This topic is in the 2018 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2018Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
p.46 #1Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
And by extension at the wrong price.
Dave Sanders wrote:
A compact camera has to do more than just have a good lens to justify it.Well, it's not compact if that counts, it's bulkier than the A7 series and is much larger than the RX1 
The lens/sensor combo was always the interesting part of this camera; the rest of it was the wrong idea at the wrong time with the wrong execution.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Sauseschritt wrote
Wtf I wont pick up a compact camera just because it has a good lens. I can have good lenses on my system camera already.A compact camera has to do more than just have a good lens to justify it.
The lens/sensor combo was always the interesting part of this camera; the rest of it was the wrong idea at the wrong time with the wrong execution.
Feb 16, 2023 at 01:18 PM
p.46 #2Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
I wonder if this Zeiss outsold the Hasselblad Lunar? 🤔
Feb 16, 2023 at 05:01 PM
p.46 #3Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
The thread that outlived the subject.
Feb 16, 2023 at 05:35 PM
p.46 #4Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
"In short, the ZX1 failed because of a mismatch between consumer and brand, the implementation, and its unfathomable cost."–Mike Smith, Petapixel
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/
Feb 19, 2023 at 07:23 AM
p.46 #5Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
The many failures of this Zeiss camera make me admire the revolutionary camera technology that Sony has been able to design, produce, and successfully bring to market over a very short period of time.
Feb 19, 2023 at 08:35 AM
p.46 #6Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
LBJ2 wrote:
"In short, the ZX1 failed because of a mismatch between consumer and brand, the implementation, and its unfathomable cost."–Mike Smith, Petapixel
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/
Thanks for sharing this, it's a good article, even if it is just 'an option story'. Good discussions about the ZX1 are so difficult to come by nowadays.. especially when even most of comments the in this thread dwells around same things...
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it has made me think 'how is this possible to even make such a small and high performing lens at the same time'. Technologically this lens runs circles around many other current lenses even if it doesn't offer the brightest f-stops, etc..
I have no answers, but some tid bits I've gathered might include (taken from various sources):
- Alignment close to sensor (an old ZEISS trick a la RX1)
- No mass production, instead every single lens is built by hand (same as with ZEISS expensive cine lenses)
- Sensor is somehow modified to take full advantage of the unusual lens design (microlenses/angle of light?)
- Every single ZX1 unit is calibrated individually (something we have already seen at Hasselblad)
- Digital software corrections are applied but probably in different way than usual ie. not just afterwards for the finished image (I know ZEISS Oasis lens simulation system does simulate digital corrections along with the physical ray trace simulation)
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc. But nevertheless this should be interesting to anyone interested lenses in general as it tells us something about what is possible and the limits of the current lenses.
"In short, the ZX1 failed because of a mismatch between consumer and brand, the implementation, and its unfathomable cost."–Mike Smith, Petapixel
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/
Thanks for sharing this, it's a good article, even if it is just 'an option story'. Good discussions about the ZX1 are so difficult to come by nowadays.. especially when even most of comments the in this thread dwells around same things...
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it has made me think 'how is this possible to even make such a small and high performing lens at the same time'. Technologically this lens runs circles around many other current lenses even if it doesn't offer the brightest f-stops, etc..
I have no answers, but some tid bits I've gathered might include (taken from various sources):
- Alignment close to sensor (an old ZEISS trick a la RX1)
- No mass production, instead every single lens is built by hand (same as with ZEISS expensive cine lenses)
- Sensor is somehow modified to take full advantage of the unusual lens design (microlenses/angle of light?)
- Every single ZX1 unit is calibrated individually (something we have already seen at Hasselblad)
- Digital software corrections are applied but probably in different way than usual ie. not just afterwards for the finished image (I know ZEISS Oasis lens simulation system does simulate digital corrections along with the physical ray trace simulation)
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc. But nevertheless this should be interesting to anyone interested lenses in general as it tells us something about what is possible and the limits of the current lenses.
