sflxn wrote:
Wow, these Fuji lenses are awesome. I had a feeling the Fuji X would have the best lenses of all the mirrorless systems. If only they didn't have the problem with the raw processing.
They dont have RAW problems anymore. As long as you are using Aperture.
Edit: Except moiré.. a lot of moiré.
I wouldnt base anything on X-trans samples. Wait for NEX.
I respectfully disagree, Edward. I don't think Zeiss have lost their ability to design lenses with "pop" and "3D". What I see is that pixel density on sensors is continuing ot increase, which is pushing lenses harder. One example: Bobu used to shoot a ZE 21 on his 5D II. It was sharp wide open, including the corners. He now shoots a D800E, and bought a ZF.2 21. Not sharp in the corners before f:5.6. He sent it to Zeiss saying it was subpar. They checked it, and said that it was within spec.
Another example: my friend Pascal, from DearSusans. Also went the way of D800E. He now shoots Leica R (19, Summicron 35, Elmarit 90 if I remember properly). Those lenses have lots of character, but the high-res sensor shows their weaknesses in a very unforgiving way.
Yet another. I compared 3 extremely highly reparded lenses on my NEX 7, the highest density reasonably-sized sensor around: the Contax G 45, Summilux 50 and Elmarit R 60. The results are crushing for a lens that was considered one of the best ever designed. And Sony are supposed to introduce soon NEX 7N, with an even higher-performance sensor, so demands on lenses will get even higher...
edwardkaraa wrote:
If the test of PCH is representative of the quality lack of differences, this shows from one side how good the Fuji lens design is, and from the other side, and most importantly, that Zeiss has moved on in lens design to become just like Canon or Nikon. In the past, Canikon were known to design lenses with MTF charts in mind, in order to get the best MTF graphs and look good, even if the real world samples had other esthetic problems. Zeiss older designs are all very special. Every lens has some special qualities and they all had the Zeiss 3D pop and high micro contrast, even if the corners didn't always look so good. It seems to me that in the last couple of years, Zeiss is aiming for nice MTF graphs, corner to corner sharpness, but the designs are clinical and sterile, so that any good lens from another manufacturer would look indistinguishable. ...Show more →
+1
In a recent post titled Which Lenses?, Mike Johnston wrote:
Sigma seems to me lately to be in the sharpness-is-everything camp—along with the larger part of the online community, which approves—whereas I like lenses that are less clinical and have more character... If anybody were to make the kind of lens I thought was magic, the measurebators would tear it to shreds and it would be infamous in no time—not to mention shunned and left to rot on the shelves.
When did this widespread fetish about sharpness take hold? And for what reasons? It can't just be that the designers at Zeiss (like those at Leica) are merely working to satisfy a demand that the market has clearly expressed, because the prices for the older Leica and Zeiss designs have risen dramatically. Or is that because videographers, for whom stop-down metering is not a minus, have driven up prices?
The Sony NEX 7N is supposedly going to have the same sensor. We'll find out soon.
I don't think it's the pixel density at all. I can't really comment on the Zeiss pop from the limited images I've seen. There have been many 16mp and 18mp APS-C cameras over the years, and we haven't heard any complaints about Zeiss lenses for them. All of the images we've seen so far have been from 16mp sensors. If there are any reduction in the Zeiss pop, it's probably due to the desire to keep the size small and to keep the prices low for the perceived lower-end mirrorless consumers.
This perception by Zeiss and a lot of lens makers that mirrorless consumers are lower end is very troubling. A lot of this probably came from the m43 crowd who made all their cameras and lenses plastic to begin with and Sony from making their NEX too low-end. I don't think they realize that a lot of FF DSLR and DMF users want a high-end mirrorless with quality lens, even if the prices are higher. Hopefully, the Fuji X and the coming FF NEX changes lens makers' preception of mirrorless.
genji wrote:
When did this widespread fetish about sharpness take hold?
megapixels+internet tests = disaster
sensors are getting better, lenses are getting better, but the magnifications on internet tests are also getting bigger and bigger
People dont really care if their lenses are good because there is no definition of "good", all they care about is that they are "better than..."
it's a moving target, cant win.
the whole idea with less-than-full-frame mirrorless was to get smaller, more easily corrected and cheaper lenses. Now we're chasing our tails again and paying >$1,000 for big blocks of glass. And I'm sure the internet will still find sth to pick on.
sflxn wrote:
The Sony NEX 7N is supposedly going to have the same sensor. We'll find out soon.
I don't think it's the pixel density at all.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The 7N is rumoured to have at least 1/3 stop more DR than the 7. Something has to be "different and improved" to achieve that, which will push the lenses harder.
Also, pixel density matters hugely, and in two ways. One because higher density means smaller size, translating into resolution of ever smaller detail. Until one day the sensor outresolves the lens. With the world's best lenses we aren't there yet, though.
The other way is that, the higher the pixel density the greater the magnification factor when viewing at pixel level (100% magnification) on the computer, the usual way people check their images for faults.
genji wrote:
When did this widespread fetish about sharpness take hold? And for what reasons? It can't just be that the designers at Zeiss (like those at Leica) are merely working to satisfy a demand that the market has clearly expressed, because the prices for the older Leica and Zeiss designs have risen dramatically. Or is that because videographers, for whom stop-down metering is not a minus, have driven up prices?
The sharpness fetish took hold even back in the large format and film days. Just because some of the older designs weren't completely sharp in the corner doesn't mean that consumers and lens designers didn't want those lenses to be sharp. It just meant the lens designers couldn't achieve it back then. Most people and lens designers have always and still do want to have lens as sharp as possible AND character. Sharpness isn't necessarily the enemy of character. The new Sigma 35/1.5 and Nikon 85/1.4 are proof of it.
I patiently await for samples of these new Zeisses on a NEX-7. These lenses need to be pretty spectacular to justify their prices when the construction is plastic. Zeiss move to plastic construction is troubling.
philber wrote:
The other way is that, the higher the pixel density the greater the magnification factor when viewing at pixel level (100% magnification) on the computer, the usual way people check their images for faults.
I have the sneaking suspicion that if they actually checked at their usual print size, as they should, the vast majority wouldn't care anymore because they simply never print
and half of the minority wouldnt care because all they ever do is 4"x6" at KMart
philber wrote:
Again, I respectfully disagree. The 7N is rumoured to have at least 1/3 stop more DR than the 7. Something has to be "different and improved" to achieve that, which will push the lenses harder.
Also, pixel density matters hugely, and in two ways. One because higher density means smaller size, translating into resolution of ever smaller detail. Until one day the sensor outresolves the lens. With the world's best lenses we aren't there yet, though.
The other way is that, the higher the pixel density the greater the magnification factor when viewing at pixel level (100% magnification) on the computer, the usual way people check their images for faults....Show more →
Ok, I will have to respectfully disagree. The rumored 7N is supposedly going to have better DR, but that shouldn't affect lenses. The pixel density is rumored to stay the same. Also, I will have to disagree a little on the pixel density. I do agree that pixel density are taxing lenses, but I cannot tell you at what density is the breaking point. I recall when the first NEX were introduced, older rangefinder lenses were causing magenta shading, and everyone blamed it on the high 16mp resolution. Then the NEX 5N came out, and the magenta cast disappeared. The theory was that they added micromirror or an improved micro-mirror into the 5N.
I'm pointing to two past facts that says 16mp may not be the breaking point. The first was the example of the NEX 5 to 5N. The second being 16mp and 18mp in APS-C have been around for awhile and those people also used Zeiss lenses, and I haven't heard of any widespread complaints about Zeiss on those sensors. I'm saying pixel density has a role, but who is to say where the breaking point is? It doesn't seem to be 16mp. Is it 24mp? I don't know. I also don't know if these lenses lacks the traditional Zeiss pop because of the limited image samples. If it is lacking, I don't think anyone here can really ever know why, but my guess would be cost cutting. Come on, new marketing name... Plastic body construction... MTF charts have yet been published... All stinks of Zeiss cost cutting.
For a given output print size, more resolution = better image quality. Even if you now believe the lenses have faults because you are viewing 7360 pixels at the same magnification as 5616 pixels in the previous camera. One camera would make huge impressive prints the other one huger impressive prints (or more impressive same size prints).
The sharpness fetish has gone too far. I don't believe high res sensors change lens character one iota, but you have to judge character by viewing the whole image, otherwise it's not an image but a tiny portion of an image. It's a symphony not a short passage.
sflxn wrote:
What about the funky patterns you sometimes get? That's what I was referring to.
The funky patterns have been all but, and perhaps totally, eliminated when using Aperture. It creates water-color funkiness-free images from RAW files that the camera itself spits out with the funkiness (and the ooc jpgs were previously at the low end of funkiness on the output spectrum). Even with subjects that normally show the strongest patterns: foliage, trees, organic masses of lines approaching resolution limits and falloff from focus.
It does this at the cost of color artifacting of a sort and a greater potential for moire. But these haven't ruined any images for me, whereas the funkiness did ruin some images (not that often given what I shoot)-- where ruined means my final output, which includes print in national/international editorial outlets, has been hampered.
philber wrote:
I respectfully disagree, Edward. I don't think Zeiss have lost their ability to design lenses with "pop" and "3D". What I see is that pixel density on sensors is continuing ot increase, which is pushing lenses harder. One example: Bobu used to shoot a ZE 21 on his 5D II. It was sharp wide open, including the corners. He now shoots a D800E, and bought a ZF.2 21. Not sharp in the corners before f:5.6. He sent it to Zeiss saying it was subpar. They checked it, and said that it was within spec.
Another example: my friend Pascal, from DearSusans. Also went the way of D800E. He now shoots Leica R (19, Summicron 35, Elmarit 90 if I remember properly). Those lenses have lots of character, but the high-res sensor shows their weaknesses in a very unforgiving way.
Yet another. I compared 3 extremely highly reparded lenses on my NEX 7, the highest density reasonably-sized sensor around: the Contax G 45, Summilux 50 and Elmarit R 60. The results are crushing for a lens that was considered one of the best ever designed. And Sony are supposed to introduce soon NEX 7N, with an even higher-performance sensor, so demands on lenses will get even higher......Show more →
I think you misunderstood my post, Philippe. I didn't say Zeiss lost their ability to design lenses with pop and 3D. I said the design priorities have changed these days to perfect clinical lenses and that's probably because of pixel peepers and new high density sensors that show lens flaws at 100% magnification. I agree completely that the new sensors are uncovering any weaknesses of the lenses in an unforgiving way, and all the older Zeiss lenses with character would be completely bashed nowadays for their weaknesses. It's just what the market demands now, super sharp super high resolution from corner to corner. The quest for the perfect MTF.
justruss wrote:
The funky patterns have been all but, and perhaps totally, eliminated when using Aperture. It creates water-color funkiness-free images from RAW files that the camera itself spits out with the funkiness (and the ooc jpgs were previously at the low end of funkiness on the output spectrum). Even with subjects that normally show the strongest patterns: foliage, trees, organic masses of lines approaching resolution limits and falloff from focus.
It does this at the cost of color artifacting of a sort and a greater potential for moire. But these haven't ruined any images for me, whereas the funkiness did ruin some images (not that often given what I shoot)-- where ruined means my final output, which includes print in national/international editorial outlets, has been hampered. ...Show more →
Are we talking about the same funky patterns? I haven't kept up with the discussion on the x-trans sensor. Last year, there was a discovery of a funky geometric pattern you sometime get in the shadows. It was very geometric and artificial. I was reviewing photos in the x-pro 1 thread, and I believe I can still see them. I have also noticed the bad watercolor effect and 'dirty' shadows. The shadows are especially bad compared to the Sony sensors. I am not sure if all of these are related; however, I am am currently on the side of believing these are inherent problems with the x-trans sensor and can never be fixed without computational interpolation (making up data) on the side of the raw processor. I am hoping this changes over time. Perhaps the demosaicing algorithms need more bake time. I'm not sure. What I am sure of is I really do not like what I see in the Fuji image threads. The sensor or the raw processing... I don't know which is at fault, but I need a reliable solution today. I am not going to go risk a lot of money to "try it myself." When I look at images taken with Sony sensors, they're so clean with lots of details in the shadows. It's up to Fuji to fix this problem if they want my money again.
Jochenb wrote:
Fuji is using Sony sensors, just with a different color array filter on top.
It doesn't matter if they'r using the Sony sensor. The combination of their color array filter and demosaic algorithm is obliterating the shadows. It doesn't look like a modern sensor. I love the Fuji colors in the X100, but the new cameras using the X-trans remind me of my old Canon 10D. I would not be happy with the output. I love the system. I hate the images that it's producing. I guess I'm just spoiled by the modern Sony sensors using bayer filter.
justruss wrote:
The funky patterns have been all but, and perhaps totally, eliminated when using Aperture. It creates water-color funkiness-free images from RAW files that the camera itself spits out with the funkiness (and the ooc jpgs were previously at the low end of funkiness on the output spectrum). Even with subjects that normally show the strongest patterns: foliage, trees, organic masses of lines approaching resolution limits and falloff from focus.
It does this at the cost of color artifacting of a sort and a greater potential for moire. But these haven't ruined any images for me, whereas the funkiness did ruin some images (not that often given what I shoot)-- where ruined means my final output, which includes print in national/international editorial outlets, has been hampered. ...Show more →
More moiré... that's ironic since Fuji chose the alternative color filter to lower moiré.
sflxn wrote:
It doesn't matter if they'r using the Sony sensor. The combination of their color array filter and demosaic algorithm is obliterating the shadows. It doesn't look like a modern sensor. I love the Fuji colors in the X100, but the new cameras using the X-trans remind me of my old Canon 10D. I would not be happy with the output. I love the system. I hate the images that it's producing. I guess I'm just spoiled by the modern Sony sensors using bayer filter.
Even though I like Fuji's output I understand your opinion. I was just pointing out that saying "Sony sensors" wasn't totally correct. It's indeed the bayer pattern that makes the difference.
philip_pj wrote:
I don't believe high res sensors change lens character one iota...
The resolution might not change lens character, but other things definitely can. I used the Summicron 28/2 ASPH on an M8 for quite some time and it was awesome. Then I also used it on a NEX-5N, and suddenly there was a terrible curvature of field. Most likely due to a much thicker UV/IR-filter infront of the sensor, changing the optical path from the exit pupil on lenses where it is close to the sensor.
This could also be part of the explanation that Bobu suddenly got mushy corners with the Zeiss 21/2.8 on D800 but not on 5D MkII. It doesn't have to depend on the pixel density. Definitely not if the difference is seen at the same viewing size.
