Thanks again. No strong filter. I positioned most of the sun behind the one column there, cutting a good 75% of the light that would have come into the viewfinder.
Paul Yi wrote:
Is it true that N lenses match up much better with Kodak SLR/C as far as color wise?
Interesting question. Is that because the SLR/C has no AA filter? It'd be interesting seeing some sample pics of C/Y on SLR/C versus Canon, and of course N on SLR/C versus Canon (but I doubt there are any yet). SLR/C has a bit of a cult following in Korea.
Kodak SLR has no AA filter and a more vivid color fingerprint than canon/nikon.But is only 10 or 12 mp so I wouldn't think it could still compete resolution wise with the newer 21-24mp cameras.I think Paul,pdmphoto, used to own one and would know more.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Kodak SLR has no AA filter and a more vivid color fingerprint than canon/nikon.But is only 10 or 12 mp so I wouldn't think it could still compete resolution wise with the newer 21-24mp cameras.I think Paul,pdmphoto, used to own one and would know more.
The Kodak SLR/c and SLR/n (I have an SLR/n) are 14 mp. At low ISO, it blows the 5D out of the water. Not sure how it compares to the 21mp Canons, but I would guess that it is not far off.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The Kodak SLR/c and SLR/n (I have an SLR/n) are 14 mp. At low ISO, it blows the 5D out of the water. Not sure how it compares to the 21mp Canons, but I would guess that it is not far off.
Lotusm50,
Have you used your Sony A850 much yet? I would think that if you want a low iso high performing alternative to Canon and like Zeiss, you would be better off with a Sony A850/A900 instead of the old Kodak.
Paul Yi wrote:
I wouldn't mind trying A850/A900 if my N lenses fit on those cameras...
Nope, they won't but you can get their new cousins ZA16-35, ZA 24-70 and their excellent primes ZA 85 1.4, and ZA 135 1.8 all with AF which you now prefer.
Have you used your Sony A850 much yet? I would think that if you want a low iso high performing alternative to Canon and like Zeiss, you would be better off with a Sony A850/A900 instead of the old Kodak.
Perhaps. But I can't fit all my ZF lenses to the A850. And the A850 is still in it's box. I'm in the process of moving and it won't get out of its box until the move is finished in early February. By the way, moving sucks.
With the cost of Ebay/KEH non-converted lenses it's about $1,000.00 to 1,300.00 for the camera - maybe a little less counting hoods and filters. If you have the lenses converted - what do you do with the camera?
I'd love to have that 50 though! - really tough to find right now. Too bad there is not an 85 - I might be getting an a plane.
Couple of shots from Contax N 24-85. Great colors, sharpness, some 3D effect, autofocus is silent and fast enough to lock on running baby, what's not to like? But I must say, manual Contax 3,4/35-70 is sharper than this one.
.......only if I can find one....