At this point everyone has heard the rumors of the bigger than 35mm Leica. I hope it happens but it seems making a digital camera is quite an undertaking and it's rare that one comes out of the box without issue.

Actually, it's even more rare if a digital specialty camera comes out on time.

If Leica does come out with this camera and it's intent is a professional tool, rather than a rich person's toy, it must come out ready to roll, with a complete lens line and it must be available in professional rental houses.

I rarely rent cameras, actually almost never, but there is a level of comfort knowing you can either buy or rent a backup or added camera almost anywhere, vs. having to wait.

Lecia also needs to improve their quality control. On my M-8 I've returned 3 lenses for focus issues, some so crazy off that even the dealer couldn't argue and this specific Leica dealer on Broadway will argue about anything. Going in with an issue is like that Monty Python scene of the dead parrot.

"He's not dead he's sleeping."

JR

While we're on the subject of "things we'd like to see", some kind of split screen arrangement in live view would be very useful for use with the T&S lenses.

The normal procedure when using tilt is to focus in the centre and then adjust tilt to pull the top and bottom of the image into focus. But if the magnified screen on live view could be adjusted to show a magnified section from both the top and bottom of the frame at the same time, then that would allow much more precise use of the tilt setting.

I agree, Gary. For those of us using 5x4 view cameras, it is a pain to shift from one end of the zoomed in Live View to the other to achieve the desired plane of focus. Two windows or similar would help. However, I think there are other more pressing priorities really.

I don't have the 1DsIII, but that's very true with other Canon models. The viewfinder shows depth of field that constantly approximates f/2.5 or f/2.8, even when you're using an f/1.2 lens. You can test this by using the manual depth of field preview button and gradually stopping down from f/1.2. There's no change in the apparent depth of field in the viewfinder until you stop down to about f/2.8 or smaller.

Canon offers an optional focusing screen that will show the depth of field at f/1.2, 1.4, etc. (what you see is what you get), but it's so much darker than the standard focusing screen that it's not worth using, in my opinion (unless you always shoot in bright conditions). The standard focusing screen represents a trade-off: you gain more brightness in the viewfinder but lose viewing of wide-open-aperture depth of field.

I fully agree with you... Lets see what is presented in september...

I have seen this effect all the way back to the 1ds1. You can test it easily by doing the old Ruler Test. Put camera on tripod, shoot a frame, and compare then what you see in the viewfinder versus what you see in the file. There is a vast difference, especially more toward wide open.

This is yet another reason to have a huge, tight, trustable LCD; otherwise you're forced to shoot tethered to see what you're really getting in the final file.

I'm not complaining; I'm just acknowledging that this depth of field difference can really bite you in the behind if you're not careful. It can happen in either direction -- either you're wanting to carry focus, or you're trying to throw something OUT of focus.

If you need a viewfinder mask, go the cheap traditional way: buy a standard screen and paint a mirrorimage on it with a thin pencil. used to do that with my mamiya, works like a charm with any camera that has a removable focus screen like the 1dsmk3.
i even let my AD draw a sketch of his very complicated layout, printed it out miror imaged in 24x36mm size and traced it onto a screen. the C1pro overlay function is of course nicer, but one can't always be tethered.


i don't really get why the canon crop screens are so expensive.


stefan

http://gizmodo.com/5027706/rumor-macbook-t...ming-in-october

Imagine the 1ds3 being able to WIFI a JPG to this thing, and just slip it in the camera bag for the AD to hold.

And to the poster above, CaptureOne does not allow the 1ds3 to tether. (Wonder why? Feeling the heat?)

I took the Canon ee-s screen for my 5D and had it brightened by Bill Maxwell; Maxwell Precision Optics; P.O. Box 33146; Decatur, GA 30033-0146; ph (404) 244-0095. It shows focus fall off much more accurately than the standard 5D screen, and it is as birght as the standard 5D screen. Exposure is also identical to the original screen; it doesn't throw it off.

Maxwell has been making focusing screens for cameras for a LONG time. I learned of him when I had him make custom focusing fresnels for my view camera.

I just spent two intense days with two more to come shooting the 1ds3.

Normally I would shoot it with my Phase backs and the Contax.

For this job I really needed 640 to 800 clean iso and it was the only way to get there.

