ZeissFan
Veteran
The DSLRs with sensor crops have an easier time with legacy lenses because they don't use the "full" image circle. As well, I notice that some independents have developed lenses for both film and digital that supposedly don't suffer from light falloff.
The Carl Zeiss ZM lenses reputedly were developed with digital in mind from the start and so mounting a wide angle lenses to a digital camera with a full frame sensor supposedly won't suffer the usual problems of combining wide angle + digital.
Now, why I wouldn't want a sensor crop: If I were to spend $4,000 on a 15mm Distagon (which I won't ... yet), I sure as heck wouldn't be happy to watch it become a pedestrian 24mm lens on a 1.6x crop or a 20mm lens on a 1.33x crop. Or watch my 25mm Biogon turn into a 40mm (1.6x) or 33mm (1.33x) lens.
And by the way, I think we all understand the meaning of full frame, as it applies to digital vs. film.
The Carl Zeiss ZM lenses reputedly were developed with digital in mind from the start and so mounting a wide angle lenses to a digital camera with a full frame sensor supposedly won't suffer the usual problems of combining wide angle + digital.
Now, why I wouldn't want a sensor crop: If I were to spend $4,000 on a 15mm Distagon (which I won't ... yet), I sure as heck wouldn't be happy to watch it become a pedestrian 24mm lens on a 1.6x crop or a 20mm lens on a 1.33x crop. Or watch my 25mm Biogon turn into a 40mm (1.6x) or 33mm (1.33x) lens.
And by the way, I think we all understand the meaning of full frame, as it applies to digital vs. film.
CJP6008
Established
An interesting debate, the issue re full frame sensors is a vexed one. Irwin Puts write intelligently and with some authority on the subject (I suspect he knows more about these things than the rest of us put together!) See http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html and http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c011.html. I recommend a read of what he has to say - he is a good myth debunker and there are plenty surrounding this subject.
Re Zeiss's attitude to digital - another reading of what they say in the brochure is that they are waiting for a leap forward in sensor technology, more than just a fiddling with the current sensor technology. I am no expert in these matters, but I know a man who is - he makes thermal imaging cameras and they use the sort of chips now current in digital cameras, let's call them CCDs for ease of reference (in fact that is what CCDs were originally invented for, sort of, by (among others) my mum's cousin's hubby - brain the size of a planet! Anyway the thermal imaging guy explained how they work - boy it's crude. They are in essence transistors with the tops shaved off. To get anything vaguely meaningful out of them one has to put a load of filters in front. What they produce is pretty much electonic gibberish. The clever bits are the programs that unscramble it all. They do an amazing job considering the rubbish they start with (I am told). It may be easier to explain in analogue terms - image a system that produced negs so bad that you could hardly see what it was - a complete mess, like it had been shot through heavily frosted glass. The only way you could get anything out of it was to scan it and employ some specially designed software. In essence that is what goes on in a digital camera.
Good as those programmes are, there are limits - you cannot make a silk purse...
The foveon chip is a radical departure from the CCD idea - controlling it is touch though. My relative wondered (when it first came out) if they would ever manage to get the best from it for that reason. It took them nearly 30 years to get to grips with CCDs!
Perhaps Zeiss have in mind some fundamental leap forward in the direction of a new sort of chip entirely. After all, if what these guys tell me is true (and I have no reason to doubt them) building CCDs with load more pixels or whatever is not a quantum leap forward - a medium format neg shot through frosted glass to follow my earlier analogy. Something that sees more clearly is needed. After all you cannot polish a turd!
Re Zeiss's attitude to digital - another reading of what they say in the brochure is that they are waiting for a leap forward in sensor technology, more than just a fiddling with the current sensor technology. I am no expert in these matters, but I know a man who is - he makes thermal imaging cameras and they use the sort of chips now current in digital cameras, let's call them CCDs for ease of reference (in fact that is what CCDs were originally invented for, sort of, by (among others) my mum's cousin's hubby - brain the size of a planet! Anyway the thermal imaging guy explained how they work - boy it's crude. They are in essence transistors with the tops shaved off. To get anything vaguely meaningful out of them one has to put a load of filters in front. What they produce is pretty much electonic gibberish. The clever bits are the programs that unscramble it all. They do an amazing job considering the rubbish they start with (I am told). It may be easier to explain in analogue terms - image a system that produced negs so bad that you could hardly see what it was - a complete mess, like it had been shot through heavily frosted glass. The only way you could get anything out of it was to scan it and employ some specially designed software. In essence that is what goes on in a digital camera.
