Anyone tried any of the Zeiss ZS M42 screw mount lenses on the Alpha A900?
There seems to be a limited ZS selection; any idea about whether any of the macros and the 28mm will be released in this mount?
I'm still undecided between the Canon 5DMK2 and the Sony Alpha A900 as an upgrade to my 5D and have been trying to find solutions to defeat Sony’s lens lineup shortcomings. I’d prefer the Sony, as it’d suit me better as a camera (100% viewfinder, higher resolution and DR at base ISO, etc) but the lens selection is inadequate unless I can find some workarounds that don’t compromise performance. We all know that anything from Summicrons to Zuikos, to Zeiss ZEs, etc can be plugged to the Canon EF mount, but it annoys me that the 5DMK2 has not improved DR over the 1DsMK3, that the viewfinder is still less than 100%, that it’s a bit gimmicky and that it’s turning out to be less than perfectly tuned and a bit beta at this stage (black spots and banding). Plus when would I be able to get it in the UK if I ordered now?
It’s either,
5DMK2 onto which I can plug the C/Y PC Distagon, the Leica 60mm macro, a wider Zeiss ZE and a couple of EFs
Or,
A900 with Zoerk Shift adaptor and Pentax 645 35mm FA, a wider Zeiss ZS (25mm or 28mm, if it becomes available in ZS mount), one macro (50mm or 100mm or a Zeiss ZS macro) and the Zeiss ZM 85mm 1.4.
You do know that the enhanced dynamic range of the A900 is a software implementation and you can do it in RAW processing with a 5D mark II if you turn highlight tone priority on?
I haven't seen the black dots or ANY banding, but the black dots appear to be a result of overexposing point light sources to an extreme while having auto-lighting-optimizer turned on.
Banding is likely from switching colour profiles between camera/raw-convertor/photoshop and ending up with a reduced colour space from "nearest match" approximations in the conversion process. I stay in adobeRGB unless I compress to jpeg which I do in the last step and never saw any banding from my mkI or mkII unless using a crappy noise reduction program or image editor.
Can't argue with 100% viewfinder though. I use a nikon 1.2x magnifier on my mkII but this still just magnifies the 98%..
thrice wrote:
You do know that the enhanced dynamic range of the A900 is a software implementation and you can do it in RAW processing with a 5D mark II if you turn highlight tone priority on?
I haven't seen the black dots or ANY banding, but the black dots appear to be a result of overexposing point light sources to an extreme while having auto-lighting-optimizer turned on.
Banding is likely from switching colour profiles between camera/raw-convertor/photoshop and ending up with a reduced colour space from "nearest match" approximations in the conversion process. I stay in adobeRGB unless I compress to jpeg which I do in the last step and never saw any banding from my mkI or mkII unless using a crappy noise reduction program or image editor.
Can't argue with 100% viewfinder though. I use a nikon 1.2x magnifier on my mkII but this still just magnifies the 98%.....Show more →
In dxomark's database you can compare and see that the A900 has about 0.5 Ev advantage in terms of DR at base ISO, although this advantage rapidly declines as you move up in ISO. This is slight, although still half a stop, and not software implementation, but measured at sensor level. You could argue that it's insignificant, and I'd almost agree, but it's still a point in favour of the A900 when the 2 cameras are so close, plus the A900 seems to deal rather well and a bit like film with highlights.
The black dots seem to manifest themselves with or without ALO and any other in-camera processing; they seem to be solely dependent on the nature of the transition between small blown highlights and surrounding dark areas and seem to appear more as you move up the ISO scale. The banding I've seen posted around is also quite different from posterisation and high ISO banding, it's reticulated and not your normal hard transition when you shrink the colour gamut or the line banding of poor s/n ratio. It’s again not a deal breaker, hence why I haven’t yet gone with the A900, but it annoys me terribly that I might be buying a beta camera and joining Canon’s pool of voluntary testers (£2000 should be buying me a reasonably faultless production camera!) or even that the camera might be recalled.
I’d also choose 100% viewfinder over Live View if given the option, but can live with 98% and Live View.
What’s troubling me most with the 5DMK2 is (1) buggy beta (2) price over the A900 in the UK (3) UK supply, long waiting lists and possibly not getting the camera b4 end of Jan.
fair call, I chose the 5D mark II as it's a very very capable jack of all trades (and master of high-iso).
If I were only ever going to shoot landscape, I would have a tough time choosing as well.
I see that mottled banding when I let neat image save a "cleaned image" as a 16-bit tiff (same as the input). Surprisingly if I copy the output to clipboard as an 8-bit image without saving I end up with a much cleaner image. This is something I've come to live with from neat image, I doubt there'd be more than 8-bits of colour from ISO1600+ which is where I use NR.
ayler wrote:
In dxomark's database you can compare and see that the A900 has about 0.5 Ev advantage in terms of DR at base ISO, although this advantage rapidly declines as you move up in ISO. This is slight, although still half a stop, and not software implementation, but measured at sensor level. You could argue that it's insignificant, and I'd almost agree, but it's still a point in favour of the A900 when the 2 cameras are so close, plus the A900 seems to deal rather well and a bit like film with highlights.