Upside; The Canon is nicely built the viewfinder is much better with manual focus easier, the file is good and as Paul said holds the highlights well. The batteries last a billion frames. Skin tones are perfect.

Medium upside; The Canon software tethers ok, (all of today was tethered), the lcd lights up when you work tethered, you can name and rename in the Canon software and the preview initially comes up quick sending small jpeg and raw about 2 seconds before it's full screen.

Downside; The Canon software tethered in this way gets bogged down and firing about 10 shoots semi quickly I hit the buffer and the previews load slow. Compared to tethering with my Phase backs and C-1, this is almost glacier like slow.

The lcd, though miles more detailed than medium format is still contrasty and gets nowhere close to the color in the computer. The file is nice but the lcd (at least mine is off color going to the very cool). Shadows load up darker than on the computer and highlights are readable but somewhat difficult to judge.

The software is just goofy. We've learned it front to back but it's still a two piece system that makes even c-1 3.78 look like a genuis tethering system.

The files are sharp but at first startle me because it's not medium format crisp sharp, it's Canon somewhat milky sharp. (They do sharpen in post, but not like the medium format files).

The 4:3 crop works but it is somewhat disjointed. It shows in DPP and in the camera and on the lcd with those blue lines, but in any other program it becomes a 2:3 cameras.

Honestly, it's a very nice camera, but I would love to have shot this with my backs and the Contax.

I love working with the Contax and love the sharpness of the files, the easy tethering, the way to set sessions. It is so logical compared to the windows like Canon software that you always have to go back and forth on.

At this point i don't care if medium format ever fixes their lcd because I doubt if that's going to happen. The medium format preview is small, so even if the lcd is twice size or twice improved the preview will still be rough.

Since I shoot 95% of most commercial work tethered, the lcd is just a reference anway.

The ONE thing I need is higher, clean iso. The difference between a Canon at 640 iso, F 4.5 and 125th of a second and the Phase at 400 iso, F4.5 (or 5.6 if I want to hold the same depth of field) is about two stops in the Canons favor.

The iso thing really needs some attention and if/when/how that's possible I don't know, but today if the Phase had gone to 800 iso clean, the Canons would have stayed in the bags.

JR

i dont see the comparison to the MF viewfinder, it's a LOT bigger and brighter than the mk3 - it's great but not MF IMO...my H3 blows it away from renting it a few times w/ the H3 on hand...

It's funny you say that, I was testing my new rebel Xsi (I usually shoot the P21) and was a little startled about the sharpness, I thought I'd got a duffer until I went back to some 5d files and realized that thats just the canon thing. Like you say though, they do sharpen up quite well, especially in DPP.

what's the equivalent of the ee-s screen for 1Ds II / III series?
seems hard to get details out of canons useless website on what the dift model screens are/ do...

Mr. Russell,

Yes, it's important to nail down which focusing screen is right for your style of shooting -- either the 4x5 blacked-out crop screen, or that EES (?) low-light screen, or even getting the Maxwell guy to whip you one up.

Batteries are nothing short of amazing; they last forever.

Skin tones are good, once you get your Preferences and PictureStyle set up, after testing.



Nice that the LCD of the 1ds3 stays lit up when tethering, versus the 1ds2 which went black when tethering.

Once you do the Rube Goldberg Non-Firewire Workaround (see below), the 1ds3 preview comes in in about a second or so, on a 17" Macbook Pro, on location. But you still have to manually download the RAWs, since you're only tethering a Small JPG.

1. Put a CF card in Slot 1.
2. Put an SD card in Slot 2.
3. Set the camera to "record separately".
4. Set the camera to "Playback only Slot 2".
5. Set the Slot 1, the CF slot, to record RAW.
6. Set the Slot 2, the SC card, to record JPG SMALL.
7. Open EOS Utility, and link it to DPP.
8. Hook up the USB cable to the Mac.



There is nothing like a Phase back and CaptureOne 3.78, for tethering. It is the Gold Standard. Everything else is a pale imitation. But you knew that already.

I shot a small job recently, though, where I didn't try to "link" DPP to EOS Utility. It was much simpler this way. You get a refreshed Preview Window each time you shoot a frame, although weirdly, that Preview window is always in vertical orientation, even if you're shoot a horizontal job. But the upside is, you're only dealing with EOS Utility, instead of trying to "link" to another application, and rub your head and pat your belly at the same time. (Canon should be shot for their sorry software approach to tethering).



I set up my PictureStyle as Standard (or Neutral), with a 3 tag for Sharpness. DPP sees that tag upon import. I doubt any other software would see these tags, which is why I stick with DPP for everything. As for sharpness, you're dealing with CCD (Phase) versus CMOS (with aggressive AA filter to boot). But tag with 3 Sharpness, run it in DPP, and it's pretty nice.



Like I've said before in another thread, the StupidBlueLine that Canon uses is very irritating, compared to Nikon blacking out the extra frame area. When I bought the cropping screen, that was me saying "crop it"; it was not me saying "put a blue line around it, but show me the rest of the frame anyway, just to piss me off". And yes, I doubt that any other application would recognize the StupidBlueLine tag.



I shot a job last week at 800 and 1600 with the 1ds3. Very clean. Shockingly clean. You simply can't do that with a P30+.

At some point, you gotta choose. None are perfect. Would I love a P21+ back duct-taped onto the back of a 1ds3 body? Absolutely, but it's not gonna happen.

I'm shooting this week in Miami and the weather is challanged. From bright sunlight to black rain clouds.

Using HMI, some flouescent fill and even strobe the iso thing is a must, in fact a deal breaker when it comes to medium format and the thing is, the files from the 1ds3 are excellent.

The color response is wonderful and easy, the skin tones near perfect.

The tethering thing is a pain in the arse, but the client doesn't notice, in fact the client doesn't know I'm NOT shooting medium format.

They just know if they like the images and the previews are big and the previews are very big and fill the screen.

They know the skin tones are golden brown, the files are smooth, the detail is there.

The upside of using DPP and the EOS utlility is it rotates the files and yesterday I went from horizontal to vertical all day long.

The other upside is the Canon is stupid good at 800 iso and stupid easy to use. It just runs and runs. I shot 16 set ups yesterday and with a lower ISO camera we would still be working.

The other upside is at 8 grand, the Canon is cheap. (I can't believe I just said an $8,000 camera is cheap) but in todays' medium format world $8,000 is like a downpayment on anything else that comes close.

JR

If I ever get a snooty A.D., I just slap on that giant Lee Bellows Shade onto the front of the 85 1.2. And I made a sticker for the Lee Shade, and on the front of it, it says "Phase One". (The back-up Shade has a Leaf logo on it, in honor of Mr. Yair).

Tear off a strip of black duct tape, slap it over the Canon logo, and instantly, you've saved yourself $30k, and when the AD looks over, he knows he's shooting medium format. Rez up the files in DPP, and everyone's a Happy Camper.

Problem solved. Perception is greater than Reality.

james that sounds like a pretty strong endorsement....
i am shooting a ton of things with my m8s now....great skintones, fast shooting, easy to focus (if you know RF), crisp, snappy files and simply amazing b&w....really almost a MF file if it wasn't for the 10mpix (which become 8mpix because of format and funky finder lines)....but they do uprezz really well....
tried the 3D but that just did not do it for me at all....
looked at the 1dsmk3 files but they just looked to be larger and just as "mushy" as all other canon files....milky sharp is a better way of saying it....
i guess i will have to look at it a little closer....it is frustrating that there is not a camera out there that gives me the file size combined with the speed and flexibility that makes shooting fun....
we all know that a P30 or even P21 is just better but i really find that getting "the shot" is just easier with the m8....and the lenses.....just amazing....if the m8 had 16 mpix, i would be the happiest person in the world....just shot a hair campaign and we had a LONG shotlist and i shot everything with m8...all is good but he cover of the brochure is a composite of 3 tight headshots cropped from 3/4 shots.....printed on 9x6....yes the files do hold up (especially after retouching), but with the P30 this would not even have been a question....but i would not have gotten the shots with the P30....
so i am wondering if the 1dsmk3 files would be so much better? i had the 1dsmk2 and got rid of it...too much "milky sharpness".....also i remember that the files did not hold up well when rezzd up.....does the extra resolution really make a difference, especially considering the relative softness that comes with it?
of course the m8 also does not shoot over 320...maybe 640 but again, with the relatively small file-size things get tricky.....and a semi-clean 640 or even 800 is VERY nice to have....

james: have you tried leica R lenses on the canon? i find that to be one of the biggest differences when i compare the m8 to the DSLRs....i can shoot straight out the window again (like in the film days....) the leica just handles the transitions so well....the lenses have to play a part in this....because even the P30 has a hard time with that with "lesser" MF lenses....

i guess i am just impatient because if leica announces the FF m9 in september my "problems" should be solved anyway...of course the m8 wasn't really usable for the first year, but that is a different story.....


a side-note....saw that phase updated C1 today to include automatic lens correction for hass H/V lenses....AND CONTAX! long live the dead....