Good as those programmes are, there are limits - you cannot make a silk purse...
The foveon chip is a radical departure from the CCD idea - controlling it is touch though. My relative wondered (when it first came out) if they would ever manage to get the best from it for that reason. It took them nearly 30 years to get to grips with CCDs!
Perhaps Zeiss have in mind some fundamental leap forward in the direction of a new sort of chip entirely. After all, if what these guys tell me is true (and I have no reason to doubt them) building CCDs with load more pixels or whatever is not a quantum leap forward - a medium format neg shot through frosted glass to follow my earlier analogy. Something that sees more clearly is needed. After all you cannot polish a turd!
Last edited:
anymore thoughts on this subject?
S
Socke
Guest
No, not much.
Only that I've read Michael Reichmans findings about 35mm and MF lenses and Sensors over some 20MPixels interesting. Seems that the current resolution you can get from a Canon 1D MkII or Phase one P45 is more than what the lenses deliver. The shots with which he compared the Phase one back a Hassy and a Linhof with Rodenstock lenses seem to prove what he said.
And to crop factor or not. If I can get a digital Rangefinder with framelines for leneses with the FoV of 28, 35 and 50 I'm fine. That's the major shortcoming I see in the R-D1, the 28 is not wide enough for me, a viewfinder with framelines for a lens around 22mm would solve the problem for me.
Only that I've read Michael Reichmans findings about 35mm and MF lenses and Sensors over some 20MPixels interesting. Seems that the current resolution you can get from a Canon 1D MkII or Phase one P45 is more than what the lenses deliver. The shots with which he compared the Phase one back a Hassy and a Linhof with Rodenstock lenses seem to prove what he said.
And to crop factor or not. If I can get a digital Rangefinder with framelines for leneses with the FoV of 28, 35 and 50 I'm fine. That's the major shortcoming I see in the R-D1, the 28 is not wide enough for me, a viewfinder with framelines for a lens around 22mm would solve the problem for me.
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
The Foveon X3 3 layer chip technology certainly looks interesting. Have a look at http://www.foveon.net/article.php?a=67 and http://www.foveon.net/article.php?a=70.
Eric Mazur's group at Harvard University's Chemistry Department has discovered how to make "Black Silicon", a form of silicon that traps far more light than that used currently in sensors. In time this may revolutionize high ISO digital photography, computer displays and photovoltaic cells for solar power. See the Mazur Group page on Black Silicon for an introduction to the discovery. Maybe someday it will find its way into an M mount digital camera, but don't hold your breath.
Eric Mazur's group at Harvard University's Chemistry Department has discovered how to make "Black Silicon", a form of silicon that traps far more light than that used currently in sensors. In time this may revolutionize high ISO digital photography, computer displays and photovoltaic cells for solar power. See the Mazur Group page on Black Silicon for an introduction to the discovery. Maybe someday it will find its way into an M mount digital camera, but don't hold your breath.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
SDK said:
Foveon's chip technology has been in use in Sigma DSLRs for some time, and while some people like them a lot, they've yet to prove themselves to have the dramatic superiority that their developers claim.
One observation that's cropped up but which Foveon does NOT talk much about (for obvious reasons) is that their three-layer approach means that light striking any but the top layer must make its way through the layer(s) above it first. Since the layers are necessarily somewhat absorbent, the gain of the second layer must be boosted somewhat and the gain of the third layer must be boosted considerably. The result is more electrical noise at high ISO settings than seen with the best single-layer sensors.
Grober
Well-known
Why not an Epson R-D2 announcement to surprise everyone at Photokina, eh?
frncz
frncz
Well, the waiting was not that long, was it ?Bertram2 said:
einolu
Well-known
So... the D3 from Nikon launched. There is a full frame sensor in there, possibly made by Sony. Anybody think that this could lead to a digital Ikon at some point in the not so near future?
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
The digital Ikon would have to feature two things to give it a competitive advantage over the M8:
1) Full frame, low-noise sensor; and,
2) A price which doesn't include the ridiculous premium one pays on the M8.
If ever there was an over-priced M, it's the M8. If the Ikon can undersell it by a couple of thousand, I'd break the sound barrier on my way to buy one.
1) Full frame, low-noise sensor; and,
2) A price which doesn't include the ridiculous premium one pays on the M8.