Or if you believe that you will use the camera at ISO's above 100, a point in favor of the 5D Mkll. (or would you prefer a point for every ISO that the 5D is superior in DR)?
I think that is the basic problem with the a900, and otherwise fine camera. As soon as you move from the base ISO of 100, where is it marginally superior to current competition, image quality deteriorates rapidly (you can see this in dxomark's measurements) so that by 200 ISO is loses any advantage it might have had, and the gap between it and the competition (the 5D MkII and D700) increasingly widens.
If all you intended to use the camera is at 100 ISO and don't use, or don't care about anything else, then the a900 might be the camera for you. If not, it's a tough choice to make in light of the competition (unless, perhaps, you already have a bunch of Sony/Minolta lenses).
Sony's problem with the a900 camera is that its not enough to get meaningful numbers of Canon and Nikon users to switch. Nice camera and a very good attempt, but Canon and Nikon have not stood still.
I'm not sure why Zeiss is making the ZS. I wouldn't assume they will be making any more models in that mount. You also mention ZM, but I don't believe that will work on either camera.
As far as a choice, I think if you handle the cameras you will have an easier time deciding. I don't believe there is any real world difference in a half stop of technically measured dynamic range. Also, from the tests I've seen Sony actually has less real world resolution than canon.
Well, it seems like Sony is doing quite well with sales of the a900. B&H has been in and out of stock for a few weeks now, depending on when you look and there are actually many Nikon users, and some previous Canon users such as me, who have purchased or are considering purchasing the a900. In some cases, this does not seem to be a complete "switch" from one brand to another but simply "an addition".
I agree that the Canon 5DII offers better high ISO ability and if someone is looking for the current best high ISO and high MP camera that is the way to go. Many a900 users probably look at the situation from this point of view though: Up to the equivalent ISO of about 1600 (I say ISO1600 because you can shoot the a900 at ISO 400 with a two stop advantage due to Super Steady Shot with any lens so basically compare the noise of the Sony at ISO400 to the noise of the Canon at ISO1600), its almost a wash between the two as long as you don't underexpose the a900.
Between ISO 100 and 200 where I'm shooting the majority of the time, the IQ of the a900 is hard to beat in my opinion. Half a stop of extra DR is easily noticeable by me and I am enjoying that big, bright 100% viewfinder, the benefits of which I have noticed in actual use. The only time I have ever seen objectionable noise in the shadows in this ISO range is when I have underexposed the image.
I have no doubt that Canon will work out all the teething issue with the 5D but in comparison there is not one single report I have seen concerning an a900 that suffered from: showing up DOA, dying after a few frames, suffering from an LCD screen that goes yellow when attaching something to the bottom of the camera, shutter issues and black dots. Canon has really screwed up this roll out and these issues, along with the 1DIII AF issues a while back point to a decline in their QA program. The 5DII introduction should have been seamless to squash any doubts Canon users have been having concerning quality. All this to say that the a900 introduction, by contrast, has been exemplary, and the camera body itself feels robust, sounds robust and instills confidence in its users.
The lens line up is THE one area where the a900 needs work in my opinion. We need a few very good wide angle Zeiss primes and a few Zeiss T/S lenses would be nice as well. Of course we have the 16-35 ZA zoom showing up in a few weeks but we need more. The rumor is that a wide angle Zeiss prime will show up in Feb. at PMA. I hope it is a 24mm myself. As far as Alternatives, the Canon EF mount is king of course. I am very curious as to the performance of the ZS 25mm 2.8 as that is a lens I have considered over and over. I would not hold out hope for a ZS 28 or 21 but I guess you never know.
Given the above, it would seem the wise thing to do, if your able, is to wait for the 5DII teething issues to be resolved if you want that camera or wait for the lenses to show up for the a900 if they are make or break in your purchasing decision. That's a tough place to be.
dcmiller wrote:
I'm not sure why Zeiss is making the ZS. I wouldn't assume they will be making any more models in that mount. You also mention ZM, but I don't believe that will work on either camera.
As far as a choice, I think if you handle the cameras you will have an easier time deciding. I don't believe there is any real world difference in a half stop of technically measured dynamic range. Also, from the tests I've seen Sony actually has less real world resolution than canon.
It would not surprise me at all if the ZS line was discontinued. Disagree on the real world resolution as long as the proper lens and raw converter is used.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Or if you believe that you will use the camera at ISO's above 100, a point in favor of the 5D Mkll. (or would you prefer a point for every ISO that the 5D is superior in DR)?
I think that is the basic problem with the a900, and otherwise fine camera. As soon as you move from the base ISO of 100, where is it marginally superior to current competition, image quality deteriorates rapidly (you can see this in dxomark's measurements) so that by 200 ISO is loses any advantage it might have had, and the gap between it and the competition (the 5D MkII and D700) increasingly widens.