I regularly shoot Leica glass on the 1Ds2 and it makes a NOTABLE difference in delivered sharpness OOC, color rendition, contrast, etc. You'd swear it was a different sensor.

The best so far: 28/2.8 VerII, 60/2.8 Macro (stellar starting at F4), 100 APO Macro, 180/2.8 APO and 180/2 APO. The 19/2.8 VerII is excellent but needs modification. I personally love the 80 Summilux, but the picture it lays down is not to everyone's taste.

Some of the older Contax (35mm) lenses are also exceptional as are some of the cheaper (but very good) Cosina-Voigtlanders APOs (90/3.5, 180/4 and 125/2.5 macro) and some of the newer Zeiss ZFs (though I do consider them overpriced for what they deliver, the 50/2 macro aside, in terms of CA control and field curvature).

I keep reading and rereading this thread thinking I'll find more info about the rumored R10 or new Leica MF camera... But it its telling that most of the discussion has been turned to the Canon 1DsIII, viewfinders and ISO performance. These are the things we all need independent of brand or format... Good high ISO files, a nice viewfinder and responsive camera. If you can't get the shot then the rest doesn't matter.

I hadn't shot my DMR since getting the Rollei 6008/P20 but took it out recently to shoot some stuff with it in an effort to decide whether to sell it or not. Definitely the files are closer to my P20 than my 5D and the leica glass is great. A lot of that R glass fits onto the canon so its not a problem if Leica doesn't come out with a new R body for me anyhow because I'll just buy the 1Ds3 especially after reading here about their new viewfinder. But I wonder about Leica - how many MF bodies will they sell if their existing user base is forced to buy a whole new collection of glass?

that is what it comes down to....big enough resolution to cover anything that might happen in post (which is quite a bit...) and especially cropping....high iso to shoot "available light" meaning mixing daylight and several different color lightsources...all with keeping the skintones in check....
add in stable tethering and a wide range of available glass and you pretty much get the 1dsmk3....

my m8 files seriously remind me of my 6008/P20 combo.....and those were really only 12 mpix (after 3:4 crop as well but definitely that extra touch larger) but without all the hassle...a big part of that has to be the glass (schneiders with the rollei!) shooting in bright sun with that combo was way easier than with the mamiya 645 or RZ with the P30...that HAS to be the glass....

the 5D is great but the viewfinder just does not work for me....and the highlights never look right...but then again i never tried that one with leica R glass either....

i went to a funky specialist lens shop in downtown LA...the guy sells a lot of leica m and r compatible lenses....and really old funky, uncoated movie lenses and such....a total specialist.....he just asked my why i bothered with the m8...."just use the canon sensor and get the right lenses".....
the problem is that kind of thing is so hard to look into....renting a ds3 is one thing but renting r glass....

the problem with a leica body is the reliability....it took the m8 almost a couple of years to get to the point where i don't have to worry about it...that is just not good enough....
but if it is the only game with a no AA CCD, 3:4 and about 20mpix shooting DNG.....very interesting....

that is one more thing i LOOOOVE about the m8...DNG out of the camera....small, manageable files that i can open in anything and don't have to worry about not being supported in the (near) future.....

