This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011If this thread gets 10000 replies....
p.2 #1If this thread gets 10000 replies....
None of which being full frame, therefore there is no wide/ultra-wide solution (and all other lenses have at least 1.6x crop factor :\ ) if you want to use your Contax G lenses other than having them converted to M mount by JapanExposures.
May 21, 2011 at 06:08 AM
p.2 #2If this thread gets 10000 replies....
never mind that NEX sound like sewing machines and have no viewfinder or distance scale (when using AF lenses).
May 21, 2011 at 06:16 AM
p.2 #4If this thread gets 10000 replies....
LAST January I asked the head of Zeiss Marketing if there were any plans for a Digital Zeiss Ikon - his answer was:
"Hi Rick,
so far we have no plan to offer a digital Zeiss Ikon rangefinder but focus on what we are excellent in: perfect lenses for SLR and M-mount cameras.
Happy New Year Greetings from Germany
--- Martin
Carl Zeiss AG
Camera Lens Division
Leiter Marketing Kommunikation
Head of Marketing Communication"
May 21, 2011 at 06:49 AM
p.2 #5If this thread gets 10000 replies....
Damn, well that seals it. If they were developing a market-changing camera (especially in secret) they would surely have revealed it to Rick before any kind of press release to spur investors and raist stock value etc.
May 21, 2011 at 06:56 AM
p.2 #6If this thread gets 10000 replies....
Thrice, I can only report his answer - can't be sure if he can really reveal any info!
May 21, 2011 at 07:08 AM
p.2 #7If this thread gets 10000 replies....
thrice wrote:
Here is a simple drawing to explain it. Backlit CMOS goes SOME way toward solving the inherent problem, but is not yet produced (for whatever reason) in larger sizes.
Obviously these are worst case scenarios and some light does get through but the light that does is usually more refracted wavelengths like blue and purple and overall the vignetting is very objectionable and not correctable. This is part of the reason why the NEX has problems with non-retrofocus ultra-wides.
http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/files/CCDvsCMOSincident.jpg
Nice illustration. So they need to move the amps and circuitry underneath each photosite instead of having it on top in order to solve the problem. Of course I have no clue as to how possible something like that is. The explosion in popularity of mirrorless cameras that have short lens registers will require a better sensor solution than what exists now at some point and I would bet it's being worked on by Sony and others right now.
Tariq Gibran wrote
I still don't quite understand why the sensor would have to be CCD.Obviously these are worst case scenarios and some light does get through but the light that does is usually more refracted wavelengths like blue and purple and overall the vignetting is very objectionable and not correctable. This is part of the reason why the NEX has problems with non-retrofocus ultra-wides.
http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/files/CCDvsCMOSincident.jpg
Nice illustration. So they need to move the amps and circuitry underneath each photosite instead of having it on top in order to solve the problem. Of course I have no clue as to how possible something like that is. The explosion in popularity of mirrorless cameras that have short lens registers will require a better sensor solution than what exists now at some point and I would bet it's being worked on by Sony and others right now.
May 21, 2011 at 07:27 AM
p.2 #8If this thread gets 10000 replies....
That is the idea behind backlit CMOS sensors.
May 21, 2011 at 07:29 AM
p.2 #9If this thread gets 10000 replies....
Spyro P. wrote:
Quoting from Dante Stella:
"Since rangefinders have no groundglass to illustrate what is happening in the rest of the field, most rangefinder users are doing manually the exact same thing that single-point AF is. Sorry, guys, but if you're a slave to the RF, you can be replaced by contrast-detect or phase-detect autofocus"
Or ideally IR focusing if I might add.
Personally I love rangefinders for the lenses, the form factor, the viewfinders, the ergonomics and the sound, but RF focusing leaves me cold to be honest. The Contax G was awesome but it needed a better AF system. The Hexar AF...Show more →
my point was i don't like rangefinder focusing and taking away my control over it makes it 10x worse.
sebboh wrote
the idea of an autofocus rangefinder chills my blood."Since rangefinders have no groundglass to illustrate what is happening in the rest of the field, most rangefinder users are doing manually the exact same thing that single-point AF is. Sorry, guys, but if you're a slave to the RF, you can be replaced by contrast-detect or phase-detect autofocus"
Or ideally IR focusing if I might add.
