I would guess the relationship with Cosina is similar to the previous relationship with Kyocera. There Zeiss designed the lenses and employed the final inspectors in the Kyoto factory. One of the final nails in the coffin of that relationship, was the rejection rate on the N and 645 series auto focus lenses for the last generation of Contax cameras. If you look at the designs of similar specification Cosina built Voigtlander lenses and the Zeiss equivalent, they are obviously totally different designs, so the Zeiss lenses in this case, are not just rebranded CV lenses. The ZM lenses are excellent and in a couple of cases I have replaced Leica M lenses with ZM (50 11819 Summicron to 50 Planar & 24 Elmarit to 25 Biogon). I am 100% that the swap was an improvement in those examples.
wilsonlaidlaw: Some makers e.g. Leica, now encrypt Unique Image Identification number so that you cannot determine the number of shutter actuations on their newer cameras (M240 etc) from it.
They won't say.
I too have a 105mm f2.8 Meyer Trioplan, on a Wirgin 6 x 9 cm camera. If I was desperate to use it, I could move it with its Prontor shutter onto a board and use it on my Graflex Century Crown Graphic with a 6 x 9cm 120 roll film back. It would be interesting to compare it with the 80mm/2.8 Tessar on that camera at the moment. The only problem is that I would have to change the cam on the Kalart coupled rangefinder as well to the 105mm one for the Graflar lens.
Some makers e.g. Leica, now encrypt Unique Image Identification number so that you cannot determine the number of shutter actuations on their newer cameras (M240 etc) from it.
Well I suppose once you have fitted the rotating gold plated hub caps on your Rolls Royce Phantom, the Hasselblad Lusso would be just the thing to take your selfies with, standing in front of it.
wilsonlaidlaw: A stunning bit of arrogance on Apple's behalf (not something they have ever been short of) not to continue to allow us to edit in a different application. I have used Photoshop since 1999 and intend to continue to do so, for editing of photos. I think I am going dump Photos and use the library function of either Bridge or Capture One. Now to find a utility that will export all the photos as events to folders for Bridge.
I can always go back to my original DNG/RAW, if I make a total mess of my edits. If it is an important job, I will edit a 16bit TIFF in Photoshop, as the edits are non-destructive and you can step backwards perfectly in history.
As a Leica user for well over 50 years, I think they have made an aesthetic error on this camera. To my eyes, the very prominent screw in the middle of the top cover is hideous. It covers the port, behind which lies the vertical alignment adjustment for the rangefinder. In most Leicas for the last 30+ years it has been hidden behind a Leica badge, usually red. I can understand why they did not use a red badge but surely a black and gunmetal grey badge would have been better than the screwhead.
I know the theory behind the better grey levels and definition you get with this camera but looking at some of my photographs with the M240, printed to A2 size in black and white using Hahnemuhle Baryta Silk paper on an Epson Stylus Pro 3888, I struggle to see how they would be significantly better with the M246. I think you would have to be pixel peeping with a magnifying glass to see it.
Why would you want to be using the useless app of Photos anyway if you are using a Monochrome. I cannot believe what a dreadful app Photos is. Talk about amateur night at the digital photographers ball! I have gone back to using iPhoto and Adobe Bridge.
A stunning bit of arrogance on Apple's behalf (not something they have ever been short of) not to continue to allow us to edit in a different application. I have used Photoshop since 1999 and intend to continue to do so, for editing of photos. I think I am going dump Photos and use the library function of either Bridge or Capture One. Now to find a utility that will export all the photos as events to folders for Bridge.
I was in Taiwan recently for a three week holiday. It seemed to me that the majority of camera using tourists from Taiwan and Japan were using CSC's, whereas the majority of mainland Chinese tourists (it is very easy to spot the difference from dress styles) were using P&S or entry level DSLR's. The inference I would make from this is that in the far east, CSC's are perceived as being more fashionable or modern than DSLR's.
I wonder if APS C sensor compact system cameras end up too big and Canon might have been better with a MFT or Nikon 1 sized sensor. For many far eastern women especially, DSLR's and big CSC's can be too big for comfortable use. I was surprised how many Nikon 1's I saw in use, mainly by women, so I would surmise that size was an important factor in their choice.
The styling of the M3 could not be more bland and boring. When Canon has such a great history, you would have thought they could have mined a bit more inspiration from that.
