It's the glass, stupid....

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The $64k question is whether Nikon are coming out with a higher resolution version in due course to compete with the Canon whch seems to be positioned as a junior MF back equivalent.

 

 

Mark, the last time I read a Nikon executive commenting on their future products in a Japanese magazine interview he was mentioning about a high pixel count FF DSLR in a smaller form factor comparing to the 5D. (He certainly didn't get fired )

 

It appears to me in semi-pro/advanced amateur segment they'll continue to share the same Sony sensors or its slight variations, but they'll only use their exclusive design in the top dogs.

 

So the interesting things is, their top dog may not necessarily have a higher pixel count than their second, third tier products.

[Guest Cordell]

Tim, after looking through your photos I have to say that most folks here, myself included, should be following your advices, not the reverse.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sdai]

People need NOT to switch between Nikons and Canons ... I've tried both and still own both, the end results are quite similar, especially when viewing on paper.

 

If you have the money to lose by selling one and buying another, why don't you buy both?

[KM-25]

Nikon to revolutionize the film industry? ... won't happen ... and film is dead, Holloywood is going digital with Zeiss primers mounted on the Sony Cinealtas.

 

Nikon is NOT interested in manual focusing ... you see those AI-S mount in store because they can't move the new old stock.

 

When I said film industry, I should have said full motion industry. I am working with some pretty edgy motion crews in the past three years. I see photography evolving in a different way than some do, but maybe I ought to keep that quiet..:-)

 

And by the way, according to "The Digital Dilemma," a report recently released by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, digital film storage costs $12,510 per year, compared with $1,059 for celluloid. More dramatically, source materials -- those outtakes and audio recordings that often make up bonus content for special edition products -- cost 429 times as much to store, a whopping $208,500 per year for digital materials vs. $486 for film.

 

Just keep eye out, you will see what happens.

[sean_reid]

Hey Sean

 

I think that Nikon has a bit of a marketing dilemma when it comes to a 5D competitor. I am sure they will come out with a high resolution sensor based body soon. The news from Sony would show that such a sensor is probably already in the works. That would position the current D3 as a super high frame rate FF body for the sports shooter and the low light shooters (I would suspect the new high MPx body would not be able to achieve the noise performance of the D3). If they were to introduce a FF body at half the price of the D3 the D3 would likely be orphaned. Even the D300 can shoot at rather high frame rates so it would be hard to imagine why people might buy a D3 given those circumstances.

 

Alll in all, a real marketing dilemma

 

Woody

 

Hi Woody,

 

The combination I'm thinking of is simply the D3's sensor, etc. in a D300 body. The 5D is unique in being high res, FF and (as pro SLRs go) light and compact.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sdai]

And by the way, according to "The Digital Dilemma," a report recently released by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, digital film storage costs $12,510 per year, compared with $1,059 for celluloid. More dramatically, source materials -- those outtakes and audio recordings that often make up bonus content for special edition products -- cost 429 times as much to store, a whopping $208,500 per year for digital materials vs. $486 for film.

 

Dan, you've forgotten that all these contents, celluloids, soundtracks, any raw material in fact ... has to be digitized. Hollywood's post processing workflow is (almost) completely digital, distribution, final screening are all going digital ... some filmmakers may still adopt "film" at the shooting stage but that's all about it.

 

Storage is only a trivial matter, 20-30k per title is peanuts comparing to a film's investment which is now easily up in tens, hundreds of million dollars range ... sticking to analog all the way is totally against productivity and cost efficiency.

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nikon knows exactly what they are doing here guys. Not only will they come out with a higher res version of the D3 ( Sorry Mark Norton, it is not about competing with Canon, they don't need to even do that, that is internet hype-talk ) I am willing to bet that in 5 years time or less, we will see a brilliant new step from Nikon that could help revolutionize the film industry.

 

Well, we'll have to agree to differ. Here we have Tim wanting to spend $7500+ on a high-res Canon and there's no comparable Nikon product for him to think about. There might be in a few months time, I have a deposit on one. If there was one now, I'm sure Tim would look at both and pick the one which fits his needs best, or neither. That, to my mind, is Nikon and Canon competing (or failing to through lack of product) with each other.

 

As for Nikon film revolution, I'd be surprised.

