Bodhi Dharma Zen: To put it in other words. MARKETING people are (professional) liars. They would push a lens as being "2.8" when, in reality, their light sensitivity is a lot less (depending of course of the relative size between sensor and lenses)... There should be LAWS to guarantee that marketing people should be limited to stating FACTS in RELATION to an approved standard.
Unfortunately, here is another case of the "equivalence" argument when relating to apertures, completely confusing the poster.
An f2.8 lens, is an f2.8 lens irrespective of whichever sensor format it is used on. It is an exposure factor. The total number of photons captured by a sensor and the light intensity are two different things.
For identical light intensity, every camera, regardless of its sensor size will, or should, indicate the same exposure when they are set to the same aperture and ISO. This is why f2.8 is a constant irrespective of sensor size.
"Total light, or photons, captured" is a sensor size factor, so this affects the overall performance of a sensor, which is an electronic device. The more light the sensor can gather, even though the light intensity over area remains the same, means that the gain of individual pixels does not need to be turned up so much, thus resulting in a lower noise threshold.
This must be the silliest argument I've seen propounded in years.
Larry Witt: I would to try this out on my Dad's old German press camera. It's a Carl Zeiss in very good condition, with a leather case which has several thin metal plates, and one thick plate with six black paper pulls, sort of like the tabs we used to pull out of the old Polaroid land cameras. Which plate do I make the hole in? I have been looking for project, and would like to try my Sony a7r with one of these plates. Can someone give me some insight as to which plate to use. I already have an extra adaptor : Larry
As long as your Dad's German press camera has a fully adjustable focusing rail, it doesn't matter, as you would be focusing visually on the screen of the A7r. Therefore, focusing at the plane of the digital sensor isn't an issue, as it could be if the camera's front standard was physically locked when opened and relied on focusing by distance scale only. Then precise location of the sensor would be more important as you may not achieve infinity focus.
If it were me, I wouldn't butcher an original sheet film or plate holder. If it would be possible in your case, I'd use a flat piece of wood and fix the adapter to this.
justyntime: what for?If it had tilt/shift abilities, ok. But in this case: what for??
"But in this case: what for??"
And whilst the camera does not have a swinging or tilt front standard, one can readily see that it has horizontal and vertical shift. This is evident by the two chrome adjuster heads.
It has been known for years that a simple lens images in a plane which is hemispherical. The optical trick in lens design has been to correct for this so-called distortion so that the image looks natural on a planar surface.
Some film cameras tried to overcome this problem with curved film gates, the bakelite Kodak Brownie 127 at the cheap end of the market and the Minox sub-miniatures at the other, being two examples that I know of.
So there is nothing magical in the effect Sony is describing, but its implementation will be. And if it does free lens designers to come up with superior imaging optics, then Sony should be applauded, not attacked.
No surprises here!! They ditched their video editing program too a few years back - just when all the Apple users thought it was the best thing!
Adobe is going to love this!! I personally use Silkypix and LR. Very nice program.
A "thumbs up" for Silkypix, especially in the special edition, paid for, version, not the free one, for Panasonic cameras.
If you shoot RAW with a Panasonic camera, this is the editing program you need. Produces results far superior to anything else out there.
flashkube: I just want to say that once you break away from Adobe products you will love it. I suffered for years learning their stuff with disorganized training videos all over the web. Adobe staff are certainly not friendly, either, if you manage to contact them through their convoluted and awful website.
If you have a Mac get Pixelmator for only $25. Much better to use AND the training videos are well organized on their website. After using it for a month I deleted Adobe Photoshop and good riddance, too.
For Windows or Mac try OnOne Software.com Creative Photo Suite. This gem makes me smile and dance when I edit photos. Photoshop always made me grind my teeth and curse under my breath nonstop.
I kind of agree with your sentiment in the first sentence. Adobe products are quite elaborate, much more than many users actually need, I suspect. Once people are prepared to admit that there is life outside Adone and try other products, they will never know what they are missing.