Ouch I've just hit my thumb with a hammer. Okay so I will do it again to see what it feels like the second time. Just how dim are the managers at Hasselblad?
I hope the idiot who came up with the ridiculous idea of tarting up mid range cameras and selling them at premium plus prices, is now looking for fresh employment. Leica's reworking of Panasonics and selling them at a 50 % mark up is one thing but trying to sell a Sony at 400% of its original price is ludicrous and was never going to fly. This sort of madcap scheme, can endanger the original company.
Might suit a “light” RAW user with access to fast broadband but not suitable for heavy RAW user with slower broadband. I much prefer storing my images on my own multiple RAID drives, stored in different locations, than on some third party cloud system. I also agree with ZAnton, a typical photo trip for me would result in around 30 to 40 GB of images from various Leica M cameras, so storage in the cloud would work out expensive.
Many thanks for posting yet another lovely nostalgic set of photos.
gmke: Does anybody remember Kodachrome 25? It was a very slow film that, given a decent camera, produced smooth, sharp slides, with great dynamic range. That's ISO 25 folks. The reason we all craved fast lenses was so we could use un-speckled films with greater freedom. That's the point, wide latitude to shoot. It's why we badmouth the odd camera--it takes away our freedom. On an entry level SLR, f1.8 was not thought special on the primes that were more popular than zooms. f1.4 was where cool began. So here we are, electronic sensors that take us out to ISO 1600 without much noise, and a step more with heavier noise reduction that steals a bit of detail. Typical kit zooms nowadays all start at f3.5. Yeesh. That is two stops slower than f1.8 but compensated for by the depth of the ISO on the sensor. Have it all. Get a PEN with a zoom AND that 17mm f1.8 prime. (The standard primes used to be quite inexpensive. The marketing department sticking it to us is what happened...)
On the other hand it is great fun shooting in candle light with my M240 at 3200ISO or above and f0.95 Noctilux. I still use Kodak T-Max 3200 in my M4 but film grain is somehow much more acceptable than digital noise. The reduction in the noise of sensors over the last few years increases possibilities of imaging by a lot. Wilson
New firmware a definite improvement, particularly with the 75-300 lens, which always seemed to settle at the critical 1/160 second. However Olympus could have made the menu implementation of the anti-shock simpler and lamentable documentation of the feature much better. Thank goodness for various reviews which documented and illustrated how to implement. The menu system for this camera must be the most convoluted and obscure ever. Wilson
The car is a Morris 8 but all the pictures are great. Very nostalgic. I wish I had some of my dad’s colour photos from 1938 to 66 of Scotland and his various trips to Europe but my mother threw them all away when she moved house in 1971. Wilson
The thing that impresses me is the heat resistance of the landing legs. I assume they must be covered in some sort of ablative material, such as tantalum hafnium carbide, but even so, to retain their structural rigidity after that extreme cooking, is amazing. They may be actively cooled by circulation of some of the rocket fuel through them.
Whereas I accept there has been a bit of technical fudging to make the sensor look even more impressive, it is still a bit of a technical tour de force. This will be a very useful camera for wildlife photographers. If it can perform this well with a regular Sony zoom lens, think of the sort of low light video you could take by mounting a Leica f0.95 Noctilux on it or one of the specialist full frame movie ultra fast lenses. The Noctilux being three stops faster than the Sony zoom, would give an effective ISO equivalent to 3,276,800. This would mean being able to take video in conditions that previously would have required night vision equipment, taking green and black images. Wilson
For a film camera I understand going for an M6. Using an M (I have M4, M8, M9 and M240, all from new) is a great pleasure. However if I were a working street photographer, I might opt instead for a Zeiss Ikon. The viewfinder is just a little better than the M6 and the metal shutter, with its higher speeds allows more flexibility to use fast lenses wide open for shallow DOF in good light. It is still M mount.
However the Voigtlander 35/2.5 I would not even consider. My experience of CV lenses has been very poor with only one decent one out of 4 bought, including a very soft 35/2.5. As a working photographer, you need to be as close to 100% as possible, sure of your equipment. My choice every time therefore, would be the 35/2 ASPH Summicron. I don't have one, as I have a 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux but if I were a street photographer I would change. My chrome/brass 35/1.4 is too heavy for quick shots and the Summicron is easier to use and very compact. Nobody has a bad word for it.