Did anybody try ZM lenses with GXR?

[Adanac]

I have both the ZM25/2.8 and 35/2 Biogons and have used them on the NEX-5N and GXR. Both perform better wide open on the GXR; stopped down the differences become less obvious but the GXR continues to fare better.

Some have called the ZM25 a little clinical looking on crop sensors and that might be so at times. I like the field of view it gives. I've only had my GXR a couple weeks but so far I've not noted any issues with colour cast needing correction, and the ZM25 works well on it, even wide open, where the same lens on the NEX-5N had real problems with smearing at the edges and in corners.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

I have both the ZM25/2.8 and 35/2 Biogons and have used them on the NEX-5N and GXR. Both perform better wide open on the GXR; stopped down the differences become less obvious but the GXR continues to fare better.

Some have called the ZM25 a little clinical looking on crop sensors and that might be so at times. I like the field of view it gives. I've only had my GXR a couple weeks but so far I've not noted any issues with colour cast needing correction, and the ZM25 works well on it, even wide open, where the same lens on the NEX-5N had real problems with smearing at the edges and in corners.

It is now my favourite lens on the GXR. Especially if you want to have things sharp. As it looks for now the GXR is the only economical solution to use the wide Zeiss lenses with good results.
I hope they get things right for the 16mp module as well.

Michiel

 

[Adanac]

I was quite surprised at the improvement in detail representation my ZM lenses achieve on the GXR compared to the NEX-5N. I'd expected some improvement in the corners and at the edges, which certainly was the case, but overall the GXR even with its lower resolution sensor delivers crisp detail that the NEX just can't; I find this particularly evident in small detail found at infinity focus.

Recently a number of other photographers have been posting similar observations. I do not think we are all on drugs.

As for the ZM25, my relationship with it has improved markedly since adopting the GXR. Maybe in another week or two I'll be in love with it, I just want to be honest about it on the NEX - it was ok, provided the right field of view, but didn't wow me. It is starting to wow me now but I need to shoot it more before I would be willing to give it the enthusiastic recommendation it probably deserves. The 35/2 wowed me out of the gate even on a crop sensor, even on the NEX. It really wows me on the GXR.

 

[Gary Briggs]

So you buy the gxr mount ($650 B&H), then change your lenses as you would any other camera?
How would this camera compare to a Nikon d7000 as far as sensor?
I have ZM lenses and would like other options to the M9

 

[Adanac]

I can't speak to the Nikon D7000 comparison. Many have compared the NEX-5N to the D7000 sensor implementation and find them comparable in many ways. No doubt there's plenty of long debates one can read on that topic.

In the end if you want a small camera with high IQ, the NEX can do it. So can the GXR. Neither will have all the functionality of a quality DSLR.

I've only compared the GXR to the NEX with the same suite of lenses and sold off my NEX as a result. The GXR Mount A12 sensor on paper shouldn't compare as well as it does to the NEX-5N's but in practice, with some subjects at least, it easily competes and wins. For shooting landscapes, particularly with wide angle lenses and ZM's at that, the GXR will preserve fine detail better all over and will be more usable at the edges and corners at all apertures.

This is almost certainly because, like the Leica M9, there is no anti alias filter in front of the sensor in the GXR Mount A12. This has a huge detail dividend payoff but also allows symmetrical lens designs like the ZM Biogons to perform to the corners as they were designed to. These same lenses do not perform as well in the corners on NEX, but depending on what you shoot that may not even matter.

If your thing is to shoot available light in dimly lit indoor situations all the time, today the NEX is a better place fror adapted ZM lenses. The Sony sensor in the NEX is far better from a noise perspective at higher ISO sensitivities although except at the extremes I don't find the noise in GXR files objectionable, it has its own qualities that can be useful. When the GXR Mount A12 gets the newer Sony sensor (rumoured to be early in 2012) this advantage to the NEX should disappear.

A fashion photographer may hate the GXR because they'd need to deal with moire issues more often. A portraitist might prefer one or the other due to how skin is rendered; I like the GXR better myself for this, but that might also be due to the GXR treating my ZM's better when shot wide open.