Personally I love rangefinders for the lenses, the form factor, the viewfinders, the ergonomics and the sound, but RF focusing leaves me cold to be honest. The Contax G was awesome but it needed a better AF system. The Hexar AF...Show more →
my point was i don't like rangefinder focusing and taking away my control over it makes it 10x worse.
May 21, 2011 at 07:32 AM
p.2 #10If this thread gets 10000 replies....
thrice wrote:
That is the idea behind backlit CMOS sensors.
Cool.
That is the idea behind backlit CMOS sensors.
Cool.
May 21, 2011 at 07:33 AM
p.2 #11If this thread gets 10000 replies....
Shouldn't be too far off with any luck 
May 21, 2011 at 07:35 AM
p.2 #12If this thread gets 10000 replies....
thrice wrote:
None of which being full frame, therefore there is no wide/ultra-wide solution (and all other lenses have at least 1.6x crop factor :\ )
1.5x, not 1.6x.
None of which being full frame, therefore there is no wide/ultra-wide solution (and all other lenses have at least 1.6x crop factor :\ )
1.5x, not 1.6x.
May 21, 2011 at 07:51 AM
p.2 #13If this thread gets 10000 replies....
Spyro P. wrote:
never mind that NEX sound like sewing machines and have no viewfinder or distance scale (when using AF lenses).
Now that you mention it - my NEX DOES sound like a sewing maching... Funny!
never mind that NEX sound like sewing machines and have no viewfinder or distance scale (when using AF lenses).
Now that you mention it - my NEX DOES sound like a sewing maching... Funny!
May 21, 2011 at 07:55 AM
p.2 #14If this thread gets 10000 replies....
thrice wrote:
Obviously these are worst case scenarios and some light does get through but the light that does is usually more refracted wavelengths like blue and purple and overall the vignetting is very objectionable and not correctable. This is part of the reason why the NEX has problems with non-retrofocus ultra-wides.
Doesn't the leica m9/m8 have the same problem but the camera software adjusts for the problem?
Obviously these are worst case scenarios and some light does get through but the light that does is usually more refracted wavelengths like blue and purple and overall the vignetting is very objectionable and not correctable. This is part of the reason why the NEX has problems with non-retrofocus ultra-wides.
Doesn't the leica m9/m8 have the same problem but the camera software adjusts for the problem?
May 21, 2011 at 07:58 AM
p.2 #15If this thread gets 10000 replies....
AhamB wrote:
1.5x, not 1.6x.
Ah my bad, it's practically full frame then.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
Doesn't the leica m9/m8 have the same problem but the camera software adjusts for the problem?
With regard to colour shift it has a problem with extreme incident angles, to my knowledge the two uncorrectable lenses are the 21mm ZM C-Biogon and 16mm G-Hologon (after conversion)... maybe a particular 21 Super-Angulon as well?
The illumination falloff is identical (or at least extremely close) to film though. At least in my experience and also according to Stephen Daniel the M product manager at Leica. The falloff that does occur is due to inherent laws of optics and very wide lenses.
thrice wrote
None of which being full frame, therefore there is no wide/ultra-wide solution (and all other lenses have at least 1.6x crop factor :\ )Ah my bad, it's practically full frame then.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
Doesn't the leica m9/m8 have the same problem but the camera software adjusts for the problem?
With regard to colour shift it has a problem with extreme incident angles, to my knowledge the two uncorrectable lenses are the 21mm ZM C-Biogon and 16mm G-Hologon (after conversion)... maybe a particular 21 Super-Angulon as well?
The illumination falloff is identical (or at least extremely close) to film though. At least in my experience and also according to Stephen Daniel the M product manager at Leica. The falloff that does occur is due to inherent laws of optics and very wide lenses.
May 21, 2011 at 08:31 AM
p.2 #16If this thread gets 10000 replies....
thrice wrote:
1.5x, not 1.6x.Ah my bad, it's practically full frame then.
With regard to colour shift it has a problem with extreme incident angles, to my knowledge the two uncorrectable lenses are the 21mm ZM C-Biogon and 16mm G-Hologon (after conversion)... maybe a particular 21 Super-Angulon as well?
The illumination falloff is identical (or at least extremely close) to film though. At least in my experience and also according to Stephen Daniel the M product manager at Leica. The falloff that does occur is due to inherent laws of optics and very wide lenses.
I thought the 6 bit coding on the Leica lenses as well as the option to enter which lens your using for non leica lenses automagically took care of most of the issues with vignetting and color via software. The sensor does not by itself react just like film, even the special one used in the Leica M9. Use an uncoded decently wide angle lens or dont' input a focal length and I think you will end up with a decent amount of vignetting and color issues with a few more lenses than those above. It has been a long time since I read Sean Reids review of the M9 but I do know this was the case with the M8 and I would expect the M9 would be even more so given it's FF. Perhaps others could chime in.
AhamB wrote
thrice wrote
None of which being full frame, therefore there is no wide/ultra-wide solution (and all other lenses have at least 1.6x crop factor :\ )ken.vs.ryu wrote
Doesn't the leica m9/m8 have the same problem but the camera software adjusts for the problem?The illumination falloff is identical (or at least extremely close) to film though. At least in my experience and also according to Stephen Daniel the M product manager at Leica. The falloff that does occur is due to inherent laws of optics and very wide lenses.
I thought the 6 bit coding on the Leica lenses as well as the option to enter which lens your using for non leica lenses automagically took care of most of the issues with vignetting and color via software. The sensor does not by itself react just like film, even the special one used in the Leica M9. Use an uncoded decently wide angle lens or dont' input a focal length and I think you will end up with a decent amount of vignetting and color issues with a few more lenses than those above. It has been a long time since I read Sean Reids review of the M9 but I do know this was the case with the M8 and I would expect the M9 would be even more so given it's FF. Perhaps others could chime in.
May 21, 2011 at 09:40 AM
p.2 #17If this thread gets 10000 replies....
thrice wrote:
1.5x, not 1.6x.Ah my bad, it's practically full frame then.
AhamB wrote
thrice wrote
None of which being full frame, therefore there is no wide/ultra-wide solution (and all other lenses have at least 1.6x crop factor :\ )May 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM
p.2 #18If this thread gets 10000 replies....
Paul Yi wrote:
If this thread gets 10000 replies...
jcolwell wrote:
I'll eat the original leather hood for my EF 500/4L IS.
I'd like to see that, Jim. Well, how many more posts do we have to have to get there now?
If this thread gets 10000 replies...
jcolwell wrote:
I'll eat the original leather hood for my EF 500/4L IS.
I'd like to see that
, Jim. Well, how many more posts do we have to have to get there now?May 21, 2011 at 10:33 AM
p.2 #19If this thread gets 10000 replies....
AGeoJO wrote:
I'd like to see that , Jim. Well, how many more posts do we have to have to get there now?
one less
Paul Yi wrote
If this thread gets 10000 replies...jcolwell wrote
I'll eat the original leather hood for my EF 500/4L IS., Jim. Well, how many more posts do we have to have to get there now?one less
May 21, 2011 at 12:44 PM
p.2 #20If this thread gets 10000 replies....
And if that helps to get us a digital Ikon, I´m in!
I got the same answer from Zeiss as Rick on that very same question. But if we all send 10000 questions about a digital Ikon to Zeiss, perhaps including us eating Canon stuff, it might help get us a... Dikon?
I got the same answer from Zeiss as Rick on that very same question. But if we all send 10000 questions about a digital Ikon to Zeiss, perhaps including us eating Canon stuff, it might help get us a... Dikon?
May 21, 2011 at 01:18 PM