If ever there was an over-priced M, it's the M8. If the Ikon can undersell it by a couple of thousand, I'd break the sound barrier on my way to buy one.
Last edited:
jbf
||||||
Mmm... while a digital ikon would be interesting its really hard for me to even think about buying another digital camera... here's my reasoning:
If i buy a digital rangefinder... it's going to be obsolete in at least two years. Chances are it's costs are going to be at least 1k+.
If i'm spending that much right now on a camera... i'm going to want to buy a camera that will last me years. Only thing that would do that right now is a film camera.
Buuut... if i had the income... i'd definately be interested in one... though it would need to match though preferably exceed the resolution of my D70s...
If i buy a digital rangefinder... it's going to be obsolete in at least two years. Chances are it's costs are going to be at least 1k+.
If i'm spending that much right now on a camera... i'm going to want to buy a camera that will last me years. Only thing that would do that right now is a film camera.
Buuut... if i had the income... i'd definately be interested in one... though it would need to match though preferably exceed the resolution of my D70s...
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
jbf said:
The fact that it would be obsolete in two years is irrelevant if the digital Ikon were good enough for your purposes right now and you based your buying decision on that fact. And just because it's obsolete doesn't mean that it still can't last you many years. The M3 was obsolete decades ago and yet it's still providing many a happy, satisfied user excellent service.
einolu
Well-known
depends on how much film you shoot. film can get pricy once you start shooting a lot. as for obsolete, the rd1 is almost 3 years old and still going strong, there is even an increased demand for it... 6mp is good enough for most purposes.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
I think now that there promises to be serious competition in the realm of full-frame sensors, the chances for a digital Ikon in the next few years just increased.
I'm not worried so much about obsolesce because if the camera has 10+ megapixels, the image quality I need from a rangefinder is pretty much fulfilled. (Truthfully, hand-held, 6 or 8 would cover it.)
I'm not worried so much about obsolesce because if the camera has 10+ megapixels, the image quality I need from a rangefinder is pretty much fulfilled. (Truthfully, hand-held, 6 or 8 would cover it.)
jbf
||||||
For me the issue is that obsolete means often the pixels dont cut it anymore. Especially if your talking about digital. As resolutions get larger and larger for monitors, the resolution of displaying your images get closer and closer to what you might call a 100% crop. Thus, the image quality lowers.
Granted for many this may be trivial.
But the hard truth is that saying an M3 went obslete is completely different than say a digital slr or digital camera going obsolete.
An M3 going obsolete means that is just has fewer features. It still has the same resolution ability as an m7. Whereas a Nikon D70s going obsolete in comparison to a full frame 12megapixel camera is a huge difference in resolution, clarity, etc.
Comparing a 35mm film camera going obsolete and a digital SLR '35mm' camera going obsolete is like comparing apples and oranges.
As long as the resolution of digital cameras keep increasing there is going to be drastic differences in resolution, clarity, etc of images in comparison to that of older generations...
Granted for many this may be trivial.
But the hard truth is that saying an M3 went obslete is completely different than say a digital slr or digital camera going obsolete.
An M3 going obsolete means that is just has fewer features. It still has the same resolution ability as an m7. Whereas a Nikon D70s going obsolete in comparison to a full frame 12megapixel camera is a huge difference in resolution, clarity, etc.
Comparing a 35mm film camera going obsolete and a digital SLR '35mm' camera going obsolete is like comparing apples and oranges.
As long as the resolution of digital cameras keep increasing there is going to be drastic differences in resolution, clarity, etc of images in comparison to that of older generations...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
jbf said:
Very good point.
thebard37
Newbie
Wait for Sony . . . .
Wait for Sony . . . .
The Nikon FX sensor is rumored to have been designed by Nikon as an offshoot of the earlier LBCAST sensor designs.
Either way, I suggest Ikon fans wait for an announcement from Sony.
Sony has been making 35mm lenses (although they have made some APS type lenses) in A mount, allowing Zeiss to market 35mm lenses in A-mount, and has been flashing around leviathan pro-dslr type bodies with prism housings large enough to suggest digital 135 format.
Whether or not Nikon's new FX sensor is Sony or in house, Sony's announcement will tell the tale. If Sony debuts (or at least presents a viable forecast for) a 135 format sensor, then it might not be too long a wait for a DZI. It would be great if it were a high resolution imager too-- I'll take the noise but would love as much or more resolution than 35mm film.