For some types of photography one or the other will be better suited. For generalists, either could work - individual taste will probably push you either way... although if landscape photography or complex cityscapes or really fine detail is important, the GXR Mount A12 does have the current edge and that edge might even grow wider when it is re-released as the Mount A16 with the new sensor.

Choosing Sony or Ricoh as a home for your ZM lenses should be done with a bigger picture in mind. They are both really capable cameras.

 

[Godfrey]

So you buy the gxr mount ($650 B&H), then change your lenses as you would any other camera?
How would this camera compare to a Nikon d7000 as far as sensor?
I have ZM lenses and would like other options to the M9

- yes. Of course you also need the GXR body ($350) and EVF ($220).

- Can't compare direct with a Nikon D7000 as I have never used one. Compared to my Olympus E-5, the GXR-M is comparable on acutance and about a stop less sensitive, more or less.

(Actuance is a difficult comparison as the two cameras are very different in terms of what lenses I can use on them for shooting and testing. A reference test using an adapted Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 is what I came up with as it bypasses any particular optimization of lens or body for any other factors, is long enough that the edge qualities are going to be consistent, and is a superb performer in its own right.)

- The only ZM lens I've looked at closely is the Biogon 25mm f/2.8 ZM that Michiel has shown photos with. I would like to get one of those eventually, more for the M9/M4-2 than the GXR-M. My favorite wide focal length on APS-C is 21mm, and the Skopar 21mm f/4 is an outstanding excellent performer on the GXR-M. This photo has printed to a stunningly nice canvas wrap 20x35" in size despite being a modest crop from the full GXR-M frame and being made at ISO 1600!

Dodging Rain - Dublin 2011
Ricoh GXR-M + CV Skopar 21mm f/4
​

 

[Pete B]

Godfrey, I love your post processing on that.
Pete

 

[segedi]

I've had just a little time to assess, but overall the GXR is handily outperforming the NEX 5n with wide angels. The CV 21mm and Zeiss 25mm both perform much better on the GXR. The Nex has really bad smearing in the edges. The 50mm Summilux also really shines. Wide open at f/1.4 and the focus is crisp (as it should be!).

I also really like the functionality of the GXR body/buttons/menu system. It's easy to change ISO, easy to change exposure compensation, brilliant My settings that allow you to put in up to 3 lens profiles... Very happy to have acquired the GXR!

The Sony does have an edge with VF and peaking modes though. I wish the GXR had the ability to change the peaking color.

 

[__--]

Zm 4/18

Zm 4/18

The ZM 4/18 is a very good lens. I use it when I want to be close to a 21mm EFOV because I prefer it to the CV15/4.5 which, although closer in FOV to a 21mm on FF, produces too much of a distorted persecutive for my taste.

Here a some pictures made today with the GXR-M and the ZM 4/18, all shot at ISO 2500, except for the first, which is at ISO 3200 and the last which is at ISO 200:



Note: I made a mistake – the first picture is shot with the Summicron-28

—Mitch/Bangkok
Tristes Tropiques? No, They Have a Strip Mall in Chiang Mai Too

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Question to Mitch Malland

Question to Mitch Malland

I have been following your elaborate info on the GXR and wonderfull image contributions. Helped me a lot.
I too love the files it produces. I am coming from M4/3 - GH2

I have the VC15mm and the Zeiss Biogon 25. I like both lenses.
I am contemplating something in between these two lenses in that range that I have, and I was thinking about the Zeiss 21, because its place is a little more then the 18mm right in between the two and it is 2.8. May be a little overdone, but I was wondering if you worked with that lens and what are your thoughts on both lenses and then I remembered you said it all..
Choices choices....

I quote this from you;
I don't see the Elmarit-21 ASPH and the Zeiss 4/18mm as alternatives to each other. I use the Elmarit-21 ASPH when I'm thinking about 28mm-e and the Zeiss 4/18mm when I want a "real" wide-angle look, but don't want the still wider look that I get with the CV15mm. They are both excellent lenses, with the Zeiss 4/18mm being somewhat higher contrast. But I'm not necessarily recommending getting both, because the combination of the CV15 and Elmarit-21 ASPH can be sufficient. As I like having the f/2.8 aperture of the Elmarit, I wouldn't, however, choose the Zeiss 4/18mm instead of the CV15 and Elmarit-21 ASPH combination. If you are considering which 21mm lens to buy, I highly recommend subscribing to Sean Reid's site, which has the most authoritative and practical lens reviews around, including an excellent review of M-Mount 21mm lenses.

