> Actually Zeiss is the leader in expertise on resolution. This is > important in many branches of science industry and the military where > the highest level of detail may be needed. They BTW pointed out that > lack of film flatness was one of the largest degraders of resolution. > To get 200 lines/mm one needs a vacuum or other special back, and the > camera is on a heavy tripod and the mirror is up. For digital, the > sensor plane is flat, a great advantage. If one is doing general > artistic or reportage photography, all this may be unimportant. > However, if you want to use a 35mm sensor to capture a group of 200 > people so each of the faces is clear, you need all the resolution..and > contrast you can get. This is where MTF tables are valuable. It > provides a guide to what lenses and at what apertures a lens is likely > to perform to the needs of the project. Asher
-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Something is going on with Zeiss
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
With some hindsight I understand why Irakly made the comment that any professional prime from any camera manufacturers these days is capable of producing images that could be enlarged to a poster size. This statement is certainly true as I believe Irakly is referring to medium format photography. I use only 35mm negatives,his statment is not quite right if applied to 35 mm.
It is a fact that Canon wide-angle prime lenses are nowhere near as good as Leitz and Zeiss lenses.
But newer technology, materials, and lens designs are getting better and better, to a point that even some zoom lenses today (e.g. the Canon 17-40/4L) are as good if not better than the older wide angle primes.
But newer technology, materials, and lens designs are getting better and better, to a point that even some zoom lenses today (e.g. the Canon 17-40/4L) are as good if not better than the older wide angle primes.
There are too many variables from camera body to lens used to film flatness to tripod to mirror lock up...technique! Hence to say your Contax or Zeiss is better by a hair or more does not matter unless your technique is perfect. If you were really part ot that obsessed subculture you would not be using a miniture format to do a job it's not cut out to do, make poster size images.
D
djg
And you're going to be dealing with not only manual focusing on a lens really made to work in autofocus mode, but also stop-down metering, won't you? I've thought about going that route with a 1Ds Mk II but I think it's going to be too cumbersome and kind of oximoronic ...
Despite the fact that there are too many variables from camera body...technique,when it is a hair better it makes a difference even if the technique is not perfect. One ex&le is C-Y 100 2 and C-Y 85 1.4. Although the 85 is a very good lens,the 100 is a hair better. My 100 2 at 2 is as good as my 85 at 2.8. Even when I am shooting handheld i.e.not perfect technique,the result of the 100 is unmistakably better.
Let's see if we could use a small camera like Zeiss Ikon to achieve large magnifications with good results. There are signs to suggest it is possible. Go to Gigabit film's web sit,you will see some ex&les of amazing result.
Let's see if we could use a small camera like Zeiss Ikon to achieve large magnifications with good results. There are signs to suggest it is possible. Go to Gigabit film's web sit,you will see some ex&les of amazing result.
No lens is perfect. It may excel in one attribute but at the expense of another attribute. "Best Optics" is strictly a subjective opinion based on preference for a certain attribute. Even with-in a specific system like Zeiss, the same focal length lens from different times and manufacturing locations can often out perform one from another time and place.
Different makers have approached image forming from different perspectives. For ex&le, Leica and Zeiss are renowned for their optics, but are quite different in their approach to apparent image quality. At one time Canon produced some specific lenses that rivaled Zeiss and Leica or surpassed them.
One of the biggest factors of image quality in 35mm is the mirror return system and it's effect on focussing accuracy. Some Contax bodies excelled at this type of mirror return precision as did a few Canon and even a specific Nikon body. The vacuum back was another innovation attempting to improve reception of the lenses abilities.
In the end, Irakly is correct in that most primes will deliver just fine given the operator's skill has more to do with image quality than minute differences in gear quality. Your own heart beat counts more than a slight advantage in lens sharpness Those who use a rangefinder will get more sharp images at marginal handheld shutter speeds because it has no mirror bounce. If you eliminate all the operator factors by using a tripod, cable release, and locked up mirror, you would be better served moving to a larger format as suggested in an above post. If a shot will be used for a large application, a larger format is the better choice.
Different makers have approached image forming from different perspectives. For ex&le, Leica and Zeiss are renowned for their optics, but are quite different in their approach to apparent image quality. At one time Canon produced some specific lenses that rivaled Zeiss and Leica or surpassed them.
One of the biggest factors of image quality in 35mm is the mirror return system and it's effect on focussing accuracy. Some Contax bodies excelled at this type of mirror return precision as did a few Canon and even a specific Nikon body. The vacuum back was another innovation attempting to improve reception of the lenses abilities.
In the end, Irakly is correct in that most primes will deliver just fine given the operator's skill has more to do with image quality than minute differences in gear quality. Your own heart beat counts more than a slight advantage in lens sharpness Those who use a rangefinder will get more sharp images at marginal handheld shutter speeds because it has no mirror bounce. If you eliminate all the operator factors by using a tripod, cable release, and locked up mirror, you would be better served moving to a larger format as suggested in an above post. If a shot will be used for a large application, a larger format is the better choice.
I would think coupling C-Y wide angles like 21 with those full frame digital should be alright. In wide angles,we allow more room for not focusing correctly. The lost of automatic diaphragm is not too much of a problem at 21. I am only not happy with the size of the digital camera. This is why a film rangerfinder with stuning image quality is very much welcomed,well,at least by me.