Something is going on with Zeiss

[fotografz]

How does anyone know how the Leica back will perform? Has anyone shot with it? It is a CCD sensor (not a CMOS) from a well respected digital innovator. The lens factor is 1.3X not 1.6X which better corresponds to Canon's 1DMKII only with 10 meg rather than 8 meg. It may be overpriced, but that's nothing new for Leica, and in actuality is $3,000 less than a Canon 1DsMKII IF you already own a R8 or R9.

There is no doubt that Canon leads the pack in Digital cameras. And a few of their lenses are quite good. But even the Zeiss N zooms beat the best comparable Canon zooms ... let alone the
Zeiss manual zooms.

 

[bobbytan]

True, at this point no one really knows how the Leica digital back will perform, but I doubt very much if the 10-megapixel digital back with a 1.3x crop factor can be as good as the full-frame 16-megapixel 1Ds Mk II. At best I think will only be as good as the 1Ds or 1D Mk II.

It would be nice if Contax should re-introduce the N-Digital with an anti-shake CCD like the Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D.

 

[fotografz]

You may be right Bobby, but a 10 meg CCD from Imacon verses a CMOS sensor may surprise us all. We'll see.

 

[djg]

A 10MP Imacon CCD + Leica glass vs. 8MP Canon CMOS + Canon glass? You're kidding, right? Maybe the 1DS, but I truly doubt the 1D Mk II. The 1Ds Mk II, now you're talking. Having said that, for 11x14 or less the Leica may be a contender especially with some difficult backlight stuff where the Canon glass may lose contrast and flare up. But then the wide-angle view is limited.

Sigh - everything's a compromise.

 

[blumesan]

The following is a quote from a Zeiss press release as cited by Dirk in his post above from 28 Sept 04:

Carl Zeiss also paid particular attention to minimal focus shift when
developing the lens. The term describes the phenomenon of the focal
plane wandering when the diaphragm is adjusted. With Zeiss Ikon
lenses, this effect is so strongly reduced that it remains within the
depth-of-field range and does not affect the quality of the picture.

Does this mean that previous Zeiss lenses may suffer from the effect of the focal plane "wandering" outside the depth-of-field (depth-of-focus)range when the diaphragm is adjusted?? This hardly seem plausible! Think of the effect this would have on all auto SLR's that focus at full aperture and then stop down prior to shutter release. What gives??
Mike.

 

[dirk]

Hi Blumesan,

I do think this is only a specific rangefinder issue. I quote Zeiss on their webpage:

"Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses are specifically designed to minimize focus shift with aperture changes – an important innovation with big benefits for rangefinder photography. As a result, you can expect improved accuracy of the rangefinder-defined focus. "

So this seems not to affect SLR's. But before we think whether this could be a problem with the Contax G-Rangefinder system, I doubt that Leica M users had problems with this in the past

IMO we are nowadays at a such high qualitylevel, that we talk only about measurables differences in the lab. I do not think that you will see that difference in focus shift in real life photography.

Zeiss tries to sell its new system. It is normal that they make a big hype about every tiny detail. Whether you will see or feel the difference is another issue. I am convinced that there are some differences to the Leica M-system, which users can see, especially with the image quality. But I do not think that you will see significant differences to the G-System.

One ex&le:

Quote Zeiss:

"Highly advanced flare control that ensures crisp, brilliant images".

This is one of the major selling points for the Zm lenses. They always say, that these lenses use the know-how of the lens production for the movie industry. Same is the case for the N-System lenses and as far as Iknow also for the G-System lenses. So no suprise for Contax users at all

Leica users will see this difference for sure. I even saw it with Leica M lenses compared to N1 shots, and I am not an expert in this

If you read the whole Zeiss Ikon prospectus, you will realize, that this is a very nice made broschure with a lot of enthusiasm. But for people who are used to the Contax/Zeiss image quality nothing new. The main purpose of Zeiss Ikon is to sell first as many lenses as possible to M-users from October this year (i.e. now). After that the body is coming only in May 2005.

Apart from the fact that it takes a very long time to develop a body and bring it to the market, thisis for me the sign that Zeiss does not need a new system, they only want to sell more lenses.

And all the hype about image quality up to 400 lpm with a special film. Come on, lets get down to earth. You will never get over 40 lpm if you shoot hendheld (see lens news from Zeiss) and a normal colour film is even not able to get over 200lpm. So what is the advantage for me, if I can not see the difference on the film I want to use and also not handheld?

I wait til I see the first results and comparison with the G-System and N-System to make a final judgement, but I do think that it is always good to be a little bit skeptical when you read marketing broschures

I appreciate the appearance of the Zeiss Ikon, since it brings fresh air into the rangefinder and especially into the film market. But for a G-system user, I do not see any reason to switch, except he absolutely wants to have manual focus, which is a nice thing by the way. The lens range is well covered in the G-system, except a 2.8/25, 1.4/35 and 1.4/50. The G2 is a really good camera. I do not know one feature I would miss except the true manual focus ability á la Leica M/ Zeiss Ikon.