In terms of size and weight the Elmarit and the Zeiss are visually the same. They both feel well balanced on the GXR-M because the latter, while small, has good heft

So the conclusion could be; buy a Zeiss 21/2.8 because I can't afford a Leica Elmarit now. The Zeiss got some nice reviews too, although I did never read Reid's opinion on the Zeiss 21.
I really like the razor sharp 25 Biogon and it's focus handling which I prefer above the 50 Summicron where I always seem to search for that tiny focus knob.

So my advise/question turned out rather minor

PS Looking forward to the 16mp module !?

Michiel

 

[__--]

Michiel,

Reid does not think that the Zeiss Biogon 21 is a "lesser" lens than the Elmarit-21 ASPH: it has some more contrast and less flare — and the choice between them depends on personal preference. As to your choice between the Zeiss 18 and 21, it really depends on whether you want the wider FOV of the 18 or not; but it's good to have the f/2.8 instead of f/4.

On the possible 16MP GXR-M, I don't feel a need for more resolution, but my understanding is that the 16MP Sony sensor is substantially better at ISO 3200, which I often like to use for street photography to be absle to use a smaller aperture and get more depth of field.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Days and Nights in the Forest (WIP)

 

[__--]

After writing the post before this one, I realized that in post #29, the first photograph was not taken with the ZM4/18 but with the Summicron-28. I then looked at the photographs again and, while the Summicron-28 picture is taken in artificial light and the ZM4/18 pictures in daylight, I started to think that there is a discernible difference between the Leica and the Zeiss lenses, in that the latter has a harder edge look to it. Because I often shoot in rather harsh, contrasty light I tend to prefer the Leica look. Here is a ISO 2500 shot with the Elmarit-21 ASPH followed by an ISO 200 shot , which I think fits in what I've been saying, in terms of the Leica lens having less of a hard-edged look:

—Mitch/Bangkok
Portraits

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Thanks for looking into this. It is nice to know that Reid does like the Zeiss as well.
My aim is not mainly streetshooting but also objects and (industrial) architecture and landscapes as well. I am an omnivore. Architecture doesn't mind a little hardedged rendering.
You can see that in in the last streetview picture of your posted serie.
I really like the way that looks.

Also here in northern Europe the light is less harsh and contrasty, so for me the Zeiss will be good, I think.
But I understand your considerations.

BTW For the time being I have rather nice results with a Canon FD 20/2.8 + adapter but infinity is not spot on and that is a drag with focussing.

Michiel

 

[__--]

...Architecture doesn't mind a little hardedged rendering.
You can see that in in the last streetview picture of your posted serie.
I really like the way that looks.

Also here in northern Europe the light is less harsh and contrasty, so for me the Zeiss will be good, I think...

That's what I was thinking. Here's a picture shot with the ZM18/4 in somewhat less contrasty light (around 8am in the Turks & Caicos Islands), which doesn't have the harder edge look because the light has somewhat less contrast (shot with the Leica 8.2 — 80% crop):

I also want to make sure that I don't shortchange the CV15/4.5 which, as Sean Reid writes, is a very good lens at any price — and a bargain at what it sells for: it's only the perspective that sometimes is a bit too extremet for my taste. The first picture is taken with the GXR-M and the second with the M8.2.

Note: This is a new version developed in RPP — the original one that I posted had been developed in Aperture. The M8.2 file required more adjustments in RPP than the GXR-M file, as the GXR-M files have more color accuracy.



—Mitch/Bangkok
Tristes Tropiques? No, They Have a Strip Mall in Chiang Mai Too

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Wow, I can feel the storm, brrr. The boatpicture is amazingly dynamic somehow.
It sure is a wonderfull lens!

Thanks for posting

Here is one I made today with the Zeiss Biogon 25 (not very dynamic but very symmetric)

Michiel