shogo73 wrote:
Guys…
That’s a tough one to show/prove. First… (...)
By "fun," I just meant: hey, this is just for contributing to your trivial knowledge.
When I was informed correct pronunciation for Summicron, Summarit… (Z vs S sound). I thought that was fun.
Thank you shogo73!
I'm pretty sure you are right. It's also very possible the word is used more in Japan than in the West. Trivial knowledge is welcome, always. But, now I have to ask you about Summi... As the lens names are German trademarks and spelled with S I don't see why they should be pronounced with as if spelled with a Z. Is that a Leitz (where the the z is pronounced as an s) joke? Or what is the explanation in this case?
I never heard Summicron pronounced as Zummi.. even when I worked for German speaking bosses at a camera shop, it's an S. And its not pronounced 'cron either ;-)
I am not a native German speaker, but was taught that A 'z' is pronounced as 'ts'
In German, the letter "s" is pronounced with a "z" sound, providing it is followed by a vowel There m be exceptions, though I couldn't find one ( I speak some German but am not a native German speaker) Hence, Summicron, Summilux, Summarit shouls all be pronounced with a "z" sound in English, because, as Gerry rightly points out, a "z" in Germain is a "ts" sound in English
I was going through old stuff today and reprised this link of 19-21mm SLR lens comparisons which I am posting here for interest. It includes links to lens tests and other "best of breed" lists. The two OM 21s show remarkable performance in particular and must be high up the list for WA candidates on the a7 because of their small size. Not RF I know.
waterden wrote:
I was going through old stuff today and reprised this link of 19-21mm SLR lens comparisons which I am posting here for interest. It includes links to lens tests and other "best of breed" lists. The two OM 21s show remarkable performance in particular and must be high up the list for WA candidates on the a7 because of their small size. Not RF I know.
philber wrote:
In German, the letter "s" is pronounced with a "z" sound, providing it is followed by a vowel There m be exceptions, though I couldn't find one ( I speak some German but am not a native German speaker) ...Hence, Summicron, Summilux, Summarit shouls all be pronounced with a "z" sound in English,
To complicate it even more:
The exception is, if you speak to a Bavarian or Austrian, they spell Summi... with an "s" .
The sound used by northern and central Germans is rather somewhere in between the "s" and english "z" as in zoo. If you ask me, you shouldn't bother about it to much really... it is much less criticall than the different pronounciation of the vowels in those words in German.
(german native speaker from Austria )
waterden wrote:
I was going through old stuff today and reprised this link of 19-21mm SLR lens comparisons which I am posting here for interest. It includes links to lens tests and other "best of breed" lists. The two OM 21s show remarkable performance in particular and must be high up the list for WA candidates on the a7 because of their small size. Not RF I know.
Jonas B wrote:
Do you have a source for that? I thought it was a Japanese word for used to describe background parts of a painting? I see it spelled bokeh more often than boke. When googling bokeh the whole first page shows links to photo related material, the top hit is Wikipedia. Boke may be something different and perhaps I don't understand the "fun" - is it that a similar spelled word doesn't mean what we are talking about?
I came across a couple definitions... http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/boke.html 6.12. What does boke mean?
The word "boke", pronounced "bok-ay", and usually written ぼけ or ボケ, has a number of different meanings. It can mean stupid, unaware, or clueless. (See 8.5. What are some Japanese insults and swear-words? for more.)
This word is also used in photography for "out of focus", and has come into English as "bokeh", with an additional "h" to show the pronunciation. (See 5.5. What English words come from Japanese? for more words which have come from Japanese to English.)
In double-act comedy, the "straight man" is called tsukkomi (ツッコミ ) and the "funny man" is called boke.
The Japanese also use boke to mean "senility", and in such compound words as jisaboke (時差ぼけ ), "time-lag boke", meaning "jet lag", heiwa-boke (平和ボケ ), "peace boke", meaning a state of complacency induced by an excess of peace, and tennen-boke (天然ぼけ ), "natural boke", meaning "airhead".
Boke is also the name of a plant known in English as the Japanese quince or flowering quince, scientific name Chaenomeles speciosa. ...Show more →
And... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_owarai_terms boke
Other Japanese meanings of Anglicised spelling "boke": Boke or bokeh—blur in photography, and, Boke—flowering Japanese quince.
For non-Japanese "boke," see Boke.
