That is a very careful set of responses in the ephotozine interview. I guess the big takeaway might be that Zeiss do the design work entirely or primarily themselves with a bit of gradient in there to account for the various lines, AF mechanism development and lens-camera interfaces. They are very cagy about where the line lies in each product or product line. More of interest:
and this helps unpick the puzzle somewhat:
'The ZEISS Touit lenses for the Sony NEX system and Fujifilm X system were developed exclusively by ZEISS. The lenses are manufactured under the direct control of ZEISS. Sales and service are provided by ZEISS.'
So this is the same as the ZE/F deal, it seems. THEY decided target performance, materials selection, design parameters, design trade-offs, development decisions, and had much more involvement in production ('direct control'); and stand behind the product as its owner. The implication being that it is not generally so, they would work to a brief and contract.
Ed, I think only Zeiss could design the RX1 and it seems certain they had much more than usual involvement at all stages, as the RX1 is dominated by its lens and it is all new, with very high attention to detail in production - fine tolerances.
Sony provide prototypes for use by Zeiss in lens development, I am sure the same will occur for the 'FF NEX' as well, and have read as much. They probably deal more with Sony's sensor wizards than their lens design team ;-) It is so very different from film days, isn't it?
alundeb wrote:
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 think they use what we here call "Pyshveic" constant to compute perceptual megapixels. Its constant thats pulled out of finger (or any appropriate place) to match result they want.
For outsiders, Monty Python constant could work too..
They work with some funny premise that all ppl see same. Well, suprisingly they dont. MTFs and LW/PH are way more valuable.
philip_pj wrote:
That is a very careful set of responses in the ephotozine interview. I guess the big takeaway might be that Zeiss do the design work entirely or primarily themselves with a bit of gradient in there to account for the various lines, AF mechanism development and lens-camera interfaces. They are very cagy about where the line lies in each product or product line. More of interest:
and this helps unpick the puzzle somewhat:
'The ZEISS Touit lenses for the Sony NEX system and Fujifilm X system were developed exclusively by ZEISS. The lenses are manufactured under the direct control of ZEISS. Sales and service are provided by ZEISS.'
So this is the same as the ZE/F deal, it seems. THEY decided target performance, materials selection, design parameters, design trade-offs, development decisions, and had much more involvement in production ('direct control'); and stand behind the product as its owner. The implication being that it is not generally so, they would work to a brief and contract.
Ed, I think only Zeiss could design the RX1 and it seems certain they had much more than usual involvement at all stages, as the RX1 is dominated by its lens and it is all new, with very high attention to detail in production - fine tolerances.
Sony provide prototypes for use by Zeiss in lens development, I am sure the same will occur for the 'FF NEX' as well, and have read as much. They probably deal more with Sony's sensor wizards than their lens design team ;-) It is so very different from film days, isn't it?...Show more →
Agreed Philip. IMO, a lot of the Zeiss statements regarding its collaboration with Sony are driven by their agreement and Sony's desire to look like an active partner in lens design. This started in 2008 when the new Sony CEO disliked the partnership with Zeiss as indicating that Sony is incapable of designing its own lenses. In fact, there is no indication whatsoever that Sony co-designed the optical part of any ZA except the 24/1.8, which admittedly is the least Zeissy of all ZA. It is also unclear how much influence Zeiss had in designing Sony branded lenses as the example of the Sony Sonnar 85/2.8 may show. Even the 24/1.8 relaxed design and typical elongated shape shows a lot of Zeiss influence but perhaps Sony asked for a more subdued look to fit with the other Sony lenses for the E mount. So I think the latest FAQ is so far the clearest answer from Zeiss about the nature of the collaboration.
Mescalamba wrote:
Nice rendering from those lens.. Really would like to see some sensible full size pics taken on NEX (are there any or I missed them?).
I was going to point you to the ephotozine links, but just realized the NEX samples are all 6MP (at least in the 12mm gallery)...
Wide open shots show the bokeh and the contrast wide open as 12mm shows the contrast vs 32mm looks less contrasty as Roger said.
Mescalamba wrote:
Nice rendering from those lens.. Really would like to see some sensible full size pics taken on NEX (are there any or I missed them?).
rscheffler wrote:
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...
Sometimes I wonder what's going on with AA less cameras. It seems Leica and Ricoh are the only manufacturers who are able to do it correctly.
Most likely cause both did pretty much same. Regular Bayer - no funky stuff. And aligned micro-lens in case of both (less success in case of M9 tho, but if Im correct, near perfect in Ricoh).
But if Im correct, Nikon D7100 should be ok, like K-5 IIs. Only D800E is strange "between".
Fuji has this issues, cause its Fuji. They always want something new and different. And when it more or less fails, they do something else, instead of trying to really improve old one. For example old S5 Pro, if that sensor had bit more mpix and was upsized to FF, it would be absolutely amazing and DR would wipe floor with everything. But nope, instead of improving they just killed it.
I will do little crystal ball prediction and say that they will not improve X-trans and it will eventually fail too.
I can imagine how much better would be X-E1 with regular Bayer minus AA filter..
I think different CFA is clever idea, but not this way.
Some of those NEX-7 sample pics look like Contax lens on steroids. If I didnt hate crop so much I would even think about buying it.
some gems:
'ZEISS’ creative genes for autonomy, uniformity, integration and smoothness'
'the ZEISS logo has the same format on each lens.'
Good to hear all that. This one is interesting too:
'From the *necessary compromise* between small size and light weight on the one hand and high imaging quality on the other, we have realized the best technical result that was possible.'
Translation: bigger, heavier lenses have better image quality. Smaller lighter lenses are compromised regarding image quality. But we did fine, as good as we could given that you wimps won't use a larger lens. [All other things being equal of course.]
The 12mm has very easy on the eye OOF. And images continue to impress.
Zeiss informed me that shipping would begin June 1. I hope that I will get one from the first batch. Then, but only if you are nice to me, I might just post one or two pics....
edwardkaraa wrote:
In fact, there is no indication whatsoever that Sony co-designed the optical part of any ZA except the 24/1.8, which admittedly is the least Zeissy of all ZA.
I got a used NEX-6 yesterday and a new 55-210 (hopefully good enough for the few tele shots I take). Assuming that I like the NEX and that the new 12mm is as good as it looks now I'll definitely buy one. Then I'll sell the rest of my Canon system.
Helena, if the Touit is as good as it looks now, it will be major step forward for the NEX 7. The 7 has only 2 drawbacks against the 5/6: high ISO, and wide angles. Your type of photography seems to be like mine, base ISO. If we have a really good really wide angle, then you can enjoy the benefits of the 7 over the 5/6: colour, dynamic range, resolution. And many prefer the camera body as well, with Tri-Navi.
Thanks philber! So you're saying that the NEX 7 has better colors and DR than the 6? Interesting. Well, I got the 6 cheap so it's a good way to try out the system. If I really like it I can always change it for some other NEX later (I'll continue to use RX1 for the most of my photos). The 55-210 seems surprisingly decent, especially considering the low weight and price, but I can't wait for the Touit 12mm and see what the camera can do with a really good lens.
Yes, I did. What was great was the absence of any issue with the sensor. But the IQ was not enough to make me fork out my hard-earned, even at used prices. Not bad at all, but, for that sort of money, you have a right expect state-of-the-art IMHO. And the WATE fell short. A good lens , maybe even very good, but a purchase only if the combination of focal length and practicality is a priority.
If I didnt hate crop so much I would even think about buying it. 