I actually gave up on Adobe after V.3.6 of lightroom and haven't regretted it one iota.
The A7r is all about resolution, but I do wonder how the A7 would have fared in a similar comparison. In some respects it seems the more "all rounded" package the A7 offers is somehow being lost to the extremes offered by the 7s and 7r.
fredrious: Thanks for noting the "Equivalent aperture range" as well. Ridiculously the official introducing video under the following link highlights the lens specifications as: F2.8-4.0/25-400mm* (from 0:40 to 0:48). They convert the zoom range but not the aperture range. To me this is cheating!
I don't think it is cheating, as such, as the "equivalent aperture" calculation is misleading in itself and I don't really understand why reviewers persist in quoting it.
Its interest is only for those who want to know about DoF, nothing more, and is misleading because for anyone else who doesn't really understand apertures, it will give the wrong impression, as here. The FZ200 is a true f2.8 throughout its range, although from the relatively aperture argument, one might get the impression it is very slow indeed, which it most certainly isn't.
HeyItsJoel: He tried to use a typewriter to pay his taxes online. The IRS is looking for him.
I wonder when was the last time you paid UK taxes? It's now officially HM Revenue and Customs, or HMRC.
jmajors: Mind boggling to see that happening now. Of course, the 409K does not resemble the actual scene but it just shows how they've gone to make the NR extremely low at high ISO and I would LIKE to see a very low noise at 25,600 which seems to be the way we see at night with ambient light from moon and fire. 409K makes it look like it's happening in the daytime. But really, the point is that the camera is extremely sensitive and is able to keep noise under control. That impresses me.
I believe you're spot on regarding available, but natural, lighting. Of course, using a tripod combined with low ISO and slow shutter speed a similar result cane be achieved. But I think photographers shooting with available light at night, simply need an ISO that let's them hand-hold their camera and avoid camera shake. And not necessarily to overdo the ISO setting.
24mm or 100mm equivalent tele? 24mm any day. No amount of working in Photoshop or LR will put in what the camera didn't capture, whereas 70mm is still reasonable for a portrait lens, being not far off the classic 85 or 90mm lenses of old and Photoshop and LR can blow up the image to make up the difference with hardly any loss in IQ.
simon62: Before Leica M9 was released, Leica had said that a full-frame M series would be very unlikely... Due to the very short flange distance "peripheral rays would end up striking the corners of the photo site wells rather than the silicon at the bottom of the well". After they finaly made their full frame M9, they claimed that they fixed this "through "the use of microlenses over the sensor as well as the positioning of the photo sites at the periphery of the sensor". Reviewers then said that they saw no vignetting or any other artifacts, even (with lenses) wide open! This actually put Leica back in the game. I believed back then that, somehow in Kodak, they managed to make a sensor that produced no fringing with wide angle lenses but I never believed that (symmetrical) wide angle lenses have almost no vigneting. It is NOT NATURAL! Now, I know that this sounds too much but I wonder if Leica made also that "fix" simply by a in-camera software...
No lens is perfect. But I'd guess that what dopsgp was really commenting on was, in their day, and compared to their peers, Leica lenses did approach closest to perfection.
Your f4/90mm isn't amazing, I have one also. But it is a fairly simple triplet design that was, and still is, an extraordinary performer for portraits which I understand is what most users got it for. Compared to Leica's other offerings of the day, I suppose one could say this was an "entry level" Leica.
tinetz: I'm not a native speaker but if dpreview says that "Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses" and this "relied on optical corrections, RATHER THAN software to project the best possible image onto the sensor" - where does this imply that no software based lens correction might be used at all? Doesn't 'rather than' mean 'more than'?Has anyone of the writers of over 1600 comments had the chance to judge the resulting optical quality or is this all just hearsay and unreflected shitstorming? Just curious, not at all affiliated with Leica ;-)
Actually, guys, you are all correct, except in Merten's use of English (likely as not to be because English is not your first language?) but as a native Englishman I can tell you that the use of "rather" and "rather than" has more subtleties than you may appreciate where English may not be your first language. Much depends upon the sentence it is used in and thus its meaning can be quite subtle at times and much depends upon context and particularly which words in the sentence it is augmenting.
in the context of the dpr quote of what they were told, if this is indeed factual, it would mean no software corrections were used as reliance was placed on optical corrections (only). In this case, it is the use of the word "rely" taken with "rather than" which sets the meaning. Oh, the joys of the English language!