Feb 19, 2023 at 03:37 PM
p.46 #7Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Kalainen wrote:
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/Thanks for sharing this, it's a good article, even if it is just 'an option story'. Good discussions about the ZX1 are so difficult to come by nowadays.. especially when even most of comments the in this thread dwells around same things...
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it...Show more →
The image quality is excellent, but is it really unusual? Looking at dpreview's model scene comparisons, the Leica Q2 seems very similar in sharpness.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/zeiss-zx1-review#IQ
LBJ2 wrote
"In short, the ZX1 failed because of a mismatch between consumer and brand, the implementation, and its unfathomable cost."–Mike Smith, Petapixelhttps://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it...Show more →
The image quality is excellent, but is it really unusual? Looking at dpreview's model scene comparisons, the Leica Q2 seems very similar in sharpness.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/zeiss-zx1-review#IQ
Feb 19, 2023 at 05:06 PM
p.46 #8Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
chiron wrote:
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/Thanks for sharing this, it's a good article, even if it is just 'an option story'. Good discussions about the ZX1 are so difficult to come by nowadays.. especially when even most of comments the in this thread dwells around same things...
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it has made me think 'how is this possible to even make such a small and high performing lens at the same time'. Technologically this lens runs circles around many other current lenses even if it doesn't offer the brightest f-stops, etc..
I have no answers, but some tid bits I've gathered might include (taken from various sources):
- Alignment close to sensor (an old ZEISS trick a la RX1)
- No mass production, instead every single lens is built by hand (same as with ZEISS expensive cine lenses)
- Sensor is somehow modified to take full advantage of the unusual lens design (microlenses/angle of light?)
- Every single ZX1 unit is calibrated individually (something we have already seen at Hasselblad)
- Digital software corrections are applied but probably in different way than usual ie. not just afterwards for the finished image (I know ZEISS Oasis lens simulation system does simulate digital corrections along with the physical ray trace simulation)
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc. But nevertheless this should be interesting to anyone interested lenses in general as it tells us something about what is possible and the limits of the current lenses.The image quality is excellent, but is it really unusual? Looking at dpreview's model scene comparisons, the Leica Q2 seems very similar in sharpness.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/zeiss-zx1-review#IQ
In the frame centre, yes.
In the midzone, edge and corner, not really.
Kalainen wrote
LBJ2 wrote
"In short, the ZX1 failed because of a mismatch between consumer and brand, the implementation, and its unfathomable cost."–Mike Smith, Petapixelhttps://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it has made me think 'how is this possible to even make such a small and high performing lens at the same time'. Technologically this lens runs circles around many other current lenses even if it doesn't offer the brightest f-stops, etc..
I have no answers, but some tid bits I've gathered might include (taken from various sources):
- Alignment close to sensor (an old ZEISS trick a la RX1)
- No mass production, instead every single lens is built by hand (same as with ZEISS expensive cine lenses)
- Sensor is somehow modified to take full advantage of the unusual lens design (microlenses/angle of light?)
- Every single ZX1 unit is calibrated individually (something we have already seen at Hasselblad)
- Digital software corrections are applied but probably in different way than usual ie. not just afterwards for the finished image (I know ZEISS Oasis lens simulation system does simulate digital corrections along with the physical ray trace simulation)
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc. But nevertheless this should be interesting to anyone interested lenses in general as it tells us something about what is possible and the limits of the current lenses.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/zeiss-zx1-review#IQ
In the frame centre, yes.
In the midzone, edge and corner, not really.
Feb 19, 2023 at 05:27 PM
p.46 #9Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Maximilian wrote:
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/Thanks for sharing this, it's a good article, even if it is just 'an option story'. Good discussions about the ZX1 are so difficult to come by nowadays.. especially when even most of comments the in this thread dwells around same things...