[marknorton]

Sean

 

Which of the Zeiss ZF lenses have you reviewed?

[stunsworth]

...digital film storage costs $12,510 per year, compared with $1,059 for celluloid...

 

But how much does it cost to make a digital master for cinema distribution compared to a film print? I know there aren't too many digital screens at the moment, but perhaps the studios have their eye on the long game.

[Jamie Roberts]

This is a secret ... and it'll involve more work than just to fit an adapter on it.

 

In short, you needs to replace the R mount with a properly "rebuilt" EOS mount with the correct focal length and open aperture encoded. Easy for primers but difficult for zoomers ... because you can't find a readily available Canon mount with the same zoom range matched to the open aperture on both ends, such as the 28-90/2.8-4.5.

 

Once this is done, you'll need to calibrate it (as an EOS lens) to Canon's spec, there are many ways to do this, scientific or unscientific ... takes time and money, the aperture won't be automatically stopped down, and I'm sure it'll be hard to find someone to do it ... but it's worth the hassle (especially when I already have the stuff to boot).

 

Huh?

 

Simon, with all due respect, I use R glass on my 1ds2 and 5d all the time, with adapters from Camera Quest and some focus confirming adapters from Japan and China.

 

They work very well indeed, including, amazingly enough, the focus-confirming adapter.

 

Yes, you have to stop down to meter. No, you don't need to change the mount on the R lens. No, not all of them work without serious modification to either the camera or the lens.

 

But they all focus and meter properly if stopped down. FWIW, I shoot on manual (spot) but I still use the meter.

 

So I suppose you could rebuild the R mount as an EOS mount. But then you couldn't use your R glass for R cameras...

 

Or are you talking of some other use? Sorry--I'm tired today

[sdai]

So I suppose you could rebuild the R mount as an EOS mount. But then you couldn't use your R glass for R cameras...

 

Or are you talking of some other use? Sorry--I'm tired today

 

Jamie,

 

I think that you've skipped one of my previous post.

 

I've said that I'll only convert (and rebuild the mount) when I'm not going to get the R10, be it's a POS, or simply too expensive to afford, or, just will never happen.

 

People do those af confirmation adapter based on the principle of fooling the camera in order to enable its electronic focusing assistance, some adapters are encoded as 50/1.8, some encoded as 100/2.8 ... it's all over the places in short.

 

So when you do shoot wide open, say for example, if I shoot a 50 Summilux-R on a 1Ds with the aperture ring turned to f/1.4, it will overexpose if the camera thinks the lens is a 50/1.8, even worse, focusing will be off if the adapter is encoded as a 100/2.8.

 

That's why I'm (possibly) going to do it.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie,

 

{snipped}People do those af confirmation adapter based on the principle of fooling the camera in order to enable its electronic focusing assistance, some adapters are encoded as 50/1.8, some encoded as 100/2.8 ... it's all over the places in short.

 

So when you do shoot wide open, say for example, if I shoot a 50 Summilux-R on a 1Ds with the aperture ring turned to f/1.4, it will overexpose if the camera thinks the lens is a 50/1.8, even worse, focusing will be off if the adapter is encoded as a 100/2.8.

 

That's why I'm (possibly) going to do it.

 

Simon, I don't think your information on the metering on the 1ds or 1ds2 or 5d is quite correct, though. It doesn't matter how the adapter is encoded (and the Camera Quest ones aren't encoded at all).

 

If I understand correctly, the cameras meter off the sensor (film) plane, and not from the communication with the lens.

 

All modern Canons--even the Rebel--employ TTL metering this way. The data from the lens is only used for EXIF data. Who cares about that? I'm an M shooter!!

 

So if you have an adapter, and stop down (or open up) the lens, the meters on the Canons work as well as they do with their own lenses.

 

So, for example, and I have tested this thoroughly, I regularly shoot the 50 R lux and 80 R lux from 1.4 to f8 on my Canons.

 

While the EXIF data always reports f1.8 and the wrong focal length, exposure is exactly equivalent to my 50 1.2L Canon and my 85 1.2L Canon. My Olympus OM lenses also meter completely correctly (and I use the 21, 28, 35 and 50 from Oly as well).

[stunsworth]

People do those af confirmation adapter based on the principle of fooling the camera in order to enable its electronic focusing assistance..

