AP review of Digital Modul R

[jaap]

well Stuart you are right at his moment Contax is absolutely dead. But i'm not suprised that it will not be dead forever!

 

[StuartR]

Ok, I did my research. Sorry, I thought Contax was just the name that they had for the cameras made with Kyocera, but it goes back much further to the old rangefinders. I am sure I will now be crucified. But does Zeiss own the copyright? I imagine that they do. In any case, the problem remains that Zeiss can't build its own bodies, right? They do lenses, not bodies, so they need someone to make the body for them, which might be a problem when we are talking something as sophisticated as a full frame digital RF. The only companies currently making chips that size are Canon and the medium format back companies like Imacon/Hasselblad, Leaf, Phase One and so on. The medium format chip makers don't seem to have much experience making small format sensors (i.e. affordable, high iso, fast capture rates, ability to operate without a big image bank etc.), and Canon isn't going to do it, so it might be tough for them. They can buy the chip from Kodak, but then who is going to write the firmware? Perhaps Imacon like for the DMR? Hmmm. I would be interested to see how it turns out. I am definitely not saying it won't happen, but it just seems like it will be an interesting collaboration if it does get done.

 

[jaap]

The problem is that Kyocera still owns the copyright of the Contax name and this is also for some years to come. When this copyright ends maybe we will see Contax rise again. This is all i hearded and i dont wanna make an impression that i know everything about this. Although i do know a lot ;-)

 

[jaapv]

Watch the Carl Zeiss guys in the future. The folluw up of the now new introduced Zeiss Ikon will be probably be a full frame digi rf. You can see it in the way they designed the new lenses for the ZI. And i'm certenlay not suprised if in the future a new Contax digital Slr will come with the old MM bayonet.

The full frame discussion is just a transitory phase. As soon as lens manufacturers have adjusted their range of focal lenghts, the issue will be moot. This:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html
is an interesting read on the subject.
What is "full frame" anyway? Surely, if one makes, say, a 18x24 cm print, full frame would be a 18x24 cm sensor. There is no inherent superiority in the 35 mm format, other than that we have gotten used to it over the last 100 years. I am sure, as the quality of sensors increases, or even at the extremely high level we have today, photographers will choose their sensor size according to the use they will put them to. So for instance: Landscape: extreme wide angle, loads of detail and resolution: large sensor. Wildlife: handholdable telelenses, maximizing of DOF so small sensor. RF general and streetphotography: compact and unobtrusive equipment and acceptable bulk and weight and still usable high ISO thus: medium sized sensors. Lets rid ourself of historic restraints and use the capabilties of the new medium!

 

[StuartR]

Well in ridding ourselves of historic restraints, we also have to rid ourselves of historic equipment, which many are unwilling to do. It is a big gamble to make. Canon did it when switching from FD to EOS, and they really got a lot of people angry doing so. They prevailed though, because their AF system was so good.

But...for Leica or medium or large formats for that matter, people have LOTS of money invested in their favored system. Beyond that, they enjoy using it. So let's say you are a real M camera enthusiast and you have two M cameras and 6 lenses. If they are all Leica, and the stuff is fairly recent, that is at least 13,000 dollars in cameras and lenses. If Leica were to create a whole new system and say, ok, "here is the new M-Digi system, sorry, but you have to buy all your lenses again and there will be no compatibility between new and old. Lenses are now 2500 dollars each, and the body is 5000". I don't think you would please too many people. I don't know, perhaps that is just me. I definitely think there is a place for innovation, but it should be carefully integrated into existing solutions. The DMR is an excellent example of this.

 

[jaap]

The full frame discussion is just a transitory phase. As soon as lens manufacturers have adjusted their range of focal lenghts, the issue will be moot. This:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html
is an interesting read on the subject.
What is "full frame" anyway? Surely, if one makes, say, a 18x24 cm print, full frame would be a 18x24 cm sensor. There is no inherent superiority in the 35 mm format, other than that we have gotten used to it over the last 100 years. I am sure, as the quality of sensors increases, or even at the extremely high level we have today, photographers will choose their sensor size according to the use they will put them to. So for instance: Landscape: extreme wide angle, loads of detail and resolution: large sensor. Wildlife: handholdable telelenses, maximizing of DOF so small sensor. RF general and streetphotography: compact and unobtrusive equipment and acceptable bulk and weight and still usable high ISO thus: medium sized sensors. Lets rid ourself of historic restraints and use the capabilties of the new medium!

Why should we reduce in size because of techincal difficulties. I think a lot of people like to hang on with their exepensive lenses. Especilly the leica an contax and the better nikon and canon lens owners. And even for digital is the following valid, the bigger the better ! That's already something we know from film photography.
By the way i may be one of the few who don,t take E.P too seriously.

 

[jaapv]

It is not difficulties, it is use; I was waiting for something like the 5D but I won't buy it because of its 35 mm sensor; I use my DSLR for wildlife and don't want to lose focal length on crop over my 10D, so I will have to wait for the 30D I suppose. ( I didn't find the 20D enough of an upgrade.

