douglasf13
Well-known
Actually, that's my point. Lens and sensor combinations are more important than ever, so, unless you're shooting film, a lens could be somewhat obsolete if there isn't a proper sensor to match to it. Biogons, for example, are symmetrical designs that tend to struggle on digital. Symmetrical wides are becoming less and less common, so, in years to come, as Leica and Zeiss start producing more retrofocus designs, as they already have been of late, the need to design sensors to accommodate old symmetrical lenses becomes less and less.
I had a major reality check when, after using a NEX-7 for a few months with several M lenses, I bought the cheap Sigma 30/2.8, and it performed as good or better than my ZM 35/2.8 and ZM 35/2 on the NEX-7, simply because the Sigma was designed with the NEX-7 sensor in mind. Same goes with my Hasselblad 500. My current 500 series lenses work great on film, but, should I decide to move to medium format digital, I'd probably reconsider which lenses I use.
For decades, the relationship between lens and film has remained relatively constant, but it's a new ballgame with digital.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Ricoh GXR.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
GXR-M is what I use. All my ZM lenses perform flawlessly.
Rune
Member
Good points! However, what makes me a bit frustrated is the pixel-peeping crowd obsessing over sharpness, when what I am looking for is lens/sensor signature (as in the "Sonnar look"). That is what I really like about this forum - I get valuable input (like the one quoted above), without the pixel race hysteria
Cameras die, lenses live forever
The 25mm ZM is my tool, the camera is just a lump of metal, plastic and hopefully a good sensor.
But you can't make photos with just a lens... show some more respect for the body sir.
douglasf13
Well-known
Good points! However, what makes me a bit frustrated is the pixel-peeping crowd obsessing over sharpness, when what I am looking for is lens/sensor signature (as in the "Sonnar look"). That is what I really like about this forum - I get valuable input (like the one quoted above), without the pixel race hysteria
I think an often forgotten point in all of this is print size. All of the talk about performance hinges on the concept of printing to a particular size. I tend not to print larger than 13x19, for the most part, so that is my frame of reference in determining whether a lens is good enough or not for me.
If you don't print at all, then just about any lens will likely be good enough, technically.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the lens look and signature changes when you switch between formats. You may very well like the look of the ZM 25/2.8 on an aps-c sensor, but you may not like the look on a smaller or larger sensor, which is why I still contend that matching sensor to lens is may be more important than sticking to one lens and using it on different formats and sensor types.
aleksanderpolo
Established
GXR-M
Even within APSC, the same lens can perform very differently between say GXR, NEX7, and XP1. So getting a body with optimal RF lens performance is as important as the lens itself.
Even within APSC, the same lens can perform very differently between say GXR, NEX7, and XP1. So getting a body with optimal RF lens performance is as important as the lens itself.
dweekie
Member
I purchased a ZM25 recently, and it works great on the GXR. I also have a NEX, but I feel like there's a veil on the NEX that homogenizes performance of lenses more so than the GXR. However, the NEX really opens up a different kind of shooting with the tilt screen, auto-focus, high iso, and burst speeds that actually make my GXR and film cameras feel restrictive.... until I have to change shooting modes or iso....