And yes, I also suggest that Zeiss's words about a "leap" in technolgoy is a self fulfilling prophecy. When their Japanese bedfellows finally create a 35mm sensor for them to use, whatever technogloy that is in it will *BE* that great leap forward . . .even if it is fairly mundane technologoy by today's standards. ;-)
Think of it as"pre-marketing"!
Wait for Sony . . . .
The Nikon FX sensor is rumored to have been designed by Nikon as an offshoot of the earlier LBCAST sensor designs.
Either way, I suggest Ikon fans wait for an announcement from Sony.
Sony has been making 35mm lenses (although they have made some APS type lenses) in A mount, allowing Zeiss to market 35mm lenses in A-mount, and has been flashing around leviathan pro-dslr type bodies with prism housings large enough to suggest digital 135 format.
Whether or not Nikon's new FX sensor is Sony or in house, Sony's announcement will tell the tale. If Sony debuts (or at least presents a viable forecast for) a 135 format sensor, then it might not be too long a wait for a DZI. It would be great if it were a high resolution imager too-- I'll take the noise but would love as much or more resolution than 35mm film.
And yes, I also suggest that Zeiss's words about a "leap" in technolgoy is a self fulfilling prophecy. When their Japanese bedfellows finally create a 35mm sensor for them to use, whatever technogloy that is in it will *BE* that great leap forward . . .even if it is fairly mundane technologoy by today's standards. ;-)
Think of it as"pre-marketing"!
summilux
Well-known
something looks like this will be definitely cool
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
My ideal digital ZM
My ideal digital ZM
I had a chance to play with a ZM recently. This camera is begging to be converted into digital.
Indeed, the view finder is every bit as good as a Leica M. Leave it alone and let me focus the lens. Add a screw-on magnifying eye piece for life-size 1:1 view…let the 50mm and 85mm lenses also shine.
The sharper-sounding automatic shutter is just as quiet as an M. I would adapt the dial for ISO control, and operate AE or manual as I please.
I would leave the manual film advance alone…let me do some things Epson RD1 style. A nice option would be an add-on motor to cock the shutter. 4~5 FPS is fast enough to support manual exposure bracketing.
The cavity for the unneeded film cartridge is the perfect place for batteries…hopefully 3 or 4 AAA rechargeable cells interchangeable with store-bought disposables. The film rewind is the perfect place for a screw-on sealed battery hatch.
The unneeded film take-up spool is the ideal space for dual SD memory chip Nikon D3 style…one for RAW and one for JPEG, or double up for higher storage capacity. Imagine dual 8Gb SD for bracketing as I please. No film/processing cost is the perfect reason for such operations.
I would urge Zeiss to use a full-frame CCD…allowing usage of all available M-mount lenses without crop factor. 4500 x 3000 (3:2) 13.5 MPixel would be sufficient…allowing also 4000 x 3000 (4:3) and 4496 x 2539 (16:9).
Don’t bother with LCD screen, a million buttons and all possible features, real photographers don’t need those gismos. An external wire-linked LCD with a large screen for review also doubles as a waist-level low-level view-finder would be useful, just plug it in when needed.
This way, the camera would not be larger, heavier or more complex. I will do the lens focus, set the exposure and bracket, or select AE or auto-ISO if deem appropriate. Free me to be the photographer I want to be; and not Imaging Device Input Operator/Technician (IDIOT) relying on automatic everything.
My ideal digital ZM
I had a chance to play with a ZM recently. This camera is begging to be converted into digital.
Indeed, the view finder is every bit as good as a Leica M. Leave it alone and let me focus the lens. Add a screw-on magnifying eye piece for life-size 1:1 view…let the 50mm and 85mm lenses also shine.
The sharper-sounding automatic shutter is just as quiet as an M. I would adapt the dial for ISO control, and operate AE or manual as I please.
I would leave the manual film advance alone…let me do some things Epson RD1 style. A nice option would be an add-on motor to cock the shutter. 4~5 FPS is fast enough to support manual exposure bracketing.
The cavity for the unneeded film cartridge is the perfect place for batteries…hopefully 3 or 4 AAA rechargeable cells interchangeable with store-bought disposables. The film rewind is the perfect place for a screw-on sealed battery hatch.
The unneeded film take-up spool is the ideal space for dual SD memory chip Nikon D3 style…one for RAW and one for JPEG, or double up for higher storage capacity. Imagine dual 8Gb SD for bracketing as I please. No film/processing cost is the perfect reason for such operations.