 

[jaap]

Jaap, now i understand why you hang on to smaller sensors.

regards Jaap

 

[Trius]

Lenses gather light and focus an image. Good lenses do it well, and there are lots of variations of image signature by lenses of the same focal length. Some prefer one over the other in a particular situation. The lenses and the imaging surface (film or electronic sensor) are the heart of the system. The camera is just the frame to which both attach.

So, if a new carrier (body) comes along that fundamentally changes the characteristics of a lens by altering the imaging surface (i.e. change the film into electronic sensor), what am I to think? Either I like the results on the sensor or I don't. It may not be an easy task to decide whether I like it or not, but I know something has changed. And if I don't like it, then that's the end of the story. Right?

What I like about film is that I can (could) choose from lots of different "sensor signatures" for a minimum investment.

Earl

 

[jaapv]

Well in ridding ourselves of historic restraints, we also have to rid ourselves of historic equipment, which many are unwilling to do. It is a big gamble to make. Canon did it when switching from FD to EOS, and they really got a lot of people angry doing so. They prevailed though, because their AF system was so good.

But...for Leica or medium or large formats for that matter, people have LOTS of money invested in their favored system. Beyond that, they enjoy using it. So let's say you are a real M camera enthusiast and you have two M cameras and 6 lenses. If they are all Leica, and the stuff is fairly recent, that is at least 13,000 dollars in cameras and lenses. If Leica were to create a whole new system and say, ok, "here is the new M-Digi system, sorry, but you have to buy all your lenses again and there will be no compatibility between new and old. Lenses are now 2500 dollars each, and the body is 5000". I don't think you would please too many people. I don't know, perhaps that is just me. I definitely think there is a place for innovation, but it should be carefully integrated into existing solutions. The DMR is an excellent example of this.

Agree 100%, Stuart, but I was trying to say that a medium-format sensor,somewhere between 35 mm and APS, like Leica seems to be choosing for the M, might be just right for a RF system. Keep the small lenses and unobtrusive body and the only adjustment in lens range will be to trade in the 135 for a 21, and for Leica to bring out a sensor-compatible ,say, 15. Btw the Tri-elmar will fit beautifully as a "standard-zoom".

 

[StuartR]

Yes, it certainly makes the Tri Elmar much more attractive if they choose a 1.3-1.4 crop, doesn't it? But I will still be a bit put out about altering my focal lengths. For example, a has a much harder time being a good lens than a 28, a 35 much harder than a 50 and so on. You also lose depth of field, which is not the end of the world, but annoying. You will no longer be able to isolate people out like you could with a 50/1.4, because the 50mm equivalent lens is now the 35/1.4 or a 40/1.4. I like the DMR, but I have recently found myself shooting more and more medium format and 35mm film. They just feel better to me. It's not just the crop factor, but the whole workflow. It's odd, at the end of the day I just care less about my digital shots. I don't bother as often to spend the time post-processing them and posting them on the web, and I don't look forward to seeing them as much as I do my film shots. Eh, whatever, it's probably just a phase.

 

[StuartR]

Yes, it certainly makes the Tri Elmar much more attractive if they choose a 1.3-1.4 crop, doesn't it? But I will still be a bit put out about altering my focal lengths. For example, a 21 or 24mm has a much harder time being a good lens than a 28, a 35 much harder than a 50 and so on. The longer lenses in general have less distortion, flatter fields, wider maximum apertures and so on. You also lose depth of field, which is not the end of the world, but annoying. You will no longer be able to isolate people out like you could with a 50/1.4, because the 50mm equivalent lens is now the 35/1.4 or a 40/1.4. I like the DMR, but I have recently found myself shooting more and more medium format and 35mm film. They just feel better to me. It's not just the crop factor, but the whole workflow. It's odd, at the end of the day I just care less about my digital shots. I don't bother as often to spend the time post-processing them and posting them on the web, and I don't look forward to seeing them as much as I do my film shots. Eh, whatever, it's probably just a phase.

 

[jaapv]

As you say, it may be a phase, or simply personal preference.It may help that I had some experience of the 645 format, so the mental recalculating of focal lengths. is something I am used to, as you obvously are. But err.... don't you gain DOF if you use 35 mm as standard focal length instead of 50? Yes, I like to use a narrow DOF as well but it depends on the subject: I was ****annoyed yesterday when I had a beautiful shot of two Splendid Starlings on my screen and it turned out that I only got just one bird in focus, and the rear bird at that. Wastebasket!
PS. Hasn't this thread gone nicely OT? We're on the M sytem again!

 

[StuartR]

Well, I think my thought here is that I like a wide field of view, but a small plane of focus. i like being able to shoot someone's head and shoulders, but still have only their eyes in focus. To do things like that, you need fast normal lenses, which become fast telephotos with a crop factor...it annoys me a little. I am far more often seeking less depth of field than more. It is just my personal style and preference.