Question-and-answer in a category on "Jeopardy" a while back. Your terminology is a common error. Actually, it's "champing at the bit". Don't ask me why ....
Edges look fine now with Zeiss and Leica lenses. Perhaps we were sold a bill of goods by the camera manufacturers and their excuses.
In SLR's, this appears to have - at the very least - a shred of truth.
Leica has long maintained that the reason there's no interchangeable digital "M" body on the market (yet) is that the "M" lens design places the rear elements unacceptably close to what we all used to call the "film plane". (OK, OK ... it's the focal plane.) Something like that .....
(I think they're just unacceptably s-l-o-w!)
I keep eye-balling the Epson R-D1 and have to ask myself (guess E. Leitz hasn't) ....... "How did THEY manage to do that?" and why do "M"-mount lenses work on IT"?
go4it wrote:
In SLR's, this appears to have - at the very least - a shred of truth.
Leica has long maintained that the reason there's no interchangeable digital "M" body on the market (yet) is that the "M" lens design places the rear elements unacceptably close to what we all used to call the "film plane". (OK, OK ... it's the focal plane.) Something like that .....
(I think they're just unacceptably s-l-o-w!)
I keep eye-balling the Epson R-D1 and have to ask myself (guess E. Leitz hasn't) ....... "How did THEY manage to do that?" and why do "M"-mount lenses work on IT"?
Actually, I think Leica has maintained that they wouldn't bring a digital solution to the market until it would meet the expectations of Leica users in terms of final image quality; they didn't think they could do that with a 12 bit 5 or 6 MP imaging solution; there are also problems with the rangefinder base on smaller size chips, as well as the shorter flange to focal plane distances.
But, the reality is of course, that they are indeed 'unacceptably s-l-ow!' and the business has been nearly buried by the poor response. The jury is still out on whether Leica will manage to survive the sequential blunders of the past 20 years.
go4it wrote:
HUH?? Says who?? The more pixels, the bigger the file size, not necessarily a better picture quality or a more "dynamic range". That's in the digital processor and the settings.!)
Rgds,
so you're saying if you put a 1dsll's processor and the settings on a 20d, the image quality, DR, noise, color rendition is going to be the same as the 1dsll? theres a lot more than just "bigger file size".
Does it make anyone else uneasy to hear Germans say 'final solution'?
And how. Especially during the month of Hannukah.
Wannsee Konference just outside of Berlin, January 1942. "Final solution" words uttered by Adolf Eichmann and Reinhard "Butcherer of Prague" Heydrich as they announced the establishment of Auschwitz-Birkenau ...
I think Carl Zeiss AG could have found more appropriate words to use ........
...and Zeiss actually said, "Die endgültige Auflösung erfolgt am 18.01.06." -- a bit different than "Endlösung...". What Zeiss said literally translates to: "The final dissolution takes place on 18.01.06." And while this literal translation doesn't make all that much sense in English, the translator's attempt to put it into English is not much better. Zeiss needs a better translator.
I REALLY hope that Zeiss will offer a ZEF (EF-mount) option too ..... and real soon!
It would be sad, no tragic, if Zeiss offers a ZF but not a ZEF option because their lenses are better suited to FF shooters who need lenses with corner-to-corner sharpness. Nikon doesn't even have a FF DSLR. I mean, why would anyone need a Zeiss lens for a 1.5x crop body - as you won't be able to see THAT much of a difference.
The current popularity of Zeiss lenses is due to, or thanks to, Canon FF DSLR shooters. The demand for Zeiss lenses will come from owners of FF and not 1.5x crop shooters.
Even if that is the case, why not offer them in both Nikon and Canon mounts? There are 3-4 times MORE Canon DSLR owners i.e. they would be able to sell 3-4 times more than if they were to restrict their lenses to just Nikon owners. It's pretty damning and they must have very good reasons for doing this. A secret tryst with Nikon perhaps, and Nikon made them an offer they cannot refuse? A pooling of resources maybe?
TheBlindOne wrote:
5. One thing zeiss may be doing is making lenses especially for the nikon 1.5 crop sensor. Kind of like the sigma DC lenses but way better quality. These lenses may would probably have corrected focal lengths for the 1.5 dx sensor.
Bobby; it has been discussed before and Zeiss has replied that EF mount lenses are not even on the drawing board. Zeiss are interested in cooperation with Canon on lenses but the feeling isn't mutual - so I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know what the legal issues are really, I mean third party makers are several for EF mount but had there been an economical solution I think Zeiss would have started out lensmaking for that lucrative EF mount.
Bobby and as you state it yourself, Nikon does not have an FF camera. Does sony have that Zeiss are used in almost, if not all of sonys P&S cameras and they are even further away from FF than nikon is. So, why not put in cheaper glass in the Sony cameras? As you said yourself, it wouldn´t make any big difference.
I sent Zeiss an email and requested that they read this thread. But it may be a good idea for us to send them a petition for an EF-mount Zeiss lenses.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Bobby; it has been discussed before and Zeiss has replied that EF mount lenses are not even on the drawing board. Zeiss are interested in cooperation with Canon on lenses but the feeling isn't mutual - so I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know what the legal issues are really, I mean third party makers are several for EF mount but had there been an economical solution I think Zeiss would have started out lensmaking for that lucrative EF mount.