 

Do you mean the focus assist light on the camera? If so no they don't, the adaptor has a chip glued to it that makes the camera think that an EOS lens is mounted, and so it switches on the AF circuitry. The camera then judges when the scene is in focus in just the same way as if you were focussing an AF lens manually.

 

One potential issue with the 5D is that it doesn't have the facility, unlike the pro bodies, to tell the camera what the lens's maximum aperture is. As the lens isn't therefore calibrated to the camera the exposure tends towards an increase in exposure as the lens is stopped down. This didn't cause me any problems, I just had -2/3 of a stop compensation dialled in as standard. In thousands of shots I can't recall any real issues with exposure - other than those caused by my own poor metering.

[sdai]

If I understand correctly, the cameras meter off the sensor (film) plane, and not from the communication with the lens.

 

All modern Canons--even the Rebel--employ TTL metering this way. The data from the lens is only used for EXIF data. Who cares about that? I'm an M shooter!!

 

I don't give a damn to EXIF, Jamie.

 

TTL metering works well when the aperture is opened up or closed down driving by the camera, the camera is in full communication with the lens and knows exactly what aperture it is set at, it know, for example, the lens is set at f/2.8, and this is the amount of light I received on the sensor, then it starts to calculate the shutter speed needed to maintain a proper exposure. With manual lens being used in a compromised manner, you need to tell the camera about its open aperture properly so it can calculate the amount of light hitting the sensor and adjust exposure accordingly.

 

You can remove the lens from the body, there's still light hitting the sensor, is it able to make a correct exposure?

 

This is exactly why when Nikon added manual lens menu choice function, they're asking you for open aperture and its exact focal length.

[sdai]

Do you mean the focus assist light on the camera? If so no they don't, the adaptor has a chip glued to it that makes the camera think that an EOS lens is mounted, and so it switches on the AF circuitry. The camera then judges when the scene is in focus in just the same way as if you were focussing an AF lens manually.

.

 

Steve, I've done this myself ... I believe that I'm the first person introducing these af confirmation adapter on this forum - correct me if I'm wrong, I'm absolutely not very interested in this title.

 

Each EOS mount tranmits different signals to the camera so the lens can be precisely recognized and engaged to the body.

[AlanG]

Tim,

 

If you are going to use the 5D a lot, consider getting DXO software for your conversions. I've been using Canons for about 5 years and DXO is the biggest improvement I have seen. Note, the latest version of DXO seems to be having "growing pains" so I've stuck with version 4.5 which works well.

 

I use Canon zoom lenses a lot and DXO removes all of the c/a distortion and vignetting, so the quality is excellent for me for architecural interiors and exteriors. DXO also does localized sharpening and when coupled with sharpness improvements from removing the c/a, the images even from zooms are more than satisfactory for my clients' needs. While DXO is best with "supported" lenses (those with custom modules) I find that even my unsupported 24 TSE and 45 TSE lenses get c/a and other corrections as they are still recognized.

 

I have done tests with DXO as a raw converter and I find that it does a better job on diagonal lines (fewer artifiacts) than Capture One or DPP. So this is another factor that improves the images, pus DXO had better fill lighting adjustment and other controls than those others.

 

Here's a link to that comparison:

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/Posts/conversion.jpg

 

 

I'm not telling you not to get primes but for what it's worth, I'm using these Canon lenses:

 

16-35 series l. (I tested the series II and didn't find it much better but will try another one.)

This is a lens I use a lot for interiors at around 16mm at f8. Everyone knows it is a little soft at the edges but this is barely noticeable at f8 via DXO. (I might have a very good copy of this lens.) As you shoot landscapes a lot, you probably will be more sensitive to edge sharpness than I am. Plus I almost always use it stopped down some.

 

24-105 F4 - excellent when the c/a, barrel distortion, and vignetting is corrected.

70-200 2.8IS - excellent all of the time but better with DXO.

100-400IS - excellent, but DXO removes the vignetting that I never noticed before.

