Carl Zeiss

Kelcey,

Don't expect too much from a consumer level Carl Zeiss lens.

It's not the T* coated anyway. But it's still a Carl Zeiss. It beats the other lens with good margin. The electronic part (ccd capture) by Sony: I will say average job.

What are you looking for when you take a picture? Lots of smart people pay for the Leica Minilux camera. It's expensive. But for that kind of money, you get an extra-discount on the great Leica lens.

Steve Wong.

AFAIK Carl Zeiss is a brand name, THX is a standard. Bit like a Sony amp can be dolby digital capable, but doesn't guarantee it'll be good. A THX certified Sony amp on the other hand guarantees a certain level of quality (whether you think its good quality or not is another matter).

.Ray

xsivone said:

Kelcey said:

Hi! What is good about the Carl Zeiss lens that makes it better
than any other lens? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Er... I got my F707... nice stuff.... I still don't know how to work a camera to it's best though

Steve Wong said:

Kelcey,

Don't expect too much from a consumer level Carl Zeiss lens.
It's not the T* coated anyway. But it's still a Carl Zeiss. It
beats the other lens with good margin. The electronic part (ccd
capture) by Sony: I will say average job.

What are you looking for when you take a picture? Lots of smart
people pay for the Leica Minilux camera. It's expensive. But for
that kind of money, you get an extra-discount on the great Leica
lens.

Steve Wong.

Click to expand...

Don:

I'd be pleased to stand corrected...could you point out the contribution made by Phillips to this invention? I have always understood it to have been the Japanese that brought the CD from product conception to mass market. If there were a Dutch contribution to this process I'd be more than eager to be enlightened.

Please elucidate!

Don Fordham said:

Mike M said:

.................... Reminds me of the time when people
lamented the fact that CDs weren't made in the US. Why? People at
the time feared that the Japanese were taking over our economy in
retaliation for their defeat in WWII. Fact is, the Japanese
invented the compact disk, so why shouldn't it be made there.

Click to expand...

The Dutch might be upset that you forgot the rather significant
role that Phillips played in the invention of the CD.

Regards,
Don

Click to expand...

In general I can't argue with the specifics of the F707 lens that you cited. I might point out that the very defects you noted might be the result of pushing a lens to its theoretical limits.

I am much more prone to thinking that it is fiscally impossible to produce an f2.0, 9.7-48.5 mm zoom lens without the distortion seen in the CZ Sony lens. One thing is certain: No one has done it.

Remember we cannot compare 35mm lenses here. The small area of the ccd requires a considerably higher resolving power from the lens and amplifies aberrations. I always thought that it required better lenses than 35mm.

I might suggest that you visit the Zeiss site and peruse the back issues of their news letter. I found them facinating.

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9?Open

-Ed (Keep your mind sufficiently open and people will throw trash into it) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ þ)

bluedot said:

One must always be aware of the potential "pitfalls" one may face
when buying a brand name. Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon all produce very
high quality lenses, but each of these makers also make low-end
lenses for the consumer market. The pros can afford high-grade
(expensive lenses) because A. Their firm/magazine/company pays for
them or B. The work they do with the camera itself pays for their
equipment.

It is a whole different ball game if you are a non-pro who does not
make money from photography.

While the Zeiss on the Sony (the fact that it is manufactured in
Japan rather than Germany notwithstanding) may be a "good" lens, it
cannot truly compare to top-of-the-line $1K plus lenses from any of
the manufacturers listed above. Nor should it try to, since we are
talking about two completely different markets and users.

Here's why:

The F707 Zeiss has:

1. Severe barrel-distortion at wide angle.
2. Vignetting at wide angle.
3. While pretty wide, a max aperture that decreases with zoom.
4. No image stabilization.
5. No USM (ultra-sonic motor) technology as seen on mid to high end
Canon lenses and some Nikkor lenses.

On the plus side:

1. Lens is pretty sharp (less so at the corners).
2. Lens does not change length with zoom. Only internal elements
move. This "feature" is very desirable and is often seen on
high-end lenses (prevents dust from entering lens mechanism).

I would really like to see someone do an MTF test on bulit in
lenses (like the Zeiss on the F707) to see how they compare to SLR
lenses like Canon, Nikkor and indeed Zeiss.

Just my 2 yen worth.

bluedot.

Kelcey said:

Hi! What is good about the Carl Zeiss lens that makes it better
than any other lens? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Robert Holloway said:

This has to be a joke Eh?

Click to expand...

Heh heh heh... The joke for me is attempting to think about cinema sound, along with Lowthers or Quad ESL 63's, at the same time.

Yeah, THX — the Texas view of Hi-Fi (come to think of it, the initials even come close). The no-substitute-for-cubic-inches V8 boys must love it )

This "bigger and more spectacular is better" view is all around us, and of course the marketeers don't think it's a joke at all. Corollary: the increasing number of whitegoods bulk stores just beginning to flog computer gear (not to mention digicams), about which they immediately proclaim themselves to be experts.