I use my leica R glass and old olympus zuikos on my 5D. I did some tests - good glass on the canon's makes a real difference. Even with lenses like the canon 85mm f/1.2 the leica 80 lux is still better at least IMHO. After my favorite canon lens the 70-200mm f/4 was stolen in Prague, I thought about buying a new one but the leica 80-200 is a bit better. Now if I had an even better viewfinder like people are reporting about the 1Ds3 then I wouldn't hesitate to use alternative glass.
Actually I sold all my canon glass except the 90 t/s and 2 IS zooms. The fact that so many different optics can be fit to the EOS mount really adds a lot to canon's versatility.

maybe the h3 is different, but when ive see it, its only a little more magnfied than the original h1, but i have both cameras- h1 and mk3 in front of me.

i can hold both cameras up looking through both at the same time (one eye each, but the h1 with a p25 mask), the frame height is equal, but the canon has about 20-30% wider in the same finder. on wide shots, its effectively heaps bigger than the h1, and i bet its still bigger than the magnified version of the h3 finder in area.

the thing that the canon beats the h1 hands down- the finder is a perfect rectangle when you look through, but the h1 is a fat distorted one.

i still like my h1, but for different reasons, but the canon has a better finder than the h1 .

paul

hi, can you tell me which screen gives you the better representation with fast lenses?
cheers paul

This is a pretty good list of what most of us would like to see in any camera. gwitf and Ronald have detailed it on other threads.

I know, I know . . . somebody is going to say, why keep talking about it, why not just use what's available? Well as gwitf says, we hope somebody is listening.

To begin with why doesn't every camera shoot a dng file that will work native in anything. My M8 files will process in Photoshop 7! The M-8 wasn't even out when 7 was introduced and it didn't take an update to get to use the M-8 files in that or anything.

Next, give us higher iso, even if it means a second back. I can't even begin to explain the last few days I've worked shooting with flash, HMI, daylight flouresent and daylight and the number of times I've had to go to 640 iso to get the balance exactly right.

I don't need high iso most of the time, heck not even 30% of the time but when I need it and I absolutely can't do without it.

Then if you want to sell us a camera (not talking digital here) just cameras, sell us a camera for life.

Actually so far I have a lifetime camera in a contax and it would take a lot to move me to another camera, but if I did I want it for a long time, not a 18 month cycle.

The AFI is the closest that comes to the lifetime camera, but they really need to get that camera out there in rentals and in the hands of photographers. It can't be the Bentley of cameras and also not easily available.

As far as color response, the backs need some new settings. The Phase in completely controlled conditions are great but with a mixture of light, especially ambient bounce, the Canons have remarkably pleasing skin tones.

Maybe this is just dream stuff, maybe our wants are just too small to register, but when I look at that poll on what was asked for ISO, the lcd viewing and lower price were way, way at the head of the list.


JR

Imagine this in wi-fi. Imagine this device if you could wi-fi to 4 of them AND a computer with an easy setup.


http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=809632

Imagine this device if it had a touch screen and wi-fi.

JR

We're getting closer, young man.

Imagine that device, with a Canon logo on it, and imagine if Canon's new WIFI device for the 1ds3 actually worked. Imagine if the working WIFI device could send out a tiny compressed JPG to that device. Imagine if the 1ds4 had a new custom menu that said "Playback to Slot One, or Slot Two, or External Device WIFI". Imagine that a version of EOS Utility was burned right into the firmware of this device, to receive and display the JPG for the Art Director.

The 1ds4 would still write the RAW to the CF card in Slot One, but the tiny compressed JPG Small would be WIFI'd to the external viewer.

And a four-inch LCD, like this unit features, is getting near the size of the old 669 Polaroid.

We're getting closer.

By the time that we're too old to care any more, they'll have it figured out.

Let's hope that PhaseOne is taking note of this too, but my money is on Canon/Nikon to actually figure it out.

the canon wifi adapter enables the dsmkIII to shoot directly to a usb harddrive....i wonder if it could shoot directly to this epson....why not? it would then of course show the files as they come in...
not quite wifi but something....

leaf has had this since their aptus line....the bluetooth connection with the ipaq...worked amazingly well, especially considering how slow bluetooth is....

phase promised something with wifi years ago.....i guess even wifi N isn't really fast enough to cope with 30mb x5/sec.....usb sure isn't....

Leica will have a press conference the next September 14th.

They will present the new products. New lenses for the M system and the new reflex system. Maybe new types of products not related with photography.

Canon makes one of these devices for Canon files (at least they sell it in Japan), but it won't work with any other file. The Epson will as long as it's a dslr, (no medium format).

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/07/13/c...storage-device/

I bought the Epson for a fashion editorial shoot in Japan. We set up a tethered station, but also used the Epson device and the Japanese clients loved it. They could hold it and thumb through the images themselves and had the jpegs ready to download to their computer for comps and fpos.

