Kit Laughlin:
"People will put up with appalling video quality IF the sound quality is good. To be honest, I really have no idea why manufacturers are providing this 'feature'. Can someone illuminate?"
Kit,
I hope I can shed light in area. Have you ever looked at a wedding album several years after the wedding? Seeing the photos, you tend to recall the event, or better yet, moments of the event frozen in time. Here is the catch though, you remember it as you want, its sorta magical. Now watch ther same event with sound, dialog, peoples voices, and the tones in their voice. It will be a totally differant experiance, now your not recalling what our selective minds remember, but what actually took place, what was said, the reactions, etc. In my opinion, I perfer the magical moments caught in time, rather than a replay of what actually took place.
Now if I were to start shooting event photography again, I can see this being a useful tool, a silent movie of the kiss at the alter, or the child being babtized, etc. Maybe with a soundtrack in the background, but no dialog.
Yes, I can see that, too. More: I can see a wedding photog. shooting select bits of video and adding that to the album, with the right music, for sure. I have made a few wedding DVDs, and (although I used my broadcast camera and recorded sound) the favourite bits were montages to music.
Yes, I agree that I too would like to see Sony add a few more Zeiss primes. For me, a 1:1 100mm Makro as well as the rest of the 1.4 trio (35-50-85) are quite essential.
In any case, my desicion whether to switch to Sony or not will be delayed by at least 6 months because I'm waiting to see the following:
-How do the 16-35 and 24-70 compare to the ZE/ZF primes. These 2 lenses by themselves cover the entire wide range of Zeiss primes: 18-21-25-28-35-50. But how do they compare optically.
-What additions is Sony going to add to the ZA line.
-How much of the Zeiss "look" will the ZA lens produce.
-How will the ZE line behave on Canon bodies: I have no doubt about the optical performance as it must be similar to the ZF. However there are questions about the electronic implementation and will there be any incompatibility problems, err99...etc.
Based on the above I will either stay with Canon and my adapted Contax lenses, stay with Canon and upgrade to ZE, or move altogether to Sony/ZA.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Indeed. One can only remember the fits that Zeiss had Kyocera in with respect to lenses for Contax (probably one of the reasons Sony more completely controls lens development and production). What is the process involved for Sony to get a new lens, with the Zeiss name attached, made? What additional lenses are planned? The system could use quite a few more Zeiss primes (a fast 50mm, a 100mm Makro, a 21mm, fast 35, 28, 24mm lenses, etc.). How long will we have to wait? Why can't Zeiss put a Sony/Minolta lens mount on the ZF lenses?
I would say, at this point in time, the ZA lenses are the "potential" main attraction.
My thoughts exactly. I just hope I don't have to wait 6 months to reach a reasonable conclusion. We'll have to compare notes in a few months and see how these issues shake out.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Yes, I agree that I too would like to see Sony add a few more Zeiss primes. For me, a 1:1 100mm Makro as well as the rest of the 1.4 trio (35-50-85) are quite essential.
In any case, my desicion whether to switch to Sony or not will be delayed by at least 6 months because I'm waiting to see the following:
-How do the 16-35 and 24-70 compare to the ZE/ZF primes. These 2 lenses by themselves cover the entire wide range of Zeiss primes: 18-21-25-28-35-50. But how do they compare optically.
-What additions is Sony going to add to the ZA line.
-How much of the Zeiss "look" will the ZA lens produce.
-How will the ZE line behave on Canon bodies: I have no doubt about the optical performance as it must be similar to the ZF. However there are questions about the electronic implementation and will there be any incompatibility problems, err99...etc.
Based on the above I will either stay with Canon and my adapted Contax lenses, stay with Canon and upgrade to ZE, or move altogether to Sony/ZA. ...Show more →
David Kilpatrick of http://www.photoclubalpha.com/ is due to receive an A900 tomorrow & will be testing it with his Arsenal of KM & Sony glass. He will post raw files if he can find a suitable host.
Shops here in the UK & in Germany are claiming to have stock of the A900, so raw files will slow surface on the net over the coming week / s
:
-How will the ZE line behave on Canon bodies: I have no doubt about the optical performance as it must be similar to the ZF. However there are questions about the electronic implementation and will there be any incompatibility problems, err99...etc.