If all you intended to use the camera is at 100 ISO and don't use, or don't care about anything else, then the a900 might be the camera for you. If not, it's a tough choice to make in light of the competition (unless, perhaps, you already have a bunch of Sony/Minolta lenses).
Sony's problem with the a900 camera is that its not enough to get meaningful numbers of Canon and Nikon users to switch. Nice camera and a very good attempt, but Canon and Nikon have not stood still.
The funny thing with the A900 is that it's almost perfect, as high ISO would only be for family pics and the like, but I'd want to use it with mostly third-party lenses, given that there's nothing in the current line to cater for shift/tilt and no credible WA primes for high-res stop-down work And that's precisely where the 5DMK2 scores, because it's a platform you can use with some of the best third-party WAs and T/Ss around, plus it's almost as good at base ISO as the A900. Shame about the bugs, supply v demand and the 98% viewfinder…
For instance, I’m going to spend some time from the end of Jan doing repro where sensor real estate and accurate framing and focusing are chief (no cropping allowed). The 98% viewfinder in the 5DMK2 is disappointing, although I’m sure Live View will be of great help with focus; plus I can use the Leica 60mm Macro-Elmarit to get even resolving power from centre to corners. On the other hand, the A900 offers accurate, 100% framing, but no Live View and both Sony macros are unknown to me in terms sharpness across the frame. For my architectural work, the 5DMK2 is again compliant with most T/S lenses out there, but the 98% view is detrimental. The A900 is, conversely, better for composition, but even the Zoerk/Pentax 645 35mm FA is still a big question mark in terms of sharpness and optical behaviour on a 24MP sensor, and it’s not cheap and hard to find.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It would not surprise me at all if the ZS line was discontinued. Disagree on the real world resolution as long as the proper lens and raw converter is used.
I see that they are available at places like B&H here in the states as well.
Two of my primary uses for a DSLR are very large reproductions of art and landscape. The reason I opted for the a900 was exactly because I need to utilize every single pixel when making large reproductions and the 100% viewfinder makes a difference. For the same reason, I don't want to end up cropping anything out of a landscape as that too is an area where every pixel matters when making very large prints. Additionally, there is the time savings of not having to deal with cropping.
The other task I use a DSLR for is editorial documentation of events and portraits. Here, the benefits of the a900 really do not matter to me as much. I have noticed though that the af is more accurate and faster, as is the camera overall, when compared to the 5D it replaced. I should add though that on more than one occasion I have been able to shoot at 1/20 sec handheld at base ISO which is something I could never do before.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ayler, it is very easy to adapt Leica R to Sony by simply swapping the mounts on the lenses. No drilling required, and it's reversible
Is that just for the older 3 cam and earlier lenses or will that work with newer ROM lenses?
douglasf13 wrote:
Ayler, it is very easy to adapt Leica R to Sony by simply swapping the mounts on the lenses. No drilling required, and it's reversible
Forgive the dumb questions. Is infinity focus possible with this conversion (have no idea which lens mount to sensor plane register is longer)? And how do you attach the Leica mount without drilling?
This would certainly open up a few extra possibilities, as I'd be keen on trying any of the Leica macros and the Summicron 35mm and Elmarit 28mm on an A900.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ayler, it is very easy to adapt Leica R to Sony by simply swapping the mounts on the lenses. No drilling required, and it's reversible
2.5mm difference, which means it should be relatively easy to swap mounts and retain focus accuracy by measuring the difference between the thickness of both mounts and compensating for it if necessary. Or with a Leica R to Alpha adaptor, which should be easy to build.
2.5mm difference, which means it should be relatively easy to swap mounts and retain focus accuracy by measuring the difference between the thickness of both mounts and compensating for it if necessary. Or with a Leica R to Alpha adaptor, which should be easy to build.
I'm very surprised that there isn't a Leica R to Sony adapter available from anyone yet. Unfortunately, a Contax adapter would need to be ~.5mm thick, which sounds too difficult, but the Leica should be easy.
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm very surprised that there isn't a Leica R to Sony adapter available from anyone yet. Unfortunately, a Contax adapter would need to be ~.5mm thick, which sounds too difficult, but the Leica should be easy.
Yes, but it should be easy to convert C/Y to Alpha by exchanging the mounts instead. This SRB-Griturn company looks promising.
The Leica R to Alpha only seems to be unavailable because demand is not there, since there's such a registration difference between the 2 mounts. I could only find macro Leica to Alpha adaptors that do not give infinity focus on Ebay, but surely someone must come up with a proper infinity one.
ayler wrote:
Yes, but it should be easy to convert C/Y to Alpha by exchanging the mounts instead. This SRB-Griturn company looks promising.
The Leica R to Alpha only seems to be unavailable because demand is not there, since there's such a registration difference between the 2 mounts. I could only find macro Leica to Alpha adaptors that do not give infinity focus on Ebay, but surely someone must come up with a proper infinity one.
I don't think an adaptor is possible, due to diameter issues (the Leica bayonet is too close to the Sony bayonet in diameter).
Mount swaps should be trivial. Maybe Leitax.com will do Sony next.
