Funny, I thought I replied already this morning - I wonder where the post went
Michael; will keep my eyes peeled for one. I think the ZM18 does not replace the A12/28 (18.3mm) for me for several reasons: size, close focus and f4 vs f2.5. If buying new/used then cost is a factor as well. The A12/28 makes the GXR a true compact camera. AF is a bonus and it is quite decent, looks well in dark places but isn't blazing fast.
I don't mind having both for that focal length. It will be really interesting to compare them properly. WFrank and I have agreed to try and tough it out during the winter and shoot some snow/cityscape here in Stockholm. On most shots I think corner performance won't be an issue at all during winter, for obvious reasons.
Michael, have you contacted Rob Skeoch at http://rangefinderstore.com ? Free shipping within Canada, B+W filter included as well. Tell him I sent you. Only problem is the last time I talked to him a few weeks ago, he said most Zeiss lenses were on backorder...
Hey Ron, yes Rob's deal is excellent for Canadians - I found him via your blog - thanks for putting that info up there - and have bought a couple of lenses from him. I asked him to put my name on the 50mm Sonnar list back in October.
Mike
(Formerly from Hamilton, born on the 'mountain')
Also, does shutter button half press toggle or just deactivate magnification on NEX5n?
Do you need to reactivate magnification after half press (having returned to normal)?
Toggle is better.
On GXR it toggles, and you can toggle all three peaking/magnification/normal independently with shutter button and or Fn1/Fn2 keys.
I had a friend over the other day and he played around with the GXR and he seemed impressed with the layout and handling of peaking/magnification.
My recollection might be off, who knows, it's been all of three days since I stopped shooting with the NEX, but half-press takes you out of magnification, meaning you need to hit the fn button or customized button on the control ring again to access the magnify mode. I prefer the toggle approach. Smartly the GXR takes you out of magnify mode when an exposure is made. Focus assist (peaking) remains at whatever state it was, shot to shot. It might be nice if there was an option to alter that behaviour but for my purposes I like it as it stands.
In contrast, a half press of the NEX shutter button does not turn off Peaking. Nothing turns off peaking momentarily - you can only turn it on or off via the menu. I found this problematic with some subjects.
It has to be an error (?). The only auto-magnification feature that I can find (on the NEX) is what I think is called Manual Assist. When touching the MF ring on an e-lens it will automatically magnify the display / or EVF.
BTW, I am not into the "which is the best"-discussion. I think we all got different preferences on the various benefits/features found in the various products.
EDIT: this was a follow-up on kosmos' response on the suggested magnification-by-halfpress
wfrank, perhaps the reason for confusion is that I'm only discussing manual focus assist features in conjunction with using purely manual focus lenses. I used my 18-55mm lens E mount for 6 test shots and put it back in the box never to be touched again and I didn't even engage the Direct Manual Focus feature available with such lenses.
When using manual focus lenses on the NEX you need to press a button (pre-defined or an optional additional user defined button) to put the camera in magnify mode.
edit:
I'm also not into the "mine is better than yours" sort of discussion. I had to buy a NEX and then a GXR to come to grips with what would work better for me. There's nothing like experiencing a camera. The GXR being my third compact camera this year, I'm glad I've found something I can hang on to - evaluating cameras is fun but there's a small financial hit at each turn over and ultimately I'd rather be focussing on photography. At least this is the icky rainy season here where there's a little more time spent indoors and contemplating cameras hasn't got in my way too much.
Of course the best possible camera isn't produced by either company or any company at present.
The NEX could adopt the GXR's build and UI / handling and it'd be a far better camera and from my experience they could learn a thing or two from Ricoh regarding focus peaking and magnification clarity.
Or the GXR could borrow the short shutter lag and overall responsiveness of the NEX (which is better than both GXR and X100 in my opinion) and the NEX's sensor and EVF of course - and it'd be an absolutely killer camera. Would people flock to it even then? Maybe not, the modular lensor approach Ricoh has taken is not going to appeal to everyone.
And both could use a full frame model but the NEX will never have that given the E mount lenses are designed for APS-C. Could Ricoh go there? Maybe. Hopefully!
michaelwatkins wrote:
wfrank, perhaps the reason for confusion is that I'm only discussing manual focus assist features in conjunction with using purely manual focus lenses. I used my 18-55mm lens E mount for 6 test shots and put it back in the box never to be touched again and I didn't even engage the Direct Manual Focus feature available with such lenses.
When using manual focus lenses on the NEX you need to press a button (pre-defined or an optional additional user defined button) to put the camera in magnify mode.
Michael, I did the same - tested the kit and then put it in the box. Since then I only do manual lenses. Never tested, nor seen the GXR.
But second paragraph is not how I do it. The 5N have a touchscreen and it is really neat to be able to press it where you want to focus (MF...). Would probably not have kept the camera otherwise - which I bought as an alternative to a huge 5D2. So you dont need to press/program any buttons to magnify.
Yes, but the touch screen feature is a whole other kettle of tea. And you still can't toggle it. When using the EVF for stability the touch screen is of no help either and this is where the NEX5n is a pain to use in my book.
I did enjoy the feature of touch and go on the screen, which I thought was gimmicky at first, but I quickly realized it is quite handy on the NEX5n.
I found my nose would trigger the NEX touch screen while my eye had triggered the finder (eye auto-detect) and up would pop up a big white dialogue box saying something on the order of "You can't do that with the touch screen right now". A bit of a pain.
Initially I tried to use the touchscreen to select a point on the screen to magnify before putting my eye to the viewfinder but since there was no toggle this wasn't as effective as it could have been. When using the rear LCD alone, especially on a tripod, the touch screen was brilliant.
In the end when using the NEX EVF I would turn on magnification using a user defined function key (right pad) rather than the touch screen and would settle with centre magnification and aim the lens appropriately, focus, and recompose if necessary. Just like in the "old" days.
The GXR focus assist feature, particularly Mode 2 (predator mode), I'm sure will evoke either love or hate emotions and little in between, but the control over both focus assist and magnify I've no doubt most will find pleasing.
I'm not trying to divert the thread, but I guess I am. I know the purpose of the GXR-M module is to allow the use of Leica or Zeiss (or other) M-mount lenses. I have some M42 Takumars that I prize and would like to try them on a camera that doesn't have an AA filter. Has anyone tried to do this?
I'm interested to know what you think of the idea since the Ricoh claim is that the M module micro-lenses are specifically configured for M-mount lenses.
I found an M42 to M-mount adapter, so all I need is the GXR -- or some good advice on the prospects for these lenses.
I've found the 5N touchscreen to be very cool - mainly for playback review.
I have however encountered the nose press warning Michael notes which is annoying.
The touch screen is awesome for focus flipped up for tripod shooting though.
Anyway, about the GXR, to my delight a local NZ company has one available for rent (despite them barely being available for retail down here), so i'll try one out for a few days shortly.
Very interested to see how my lenses perform on the respective bodies.
PhotoDes: now worries. I can't see any problem at all if you find an adapter that works.
When and if you get around to it bring some pictures to the thread, it is getting a little texty.
Sosua: cool, let us know your findings. They are in most respects equal, with the proverbial nod to either one depending on what you are seeking. The sensor on Ricoh should be able to handle really wide RF glass better.
There's an interesting tidbit of information in a recently published Zeiss lens article explaining some possible issues created by using symmetrically designed rangefinder super/ultra wide angle lenses on digital sensors here (pdf).
It seems to explain why when I tested my ZM21 f/2.8 on the 5N the optical performance into the corners was quite poor at wider apertures. This brings me back to the GXR again with its AA-less sensor and the recollection that Mitch posted a number of Leica Elmarit 21mm images (which seems to have a similar optical design to the Zeiss) earlier in this thread and never complained about poor corner performance...
The relevant info from page 12 of the pdf:
Lenses with a very large beam tilt react in a much more sensitive manner to a change of refractive index in the image space caused by filter plates in front of the sensor (such as low pass and IR-blocking filters). If the filter plate is not considered in the design of the lens, the edge definition will suffer. The effect of the additional path through the glass grows exponentially with the beam inclination. A Distagon which never achieves more than 20° beam tilt in the corner of the image reacts more tolerantly than a symmetrical wide- angle lens, which might reach a 45° tilt. This is why filters in digital Leicas are very thin to remain compatible with older optics.
If the filter is significantly thicker, the contrast transfer for the image edge becomes worse for tangential structures. In the graph of the curves, this looks like the old retrofocus lenses but is caused by astigmatism rather than lateral chromatic aberration. The focus is shifted to greater distances for tangential structures by the additional path through the glass. If the best edge definition is to be achieved, then all that can be done is to stop down further.
Advantages of nearly symmetrical wide- angle lenses (such as the ZM 21mm f/2.8):
Small size and low weight
Very good, uniform definition despite
moderately high effort required
Usually excellent freedom from ghost
images
Disadvantages of nearly symmetrical wide- angle lenses:
Cannot be used with every camera
Require specially matched digital
sensors
More sensitive to the change of optical
parameters in the image space
Greater natural fall-off of brightness
toward the edge of the image
rscheffler wrote:
...It seems to explain why when I tested my ZM21 f/2.8 on the 5N the optical performance into the corners was quite poor at wider apertures. This brings me back to the GXR again with its AA-less sensor and the recollection that Mitch posted a number of Leica Elmarit 21mm images (which seems to have a similar optical design to the Zeiss) earlier in this thread and never complained about poor corner performance...
If the ZM21/2.8 has a symmetrical design, then the Elmarit-21 ASPH is not at all similar in optical design, since it has a rertrofocus design.
NOTE: I corrected the type I meant to write " Elmarit-21 ASPH", not "28".
Yes, that was a typo: I meant to write "Elmarit-21 ASPH". The Elmarit-21 ASPH has a rretrofocus design, and if the ZM21/2.8 is symmetrical, these two lenses do not have a "similar design", as stated by rscheffler.
-- or some good advice on the prospects for these lenses.