We never ran the thethered computer, except for backup.

The problem with the Epson was (maybe still is) that the battery use is very low. Just downloadin and viewing a few cards pretty much used up the power.

I don't get it because the new Nikon and the new Canon cameras the batteries last forever.

The other problem is the interface takes some time to get used to, because it's not touch screen.

Touch screen is the way to go.

I just have the feeling the technology is there, it's just nobody wants to do it or the companies that want to don't have the resource, except Apple and I guess Apple doesn't care that much about professional photograpy given the fact that they are selling 60 trillion Ipods a week.

I still wonder how hard it is for some kid in Sweden to hack an Ipod touch to accept a jpeg from a camera.



JR

I can hack you an app that will send images to any wifi ipod, iphone or laptop in the room.

Edmund

if you can do that, you will be very popular! the trick would be to try and make it easy to setup. ive tried really hard to get that wireless thing on the side of a canon to work, but no success. even tried to get computer nerd types to hep me, but they have had no luck. its just so unintuative, and really isnt designed for osx.

paul

How much time do you need to do it and are you talking about an app that will send images to multiple ipods, iphones, laptops...?

Just going back to alternative lenses the 1DS3....

5 months ago i ditched all my Canon glass except the 35f1.4 and replaced it with a mixture of Contax Zeiss and Nikon AIS. The reason was that when i first went from the 5D/1DS2 to the 1DS3 i was not quite as impressed as i thought i'd have been, with only two lenses (Canon 35f1.4 & 85f1.2)really capable of showing the differences at least in terms of detail captured, as for sure colour was miles better. Once the 21mm Contax was tried there was no going back and so i proceeded to try others. I now use a very small selection of well tested and chosen primes that suit my style and weigh as little as possible, being a travel shooter weight and versatility are key. My current lens list is 21mm Zeiss Contax, 28f2.8 Zeiss Contax, Canon 35f1.4, 50f1.4 Zeiss ZF, Nikon 105f2.5AIS. (Plus Mamiya 7 & 50/80 for film)

With live view the manual lenses are a dream, and as most of my work is tripod based, not an issue. Colour rendition and sharpness are the first things to note with the Zeiss, but more importantly it's the way they seem to retain shadow and highlight detail even in harsh light that's most impressive. With a chance a couple of days ago to try another Leica M8 i thought it would be interesting to see how it stacked up to the Canon Zeiss combo. The M8 had the Tri Elmar 16/18/21 on it so i compared the Zeiss 21 and 28 with both cameras at base ISO and both processed in Capture 4.1 my standard processor. After looking at both files as a 50MB 8bit tiff (my required stock filesize) it showed that no amount of AA filterless Leica lens magic was going to make the M8 anywhere near the Canon combo, not even close i'm afraid which is hardly surprising.

Gary.

Here's a nice comparison of Nikon 14-24mm vs. Canon 24mm L vs. Sigma 12-24mm on the 1Ds3 - http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24...n14_24mm_a.html
And here Nikon 12-24 vs. Contax 21 - http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_2...1424_21mm1.html

The new Sony fullframe is going to hit the streets this year, and Sony has been carefully building up a stock of Zeiss glass for it - I think come September there's going to be blood in the water of the Pro SLR pool.

Nikon has hit Canon where it was supreme - good action focus and Hi ISO. Sony is going to kill it in the studio with better hi-rez quality due to better prime lenses. Poor Canon is heading for reduced market share in the pro segment. But we'll always have Paris and the 5D

Edmund

I wonder if the Sony Zeiss optics will be any good, there are plenty of great names of lenses that make substandard lenses for other people. It'll be interesting to see.

They are. 1.4/85 and 1.8/135 are just perfect right from wide open. the 24-70 seems to be excellent as well. wide angle lenses are announced... we will see. And certainly you can mount the Contax lenses as well. But - if needed - just the ZA Zeiss have AF.
If Sony can hit the pro market? I don't know... pros have to answer this question. Production quantity is still somehow small... you have to order and wait as the shops don't have the entire line in stock. But maybe that's just a matter of time...

