Joed700: I wish Zeiss good luck with all their recent releases of MF lenses. I shot with my Nikon 85mm f/1.4 Ais and 50mm f/1.2 Ais for a number of years on my FF DSLRs...then I started to ask myself why bother...sold both of them and shot with AF only lenses! With the exception of Leica, none of the current DSLRs are equipped with MF focusing screens...it's no fun trying to feel classic/retro just by constantly looking at the dot, especially with large apertures.....I would buy the Otus in an instant if it was AF.
My situation too.
If Zeiss provided a hard stop at the infinity mark as they used to do and infinity was perfectly calibrated on one's particular camera, for certain types of uses, landscape comes to mind, there's no real need to focus through the VF. That's what I rely on when I use my 5 Zeiss ZF lenses, the hard stop at infinity. A blind man could focus a camera. But, since Zeiss implemented focusing past infinity, that 'crutch' is no longer available. Even LV becomes unusable during much of the day when daylight washes out most back LCD screens. Someone below mentioned that the Sony A7 series cameras solve this last bit because the image in the VF doesn't wash out in bright sunlight.
Rick Knepper: Why would I buy a fixed lens camera that MSRPs for the same price as an interchangeable lens version (which can be found for $500 less from eBay dealers) that provides a world of flexibility?
As if the A7r II isn't small enough already. Right? :)
"You'll also save a fortune on a one lens solution."
Immaculate logic if all else were equal.
Why would I buy a fixed lens camera that MSRPs for the same price as an interchangeable lens version (which can be found for $500 less from eBay dealers) that provides a world of flexibility?
Hopefully, the release is on the first day of Q2 instead of the last. C'mon Zeiss, you can do it.
LukeDuciel: It's near-sight for Zeiss. They should have provided reliable and easy-to-use solution for using these lenses on FE-mount.
Why would you fool with an Otus when you have the Batis. I know the Otus is a better lens (I rented the 55mm last Thanksgiving and it just blows your socks off) but MF has gotten too difficult for me and LV isn't usable for much of the day being washed out by the sun if you are shooting landscape.
Daryl Cheshire: Regarding focussing screens, I have the matt screen for the 5D mk II for use with the 50mm f/1.2L - works well
Weird that you don't seem to understand the path of the conversation.
Rick Knepper: Of course, some of these images speak more clearly to me than others but I can admire the Photoshop skill and artisanship of every image.
The people criticizing this work and effort sicken me.
Well, using your logic, I should have every right to be sickened because I am criticizing the criticizers. If you ask the right question, I'll engage further. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to your shallow thinking.
Of course, some of these images speak more clearly to me than others but I can admire the Photoshop skill and artisanship of every image.
Rick Knepper: If Sony Execs are listening (to potential future customers), increase the freaking resolution. Get an A7r III to market quickly. This would be the last improvement needed to bring me in.
Dude, I expressed a personal opinion and a bevy of fanbois descended upon me talking nonsense.
I won't rent one but I will buy a version of this camera at some point when its resolution meets my criteria. I already own a camera with better ratings with regard to DR so I am good.
And by the way, to my friends who do complement their kit with a Sony, please don't take my comments personally. I know there are many capable shooters using Sony who understand digital imaging and sit back while the fanbois make fools of themselves.
If you can't separate a contrast curve from resolution, get yourself a P&S.
It's obvious you two couldn't see a meaningful difference between red, green and blue. Sad that Sony has to rely on business from low achievers with low expectations that do not challenge Sony to excel in the areas that are important.
Ironically, we have two misguided fanbois claiming superiority while doing so under an article that, if one reads between the lines, is about the shaming of Sony for catering to uneducated users who think small files are a good thing in photography.
You two may one day elevate your observational skills so that an 8 MP difference is obvious, but I doubt that happens before Sony releases their A7r III and tells you how 50 MP or how ever many MPs is better than 42 MP.
Does the uncompressed RAW fix this?
BarnET what are you babbling about?
10x8 print? You need a P&S.
PVCdroid: I'm "decent camera that meets my needs" through and through. So far, that's been Canon, Nikon and Pentax.
BarnET: 100 MPs isn't enough but I drew my line at 50 MPs so why compromise when I have two cameras already with this capacity? I'm not buying the Sony because I really want one. I want the Zeiss Batis lenses.
adengappasami: come back when you can compose a cogent response.
h2k: Great story. Interesting background info you won't find easily elsewhere. Also nice and clearly illustrated.
I was banned temporarily by the Sony mod for not taking guff from a rabid Sony fanboi who defended this lossy junk and took to calling me names. I hope this serves as a good helping of humble pie to all Sony fanbois.
If Sony Execs are listening (to potential future customers), increase the freaking resolution. Get an A7r III to market quickly. This would be the last improvement needed to bring me in.
Rick Knepper: June 19th will still count as Spring 2016.
Being the owner of a 645z and a 5DsR, I hope that Pentax has decided that a minimum of 50 MPs is the way to go, with a facility to shoot at lower resolutions (via cropping and/or by lower resolution full size images). Maybe this is the earliest Sony will sell Pentax a 50 MP version of their current FF sensor.
Mr. Tharp, since I am writing at a 6th grade level, there should have been no reason for you to misunderstand the statement.