My EOS-mount CV 125/2.5 is rock solid on my EOS bodies. No reason to expect anything different with the ZEs, IMO (considering that they are no doubt using identical technology and the same facility).
-How do the 16-35 and 24-70 compare to the ZE/ZF primes. These 2 lenses by themselves cover the entire wide range of Zeiss primes: 18-21-25-28-35-50. But how do they compare optically.
The fact that Zeiss has stated that they do not plan to add any zooms to the ZS/ZK/ZF/ZE series might tell you something about Zeiss' feelings about the IQ of zooms.
I think it is also important to realize that many shooters could easily cover their needs with 21-28-50-100 or 18-25-35-50 (whatever). It isn't like we need to commit to the whole line.
cogitech wrote:
The fact that Zeiss has stated that they do not plan to add any zooms to the ZS/ZK/ZF/ZE series might tell you something about Zeiss' feelings about the IQ of zooms.
Yes. From Zeiss' comments I don't think we will see zooms in the ZF/ZE/ZK lines. But their feelings about zooms haven't stopped them from making them in the past -- or currently. There are 3 zooms in the Zeiss ZA lens line for Sony and we all are aware of the zooms made for Contax.
cogitech wrote:
I think it is also important to realize that many shooters could easily cover their needs with 21-28-50-100 or 18-25-35-50 (whatever). It isn't like we need to commit to the whole line.
Yes, that is quite true, but zooms are certainly more convenient. So, potentially, it is a trade-off between convenience and ultimate quality. The size of that trade-off has certainly been shrinking over time. People, have been talking for example, about the minimal differences between the ZF 18mm and a couple of zooms. So do the zooms make sense? I think it is worthwhile to ask the questions about the benefits of the ZF/ZE primes relative to the ZA zooms. What do I loose and what do I gains by choosing to go in one direction rather than another. I do hope, however, that such comparisons go beyond mere sharpness (often imprecisely assessed) and examine and discuss ALL aspects of performance so the trade-offs are FULLY understood.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I do hope, however, that such comparisons go beyond mere sharpness (often imprecisely assessed) and examine and discuss ALL aspects of performance so the trade-offs are FULLY understood.
cogitech wrote:
The fact that Zeiss has stated that they do not plan to add any zooms to the ZS/ZK/ZF/ZE series might tell you something about Zeiss' feelings about the IQ of zooms.
I think it is also important to realize that many shooters could easily cover their needs with 21-28-50-100 or 18-25-35-50 (whatever). It isn't like we need to commit to the whole line.
I never said I was going to buy the whole line (even though I might probably end up buying it ) At the moment, I am very happy with my Contax 18 and 28 for landscapes and architecture, and the 35 1.4 for low light snapshots. I think I would go for the ZE 21, 28 and 50. But of course the 16-35 is like buying 6 lenses as it covers the range of a 16, 18, 21, 24, 28 and 35mm lenses. That is what I originally meant.
Exactly my thinking. If the ZA lenses perform as well or close to the ZE primes, in the same way some tests seem to show that the Distagon 21 and the Nikon Zoom are quite close, it would be for me a very easy decision to drop Canon, especially after their latest 1D fiasco (here I mean the crooked viewfinders, not AF since it doesn't mean much to me).
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yes. From Zeiss' comments I don't think we will see zooms in the ZF/ZE/ZK lines. But their feelings about zooms haven't stopped them from making them in the past -- or currently. There are 3 zooms in the Zeiss ZA lens line for Sony and we all are aware of the zooms made for Contax.
Yes, that is quite true, but zooms are certainly more convenient. So, potentially, it is a trade-off between convenience and ultimate quality. The size of that trade-off has certainly been shrinking over time. People, have been talking for example, about the minimal differences between the ZF 18mm and a couple of zooms. So do the zooms make sense? I think it is worthwhile to ask the questions about the benefits of the ZF/ZE primes relative to the ZA zooms. What do I loose and what do I gains by choosing to go in one direction rather than another. I do hope, however, that such comparisons go beyond mere sharpness (often imprecisely assessed) and examine and discuss ALL aspects of performance so the trade-offs are FULLY understood.
asnapper wrote:
David Kilpatrick of http://www.photoclubalpha.com/ is due to receive an A900 tomorrow & will be testing it with his Arsenal of KM & Sony glass. He will post raw files if he can find a suitable host.