Happy New Year, and watch out for wet concrete!
Mike

Robert Holloway said:

I'm far more into home theater and stereo than digital photography
Speakers that are THX certified are not even close to the best
in fact, the specification set down by Tomlinson Holman makes them
very different to conventional speakers.

I won't get into crossovers and everything else on this forum
But trust me.... THX is not a sign of the best speakers

That said, THX speakers by definition are not bad speakers either.

Rob

Click to expand...

Mike & Don:

According to the website of the Massachusettes Institute of Technology (MIT) the inventor of the "Compact Disc" as a method for recording and playing digital data, was James T. Russell while working at the Battelle Memorial Institute and patented it in 1970.

Philips (note one 'L') claims only to have improved the modulation and error correction for compact discs in 1980, according to their website.

Others, however, credit a Philips physicist, Klass Compaan, with conceiving the compact disc in 1968 from an idea for image storage by RCA. In fact he and Piet Kramer developed a prototype color video disc in 1972 (LaserVision). Shortly thereafter Philips tried encoding audio on disc but failed because of a poor codec.

In 1978 Philips and Sony collaborated on a "Compact Disc Digital Audio Standard." The first mass produced audio CDs and players were introduced by Phillips/Sony in 1982. Philips became a mass producer of compact disc recorders and players.

Because of patents taken out by Philips and Sony scientists during the 1970s many references credit Joop Sinjou (Dutch) and Toshitada Doi (Japanese) with invention of the Compact Disc. In fact they only patented refined methods for encoding and decoding digital audio (codecs) onto a compact disc format that was invented in the late 1960s by Russell.

-Ed (Always more than you wanted to know™) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ þ)

Mike M said:

I'd be pleased to stand corrected...could you point out the
contribution made by Phillips to this invention? I have always
understood it to have been the Japanese that brought the CD from
product conception to mass market. If there were a Dutch
contribution to this process I'd be more than eager to be
enlightened.

Please elucidate!

Don Fordham said:

Mike M said:

.................... Reminds me of the time when people
lamented the fact that CDs weren't made in the US. Why? People at
the time feared that the Japanese were taking over our economy in
retaliation for their defeat in WWII. Fact is, the Japanese
invented the compact disk, so why shouldn't it be made there.

Click to expand...

The Dutch might be upset that you forgot the rather significant
role that Phillips played in the invention of the CD.

Regards,
Don

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You are right, nice stuff!!!

Many people are too concern about electronics and fancy things. I will stick to the basics ...... tripod, correct exposure, composition .......

Larry G said:

I was handed some digital images on a CD a few weeks ago and was
asked to prepare some 'flyers' and promo material for an
exhibition. The pictures were sharper and cleaner than I was used
to seeing (having once owned a Fuji 6900) and curiousity got the
better of me. I discovered the shots had been taken on a Sony S70.
Need I say more... for me, that Carl Ziess lens lived up the name.

--
Larry G

Click to expand...

No - I think you said enough. But what I think you need to do is think about what you are saying before you say it.

If you want to compare the performance of a particular lens with another, the worst way you can possibly do it is to introduce other variables into the evaluation. You are talking about two different lenses on two different cameras. The camera imagers don't have the same resolution (interpolated six megapixels is not the same as six megapixels or even five). The imager pixel patterns are different. The 6900's is definitely processed to get the final image. Plus you don't know what other processing is done in the camera for the two images. It doesn't even sound like you are comparing the same subject matter shot with two different cameras. And I sense you know little about how the pictures were taken (do photographers A and B have steady hands, use tripods - was each camera at optimum focus?). I can't imagine much worse of a foundation for stating that "Carl Ziess lens lived up the name".

Now it sounds like you are in the business of looking at pictures - so I have no reason to doubt your statement that the 707 shots were "were sharper and cleaner" then the 6900 shots. All I'm saying is there is much more then the lens involved in your comparison. And the only true way to compare lens performance is with test images on a test bench.

Pete

Pete, your analysis is scientific and logical enough though. Thanks!
However, you didn't contribute to main topic.
Larry's comment is an over simplification. But he is contributing.

I am not a big Sony fan. I hate it when Sony "own" the Carl Zeiss. I think Carl Zeiss on a G2 will be perfect.

Carl Zeiss own its reputation by history. Read the Yashica T5 review (Carl Zeiss T* lens). This little compact camera beats almost all compact camera (Of course, not Contax T2, T3, or the lovely Leica Minilux).

Don't expect too much from any consumer level Carl Zeiss though, especially with the zoom lens. These are cheap things. That's why people don't even bother to do very scientific test on these.

But, it's still a Carl Zeiss. The vividness of the color speaks by itself. True!

Steve Wong.

Well, I meant looking at the pics of reviews. Some reviewers (Steve, for instance) post same subject pics on every review (most of the time). Lens quality is a main factor when looking at the softness on the corners compared to the softness on the center of a pic, a thing that Phil illustrates with his "battery" crop on every review, and the barrel distortion at wide angle.

Of course, there are so many more factors that contribute to the final result, but at least these two are closely related to the quality of lenses.

Hope this helps.