While I agree Canon is likely to get a further kick to the seams, which one hopes will 'motivate' them get their act together on QC, WA quality, AF mis-steps), I also agree with the following:




Having owned a number of the Zeiss ZF lenses, they are very, very good, BUT the line is somewhat over-priced for what they deliver in CA control (average - the 50 macro excepted), field curvature in the shorter units and mechanical QC (ugly-stiff focus rings on some 100 ZFs and 85s).

The construction of the units also share a lot of qualities with (and similarities to) the older Cosina-Voigtlander SL line (of which I own two which are excellent). While it bears no impact on their delivery of IQ, to the detriment of many elitist egos, the Zeiss ZF line are, in reality a joint Zeiss/Cosina product.

Sadly comments like the above don't tend to get a polite reception in many places as a bit of Zeiss fan-boyism has worked it's way into many forums. I tell you, give people an excuse to forum a clique....

So while I assume a lot of the Sony-Zeiss lenses will be stellar, I do think there will be a premium paid in many cases that has more to do with the name on the front vs. the IQ and QC the name on the front would imply.

Leica would have the same issue is it ever licensed it's designs to others - how far are you willing to let things slide, if at all, for the sake of cash?

Conner,

I would agree with you on the ZF line to some extent as whilst trying the alternatives from the ZF line for my 1DS3 i found the 85f1.4 to be lacking both ergonomically and a little optically, too much CA. The 50f1.4 ZF was much better optically although still a little CA till f2.8, however ergonomically a joy. The Contax Zeiss 21 and 28 are superior in all respects to my eyes, 21mm distortion aside. If it wasn't for the fact that the Contax adapters are a little hit and miss and the Nikon/ZF to Canon adapters i have found are so good, i would probably use Contax for the 50 & 100 focal lengths.

Gary.

I've seen some of these Zeiss-branded Sony primes, and build quality is very good. I expect optics to be good too, as these lenses have basically just been prepped for release with the fullframe - I don't think many of the crop-series buyers have resorted to them not least because they probably retail for more than the price of those cameras.

As an aside, the same phenomenon is true in the Canon range where the really good primes eg 35/1.4 or 85/1.2 cost more than a Rebel body.

Edmund

Is the 24-70 much better than the canon 24-70 L do you know?

That isn't really hard, is it ^^

Hey Gary,

I normally use Rudolph's (happypagehk) CZ and R adapters but have taken a different tack with Nikon. Use FotodioxPro and ordered some custom-encoded Nikon chips from Rudolph to use on the adapters (CV 90/3.5 APO and 180/4 APO).

On the ZF line - I agree with your assessment. The only ZF unit I'm still interested is possibly a 50/2 macro - but at used prices only.

Cheers

Rob

Other than some field curvature at 24mm, the Nikon 24-70 is a barn burner vs the Canon alternatives.

For comparable tests see: www.photozone.de

Thanks Rob,

I will have a look for the adapters you suggest. Adapters i have had most success with are the 'Rayqual' Nikon to EOS that Robert White sell which are perfect, and some ebay ones from Hong Kong which will focus past infinity for Contax. I did try the Photodiox (not pro version) for the Contax however it would not focus the lenses past 30ft or so. I would be very interested in trying some old Leica 'R' glass in the 50-90 range as i used to shoot with them with both 'M' and 'R' for years.

Cheers,
Gary.

Me I don't know the Canon nor the 24-70. Just ZA 1.4/85 and the ZA 1.8/135

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-al...eiss_za_2470_28
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27589

Whats a barn burner?

I don't understand what you mean?

"barn burner" weird expression I now -- means excellent or stellar, etc - no idea where expression came from.

Talked to Fotodiox some time ago. Their pro units are essentially Elefoto (sic?) units. Their consumer or non-pro are lower-grade generic units sourced out of some unknown Chinese production shop. Their Nikon and MF PRO adapter (Hassy & Mamiya) are nicely made - but not chipped.

I'll have to look at Rayqual (unless I move to Nikon). CameraQuest units are essentially Kindai adapters - considered the gold standard by many.

Rudolph (HPHK) sources sources his adapters out of from a 3rd party but actually does QC on the input side. He will also custom-encode the chip for the FL and aperture you select for no extra charge. I use him for CZ and Leica R.

24-70 from canon isn't a good lens... Well it is one of the better Canon ones, but still a crappy lens.