ボケ (boke [boke]). From the verb bokeru 惚ける or 呆ける, which carries the meaning of "senility" or "air headed-ness," and is reflected in this performer's tendency for misinterpretation and forgetfulness. The boke is the "simple-minded" member of an owarai kombi ("tsukkomi and boke", or vice versa) that receives most of the verbal and physical abuse from the "smart" tsukkomi because of the boke's misunderstandings and slip-ups. The tsukkomi (突っ込み ) refers to the role the second comedian plays in "butting in" and correcting the boke's errors. It is common for tsukkomi to berate boke and hit them on the head with a swift smack; traditionally, tsukkomi often carried a fan as a multi-purpose prop, one of the uses for which was to hit the boke with. Boke and tsukkomi are loosely equivalent to the roles of "funny man" or "comic" (boke) and "straight man" (tsukkomi) in the comedy duos of western culture. Outside of owarai, boke is sometimes used in common speech as an insult, similar to "idiot" in English, or baka in Japanese....Show more →
Judging by comments on this thread and that of the UWA on A7r there is quite a lobby favouring the WATE. Am I alone in puzzling over this? As I recall, the WATE was introduced to provide a 21-24(5)-28 TE lens equivalent for the 1.3x crop M8 as the old 28-35-50 TE translated to three possibly less useful focal lengths on the new digital Leica RF. Maybe I am incorrect here but that is my recollection. However, I have found it difficult to understand its attractions on the M9, let alone the A7. Surely the WATE focal lengths go from extremely specialist to useable landscape and, unless required for specialist indoor architectural work, would not a single 21mm do the job? At half the price or less.
p.149 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I am drooling over the WATE because it seems to have excellent performance and minimal compatibility issues across its range. When I had the Canon 16-35, I usually used it at 16. 21 is simply not wide enough for interiors and for certain landscape shots. On my 5D Mark II, I would carry a 17 T/S and a Zeiss 21 2.8 on hikes (and a 35, but that is covered by the FE 35 in a nice light package). I am thinking the WATE would replace both those lenses with comparable quality--at least stopped down in a smaller package. I like taking pics of waterfalls and it is often not possible to "zoom with your feet" for those subjects. It also takes filters more easily than the 17T/S and so has a number of advantages. Lastly, I am not confident that a native FE mount UWA zoom will equal the WATE in performance, but here I may be wrong. If you want a fast prime 21, then use the Zeiss via adapter or wait and see what MF Zeiss FE mount lenses are announced.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.149 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
waterden wrote:
Judging by comments on this thread and that of the UWA on A7r there is quite a lobby favouring the WATE. Am I alone in puzzling over this? As I recall, the WATE was introduced to provide a 21-24(5)-28 TE lens equivalent for the 1.3x crop M8 as the old 28-35-50 TE translated to three possibly less useful focal lengths on the new digital Leica RF. Maybe I am incorrect here but that is my recollection. However, I have found it difficult to understand its attractions on the M9, let alone the A7. Surely the WATE focal lengths go from extremely specialist to useable landscape and, unless required for specialist indoor architectural work, would not a single 21mm do the job? At half the price or less....Show more →
Certainly a single 21mm would be great, but right now there doesn't seem to be a great 21mm option for the new Sony FF mirrorless cameras. The WATE is longer (and presumably with a exit pupil that is further from the sensor) and seems to work very well with the Sony cameras. Personally I would prefer a 21 and I hope Zeiss makes a MF one for the FE mount, but until they do I will use my adapted Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 even if it is quite large. I can't realistically afford a WATE, but for those who can they get a lens that is half the size of the Zeiss 21 SLR lens, that is in the ballpark optically, and that also zooms down to 16mm. I can see why people would want it. Heck, I do. There is just no way I could afford it.
p.149 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
Certainly a single 21mm would be great, but right now there doesn't seem to be a great 21mm option for the new Sony FF mirrorless cameras. The WATE is longer (and presumably with a exit pupil that is further from the sensor) and seems to work very well with the Sony cameras. Personally I would prefer a 21 and I hope Zeiss makes a MF one for the FE mount, but until they do I will use my adapted Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 even if it is quite large. I can't realistically afford a WATE, but for those who can they get a lens that is half the size of the Zeiss 21 SLR lens, that is in the ballpark optically, and that also zooms down to 16mm. I can see why people would want it. Heck, I do. There is just no way I could afford it....Show more →
How about CV 21/1.8? Seems great on the A7R
p.149 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Or the Oly 21/2 or 21/3.5 kolen wrote:
How about CV 21/1.8? Seems great on the A7R
Dec 18, 2013 at 01:11 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.149 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
kolen wrote:
How about CV 21/1.8? Seems great on the A7R
Well that is an interesting choice. For starters it is about 80 grams heavier than the WATE. Also from the samples I have seen I am not that impressed. It doesn't seem that clean to me, but hey maybe I am wrong. So against the WATE it loses in size and performance, IMO, but someone might pick it on value/price and I could certainly understand that. Except that I just don't think its performance is even close to the Zeiss 21 f/2.8 for SLRs and it costs about 75% of what the Zeiss costs, so in my book I see the Zeiss as a better value. It is a lower price than the Zeiss or WATE, however. Still if money were tight I would want to compare it closely to the Olympus OM 21 f/3.5, which is a lot less expensive, is smaller (even with the larger adapter) and may equal or even surpass its performance. So it doesn't really stand out in any way. Not the best value; not the smallest size; not the best performer, not least expensive. All in all, I can't see a situation in which I would chose it over the other options, but as always, YMMV.