 

Until I got the Canon, I shot almost all of my work on 6x9 and 4x5 with the the best Schneider, Zeiss, and Rodenstock lenses. I also used Hasselblad and Rollei 6x6 gear for years. With 35mm, I may not have been that critical of the lenses, because I figured if I needed better quality, I'd use MF or LF. When I shot with Nikon I never used a zoom lens until I bought a 24-120 as a general purspose walk around lens and an 80-200 which was quite good. So you could say that I was a "prime lens" kind of guy for 25 years before I found zooms could work for me.

[Jamie Roberts]

I don't give a damn to EXIF, Jamie.

 

TTL metering works well when the aperture is opened up or closed down driving by the camera, with manual lens being used in a compromised manner, you need to tell the camera about its open aperture properly so it can calculate the amount of light hitting the sensor and adjust exposure accordingly.

 

You can remove the lens from the body, there's still light hitting the sensor, is it able to make a correct exposure?

 

This is exactly why when Nikon added manual lens menu choice function, they're asking you for open aperture and its exact focal length.

 

Simon, I really can't say as to Nikon, but yes, without a lens, my Canons expose a neutral grey with no clipping when pointed at a light source, which is "correct" for no lens.

 

So as far as I know, they're not metering at all based on the (EXIF) data coming from the lens, IIRC, but from the light coming through the lens. Period. That is the basis for the meter calculation. The camera does not need to know maximum aperture at all.

 

I'm happy to be wrong, I guess, but there's certainly no practical evidence to suggest that I am, even if in theory the lens data provides some weird exposure value.

 

Now, I remember Rob Stevenson talking about setting a maximum f value on the pro Canon bodies. I've never bothered, and never seen any ill-effect. IOW, perhaps the metering is sloppy enough for this not to matter. Certainly checked agains my external meters, the exposure is correct.

[sdai]

Simon, I really can't say as to Nikon, but yes, without a lens, my Canons expose a neutral grey with no clipping when pointed at a light source, which is "correct" for no lens. .

 

Jamie,

 

This is because the EOS camera knows there's no lens mounted, so it resets itself to a neutral point.

 

Speaking from the other side with the same example, if the "adapter" is telling the camera its open aperture is f/1.8, and your sensor actually takes in light with f/1.4 ... what will happen?

 

You won't see this as an issue if you normally use smaller apertures. To be precise, it's only an issue when you use these chipped adapters.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie,

 

This is because the EOS camera knows there's no lens mounted, so it resets itself to a neutral point.

 

Speaking from the other side with the same example, if the "adapter" is telling the camera its open aperture is f/1.8, and your sensor actually takes in light with f/1.4 ... what will happen?

 

You won't see this as an issue if you normally use smaller apertures. To be precise, it's only an issue when you use these chipped adapters.

 

Simon--seriously, I actually do this all the time with the luxes; my site is full of shots like this! I use the chipped adapters, spot metering on the Canons, and generally shoot portraits with the 50 R Lux and 80 R lux at f1.4 and f1.6.

 

No problems with exposure whatsover. Then I switch to the AF 50 1.2L and at the same aperture, the exposure is the same.

 

Potentially, I guess, f1.8 is a good compromise for the chipped adapter, since even f1.4 is not a stop away. Practically, as I said, it makes no difference whatsoever, and certainly I don't see overexposure at all, which is what you'd expect.

 

(I've used the CQ adapters, which aren't chipped, for years now with the same results, too).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[biglouis]

But back to the point. The fact that the D3 accepts so many M/F lenses is indeed a blessing to many of us. Out of some 13 lenses for my Nikon system, 6 are manual focus. This was a very conscious decision.

 

I completely understand the point of owning a Canon or Nikon digital camera if you already own lenses. But I think the original point of this thread was a disaffected individual wanting to divest themselves of the M8 and move into Canon or Nikon as an alternative. And being concerned that if they do so, they could have access to primes equal to the quality of Leica.

 

I was making the point, why buy Canon and limit the investment in outstanding AF performance by using manual lenses? It makes sense if you already own manual lenses for these systems but it doesn't make sense to me, if you don't.

 

I should add, that the original question struck a chord with me. Before plunking down all my cash on an M8 I seriously thought about moving to Canon and building a system around a 5D. The problem was and still is that the outstanding edge to edge sharpness of the lux35 asph made me realise that I had to continue with a M-digital platform. I'm glad I did because my recently acquired Elmarit 24/2.8 is even better (if that is possible) than the lux35-asph.

 

LouisB