utmost importance. Glass probably needs to meet Zeiss standards. The rest of the lens/process is important as well, but at least the optics are top notch.
Lotusm50 wrote:
If Sony is preventing Zeiss from making them, I think they are making a mistake. Their availability would increase the attractiveness of the alpha system, hekp stimulate converts to the system, and pay Sony long-term benefits.
Totally agree. Only logical reason to not allow it is to push their own Minolta-derived primes, and/or to produce a full lineup of ZA primes in the same manner as the existing lenses, which would also be attractive for the alpha system. So perhaps they'll just keep up that routine. The ZA prime samples I've seen are outstanding, in particular the 135/1.8.
I am another who really enjoys stop down focussing. The fact that you have to hold down the d.o.f. preview button on Canon bodies is a nuisance. On my Contax RTS2's you had the convenience of a lock, so the preview button was temporary or permanent, depending on your mood. It's amazing how many things Porsche got right on those cameras that are still wrong on the latest and greatest cameras today. That should be our next petition to Canon: a lock on the dof preview button.
I was just saying this yesterday, on another thread, but with live-view getting so much better I doubt Canon would ever consider sinking R&D into this. -but at least they could make the bloody button more comfortable. It kills my finger. (at least the direct-to-print button is comfy.)
That's why I'm hesitant about the new ZE's, I like to work with the true aperture set. Even with a comfy button, you wouldn't be able to hold it in AND manually focus at the same time.
-----------------------------
Thought-
Why couldn't Zeiss put an aperture-lock button right on the lenses? Not a lock, exactly, but a button to defeat the camera's aperture-focus control? That way, you'd hit that button, use the camera to set aperture, but still be able to compose/focus with the correct aperture showing. This would be even MORE useful with live-view, since the view can be brightened. If you prefer using the viewfinder, and things get too dark to focus, you'd just hit the button & let the camera take over.
Good grief, isn't anyone here happy to get rid of stopped-down metering? And I actually prefer to focus with as much light getting to the viewfinder as possible
theophilus wrote:
Good grief, isn't anyone here happy to get rid of stopped-down metering? And I actually prefer to focus with as much light getting to the viewfinder as possible
I'm with you on this one (which is why my mind boggles). I can certainly deal fairly well with stop-down metering, but I do not (in the least) see any advantage to it. Focusing stopped-down is something I only do between f2 and about f3.5, on very fast lenses. Beyond that, it is unreliable. I'd much rather focus wide open and have the camera stop-down to the preset aperture.
Sep 15, 2008 at 02:20 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
It seems to me that the only advantage to focusing stopped-down would be with fast lenses that exhibited focus shift. So if an f/1.2 lens showed focus shift from f/2.0 to f/2.8--as some suggest the Canon 50L does--then it might be pretty nice to stop down the aperture and focus at the slightly narrower aperture which would still be pretty doable and in this way avoid the focus shift problems.
cogitech wrote:
I'm with you on this one (which is why my mind boggles). I can certainly deal fairly well with stop-down metering, but I do not (in the least) see any advantage to it. Focusing stopped-down is something I only do between f2 and about f3.5, on very fast lenses. Beyond that, it is unreliable. I'd much rather focus wide open and have the camera stop-down to the preset aperture.
There is one advantage to working stopped down, but it only occurs with lenses like the Kiron 28/2 or Super-Takumar 105mm f2.8 which are low contrast wide-open but improve contrast quickly when stopped down. With these lenses it's often easier to focus at one stop down from wide open.
cogitech wrote:
I'm with you on this one (which is why my mind boggles). I can certainly deal fairly well with stop-down metering, but I do not (in the least) see any advantage to it. Focusing stopped-down is something I only do between f2 and about f3.5, on very fast lenses. Beyond that, it is unreliable. I'd much rather focus wide open and have the camera stop-down to the preset aperture.
Ditto...apparently, regardless of the release, SOMETHING has to be wrong with a new product.
mawz wrote:
There is one advantage to working stopped down, but it only occurs with lenses like the Kiron 28/2 or Super-Takumar 105mm f2.8 which are low contrast wide-open but improve contrast quickly when stopped down. With these lenses it's often easier to focus at one stop down from wide open.
Makes sense. The extra DOF helps increase the keeper rate too, though.
My mind boggles that you guys don't care about seeing accurate DOF while you work.
To me, seeing the "actual" (maybe not dead-accurate, but close enough) circle of confusion makes a significant difference to how I frame the shot, and more importntly, exactly where I put the focus.
You guys must not be very picky. - though I find this hard to believe.
I'm also of the camp who are happy with the electronic auto-aperture. Very happy, indeed. Compared to using my Contax lenses, I believe having auto-everything except focus will streamline my photography process. It's one less control that requires me to take my eye from the viewfinder, and will let me concentrate on composition rather than equipment.
Cableaddict wrote:
My mind boggles that you guys don't care about seeing accurate DOF while you work.
Who said that? I see perfectly accurate DOF by simply pressing the DOF Preview button. It's not the most ergonomically located or "tactile" control on the camera (at least on my Canon bodies), but it does the job, and once you're used to where it is, it's no problem at all to operate without looking.
Cableaddict wrote:
To me, seeing the "actual" (maybe not dead-accurate, but close enough) circle of confusion makes a significant difference to how I frame the shot, and more importntly, exactly where I put the focus.
I don't believe I've ever let the circle of confusion (or more accurately, the available DOF) decide how I compose a photo. On the contrary, it's my visualization that determines composition, then lens selection, focus point and required DOF, necessarily in that order. Who can really compose/focus at f/11 anyway? I find it far easier to focus with as bright a finder and shallow a DOF as my lens permits.
I suppose we have different methods to our madness!
Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying, but certainly we all have our own way of working.
Cableaddict wrote:
My mind boggles that you guys don't care about seeing accurate DOF while you work.
To me, seeing the "actual" (maybe not dead-accurate, but close enough) circle of confusion makes a significant difference to how I frame the shot, and more importntly, exactly where I put the focus.
You guys must not be very picky. - though I find this hard to believe.
Nah, you don't misunderstand me, you just work differently. To me, the COC (for alck of a better description) is crirical, and I like to see it as I work. Simple as that.
Let's put it a different way: Suppose there was NO light penalty when stopped down. Would you still choose to have to hit the DOF button? Of course not. So it just comes down to how much you can deal with the dim viewfinder.
Is I have written many times, I use a Brightscreen D2 magnified eyepiece, and the STOCK 5D focus screen. I have absolutely no problem focussing down to about f/8 outside, and f/4 inside.
If I were using the stock eyepiece and an Ees screen, things would be different.
Suppose we get a camera that has, not a mirror, but a tiny live-view LCD inside the viewfinder? That's not hard to imagine. How would you feel about my "aperture override" button then?
If you haven't worked at "true aperture" (because of the dimness, then you don't know what you're missing. Seriously, I can't imagine doing critical work any other way. It's the reason I got the eyepiece magnifier first, instead of an alternate screen. I was hoping to avoid the dark screen, and it worked out. (just barely)
YES and here is why. The DOF could be so great if you focused stopped down style that you might actually miss perfect focus exactly where you intended it to be. The limited DOF when focusing with the lens wide open ensures that the exact point of focus is where you want it, provided there is no focus shift. Focus shift in most cases would be taken care of by the DOF anyway.
Cableaddict wrote:
Let's put it a different way: Suppose there was NO light penalty when stopped down. Would you still choose to have to hit the DOF button? Of course not. So it just comes down to how much you can deal with the dim viewfinder.
then?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
YES and here is why. The DOF could be so great if you focused stopped down style that you might actually miss perfect focus exactly where you intended it to be. The limited DOF when focusing with the lens wide open ensures that the exact point of focus is where you want it, provided there is no focus shift. Focus shift in most cases would be taken care of by the DOF anyway.
Exactly.
The lenses are intended to be focused wide open and then stopped down during exposure. Other than the issue of focus shift, there is no reason whatsoever why anyone should be focusing stopped down, and it could easily introduce plenty of error.
But as someone else already said; different strokes for different folks.
This is great for macro and architectural shooting, but what else?
Don't you think your view is a bit limited here?
I do agree a button/lock would be easy to implement, and likely help some. But, the viewfinders have along way to go IMO before we keep'em stopped down all the time.
Cableaddict wrote:
Nah, you don't misunderstand me, you just work differently. To me, the COC (for alck of a better description) is crirical, and I like to see it as I work. Simple as that.
Let's put it a different way: Suppose there was NO light penalty when stopped down. Would you still choose to have to hit the DOF button? Of course not. So it just comes down to how much you can deal with the dim viewfinder.
Is I have written many times, I use a Brightscreen D2 magnified eyepiece, and the STOCK 5D focus screen. I have absolutely no problem focussing down to about f/8 outside, and f/4 inside.
If I were using the stock eyepiece and an Ees screen, things would be different.
Suppose we get a camera that has, not a mirror, but a tiny live-view LCD inside the viewfinder? That's not hard to imagine. How would you feel about my "aperture override" button then?
If you haven't worked at "true aperture" (because of the dimness, then you don't know what you're missing. Seriously, I can't imagine doing critical work any other way. It's the reason I got the eyepiece magnifier first, instead of an alternate screen. I was hoping to avoid the dark screen, and it worked out. (just barely)...Show more →
