Nex 7 and Leica 24mm f/1.4 Summilux = Fail

Was the lens even focused? My wife had the same blurry images with her Canon, after I turned off the autofocus without telling her.
 
My Take is a bogus test/technique. It is very hard to explain the center unfocused state. Live view lets you see the focus, especially magnified. This means that he was "not seeing", probably distracted by the "peaking" which might have some slop at normal mag.
Michael does have some history of publishing some unexplained examples.
The cameras that come forth in slow jerky style do have a lot of time to creat the storms in the teapots.
Bob
 
Bob

I think u may have nailed it.. I know from my experience with focus peaking that u can be off focus but if u are using manual focus assist (ie 7x or 14x mag) u should be able to nail the focus better than that...

Gary
 
Not to mention the people who make the Zeiss lens just flew him out on a fancy trip that probably cost $10-20K a head, that's worth a lot of focusing errors.
 
Just in case Zeiss is reading, I am available for any fancy trip you would like to send me on, and I guarantee the worst focussing possible. If you need references, just look at my work.;)
 
I doubt that it was intentional, but something isn't right. That said, perhaps there is a reason that the Zeiss is a bit longer than some expected. The next few weeks should sort all of this out.
 
The interesting points out of the article, if u put the 24 sumi focus issue aside.

1- firmware is 0.6. They got a way to go before they are ready to ship
2- iso 1600 should be ok. Maybe even 3200 by the time they ship

Gary
 
Why would anyone who can actually afford the 24mm f1.4 Summilux put it on such a budget style camera in the first place?

Really ... what's this world coming to!
 
Isn't Mr Reichmann the same person who categorically proved that the early 3 Megapixel Canon d30 was better than 35mm film scanned by an Imacon, and then that the 11 Megapixel Canon 1ds trounced a drum scanned 6x7" Velvia slide (though at least he stated the 6x7 could be printed larger) ?

I suspect Mr Reichmann chose a 24 Summilux to put on the Nex 7 as it was the closest equivalent lens to the Zeiss 24mm f1.8 he could adapt on short notice to provide some form of indication as to how good the Zeiss lens is (and probably to highlight what "good value" the Zeiss lens is by comparison - gotta feed those sponsors).

As to why anyone else who could afford a Leica 24mm f1.4 lens would use it on such a "budget style camera", I would suggest for all the obvious reasons (starting with "Why not ? It's their money"); certainly people who are after certain features, functions, quality or size which can not be met elsewhere, even at higher price (or who choose not to pay a higher price if their needs can be met cheaper elsewhere). The video on Leica's cameras is shonky compared to the Nex-7 for instance, and IF the Sony had a high quality output (24 mpix, light anti-aliasing filter etc) with M lenses, why would you NOT buy it just because it happened to be cheaper than your lens/es ? Would that argument still be valid if the Nex-7 was found to be better than the M9 with the 24 Summilux, or any of Leica's other expensive lenses ?
 
Last edited:
DamenS said:
Isn't Mr Reichmann the same person who categorically proved that the early 3 Megapixel Canon d30 was better than 35mm film scanned by an Imacon, and then that the 11 Megapixel Canon 1ds trounced a drum scanned 6x7" Velvia slide (though at least he stated the 6x7 could be printed larger) ?
Click to expand...

He is, and these comparison tests were rubbish too IMO. No offense to him, but I don't find him to be a reliable reviewer.
Oh and he also stated that the canon G10 was as good in large print as one of the medium format digital backs recently.

bleh..
 
Don't worry guys, I'll buy one and make a fair review.

Well at least... Zeiss is interested in taking me on a fancy trip.
 
Is it possible we are seeing the results of focus shift, or not focusing with the aperture fully open? (i.e., he focused at f8, then when he opened up his focus was off).

Mr Reichmann has his eccentricities as a reviewer, but to accuse him of out-and-out lying to appease his hosts seems unduly harsh. If one wanted to show that the Zeiss was superior to the Leica, there are many less obvious ways of biasing results than what he presented. But why would Zeiss even want to be compared to the Leica? These are two different lenses, for two completely different camera systems and appealing to two different groups of buyers. Furthermore, Sony gains from having the Leica lens look good on their sensor-it potentially wins them users from amongst the adapted lens crowd (of which I am a member).

No, I think user error is to blame, possibly coupled with unoptimized firmware.
 
LOL - No, way too close to what so many people on the forums would believe and state with total and utter conviction. Maybe I will do better with such subtleties as I see more of your posts, become familiar with your general ideals and can ajudge the tone accordingly ... but as it stands, at least it gave me a chance to rant when I was in desperate need of one. It was a GOOD rant :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom