sfixn: well, maybe superb was a strong adjective for the RX1 lens. I settle for great.
I don't own the camera and I don't plan on buying it, I still think it is a great camera.
I would even consider it a mile stone camera.
Funny, when people talk threedee usually I think of Planar lenses too.
I am not that well versed on character descriptions but I would agree to the "sharp but smooth" take on the RX1, something I like. Planar lenses can be a bit harsher in rendition but for the most part I like Planars.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Funny, when people talk threedee usually I think of Planar lenses too.
I am not that well versed on character descriptions but I would agree to the "sharp but smooth" take on the RX1, something I like. Planar lenses can be a bit harsher in rendition but for the most part I like Planars.
+1. Planars may not be the most flawless lenses, but, as a generalisation, they have lots of character and 3D. IMHO the ZE Planar 50 f:1.4 is almost polar opposite to the old Sigma 50 f:1.4. To each his own.
sebboh wrote:
i don't know about oomph (probably not what i want), but the pictures i see from the rx1 look a lot more attractive to me than what i see from the new sigma (which seems rather sterile to me). i agree the rx1 doesn't draw like traditional zeiss lenses though. the zeiss samples from the 32/1.8 look awfully similar to what i get from other zeiss planars though, which quite frankly isn't my favorite look.
+1
I have some files from RX1 and apart from responding incredibly well to my torture post-processing they have very nice character thanks to that lens.
RX1 actually made me think about "one lens, one camera" idea for some time. But since I can get M8 with some lens cheaper. Tho it will be very nice second-hand camera one day..
sflxn wrote:
I would agree with the assessment that the RX1 images are clinical. I chalked it up to being the Sonnar look. To me, I've always preferred the Planar look over the Sonnar look. I'm not especially experienced with Zeiss, but when I hear people say Zeiss 3D look, Planar always pops into my head, based on the images I've looked at over the years.
sflxn wrote:
That's interesting that you would say that. Are we talking about the same Sigma? The FF one, not the NEX 30mm one. It's interesting you would use the word sterile. On another forum I visit a lot, getdpi, there is a long discussion about the 35, one in which some people have called the RX1 clinical but lacking character. I would agree with the assessment that the RX1 images are clinical. I chalked it up to being the Sonnar look. To me, I've always preferred the Planar look over the Sonnar look. I'm not especially experienced with Zeiss, but when I hear people say Zeiss 3D look, Planar always pops into my head, based on the images I've looked at over the years.
I want to add that when I look at the RX1 images, they are sharp but smooth at the same time, if that makes sense. Maybe I just like the harder hitting planar look. It all comes down to personal preference....Show more →
i think sharp but smooth is a fair description, and i think that is a look that is a lot harder to find and more pleasing and useful than the high contrast everywhere look of the sigma (i was talking about the FF one, but the NEX version has a similar look with a smaller aperture).
i do own the contax g 45mm and i don't see a lot of similarity in look between it and the sigma 35/1.4 (the g45 seems more similar to the ZE 35/2 to me) other than that they are both high contrast and high resolution imagers. color seems quite different between them and the g45 seems to have a different focus roll off that makes things pop out more while the sigma needs to rely more on narrow dof to make things really stand out. i suspect this comes from having differing contrast levels at certain spatial frequencies, but who knows. note: i'm not saying the sigma is bad at generating 3D, just that it's not quite in the g45's league and i think the g45 is one of the best normal lenses for this ever.
having said that, i don't use my g45 very often because i view it as kind of a one trick pony that lacks subtlety. it makes things that lack texture and aren't 3D look 3D. in most situations i prefer my 40 cron despite it's field curvature because of it's sharp yet smooth rendition and color that i prefer to the g45. the cron can create exceptional sense of depth and texture in the focus plain yet allows the background to be relatively smooth and harmonious (i'm talking stopped down of course) without the harshness of the g45. to my eye the rx1 lens shares this property (even wide open) while being much better corrected than the 40 cron. i believe the 28 cron asph also achieves a similar look, but don't have enough experience to be sure.
sebboh wrote:
i think sharp but smooth is a fair description, and i think that is a look that is a lot harder to find and more pleasing and useful than the high contrast everywhere look of the sigma (i was talking about the FF one, but the NEX version has a similar look with a smaller aperture)........to my eye the rx1 lens shares this property (even wide open) while being much better corrected than the 40 cron. i believe the 28 cron asph also achieves a similar look, but don't have enough experience to be sure.