What would have been interesting, if this is indeed what Leica told dpr, if they immediately followed up this "revelation" with a question to confirm what was said.
You comment that the distortions can't be turned off in jpeg. But according to my menu structure they can, individually, or completely.
Can you comment, please?
PowerG9atBlackForest: Leica:What they do and what they don't - it is their affair.What they bring forward is an offer. Feel free to accept or not.Why complain?
There's a saying here in the UK: don't buy a pig in a poke.
Now, I'm not saying this applies to Leica products, but to the principle. And five posters agree with you. Amazing.
Pascal Parvex: Had this camera before I bought my first DSLR, the 5D Classic. It is a capable camera, the first time I bought a Sony, as Canon did not have something comparable. I shot two Tokio Hotel concerts with this one, some pictures with 3200 ISO that turned out usable. Just the red tones are a little bit too speckled. Bought a DSLR afterwards because the R1 is quite slow.
Agreed about the speed of handling, and by today's standards, the higher ISO settings are quite poor.
But where these aspects don't really matter, its IQ from the superb Zeiss lens can still give a modern dlsr a run for its money. And it would have to be a top of the range one as well, with top jolly optics.
Stu 5: It's DPReview that actually said:
"Where they differ from most mirrorless designs, though, is in using only optical correction for distortion, rather than incorporating software corrections into the lens design."
Where did DPReview get this information from? It does not appear to be in Leica's press release. I hope they have got their facts correct otherwise DPR are at best going to look pretty stupid. DPR needs to show the source of the information that Leica said they do not use software correction on these lenses.
Well, if you read the intro to this review, it clearly states:
"During pre-launch briefings for the T, Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software...."
Couldn't be much clearer than this.
Black Box: Leica should fire their markotologists.
Could DPR also check if it's true that they make one 94-g body out of one 1.2-kg aluminium block? I bet that's a lie as well.
I'm not an engineer, could it be easier to machine the block as opposed to casting it? But I guess the waste gets recycled into another block anyway.
skeen: DPR were not able to do a test/comparison with the 23mm prime - I have the T, and the 23mm ... I've uploaded an OOC JPG and a DNG here: https://mega.co.nz/#F!Fh4giBAC!FEXKN1zGyA5RhYz2TcxjoQ
I don't know whether Leica said they did no corrections or not, but I think that for any manufacturer (not just Leica), the likelihood of them lying about this when it will be naturally discovered otherwise seems rather unlikely.
People are saying, "I just don't understand how they thought they could get away with this", well...the most reasonable explanation then, surely, is that there's just been some kind of miscommunication. That is surely the only thing that makes sense at this point...?
Yes, ask the same technical question of any sales/PR rep of any camera manufacturer, and the likelihood is they wouldn't know. But this said, if they did imply it was all optical, then by the same token, they must have got the info from someone. A bit clumsy of Leica as the cat would be out of the bag as soon as anyone opened an image.
I'm no Leica hater, I own 6 film bodies, but already there seem to be some inconsistencies emerging. All the inferences I've seen point to the body being polished in Germany, Leica don't actually SAY it is, but look at their video. Now it seems it is polished at their Portuguese plant where labour is cheaper.
And lenses made in Japan because they say they don't have the capacity at Wetzlar? So will some lenses be made in Germany, then? I doubt it, it is cheaper to make them in Japan. I'm sure quality won't be an issue, but this isn't the point.
Lovely images of a bygone era. Very precious and unrepeatable. Thanks for making these available.