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it has made me think 'how is this possible to even make such a small and high performing lens at the same time'. Technologically this lens runs circles around many other current lenses even if it doesn't offer the brightest f-stops, etc..
I have no answers, but some tid bits I've gathered might include (taken from various sources):
- Alignment close to sensor (an old ZEISS trick a la RX1)
- No mass production, instead every single lens is built by hand (same as with ZEISS expensive cine lenses)
- Sensor is somehow modified to take full advantage of the unusual lens design (microlenses/angle of light?)
- Every single ZX1 unit is calibrated individually (something we have already seen at Hasselblad)
- Digital software corrections are applied but probably in different way than usual ie. not just afterwards for the finished image (I know ZEISS Oasis lens simulation system does simulate digital corrections along with the physical ray trace simulation)
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc. But nevertheless this should be interesting to anyone interested lenses in general as it tells us something about what is possible and the limits of the current lenses.The image quality is excellent, but is it really unusual? Looking at dpreview's model scene comparisons, the Leica Q2 seems very similar in sharpness.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/zeiss-zx1-review#IQIn the frame centre, yes.
In the midzone, edge and corner, not really.
I just used the Q2 because that is what the review had teed up. Here is the ZX-1 compared to the Sony A7RII in the corner. The Sony looks sharper to me in the sponge area and just very slightly behind on the lettering The difference in the sponge and the lettering may just be due to a very slight focus difference, just normal measurement tolerances.
chiron wrote
Kalainen wrote
LBJ2 wrote
"In short, the ZX1 failed because of a mismatch between consumer and brand, the implementation, and its unfathomable cost."–Mike Smith, Petapixelhttps://petapixel.com/2023/02/17/is-the-failure-of-the-zeiss-zx1-the-death-of-the-android-camera/
What I originally meant with my comment regarding the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is that it is a very interesting lens even if one doesn't like the ZX1 concept. Looking at the size/entry pupil and Otus-level performance it a lens we've probably never seen on a regular interchangeable lens camera (regardless of the brand). Having used one myself it has made me think 'how is this possible to even make such a small and high performing lens at the same time'. Technologically this lens runs circles around many other current lenses even if it doesn't offer the brightest f-stops, etc..
I have no answers, but some tid bits I've gathered might include (taken from various sources):
- Alignment close to sensor (an old ZEISS trick a la RX1)
- No mass production, instead every single lens is built by hand (same as with ZEISS expensive cine lenses)
- Sensor is somehow modified to take full advantage of the unusual lens design (microlenses/angle of light?)
- Every single ZX1 unit is calibrated individually (something we have already seen at Hasselblad)
- Digital software corrections are applied but probably in different way than usual ie. not just afterwards for the finished image (I know ZEISS Oasis lens simulation system does simulate digital corrections along with the physical ray trace simulation)
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc. But nevertheless this should be interesting to anyone interested lenses in general as it tells us something about what is possible and the limits of the current lenses.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/zeiss-zx1-review#IQ
In the midzone, edge and corner, not really.
I just used the Q2 because that is what the review had teed up. Here is the ZX-1 compared to the Sony A7RII in the corner. The Sony looks sharper to me in the sponge area and just very slightly behind on the lettering The difference in the sponge and the lettering may just be due to a very slight focus difference, just normal measurement tolerances.
Feb 19, 2023 at 05:43 PM
p.46 #10Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Maybe if they rebrand it as "Bessa Z", drop the price, and hire a professional to publish some glowing reviews based on "rendering".....
Edited on Feb 20, 2023 at 07:37 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Feb 20, 2023 at 07:37 AM · View previous versions
Feb 20, 2023 at 07:12 AM
p.46 #11Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Kalainen wrote:
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc.
I think we can only hope for this 35/2 to make it to market. A continuation of the Zeiss lineup is always a good thing for the camera industry. Otus/Batis lines seem to be dying a slow death, and something new needs to replace it.
