carstenw Posted August 24, 2007 Share #81 Posted August 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean, yes that is the only preview I have seen at all of that lens. However, there were some less than stunning reviews of the ZF over on FM a while back. It is Zeiss, so I guess they will figure something out though. Simon, have you ever tried using a 350D with manual focus lenses? Not nice. You would need at least a 400D, and more like it, a 30D, and I still wouldn't do it. The Nikon has the advantage here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 Hi carstenw, Take a look here HE-llo! Whole new ballgame!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #82 Posted August 24, 2007 Sean, yes that is the only preview I have seen at all of that lens. However, there were some less than stunning reviews of the ZF over on FM a while back. It is Zeiss, so I guess they will figure something out though. Simon, have you ever tried using a 350D with manual focus lenses? Not nice. You would need at least a 400D, and more like it, a 30D, and I still wouldn't do it. The Nikon has the advantage here. Hi Carsten, I wondered because I hadn't thought there weren't any others yet. The pre-production version was not so impressive but lets see how the real thing does. I'll test that ZF 85. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #83 Posted August 24, 2007 Simon, have you ever tried using a 350D with manual focus lenses? Not nice. You would need at least a 400D, and more like it, a 30D, and I still wouldn't do it. The Nikon has the advantage here. Carsten ... this has been posted in another thread for the argument over the superiority of Leica lenses over the peer Canons, it was shot with a 3 CAM 135/2.8 adapted to the 350D I borrowed from my sister. With the help of focusing confirmation adapter, critical focusing is a non issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 24, 2007 Share #84 Posted August 24, 2007 As I mentioned to you in another thread, your best solution would be to move to lower contrast lenses for high contrast subject lighting. If one is not willing to do that, the highlights are going to push right off the edge of the scale sometimes. You are, if I recall correctly, working with high contrast ASPH lenses and this is one of the downsides of doing that. Horses for courses. It's true that once highlight levels push past a certain point in the M8 files, the detail dissappears abrubtly. So the task is to pull that contrast range in a bit before it reaches the sensor. And, yes, I would like to see 16-bit RAW files from the M8. Despite the amount of energy you've previously put into insulting my work on this forum, I'm willing to share whatever experience I can with you. You're new to digital rangefinder cameras but many of us who began with them in 2004 have come to appreciate the role lens contrast plays in this. One can fuss with RAW converters all he or she wants but if the highlight info. isn't recorded in the RAW file, it just isn't there. I think that the funky highlight artifacts you're sometimes seeing are related to blown highlights. Well I do have a collapsable Summicron 50, so I will take a look see on that. I am not sure what to do about the 28, I really need to keep these kits tight. Looks like I am going to have to keep the M8 for editorial work. Basically, I am trying to hit the road a lot with a film project, but really trim down how much gear I take. I don't care for Canon bodies and lenses for this type of documentary work, love the Nikon FM3A and M series for that, so I need a digital for moving pics on the road as well. Did think about a D200 for in a pinch, but now love the idea of the D3, ooof! I am making this harder than it has to be... Anyway, I think when I get back, I have to keep giving the M8 more trials. Thanks for the reminder of my harping on you, it is always nice to be reminded of what a dork I can be. And really, thanks for your help... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #85 Posted August 24, 2007 Well I do have a collapsable Summicron 50, so I will take a look see on that. I am not sure what to do about the 28, I really need to keep these kits tight. Looks like I am going to have to keep the M8 for editorial work. Basically, I am trying to hit the road a lot with a film project, but really trim down how much gear I take. I don't care for Canon bodies and lenses for this type of documentary work, love the Nikon FM3A and M series for that, so I need a digital for moving pics on the road as well. Did think about a D200 for in a pinch, but now love the idea of the D3, ooof! I am making this harder than it has to be... Anyway, I think when I get back, I have to keep giving the M8 more trials. Thanks for the reminder of my harping on you, it is always nice to be reminded of what a dork I can be. And really, thanks for your help... It will take up a bit of space, but consider adding either a 28/1.9 Ultron or (for really low contrast) a tiny little Canon 28/2.8 from the 50s/60s. I shot a whole set of picture for Robb Report (editorial) with just the R-D1 and that little Canon. The lower contrast lenses will let you pull the highlights down further without hitting the noise floor in the shadows. The difference can be remarkable once one gets the hang of it. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ennjott Posted August 24, 2007 Share #86 Posted August 24, 2007 AND those big juicy pixels offer ISO 25600 (!). Actually, they don't. The sensor's range is ISO200 to 6400. This is one stop above the 1DMk3 (100-3200) and two stops above all other current Canon DSLRs. What I really like is the new 640x480 screen and focusing through the main image sensor by contrast detection like a point & shoot. Finally accurate AF. In fact I like this so much that I will consider switching to Nikon next year if Canon's 5D replacement won't match this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted August 24, 2007 Share #87 Posted August 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, they don't. The sensor's range is ISO200 to 6400. This is one stop above the 1DMk3 (100-3200) and two stops above all other current Canon DSLRs. What I really like is the new 640x480 screen and focusing through the main image sensor by contrast detection like a point & shoot. Finally accurate AF. In fact I like this so much that I will consider switching to Nikon next year if Canon's 5D replacement won't match this. do you know something that Nikon dont? according to Nikon's pdf ISO range is nominally 200-6400, with the possibility to reduce min sensitivity by up to 1 stop, and increase it by up to 2 stops, ie 100 to 25600 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #88 Posted August 24, 2007 according to Nikon's pdf ISO range is nominally 200-6400, with the possibility to reduce min sensitivity by up to 1 stop, and increase it by up to 2 stops, ie 100 to 25600 Lo-1, Hi-1 and Hi-2 aren't nominal ISO ratings even Nikon just call them 100, 12800 -25600 equivalence. It's really just trying to decrease or increase the gain in the analog amplifier, any camera company can do it. High boost increases noise. Low boost decreases dynamic range. Just a trick in marketing which has always been featured in Nikon's DSLRs, are they really that fancy? only those who have used can tell. