I took a look at the full version of the shot with the camels lying down (4th image) taken with the 12mm @ f/10 on the X-E1 and it doesn't look that impressive to me. Look at the camels on the right lower part of the frame. I would have expected more from a prime of this caliber.
Look at the Bryce Canyon image directly below it and it's very sharp across the frame. I'd chalk it up to early or preproduction sample variation or simply an error in shooting technique.
philip_pj wrote:
sebboh, a mid wide angle can't be off the agenda for long. 18mm will not suit many compositions, Zeiss are just such show-offs.
wayne, I think I know what Ed is driving at, and yes it is a complement to the RX1's status as a character lens which has the special magic that some Leicas have, expressed in a Zeiss style - 'Zeiss plus'. There is nothing quite like it. It's why you see a lot of hardened Leica M people interested - Huff, Ron and Ed here, many more. I hope I have not verballed you, Ed ;-)
Thanks Philip, I didn't realize I was a hardened Leica guy! I will say that I generally prefer the look of my Leica lenses on the M9 vs. the ZMs, but that might be in part due to the M9 with it's inherently higher contrast rendering, thanks in part to the sensor's narrower dynamic range... When I compared the RX1 against the ZM 35s on the M9, I definitely don't recall thinking the Sonnar was as biting as the ZMs, particularly the 35/2.8. But again, different lenses on very different sensors as well as AA vs. non-AA.
Looking at the various Touit sample images, I definitely feel they share some similarity with what I've experienced with the ZMs and seen from the ZE/ZF line, particularly the boldness and contrast. The 32 reminds me of the ZM 50/2...
He probably shook the thing a little Ron, that Petra shot..it looks pretty good though don't you agree? colour, terrific corners and that kind of 'what FL is that?' that you see in low distortion ultra wides. There will be few complaints. A lot of Fuji files have that not so biting sharp look to me, that's why I think it's best to see what emerges from a NEX7.
Sonnars are deceptively 'sharp' rather often, part of the charm of them - not that the RX1 is in any way traditional. Haha, I simply meant 'experienced' not that you are a hardened guy, lol.
Indeed the impression I had from looking at the samples is that Zeiss went for the bold look. Both lenses seem to have this super high contrast that Zeiss is well known for.
However, I don't think the ZM are particularly bold and contrasty, unless you compare them to Leica M lenses. If you compare them to the ZE for instance, the ZM are much more subdued and subtle. I have owned in the past the Z* 25/2.8, 35/2 and they are much "bolder" than the equivalent ZM versions. Also that is true for 50/2 MP vs 50/2P. The reason imho is that Zeiss designed the ZM with the Leica lenses in mind. They probably wanted to keep the contrast under control.
I took a look at the full version of the shot with the camels lying down (4th image) taken with the 12mm @ f/10 on the X-E1 and it doesn't look that impressive to me. Look at the camels on the right lower part of the frame. I would have expected more from a prime of this caliber.
rscheffler wrote:
Look at the Bryce Canyon image directly below it and it's very sharp across the frame. I'd chalk it up to early or preproduction sample variation or simply an error in shooting technique.
There are three variables between those images that without a doubt affect the visual apperance:
1: ISO 800 vs 200, there is obviously NR processing artificial smoothness in the Petra image.
2: Aperture. At f/10 on APS-C, the loss in micro contrast due to diffraction is easily visible.
3: The camera: X-E1 vs NEX-7
Sorry for my ignorance about this subject, but is there any difference between the Fuji and Nex in terms of sharpness? The Fuji being AAless should be normally sharper, but I did notice that the test shots with Nex 7 are particularly sharp and contrasty.
I haven't compared the fuji vs nex, but their corner performance is similar from the samples that I saw. I guess Fuji is using same 16MP Sony sensor. However, there is a difference btw nex-6 & 7. Klaus at photozone posted this:
I just did a quick test with the NEX 6 with the 16/2.8 (using the same RAW converter). I still need to do some checks so don't hold your breath yet. However, if you think that the results are a magnitude different you will be disappointed. The NEX 6 seems to be a bit better at large apertures (outer region) - which is disappointing from a NEX 7 perspective, of course. However, the chart don't look all that different.
Or in other words a 16mp camera outperforms a 24mp at large apertures. There is no scaling effect whatsoever here - normally there should be one - especially considering the difference in Megapixels. If you look at the various reviews you will notice that the NEX7 struggles at large apertures, not when stopping down.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance about this subject, but is there any difference between the Fuji and Nex in terms of sharpness? The Fuji being AAless should be normally sharper, but I did notice that the test shots with Nex 7 are particularly sharp and contrasty.
I didn't necessarily imply what the relationship would be, but here is how I got it:
SOOC JPEG: Fuji is sharper at the pixel level
RAW converted with conventional converter: NEX 7 is sharper at the pixel level
In any case, NEX7 downsampled to Fuji resolution should be sharper.
Which brings us to the next point, your ignorance isn't half as bad as mine.
The NEX 7 image is downsampled to a much smaller size than the Fuji in the examples mentioned.
Jochenb,
Thanks for the info that it is designed for crop only. I will have to fight very hard to resist Touit then.
Ytwong,
Yes I agree that balance may not be right. But I'm hoping to see that balance is better with the bigger Fuji Xe1 or xpro1 than a Nex. This combi will be for travel only.
The speed booster is a temporary solution until FF mirrorless n its lenses arrive. Yup i will have to trade corner sharpness just for that FF look. But one other advantage of having SB in the mix is that one prime lens supports 2 focal lengths.
Sflxn,
Unfortunately selling what I have currently n switching means quite a substantial loss for me. The RX1 is an important camera coz it shows the world that a FF sensor can be squeezed into a small package. Yup, i certainly agree that we should wait n see what FF mirrorless (and compacts) have to offer.