Shops here in the UK & in Germany are claiming to have stock of the A900, so raw files will slow surface on the net over the coming week / s
I think its going to be somewhat difficult to really get a good idea of the A900's image quality until someone in this forum gets their hands on one, particularly since Sony has requested reviewers not to post RAW files. Looking at those jpegs at dpnow and reserving judgment on sharpness and detail, my biggest concern is with what appears to be limited dynamic range. One thing I can say is that the color reproduction on almost all of the samples thus far has been outstanding.
Sep 19, 2008 at 01:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Rumor is PMA in February will bring a super high, 30+ MP 1DsIII replacement.
My guess is that Canon will come out with two full frame pro-cameras next year. I would look for one to be 26 megapixels (this would have the same pixel density as the 40D and still trump Nikon) and 8 frames per second which should be doable with dual copies of the new Digic IV processors. I would expect this to be full size and be essentially the 1DsMKIII replacement.
My guess is that the second camera will be 21.1 megapixels and be 10 frames per second. This too should be very doable with duel Digic IV processors as well. More pure speculation, but I think this camera might be a smaller form factor like the 1V.
If this analysis is right, it would mean that Canon will no longer be differentiating their pro cameras on crop vs. full frame, but rather on speed, resolution and size. To wildly speculate even further, I am guessing they will change the naming convention as well. The higher resolution bigger camera could become the 1DX and the higher speed smaller camera could become the 1DV. Nothing like taking the stench off a lemon scented model like changing the name of the camera, so I think they might like to avoid a 1D MKIV and this way they can have a fresh start with both cameras.
Canon will discontinue the 1DIII and replace it with a 3D which will offer very high FPS, pro build equal to Nikon's D700 and about 16MP. They will also replace the 1DSIII with a stupidly high 30+MP studio type camera based on the pixel density and technology in the just released 50d. The 5DII will sit in the middle MP wise and at the bottom feature wise(FPS, Build quality) in their FF lineup which will consist of these three cameras. That puts them beyond any competition with regard to pixel count/resolution while still meeting and possibly exceeding the competition in the lower end FF segment. I see all this happening by PMA February. The 5DII does not come out until the end of November so Canon only really competes against their super high end 1DSIII for a 2 month overlap period.
Sep 19, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Yours in an interesting take. If they used the pixel density of the 50D, it would be a 39 megapixel FF sensor, which certainly seems like a lot. If they just used the pixel density of the 450D it would be a 31 megapixel sensor. I still think they will go with 26 megapixels so they can keep the frame rate up, but I agree that the high resolution camera seems likely to come out by PMA in February.
Why are you all saying that there is no sound with the 5D Mk II video?
There is audio, including a mini-jack input for external mics.
It even has a built-in mic in the body.
There is a heap of mini-DV style audio gear including quality mics and balanced to non-balanced adaptors and the like that will work with the 5D Mk II.
It's a bit of a disappointment that the frame rate is fixed at 30P though.
If that info is accurate, that is good news. As an aside, I find it frustrating that none of Sony's handycams nor Panasonic's camcorders (or is the other way around) have sound inputs. We are looking for a small non-pro camera that can take mini-RCA in, to make YouTube videos.
From research over the last two days, it seems that you need to get into the prosumer models ($1,100 USD +) before you get this flexibility. I would love to be corrected on this, too, if anyone knows differently.
I am considering getting a Panasonic NV-GS330 mini-DV Camcorder (PAL) and asking a tecchie friend to add a mini jack to it (there are plans on the net for this). Sorry to go OT, but an answer to this would be really helpful Cheers, KL
) At the moment, I am very happy with my Contax 18 and 28 for landscapes and architecture, and the 35 1.4 for low light snapshots. I think I would go for the ZE 21, 28 and 50. But of course the 16-35 is like buying 6 lenses as it covers the range of a 16, 18, 21, 24, 28 and 35mm lenses. That is what I originally meant.