p.149 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well that is an interesting choice. For starters it is about 80 grams heavier than the WATE. Also from the samples I have seen I am not that impressed. It doesn't seem that clean to me, but hey maybe I am wrong. So against the WATE it loses in size and performance, IMO, but someone might pick it on value/price and I could certainly understand that. Except that I just don't think its performance is even close to the Zeiss 21 f/2.8 for SLRs and it costs about 75% of what the Zeiss costs, so in my book I see the Zeiss as a better value. It is a lower price than the Zeiss or WATE, however. Still if money were tight I would want to compare it closely to the Olympus OM 21 f/3.5, which is a lot less expensive, is smaller (even with the larger adapter) and may equal or even surpass its performance. So it doesn't really stand out in any way. Not the best value; not the smallest size; not the best performer, not least expensive. All in all, I can't see a situation in which I would chose it over the other options, but as always, YMMV....Show more →
Well it does stand out in terms of being f1.8, but that won't be important to everyone.
p.149 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well that is an interesting choice. For starters it is about 80 grams heavier than the WATE. Also from the samples I have seen I am not that impressed. It doesn't seem that clean to me, but hey maybe I am wrong. So against the WATE it loses in size and performance, IMO, but someone might pick it on value/price and I could certainly understand that. Except that I just don't think its performance is even close to the Zeiss 21 f/2.8 for SLRs and it costs about 75% of what the Zeiss costs, so in my book I see the Zeiss as a better value. It is a lower price than the Zeiss or WATE, however. Still if money were tight I would want to compare it closely to the Olympus OM 21 f/3.5, which is a lot less expensive, is smaller (even with the larger adapter) and may equal or even surpass its performance. So it doesn't really stand out in any way. Not the best value; not the smallest size; not the best performer, not least expensive. All in all, I can't see a situation in which I would chose it over the other options, but as always, YMMV....Show more →
hmm, the cv 21/1.8 might be heavier but i think it'll actually take up less space then the WATE. at f/8 (where i'd shoot landscapes) it doesn't seem to lose much to the WATE on the a7r either. on the other hand, neither look as good as the ZF 21/2.8. the fact that the voigtlander can be used at large aperture for interesting reportage type shots makes it more interesting to me than either the WATE or the ZF 21/2.8. to fair though, i also just don't like landscapes taken with a lens that wide to begin with, which makes the WATE and zeiss seem like a waste of money and space in the bag for me.
p.149 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
In German, the letter "s" is pronounced with a "z" sound, providing it is followed by a vowel There m be exceptions, though I couldn't find one ( I speak some German but am not a native German speaker) Hence, Summicron, Summilux, Summarit shouls all be pronounced with a "z" sound in English, because, as Gerry rightly points out, a "z" in Germain is a "ts" sound in English
p.149 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sebboh wrote:
hmm, the cv 21/1.8 might be heavier but i think it'll actually take up less space then the WATE. at f/8 (where i'd shoot landscapes) it doesn't seem to lose much to the WATE on the a7r either. on the other hand, neither look as good as the ZF 21/2.8. the fact that the voigtlander can be used at large aperture for interesting reportage type shots makes it more interesting to me than either the WATE or the ZF 21/2.8. to fair though, i also just don't like landscapes taken with a lens that wide to begin with, which makes the WATE and zeiss seem like a waste of money and space in the bag for me.
p.149 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Hi guys,
On the rangefinder wide-angle front, I have just been testing a new lens for me, the Contax G 35/2. Before I bought it, I had read some reviews on the internet that said this particular lens is not that great, but I thought people should know that its actually pretty good. It has much better sharpness and contrasts than the A7 35-70 kit at the same aperture, in both the corners and centre. It also deals with specular highlights nicely. At 2.0, its a bit 'dreamy', but still perfectly useable. I don't see the centre frame at f4+ being any worse than the G28, although the G45 is better.
My G28 and G21 are pretty much useless though, with uncorrectable smearing around the edges The G90 is pretty nice, but although its not a rangefinder, I'm finding the Canon FD 85/1.2 chrome-ring aspherical pretty decent on the A7 too and nicer for portraits.
-Dave
Or what is the explanation in this case?
The G90 is pretty nice, but although its not a rangefinder, I'm finding the Canon FD 85/1.2 chrome-ring aspherical pretty decent on the A7 too and nicer for portraits.