I would urge Zeiss to use a full-frame CCD…allowing usage of all available M-mount lenses without crop factor. 4500 x 3000 (3:2) 13.5 MPixel would be sufficient…allowing also 4000 x 3000 (4:3) and 4496 x 2539 (16:9).
Don’t bother with LCD screen, a million buttons and all possible features, real photographers don’t need those gismos. An external wire-linked LCD with a large screen for review also doubles as a waist-level low-level view-finder would be useful, just plug it in when needed.
This way, the camera would not be larger, heavier or more complex. I will do the lens focus, set the exposure and bracket, or select AE or auto-ISO if deem appropriate. Free me to be the photographer I want to be; and not Imaging Device Input Operator/Technician (IDIOT) relying on automatic everything.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
My ideal digital ZM
My ideal digital ZM
I had a chance to play with a ZM recently. This camera is begging to be converted into digital.
Indeed, the view finder is every bit as good as a Leica M. Leave it alone and let me focus the lens. Add a screw-on magnifying eye piece for life-size 1:1 view…let the 50mm and 85mm lenses also shine.
The sharper-sounding automatic shutter is just as quiet as an M. I would adapt the dial for ISO control, and operate AE or manual as I please.
I would leave the manual film advance alone…let me do some things Epson RD1 style. A nice option would be an add-on motor to cock the shutter. 4~5 FPS is fast enough to support manual exposure bracketing.
The cavity for the unneeded film cartridge is the perfect place for batteries…hopefully 3 or 4 AAA rechargeable cells interchangeable with store-bought disposables. The film rewind is the perfect place for a screw-on sealed battery hatch.
The unneeded film take-up spool is the ideal space for dual SD memory chip Nikon D3 style…one for RAW and one for JPEG, or double up for higher storage capacity. Imagine dual 8Gb SD for bracketing at will. No film/processing cost is the perfect reason for such operations.
I would urge Zeiss to use a full-frame CCD…allowing usage of all available M-mount lenses without crop factor. 4500 x 3000 (3:2) 13.5 MPixel would be sufficient…allowing also 4000 x 3000 (4:3) and 4496 x 2539 (16:9).
Don’t bother with LCD screen, a million buttons and all possible features, real photographers don’t need those gismos. An external wire-linked LCD with a large screen for review also doubles as a waist-level low-level view-finder would be useful, just plug it in when needed.
This way, the camera would not be larger, heavier or more complex. I will do the lens focus, set the exposure and bracket, or select AE or auto-ISO if deem appropriate. Free me to be the photographer I want to be; and not Imaging Device Input Operator/Technician (IDIOT) relying on automatic everything.
My ideal digital ZM
I had a chance to play with a ZM recently. This camera is begging to be converted into digital.
Indeed, the view finder is every bit as good as a Leica M. Leave it alone and let me focus the lens. Add a screw-on magnifying eye piece for life-size 1:1 view…let the 50mm and 85mm lenses also shine.
The sharper-sounding automatic shutter is just as quiet as an M. I would adapt the dial for ISO control, and operate AE or manual as I please.
I would leave the manual film advance alone…let me do some things Epson RD1 style. A nice option would be an add-on motor to cock the shutter. 4~5 FPS is fast enough to support manual exposure bracketing.
The cavity for the unneeded film cartridge is the perfect place for batteries…hopefully 3 or 4 AAA rechargeable cells interchangeable with store-bought disposables. The film rewind is the perfect place for a screw-on sealed battery hatch.
The unneeded film take-up spool is the ideal space for dual SD memory chip Nikon D3 style…one for RAW and one for JPEG, or double up for higher storage capacity. Imagine dual 8Gb SD for bracketing at will. No film/processing cost is the perfect reason for such operations.
I would urge Zeiss to use a full-frame CCD…allowing usage of all available M-mount lenses without crop factor. 4500 x 3000 (3:2) 13.5 MPixel would be sufficient…allowing also 4000 x 3000 (4:3) and 4496 x 2539 (16:9).
Don’t bother with LCD screen, a million buttons and all possible features, real photographers don’t need those gismos. An external wire-linked LCD with a large screen for review also doubles as a waist-level low-level view-finder would be useful, just plug it in when needed.
This way, the camera would not be larger, heavier or more complex. I will do the lens focus, set the exposure and bracket, or select AE or auto-ISO if deem appropriate. Free me to be the photographer I want to be; and not Imaging Device Input Operator/Technician (IDIOT) relying on automatic everything.
Last edited: