Yes, I mentioned the M series in my post and there were additional optical benefits to going with a retrofocus design beyond just the M5 as stated by Erwin Puts in the Leica Lens Compendium:
"The gradual change from symmetrical to retro-focus
types for the M-body, was necessary since the introduction of the M5. The
second, more disguised argument for the change to this newer type of designs is
the optical potential of these designs. As soon as the designer has familiarized
himself with the inherent characteristics of retro-focus designs, (s)he has more
opportunities for correction."
The only pure wide angle lens design I am aware of which does not suffer from terrible vignetting and other optical issues are the Zeiss Biogons. The large Rodenstock Grandagons and Schneider Super Angulons both suffer from pretty severe vignetting and require a center filter for critical evenness.
But I'm glad you have seemingly retracted your stance that a pure wide angle lens design is actually not in use by Leica these days when you were in fact originally claiming the superiority and use(by Leica!) of such a design only a few posts back.
Mel Gross wrote:
Yes, for SLR's with a long backfocus.
But I meant the "M" series, which I though you understood me to mean. With those, it's different. Superior quality is easier with a pure wideangle design. Vignetting is mostly due to designing a compact lens. The new Zeiss 18/3/5 is a good example of this. It vignettes by 3 stops wide open, and even at 8, it's a good one stop plus off. Only at 11 does it look good, though, even there, vignetting is present.
The reason why Leica went to a slightly retrofocus design for some of their wider lenses for the "M" series had nothing to do with the quality issue.
It had to do with the swing down metering the cameras began to use. I had that M5 camera. The older wideangle lenses just barely made it.. Leica redesigned some of those lenses in their normal upgrade programs shortly after, to make newer cameras have better metering systems. More modern designs, such as the computer designs Canon first used with the new F1 series in 1969, aided new lens development. Older more manual methods could take several years to calculate new high grade lenses, and some areas of design couldn't be calculated at all in any reasonable time. Leica, as other top manufacturers, began to go to computer aided design as well. Better lenses resulted. Slightly retrofocus designs could easily be made that were better than the older designs, which also didn't take advantage of newer glasses and such.
Nowadays, with the amazingly high precision manufacturing techniques everyone can use, almost any design is possible. Internal element groups, moving in different directions at once are becoming common. Several groups can be moving at the same time by different amounts. This technique can actually change the type of lens design as focus progresses. A wide can become more retrofocus as it focusses out to infinity, and, of course, less so as focus moves closer—the best of both worlds.
In reality, today, a designer has so many tools at her disposal that almost any problem can be minimized. It just depends on what the price of the lens can be, and the size and weight it's thought people will accept. ...Show more →
Il Medico wrote:
Wow! Canon fanboy got up on the wrong side of the crib today!
Says who? Take a look around for samples. There are many ways to process RAW files, not all of them good.
I've used a 5D. Build is the same or less than the 40D. It's also very slow in comparison- overall responsiveness.
Then 5 to 6, 6 to 7, 7 to 8, 8 to 9, 9-10 matter not either. So I guess Canon is milking all the sports photogs by having them pay extra for 10fps.
You're a real piece of work.
It's far less of an assumption than what the IQ of the 5DII will be.
No it's not (improved) It's identical.
And you know this how? The 40D/50D have markedly better of center AF with the cross type sensors. AF tracking is faster in the 40/50D as well.
Didn't say I wasn't happy without it. You can read can't you? I said that inbody IS is more important to ME than a so-so video mode.
Making assumptions are we? And by better you mean at high ISO, at low ISO what assumptions are you making?
Maybe this is news to you, but there is more to IQ than high ISO noise performance.
Go check out DPR's review of the D700. The A900 in JPPEG mode is over 1 stop BETTER than the old 5D. The 5DII may or may not be any better. So no loss in DR for the A900.
Well I guess they'd be noisy if I made it a habit to shoot at ISO 3200 or more with no PP and printed them at 20x30.
Did I mention that you're a real piece of work?
Again, I'm going to jump out on a limb here and assume you CAN read. I said that at ISO 1600 the A900 will be better than the 5DII at 6400.
It's not MY problem YOU can't handhold your non stabelized $1800 lens steady at 1/15 while someone with an A900 with the equally as good CZ 85/1.4 can.
Not so sure you do either. Got any proof you're not just some Canon wannabe fanboy talking out your @ss?
If you "did" actually own any Canon gear AND actually used any one of Canon's abysmal VGs you'd know that what I said is true.
Of course you could just be justifying the your spending of $200 on a $75 VG with limited functionality.
If someone disagrees, they're a fanboy/ Perhaps you are the fanboy.
You make statements that are just plain silly.
As for the a900 RAW images. no doubt there will be a small improvement with a better RAW engine. But it won't make a huge difference. These things never do. The differences are subtle.
Your statements regarding the 5D build quality vs the 40D are a joke. Don't bother!
Speed, well, if you think moving up one fps makes a big difference, good for you. As far as being a piece of work goes, when you know something, and aren't just venting, you might make more sense.
As for my assumptions, I'm not making any. There have been two field reviews. They both said the same thing. Noise from the a900 is about the same as the 1Ds mkIII, but a bit worse at higher ISO's. Most people understand this already. It seems as though the 1Ds mkIII was Sony's target to match.
IQ is made up of numerous things. Several are sharpness, noise, and dynamic range. Those are the biggies.
I doubt anyone here that cares about ultimate image quality uses JPEGS for anything critical. It's the RAW quality that matters most.
As far as the a900 focus goes, we know what Sony has done there. No assumptions required.
I can read very well, you want to set up a situation that doesn't exist, and you want me to agree with it. I don't have to. I can easily handhold a camera with an 85/1/2 shooting at 1600 at what will turn out to be, 99% of the time a 90th to a 125th of a sec. Sorry, I don't shoot in total darkness. Maybe you do.
About those Zeiss lenses. We'll have to see how they preform on a FF sensor. So far, all the real tests have been done on an APS-C body.
Maybe you don't look at discontinued models much, but that's pretty normal, even for Sony.
How about your proof? You're the one making absurd statements.
I never meant to have you think that Leica never had retrofocus lenses for the "M" series all the way through the more recent history. If it sounded that way at first, it was my error. As you saw, though, the reason for going retrofocus was, as I said, the new M5, with its swing out meter. A mild retrofocus lens, rather than the extreme ones used for SLR's, particularly Nikon's, which had a lot of problems, and required bigger, and more expensive designs to get around the fact, could benefit from the newer technology.
Retrofocus lenses are more complex by nature, so more opportunities do present themselves. It's still easier to design a good lens that isn't retrofocus, because it's simpler.
As far as vignetting and design go, it's a matter of desire, more than anything else. I don't remember much about the Biogon, as I never used them, but the others did have vignetting. Otherwise the already very expensive, and heavy lenses would have been even heavier and more expensive. But, the Super Angulons had much better vignetting performance. Were they retrofocus? I don't remember. But they were much bigger and more expensive.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, I mentioned the M series in my post and there were additional optical benefits to going with a retrofocus design beyond just the M5 as stated by Erwin Puts in the Leica Lens Compendium:
"The gradual change from symmetrical to retro-focus
types for the M-body, was necessary since the introduction of the M5. The
second, more disguised argument for the change to this newer type of designs is
the optical potential of these designs. As soon as the designer has familiarized
himself with the inherent characteristics of retro-focus designs, (s)he has more
opportunities for correction."
The only pure wide angle lens design I am aware of which does not suffer from terrible vignetting and other optical issues are the Zeiss Biogons. The large Rodenstock Grandagons and Schneider Super Angulons both suffer from pretty severe vignetting and require a center filter for critical evenness.
But I'm glad you have seemingly retracted your stance that a pure wide angle lens design is actually not in use by Leica these days when you were in fact originally claiming the superiority and use(by Leica!) of such a design only a few posts back.
Mel Gross wrote:
As far as vignetting and design go, it's a matter of desire, more than anything else. I don't remember much about the Biogon, as I never used them, but the others did have vignetting. Otherwise the already very expensive, and heavy lenses would have been even heavier and more expensive. But, the Super Angulons had much better vignetting performance. Were they retrofocus? I don't remember. But they were much bigger and more expensive.
