|
Lotusm50 Registered: Sep 26, 2005 Total Posts: 6050 Country: United States |
The Putz article Geert is referring to is found at: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c023.html |
|
Geert Koning Registered: Aug 23, 2005 Total Posts: 1070 Country: Netherlands |
Sorry, I forgot to give the link |
|
ajmichael Registered: Jul 18, 2004 Total Posts: 542 Country: United Kingdom |
This is a very interesting discussion. One back I haven't seen mentioned much, if at all, is the P30. Does anyone have any thoughts about the pros and cons of P30 vs P25? Ideally on Hasselblad V with Zeiss, but anything relevant would be appreciated! |
|
gogopix Registered: Sep 18, 2002 Total Posts: 1431 Country: Slovakia |
BTW. On the Contax statements by Reichman I think were subjective. He compared general Contax lenses (maybe not the suberb 35mm) against very wide 35mm Schneider. Not sure what head to head would do with the P25 vs P45. I think at P25 Contax/Hasselblad glass as good as Schneider without the LCC problem (processing will destroy some of detail and sharpness advantage.) |
|
ericevans Registered: Oct 12, 2003 Total Posts: 1939 Country: United States |
Guy if you are going to do this you need a good dealer to work with that will come to you and spend the time it takes to get you what you need . http://www.globalimaginginc.com/ I have dealt with Global and they bring the gear to your location and show you what it is all about . They also arranged a demo system for me for a week so I could have some time to really work the gear . |
|
gogopix Registered: Sep 18, 2002 Total Posts: 1431 Country: Slovakia |
I find it interesting that people suggest going H1/2 over Contax based on supply. The supply of H1/2 was less than Contax recently! |
|
Andi Dietrich Registered: Nov 13, 2005 Total Posts: 3801 Country: Bahamas |
As John pointed out, here is another solution form the swiss alps which will for sure soon conquer the whole planet and become worldleader |
|
gerov Registered: Nov 29, 2004 Total Posts: 8171 Country: United States |
turn page |
|
Andi Dietrich Registered: Nov 13, 2005 Total Posts: 3801 Country: Bahamas |
Guy Mancuso wrote: |
|
Lotusm50 Registered: Sep 26, 2005 Total Posts: 6050 Country: United States |
The Sinar M is interesting, and it has had a very long period of development. Like most things Sinar, it is not cheap. I understand that the camera, lens module, and prism together costs as much as $10,000. However, for those of us sitting on a stash of Contax 645 (and possibly even Contax N lenses), this camera could be the second coming of Contax. Ziess is already makeing AF lenses for it. If you look carefully, this new Sinar lens mount is VERY similar to the Contax 645 mount (except the electrical contacts are on the top of the mount instead of the bottom as on the C645). It seems to me (and Sinar would be very smart to do this) that it would be very easy for Sinar to make a lens module that makes full use of the Contax 645 lenses. (and maybe another that uses the Contax N lenses since they are basically the same mount, just the sizes are different, for a 35mm sensor like they have for Nikon F lenses). This would create an instant market for this camera -- certainly more so than it would be for the camera itself -- and once they get the C645 users to buy the body, they can get them into new Zeiss Sinar lenses over time. |
|
Andi Dietrich Registered: Nov 13, 2005 Total Posts: 3801 Country: Bahamas |
Lotus, the industry prefers to sell new gear, I dont believe in the comeback of a dead system. if, they adapt more lensmounts, they will make canon and the fuji-hb. |
|
bigreen505 Registered: Mar 22, 2005 Total Posts: 768 Country: United States |
ericevans -- Would you be willing to tell us who you are working with at Global Imaging? My limited experience with them has not been so rosy. Our area rep is more used car salesman than anything else and likes to push what ever he gets the biggest commission on. The Leaf rep, however, is a top tier individual, and Guy, I think he would be your rep as well. |
|
Lotusm50 Registered: Sep 26, 2005 Total Posts: 6050 Country: United States |
bathman wrote: |
|
wil_ret Registered: Jun 04, 2005 Total Posts: 617 Country: Australia |
Staying with the subject. |
|
dklepacki Registered: Dec 07, 2002 Total Posts: 250 Country: United States |
I met with some of the Sinar reps in NYC late last year. While they do make an adapter to take MF backs in C645 mount, they are not keen on making a module for the C645 Zeiss lenses. Rather, they are working with Zeiss to deliver a set of four AF lenses with "Sinar standards". Some of the MTF charts are already posted on the Zeiss site, and they are impressive. Also, they said that the real breakthrough was in designing an AF 120 Makro that exceeds the performance of the manual C645 lens, which is quite a feat. |
|
dklepacki Registered: Dec 07, 2002 Total Posts: 250 Country: United States |
Someone in this thread also asked about the P30, or similar backs that have the smaller pixels sizes but with smaller chip size as well. |
|
dklepacki Registered: Dec 07, 2002 Total Posts: 250 Country: United States |
Guy Mancuso wrote: |
|
dklepacki Registered: Dec 07, 2002 Total Posts: 250 Country: United States |
And, you can find the Zeiss MTF data for Sinar M (updated on occasion) here: |
|
glowrider Registered: Nov 28, 2004 Total Posts: 5786 Country: United States |
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you use a 35mm lens on a 645 back (the Kapture group truewide adapter). I'm quite sure that all the MFDB's will be larger than a 35mm lens can cover, so you're wasting a ton of chip real estate. Why drop that kinda dough just to use your 35mm lenses and waste a huge chip? |