philber wrote:
The usual Zeiss Biogon C 35mm f:2.8. I should be getting my 50mm f:2.0 tomorrow. Pics are of a late afternoon in Versailles.
Nice Philippe. Out of curiosity, how long have you been waiting for your ZM 50 f/2? I've had one on order since the end of November... hopefully mine won't be too far behind.
akul wrote:
Regarding cornerfix, I am curious what the 'threshold' is in terms of focal length with NEX + rangefinder lens. Seems like somewhere between 21 - 25 mm ? There is already enough steps to get a photo being usable, and I am not a big fan of the idea of using yet another software.
Can't speak for the NEX but on the M9 it seems to be very lens dependent and the most significant factor seems to be the distance of the rear element from the sensor and angle of view of the lens. I tried both ZM 21 lenses and the f/4.5 version has extreme vignetting and red shift. I believe that lens's exit pupil is narrower and/or the rear element sits closer to the image plane. The f/2.8 version exhibits this to a much lesser degree and is almost completely corrected with use of a Leica profile. I only have two lenses for the M9 at the moment, the ZM 21 f/2.8 and the 35 C-Biogon that Philippe uses here without showing any red edge. Even when using an appropriate Leica code for it, I can usually see some slight reddishness along the edge. But others claim to have no such problem, so it could also be camera dependent, just to throw in one more variable.
I would think if you were to mount a 21mm designed for SLRs that there will be little to no red edge shift due to the much more nearly perpendicular path light rays are projected onto the sensor plane compared to UWA rangefinder lenses.
It would be interesting to see someone compare something like the ZM and ZF 21mm f/2.8 lenses.
Was checking out the "Sweep Panorama" feature on the NEX-5. Initially thought it was cool, and later just a little disappointed. Besides being jpeg-only, it is also only auto ISO -- adjusting ISO to preserve a minimum shutter speed, after all the camera is in motion while it fires off successive exposures. From the results, considering these factors, it is not a substitute for serious panoramas -- it is basically snap-shot quality. The images are noticeably less sharp than single exposures, mostly likely due to auto boosting the ISO and motion bur from camera motion. Combined with the in-camera jpeg processing and images are just blah.
Here is an example with the Contax G 35/2 mounted (at f5.6 and I'm pretty sure the horizon is not level): http://www.boncratious.com/images/LookingNW-overSF.jpg
rscheffler wrote:
Nice Philippe. Out of curiosity, how long have you been waiting for your ZM 50 f/2? I've had one on order since the end of November... hopefully mine won't be too far behind.
Ron
Essentially, I din't wait at all, Ron. As usual there was no stock in France, so the distributor ordered it from Germany, and I had it yesterday, a week after I ordered it. It is the silver version, and there may be differences with the black version inventory-wise.
Well here are two from my NEX-5 using SCN and Twilight setting.
These were handheld shots. Take the morning of Jan 19th, 2010.
Souther California area. I just adjust the lighting in Lightroom.
Thanks, Rick!
Yes, Lotus is right. I believe that the NEX 3/5 shares the 14Mp sensor found on the Alpha 33, not the 16 Mp from the Alpha 55. There is a rumour, though, of a new NEX body with the denser sensor. I am interested, because reviews here have said that the '55 sensor is significantly better. But that is just a rumour, and the info Sony gave on the NEX roadmap identified future lenses, but not bodies.
Philber - Congrats on the new lens! Great shots with ZM50. Wow the second shot is a great shot. And the third one is very dynamic. In terms of IQ, I am amazed about the amount of detail it carries. For example the relief detail on pediment on the last shot, or the planters beyond the fountain makes it feel like there is more detail than eyes can see on this size of photo. In terms of '3D' , I did not get the same '3D' reaction as the first time you showed samples from ZM35, so I see what you mean, but too early to tell. Now I am really interested to see how CY25 performs.
The C/Y seems to have signiificantly more détail than the ZMs, but in yesterday's shoot, the pics were marred by some kind of yellowish cast. More experimentation required....
Surely a light leak after the lens would lead to flare, local hot spots and horrible contrast reduction. Was the yellow cast in the photos when you were shooting in the fog, or in daylight (the last ones you posted)? What was the difference in WB settings that the camera came up with compared to other shots (other lenses) at the same time?
philber wrote:
The C/Y seems to have signiificantly more détail than the ZMs, but in yesterday's shoot, the pics were marred by some kind of yellowish cast. More experimentation required....
Right now I do not have a functional C/Y to put on the NEX, but looking at pictures made with Canon and C/Y lenses I had I have the feeling the ZM line has not the same level of 3D-pop as the old C/Y lineup. On the other hand, the ZM line seems to be more gentle with fine details than the C/Y lineup. True that right now I only have the ZM 35/2 and my C/Y reference lenses are the 28/2.0 and the 100/2.0 or 85/1.4. Hope to get the last Planar 50/1.4 I have on the NEX.