I just popped into this thread to see what was going on. Having owned the RX1 for a short time, I have to agree with what Carsten said many months back - the RX1 lens shows both Zeiss and Leica traditional qualities. It seems to have the Leica color and gradation while also having the extended sharpness through the dof that Zeiss is known for. That it does this and still produces some of the best looking bokeh around is quite an achievement. The rendering invokes the word "clean" for me (particularly the color rendering) rather than clinical because it is a "rounder" and "fuller" look than what most lenses described as "clinical" have. All subjective, I know.
I'm not sure if this statement means there is in camera software correction of lens imperfections:
"Another difference to current lenses is the electronic support of the camera’s corrective functions which corrects errors on the image afterwards. In order to be able to do that, the lens must be equipped with the function to communicate characteristics about the image to the camera."
I'm not sure if this statement means there is in camera software correction of lens imperfections:
"Another difference to current lenses is the electronic support of the camera’s corrective functions which corrects errors on the image afterwards. In order to be able to do that, the lens must be equipped with the function to communicate characteristics about the image to the camera."
Thoughts?
Maybe the Touit lenses in Fuji mount pass information to the caera for correction of distortion and perhaps vignetting?
kosmoskatten wrote:
sfixn: well, maybe superb was a strong adjective for the RX1 lens. I settle for great.
I don't own the camera and I don't plan on buying it, I still think it is a great camera.
I would even consider it a mile stone camera.
Funny, when people talk threedee usually I think of Planar lenses too.
I am not that well versed on character descriptions but I would agree to the "sharp but smooth" take on the RX1, something I like. Planar lenses can be a bit harsher in rendition but for the most part I like Planars.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I still think the RX1 is a very special camera. I also think the X100s is a special camera, even though I don't like the raw processing situation. I'm the process of rationalizing my photo gear. I've had the NEX7 for over a year and the older X100 before that. I keep looking at my D800E, which I really haven't used that much because of these small, convenient cameras. My GAS is acting up and wants me acquire some lenses for the Nikon, but both my brain and heart tells me to sell the entire Nikon kit and focus on the mirrorless kits. I may still end up with an RX1 because size, convenience, and discreteness overrides the desire to have utmost megapixels. I think gear lust sometimes sways us far from what really makes us happy, which is making photos. I really hate taking my DSLR out. I always feel conscientious when using my DSLR.
I'm not sure if this statement means there is in camera software correction of lens imperfections:
"Another difference to current lenses is the electronic support of the camera’s corrective functions which corrects errors on the image afterwards. In order to be able to do that, the lens must be equipped with the function to communicate characteristics about the image to the camera."
Thoughts?
My take on it is Zeiss has designed/built these lenses to relay certain information to the cameras, such as perhaps lens ID, should the camera manufacturers ever decide to support these Zeiss lenses for in-camera corrections. It might also be useful for IDing the lenses automatically in some software for application of lens correction profiles. That is unless such lens information, such as distortion, CA, sharpening, is embedded in the lenses nowadays?
rscheffler wrote:
My take on it is Zeiss has designed/built these lenses to relay certain information to the cameras, such as perhaps lens ID, should the camera manufacturers ever decide to support these Zeiss lenses for in-camera corrections. It might also be useful for IDing the lenses automatically in some software for application of lens correction profiles. That is unless such lens information, such as distortion, CA, sharpening, is embedded in the lenses nowadays?
Well, the Fuji lenses have upgradeable firmware, so it sounds like things like distortion/vignetting/CA characteristics could be stored in the firmware of the Touit lenses as well.
I think it really depends on mfr. I don't think there is a standard way to store lens specific info. I know with Nikon, when a new lens comes out, they issue firmware that contains the new lens info.
It seems better to embed just the lens id in the lens, and embed the corrections in the camera. More room for memory in the camera, and corrections can be added/updated by just updating the camera firmware once, rather than each lens in turn.
How would Zeiss embed their lens info in Fuji cameras?
I presume the lens is able to send a simple parameterised description or mapping of brightness values, for the vignetting, and maybe something similar for sharpness. I am not sure if distortion correction would be a part of this.
It is likely to be a simple instruction set, a profile sent to the camera cpu...the language loses something on it way into English, but:
'corrective functions which corrects errors on the image afterwards' sounds a lot like preparing jpg files by removing distortion, vignetting, CA, perhaps more 'aberrations' - the RX1 uses 'half-baked' RAW instructions also, and so do some medium format cameras, to reduce the distortion from very noticeable to pretty good, 1.7% from memory for the RX1. The Fujis and others probably the same.
These kinds of lenses are going to resemble F1 cars soon, lots of technology and design acumen goes into them. The RX1 Sonnar has 8 elements in 5 groups, five Asph surfaces. My Contax 100mm f3.5 has 5/4 plain elements in groups, and is totally dumb to the camera it sits on, an a99 computer that lay undreamt of, 20 years into the future from when the lens was put together, lol.