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 24, 2007 Share #89 Posted August 24, 2007 I've just discovered something interesting, Ruben ... all the product images for D3 and D300 on Nikon's press center web site were shot with a PhaseOne P45. IMO ... that speaks a lot ... they clearly know that CCD is better. Well, Nikon hires an advertising company, and the photographer shots with the camera he wants/has. Small product photographs for internet doesn't need digital backs. In any case, big prints may need many megapixels. The new 1Ds Mark III is a new alternative here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #90 Posted August 24, 2007 Well, Nikon hires an advertising company, and the photographer shots with the camera he wants/has. Small product photographs for internet doesn't need digital backs. In any case, big prints may need many megapixels. The new 1Ds Mark III is a new alternative here. It was only a joke, Ruben ... please see my other comment on patent hurdles and why almost all Japanese fabs turned to CMOS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ennjott Posted August 24, 2007 Share #91 Posted August 24, 2007 It's really just trying to decrease or increase the gain in the analog amplifier, any camera company can do it. No. The "real" ISO steps use different analog gain. The Hi/Lo-stuff is purely digital push/pull and can be done by anyone in the raw converter. I'm astounded that so many people who spend lots of money on gear fail to recognize the "extended sensitivity" as marketing babble. I've pushed images from my 350D to 25600 too, so what. Btw, the "highlight priority" function of new Canons and Nikons works in a similar manner. The camera underexposes by 1 stop and then pushes the raw file afterwards. Can be done with any camera that features raw capture. The firmware function just makes it a bit more convenient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #92 Posted August 24, 2007 I'm astounded that so many people who spend lots of money on gear fail to recognize the "extended sensitivity" as marketing babble. Never mind how it's done ... we've reached the same conclusion. LOL Another interesting thing I've noticed about the Nikon loyalists ... most of them seem to be especially magnanimous toward Nikon's misguidance for so many years and all in a sudden FF becomes holy grail again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted August 25, 2007 Share #93 Posted August 25, 2007 Carsten & Sean, I have several of the Zeiss lenses for the Nikon system. 35/2.0, 50/1.4, 50/2.0 Macro, 85/1.4 The least impressive is the 50/1.4, but it is still better than the comparible Nikon lens. I did find that there was some sample variation or poor examples of the 50/1.4 & 85/1.4. My first ones were exchanged on both of those. The 35/2.0, 50/2.0 Macro, and 85/1.4 which I have are absolutely stunning glass. These lenses really do outshine the Nikon glass that I have or have used. (17-55/2.8 DX, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, 70-200/2.8 VR) I would give the 85/1.4 another try. It is a really nice portrait lens. Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 25, 2007 Share #94 Posted August 25, 2007 Are these ZF or older lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted August 25, 2007 Share #95 Posted August 25, 2007 Hi Carsten, The new ZF lenses. The only issue with using them is that you really need to change to a manual focusing screen in the camera. The electronic rangefinder is not accurate enough. when using the 50 Macro or the 85/1.4. The range of focus when the dot is lit up is more than the DOF of these two lenses when wide open and somewhat close. I am using the 13mm microprism from Brightscreen. I think you would be favorably impressed with the 85/1.4 . Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XD7 Posted August 25, 2007 Share #96 Posted August 25, 2007 Ray, Interesting comment about the manual focusing screen. Is that being used with the D200 or the D2X? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 25, 2007 Share #97 Posted August 25, 2007 Hi Carsten,The range of focus when the dot is lit up is more than the DOF of these two lenses when wide open and somewhat close. Ray That's a good point and true for the 50/1.4 as well. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 25, 2007 Share #98 Posted August 25, 2007 The accuracy of the electronic rangefinders in D2X and D200 are in two different classes, both can be calibrated at the service center. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 25, 2007 Share #99 Posted August 25, 2007 Sean's review of the D200 remarked that it is easier to focus manually than are his Canons; and if I'm not mistaken, the D200 manual doesn't say anything about changing screens. My feeling was that the D200 would be adequate without changing screens. (Doesn't the D2 offer user-changeable screens?) In other words, is it generally recommended or necessary to have the screen changed on a D200 to be able to use manual-focus lenses? The accuracy of the electronic rangefinders in D2X and D200 are in two different classes, both can be calibrated at the service center. Simon--Can you be more specific in regard to the "two different classes" and where one could read more? Thanks! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted August 25, 2007 Share #100 Posted August 25, 2007 I can manual focus easier with a D2xs factory screen and electronic rangefinder dot than with the same set-up in the D200. That is very true. The D2xs finder is brighter and better than the D200. Screens are easier to change on the D2xs by the user. However, the screen that I put into the D200 is even easier yet to manual focus. Of course you can also change the screen on the D2xs. I sent my camera to BrightScreen for the screen & installation. It only took a week counting shipping time. The point is that using manual focus lenses is MUCH easier with a microprism style screen than with a screen designed to support autofocus lenses. You can also choose the old conventional split image, but I find the microprism more precise and faster for me. So regardless of whether you are looking for a D2/D3 style body or a D200/D300 style body, a change of screens for use with manual focus lenses will make your life much easier when using manual focus lenses. Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.