Anyway the Distagon 2/35 on ZX1 is clearly 'a ZEISS design statement' as much as Otus-lenses were at the time, and it gives us a glimpse what is possible in lens design if the concept is right. Sadly none of this will probably ever materialize to normal interchangeable lens cameras because of their non optimal flange distance/tolarences/etc.
I think we can only hope for this 35/2 to make it to market. A continuation of the Zeiss lineup is always a good thing for the camera industry. Otus/Batis lines seem to be dying a slow death, and something new needs to replace it.
Feb 20, 2023 at 07:25 AM
p.46 #12Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Zeiss has made bad decision after bad decision for years. Had they actually asked anyone, they would have been told very clearly that their Otus/Batis/Milvus lenses are all too big, and their ZX -1 was bound to fail from the beginning for reasons too many to count.
I don’t know who makes their final design decisions, but surely they need to be sacked.
I don’t know who makes their final design decisions, but surely they need to be sacked.
Feb 20, 2023 at 08:08 AM
p.46 #13Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
wolfloid wrote:
Zeiss has made bad decision after bad decision for years. Had they actually asked anyone, they would have been told very clearly that their Otus/Batis/Milvus lenses are all too big, and their ZX -1 was bound to fail from the beginning for reasons too many to count.
I don’t know who makes their final design decisions, but surely they need to be sacked.
I actually find the Batis lenses pretty good for size. They make up the majority of my travel kit and I have zero complaints about their size / weight. They do deliver exceptional images which for me is paramount.
Zeiss has made bad decision after bad decision for years. Had they actually asked anyone, they would have been told very clearly that their Otus/Batis/Milvus lenses are all too big, and their ZX -1 was bound to fail from the beginning for reasons too many to count.
I don’t know who makes their final design decisions, but surely they need to be sacked.
I actually find the Batis lenses pretty good for size. They make up the majority of my travel kit and I have zero complaints about their size / weight. They do deliver exceptional images which for me is paramount.
Feb 20, 2023 at 10:39 AM
p.46 #14Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
wolfloid wrote:
Zeiss has made bad decision after bad decision for years. Had they actually asked anyone, they would have been told very clearly that their Otus/Batis/Milvus lenses are all too big, and their ZX -1 was bound to fail from the beginning for reasons too many to count.
I don’t know who makes their final design decisions, but surely they need to be sacked.
Even more unfortunate is that they silently slopped their M-line of good ZM lenses since they likely no longer provided as much profit than newer lens systems plus they got significant competition from Voigtlander and other Chinese companies.
I am still using Hasselblad-Zeiss V-lenses for medium format. Great quality even the 8-blade lens shutter can be a bit annoying and unique at the same time.
Zeiss has made bad decision after bad decision for years. Had they actually asked anyone, they would have been told very clearly that their Otus/Batis/Milvus lenses are all too big, and their ZX -1 was bound to fail from the beginning for reasons too many to count.
I don’t know who makes their final design decisions, but surely they need to be sacked.
Even more unfortunate is that they silently slopped their M-line of good ZM lenses since they likely no longer provided as much profit than newer lens systems plus they got significant competition from Voigtlander and other Chinese companies.
I am still using Hasselblad-Zeiss V-lenses for medium format. Great quality even the 8-blade lens shutter can be a bit annoying and unique at the same time.
Feb 24, 2023 at 12:49 PM
p.46 #15Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
I think this camera did not born to be a commercial succes but a patent box, good for lawyers and for licensing
US 7209167, US 7297916, US 7933454, US 8149312, US 8625017, US 9728574, US 10681266, US 10789684, US 10999514, US 11199681, US D858601, US D859494, US D863395, US D863396, US D864273, US D865022, US D884056
US 7209167, US 7297916, US 7933454, US 8149312, US 8625017, US 9728574, US 10681266, US 10789684, US 10999514, US 11199681, US D858601, US D859494, US D863395, US D863396, US D864273, US D865022, US D884056
Feb 24, 2023 at 11:01 PM