Even the Super Angulons suffer from pretty bad vignetting which is why Schneider offer a center filter for them. I have used a number of them over the years. They are not perfect symmetrical designs, though close, and use the the famed tilting pupil trick to help with more even edge illumination.
dpr has some figures up from A900 in the D700 review:
Camera
Shadow range
Highlight range
Usable range
Nikon D700 (ISO 200) -4.4 EV 3.4 EV 7.8 EV
Sony DSLR-A900 (ISO 200) -5.1 EV 4.2 EV 9.4 EV
Canon EOS 5D (ISO 100) -4.7 EV 3.5 EV 8.2 EV
Nikon D300 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 4.1 EV 8.8 EV
Nikon D3 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 3.9 EV 8.6 EV
moire wrote:
dpr has some figures up from A900 in the D700 review:
Camera
Shadow range
Highlight range
Usable range
Nikon D700 (ISO 200) -4.4 EV 3.4 EV 7.8 EV
Sony DSLR-A900 (ISO 200) -5.1 EV 4.2 EV 9.4 EV
Canon EOS 5D (ISO 100) -4.7 EV 3.5 EV 8.2 EV
Nikon D300 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 4.1 EV 8.8 EV
Nikon D3 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 3.9 EV 8.6 EV
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Even the Super Angulons suffer from pretty bad vignetting which is why Schneider offer a center filter for them. I have used a number of them over the years. They are not perfect symmetrical designs, though close, and use the the famed tilting pupil trick to help with more even edge illumination.
Yes, I agree. My 90 does vignette. but it's much better than the older one which I also had.
They aren't perfect, because those front elements must be larger, as they are in almost all "symmetrical designs, esp. the ones from the '60's on forward, to cut down on that vignetting.
If they made the front elements larger, to cut the vignetting down further, you could use it as an umbrella.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The RAW DR should be even better! I think that is the encouraging aspect.
Despite what people may be thinking about my feelings here, I hope it will be as well. But from the looks at the RAW image comparisons put up in the review already, it's obvious they HAVE gotten the a900's RAW files. It doesn't look good. It's much noisier than the other three cameras tested. It's too bad.
I would have liked to see the results from the 1Ds mkIII side by side as well, since this is the camera that the a900 has been compared to in their own field report, as well as the one fron the Luminous Landscape. As they seem to have changed their testing procedures somewhat, older results may not validly compare to the new ones.
It should be an interesting next few months, with Canon, and likely Nikon, adding new top end cameras to the mix.
douglasf13 wrote:
Chasseur d'Images tested the A900, and they said noise is on par with 1dsiii, and detail is as good or better in some situtations.
and
Mel Gross wrote:
From what we know, so far, the IQ seems to be on about a par with the 1Ds mkIII.
If these statement prove to be correct then I will be buying and a900. However, I have yet to read the Chasseur d'Images article, and don't know how they came to that conclusions or how comprehensive or rigorous their comparison was. If anyone has a copy, I would love to see it. So far, everything else I have seen, including RAW files suggest that it comes up short in terms of noise, and other comparisons indicate that fine detail is better with the 1DsMKIII (and by extension, therefore, the 5D MkII as well). I guess I am still waiting for a comprehensive and conclusive comparison test, hopefully with the 5D MkII.
If these statement prove to be correct then I will be buying and a900. However, I have yet to read the Chasseur d'Images article, and don't know how they came to that conclusions or how comprehensive or rigorous their comparison was. If anyone has a copy, I would love to see it. So far, everything else I have seen, including RAW files suggest that it comes up short in terms of noise, and other comparisons indicate that fine detail is better with the 1DsMKIII (and by extension, therefore, the 5D MkII as well). I guess I am still waiting for a comprehensive and conclusive comparison test, hopefully with the 5D MkII.
Remember that the 5D mkII will have better IQ than the 1Ds mkIII. Exactly how much better is yet to be determined. But the 5D had somewhat better noise characteristics than the 1Ds mkII, and the 5D mkII is supposed, according to Canon, to be 1 to 1.5 stops better in noise. If so, that could also mean that resolution at higher ISO's could be better, as less noise reduction would be needed.
Mel Gross wrote:
Remember that the 5D mkII will have better IQ than the 1Ds mkIII. Exactly how much better is yet to be determined. But the 5D had somewhat better noise characteristics than the 1Ds mkII, and the 5D mkII is supposed, according to Canon, to be 1 to 1.5 stops better in noise. If so, that could also mean that resolution at higher ISO's could be better, as less noise reduction would be needed.
Yes, I am aware of this (and stated as much in an earlier post somewhere). The real question is how much better. I suspect it is modest and incremental rather than earth-shattering. I guess we have to wait a couple weeks before we get better information. The 5D MkII is apparently due Oct. 18th
One thing Sony really should have corrected on the A900 is the Minolta proprietary hot shoe. For anyone(like commercial and studio photographers) who use wireless slave triggers, this means we will have to buy(and keep track of!) a silly adapter.