Just my 2 cents

 

[jsmisc]

Hello Dirk,
Thanks for those very interesting comments. I also think that the G system is very good. I love mine and would not change or part with it. I use it when I want autofocus, when I'm in a hurry and don't have the chance to focus properly even if it won't always catch straight on to the subject, which can be frustrating. This aspect could be improved.
I do in the end prefer manual focus. It is so much simpler and more satisfying but it can be slow and you can miss a shot especialy if you like to shoot wide open. There is a place for both systems - horses for courses.
Is there any chance of a digital G? I would certainly welcome that.
It hadn't occurred to me that the strategy of the new ZI was to sell to Leica M users rather than just being a launch of a whole new system but of course- how sensible! - a launch of new super lenses to take sales of lenses from Leica- pretty ironic really, one of the arch competitors stealing a march on the other and it is difficult to see how Leica can retaliate.
Regards,
John

 

[wang]

My G broke down when I was in a journey a couple of days ago.An internal screw came off from the inside of the drive mode dial,the dial came off from the body and the screw remained inside the body. My G is now on its way to Japan after being with me for a few months,it was new in the beginning. I am thinking about getting another system to compliment my G.
As suggested by Marc,Leica is good in low light photography.I am quite impressed by Summilux 50 1.4 asph(although I don't understand what aspheric means,Leica likes to tell us about it and they are keen to add this elements to all their lenses)'s behaviour at 1.4. At 2, S'lux is still the best, closely followed by Summicrom 50 2 and ZM 50 2 and G 45 is the last. G 45 beats all the other three at 4,so I am repairing my G instead of saling it.There are earlier posting to suggest Leica give you the best 3 dimensional effect in low light situations but G45 at 4 gives better 3D effect than Leica. Although people would say the ability to produce 3D has nothing to do with sharpness,it is actually related very much to sharpness.I will explain this after this system review.
At 35mm, I will go for the Biogon of the ZI system. It is very much better than the two of Leica M. The 1.4 of Summilux is not very usable,despite the fact that Leica has added the asphere. ZM Biogon is at least one stop better than the other three,including the G 35 2 Planar.
If I am rich,I will go for the Summicron 28 2 asph,otherwise I am happy with my humble little G 28. The former has a very good f2 and is only slightly better than G at higher fs. My 28 Biogon G beats the other Biogon of the ZM and Elmarit 28 2.8 as well.
Again the Biogon of 25 2.8 ZM performs better than the Elmarit of 24 2.8 with the asphere.
When the G system began in the ninties,there were rumours saying that the Biogon 21 was better than the Leica counterparts. Leica also added an asphere to Elmarit 21 in the ninties but despite this,Biogon 21 G still performs better. This year Zeiss come up with the new Biogon 21 ZM,it is slightly better than the G.
The Biogons of Zeiss are in general better than the Leica counterparts. Other people also say Zeiss makes the best Zoom of the wide angles in the N. I still think 21 Distagon CY is the best in 35mm despite Zeiss said ZM 21 is better.
Although Leica is a bit behind in this respect,they have come up with an impressive Summicron 28 2.
Leica has been in the leading role for low light photography and will continue to do so if Zeiss still does not improve on their lenses performance in low light situations. At the moment,not any of the Zeiss lenses in 35mm film can compete with Leica in f2 and f1.4. I wish the new Sonnar 85 2 ZM has a good f2

What factors make the mind interpret a two dimenional image into three dimenions ? As photography is a practical subject let me start with the light source. I find point intense light source in 45 to 90 degree to the camera is ideal for this and it is definitely better than diffuse light sources. High contrast,by which I mean big difference between bright and dark area within the subject,is pre-requisite for the 3D effect. . A high contrast between the subject and the background is also desirable,this will allow the subject to stand out from the background. Low f no. also isolate the subject from the background and contribute to the 3D effect.
When one looks at a print and the mind interpret it as 3D,the subject of the print has to be sharp. It is impossible to produce the 3D effect when the subject is out of focus,nor can it be produced when the gear has a poor resolution. Leica lenses can produce this because it is sharp and it is also sharp in low light situation. Zeiss lenses has less chance of producing this because it is less sharp in low light situation but G45 produces the 3D effect better than the 50mm Summicron and Summilux at f4 only because it is sharper than these lenses at this particular f no.
In the human mind, a physical image has a shape,pattern, contrast within the image and contrast between the image and the background. The mind will wrongly interpret a 2D image as 3D when there is an exaggeration of the contrast within the image and between the image and background. When the 2D image stand out of the background like a 3D,the criteria to produce this effect are (1) high contrast bet. image and background (2) well defined image profile,i.e.the image has to be sharp,(3) high contrast within the image to produce the 3D feel to the mind.
Good quality lenses has a very important feature,it is able to define details in low light area of the image. In order to do this,dark areas has to be really dark and free from flares and unwanted background light. Background unwanted light blurres the details in low light area,reduces all kinds of contrast,reduces the lens ability to distinguish line pairs in MTFs and finally reduces the lens ability to product the 3D effect.
I believe the most important factors to produce the 3D effect are sharpness and a low enough unwanted background light.

 

[blumesan]

Dear Wang:
Thank you for this extensive review and comparison of several lenses. Are your conclusions drawn from actual use of these lenses and comparison of photographs taken with them? Or are you simply looking at data sheets, MTF graphs, etc.?? In order to properly weigh your opinions this is an important consideration.
Sincerely.
Mike Blume

 

[blumesan]

P.S. to Wang:
"aspheric" literally means deviating from a true sphere. When applied to lenses, it describes a lens that has been specially ground to reduce "spherical abberation". An excellent definition of the latter term can be found at
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics.html

At this same site one finds an interesting explanation of "focus shift" and comments which relate to my posting here a few days ago.