Interesting that insinuation that Zeiss ZA lenses are designed by Zeiss while ZA E lenses are co-designed by Sony. How many ZA E lenses do you know?
No mention about the Sonnar in the RX1 but my guess is designed by Zeiss.
Not all ZA lenses are designed by Zeiss. I once asked them about it by mail an the response by Bertram Hoenlinger was:
"In der Entwicklung von Produkten teilen sich beide Firmen die Aufgaben - einige Objektive wurden hauptsächlich von Carl Zeiss entwickelt, andere wiederum überwiegend von Sony."
which translates to:
"the development of products is shared between both companies [Sony and Zeiss]- some lenses are mainly designed by Zeiss, others mainly by Sony."
Phillip, that is an interesting insight from Zeiss themselves.
I think however that all ZA for DSLR are most certainly designed by Zeiss, knowing that they were introduced shortly after Sony bought KM. The latter ones as well, since the 16-35 is a variation on the Contax N 17-35, and the 24/2 has a very similar drawing and weaknesses to the 25/2 that came about one year later, even though the optical formula seems to be different. Sony started to claim its involvement in the design at a later stage with the SAM and E lenses. Most Sony lenses prior to that were just rebadged Minolta designs.
Once I start using Zeiss optics on my NEX does that mean I'm going to be addicted? Will I have to buy all new lenses for my D800e? I probably would've bought Zeiss glass a long time ago if they had auto focus.
mojoh wrote:
Sflxn,
Unfortunately selling what I have currently n switching means quite a substantial loss for me. The RX1 is an important camera coz it shows the world that a FF sensor can be squeezed into a small package. Yup, i certainly agree that we should wait n see what FF mirrorless (and compacts) have to offer.
This is something I understand. I'm not advocating switch. It's up to everyone to decide what's important for them. If you need your DSLR for work, than you can't switch. Usually, we buy more than we need -- GAS. I don't think i will buy these Touits. As much as I would like to own them, I don't think I will use them much, due to their focal lengths. I really enjoy my current 24 and 50. I just acquired the 10-18, and these three will probably be 90% of my shooting with the NEX, even if I buy other lenses out of gear lust. The 12mm looked interesting, and It will look more interesting if bought for $300 less on the used market.
alundeb wrote:
There are three variables between those images that without a doubt affect the visual apperance:
1: ISO 800 vs 200, there is obviously NR processing artificial smoothness in the Petra image.
2: Aperture. At f/10 on APS-C, the loss in micro contrast due to diffraction is easily visible.
3: The camera: X-E1 vs NEX-7
Hmm, I overlooked the difference in cameras used - thanks for pointing that out. I feel the minaret and winter river scene suffer from similar edge smearing (trying to look past the high ISO NR of the minaret image, which was the same photographer as the Petra scene). And the second Bryce Canyon image feels odd - the left 1/3 of the image is quite soft. It would seem the depth of field is not deep enough to compensate for the nearer focus point on the right side, yet the center of the image is sharp at infinity, implying there is some field curvature to keep in consideration.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Thanks for your replies! It's interesting that Nex 7 raw is sharper than the Fuji at the pixel level, despite the AA filter and extra pixel density.
Looking at the ephotozine samples, I see a fair amount of color noise reduction smearing in the Fuji images, particularly where there is a sudden edge transition, such as the rock climber, where his red pants bleed into the background, or the transition from blue sky to black rock face... I also wonder how much of an influence the supposedly thick sensor toppings used for the sensors in the Fujis influence edge sharpness? While I'm sure Zeiss designed these lenses to be as telecentric as possible, there's probably only so much they can do within their chosen parameters...
dennishh wrote:
Once I start using Zeiss optics on my NEX does that mean I'm going to be addicted? Will I have to buy all new lenses for my D800e? I probably would've bought Zeiss glass a long time ago if they had auto focus.
I think the D800 is a special case. Not many lenses are taking advantage of the pixel density. If you want a 'look' lens and do not care about perceptual sharpness, then there are plenty of those. However, if you bought the D800, you probably want all the sharpness you can squeeze out of it. Even the ZF lenses struggle with that camera. Chose your lens carefully. Whatever you think of DXO, they do provide a starting point for lens purchasing. The last I looked, there were only about 4 lenses in the 35mm universe able to provide 20+mp of perceptual sharpness on the D800.
sflxn wrote:
I think the D800 is a special case. Not many lenses are taking advantage of the pixel density. If you want a 'look' lens and do not care about perceptual sharpness, then there are plenty of those. However, if you bought the D800, you probably want all the sharpness you can squeeze out of it. Even the ZF lenses struggle with that camera. Chose your lens carefully. Whatever you think of DXO, they do provide a starting point for lens purchasing. The last I looked, there were only about 4 lenses in the 35mm universe able to provide 20+mp of perceptual sharpness on the D800....Show more →
There is something very strange going on with that perceptual megapixels thing. The scores contradict visual comparisons of actual detail in my experience and in objective studio sample image comparisons. I have tried to find out how they compute it withouth any luck.
Regarding the 4 lenses in the 35mm universe, DXO has not tested any of the 6 lenses I regularly use on the D800E and get resolutions beoynd what any 20-24 MP camera ever did. 5 of those lenses are priced below $600.
I will say that I generally prefer the look of my Leica lenses on the M9 vs. the ZMs, but that might be in part due to the M9 with it's inherently higher contrast rendering, thanks in part to the sensor's narrower dynamic range... When I compared the RX1 against the ZM 35s on the M9, I definitely don't recall thinking the Sonnar was as biting as the ZMs, particularly the 35/2.8. But again, different lenses on very different sensors as well as AA vs. non-AA.