Wes Keys said:

Amando Hernández said:

Kelcey said:

Hi! What is good about the Carl Zeiss lens that makes it better
than any other lens? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Wes

Click to expand...

Boy that blows my theory of the Japanese being electronic geniuses Actually, Ed, I believe that with most modern inventions, it's really a matter of standing on the shoulders of giants, to paraphrase Isaac Newton (I know, I know, there's also an REM song that uses that phrase) rather than one individual or group sitting in isolation inventing something new. Come to think of it, that's how most new technology is introduced...as part of a larger continuum of innovation, discovery and incremental improvements. I must say, however, that clearly the Japanese (and the Dutch) deserve a substantial amount of credit for adding the right innovations necessary to overcome limitations that were in place in order to bring the technology to mass market. Should we also credit the record industry for the great geniuses in their respective marketing departments for some of this success? Maybe not.

Keep up the great posts, Ed. It's always a pleasure to read your contributions to the forum.

Kind regards.

Mike M

Ed (;¬ > ) said:

According to the website of the Massachusettes Institute of
Technology (MIT) the inventor of the "Compact Disc" as a method for
recording and playing digital data, was James T. Russell while
working at the Battelle Memorial Institute and patented it in 1970.

Philips (note one 'L') claims only to have improved the modulation
and error correction for compact discs in 1980, according to their
website.

Others, however, credit a Philips physicist, Klass Compaan, with
conceiving the compact disc in 1968 from an idea for image storage
by RCA. In fact he and Piet Kramer developed a prototype color
video disc in 1972 (LaserVision). Shortly thereafter Philips tried
encoding audio on disc but failed because of a poor codec.

In 1978 Philips and Sony collaborated on a "Compact Disc Digital
Audio Standard." The first mass produced audio CDs and players were
introduced by Phillips/Sony in 1982. Philips became a mass producer
of compact disc recorders and players.

Because of patents taken out by Philips and Sony scientists during
the 1970s many references credit Joop Sinjou (Dutch) and Toshitada
Doi (Japanese) with invention of the Compact Disc. In fact they
only patented refined methods for encoding and decoding digital
audio (codecs) onto a compact disc format that was invented in the
late 1960s by Russell.

-Ed (Always more than you wanted to know™) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ þ)

Mike M said:

I'd be pleased to stand corrected...could you point out the
contribution made by Phillips to this invention? I have always
understood it to have been the Japanese that brought the CD from
product conception to mass market. If there were a Dutch
contribution to this process I'd be more than eager to be
enlightened.

Please elucidate!

Don Fordham said:

Mike M said:

.................... Reminds me of the time when people
lamented the fact that CDs weren't made in the US. Why? People at
the time feared that the Japanese were taking over our economy in
retaliation for their defeat in WWII. Fact is, the Japanese
invented the compact disk, so why shouldn't it be made there.

Click to expand...

The Dutch might be upset that you forgot the rather significant
role that Phillips played in the invention of the CD.

Regards,
Don

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Steve Wong said:

Pete, your analysis is scientific and logical enough though. Thanks!
However, you didn't contribute to main topic.
Larry's comment is an over simplification. But he is contributing.

Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

You're welcome - I don't claim to have all the answers but Science and logic are the way to get them. Here is the main topic:

"Hi! What is good about the Carl Zeiss lens that makes it better than any other lens? Thanks!"

What I'm contributing to the main topic is to set down a foundation that would allow someone to challenge the assumptions in the original question. In effect it states that CZ lenses are better then all others and asks 'what makes them better'.

First of all I doubt that CZ lenses are better then all others. That doesn't mean they don't make some fine lenses and even some lenses that are best in some particular category. But you're not going to discover the answer to that question in the manner that Larry or some others in this post imply.

Now if this post and this forum are about opinion and speculation then maybe I haven't contributed much and I would have been better off replying that:

"I think CZ lenses are better because my Aunt Matilda says so and she has been taking pictures for fifty years".

But I'm not about to bow to Aunt Matilda's judgment or to the Carl Zeiss altar for my answer. There is only one accurate method to compare lens performance and its based on science - not speculation.

The original question was really more in the nature of 'what is it about Carl Zeiss lenses - - - - '. There are plenty of relevant areas that could have been discussed here: glass formulation (and it's consistency), lens blank processing, lens surface design, groupings, coatings, lens barrel mechanical design and material choices, lubricants, material and process quality control and etc. The problem is that most of us - including me are not really knowledgeable enough to evaluate CZ's merits in these areas vs. other manufacturers. So instead we find subjective comparisons that include so many other variables that they are virtually meaningless.

Steve Wong said:

I am not a big Sony fan. I hate it when Sony "own" the Carl Zeiss.
I think Carl Zeiss on a G2 will be perfect.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of any particular lens or camera brand. People who are fans tend to loose their objectivity and sometimes gloss over a products misses. You can see that on these forums. If someone suggests that the lens on the 707 has more barrel distortion then, lets say, a lens on the D7 they will tell you you are crazy or wrong and they will trot out all manner of irrelevant pictures to support their claims. They will seldom sight a comparative test report. The problem with fans is that they have made an emotional investment in a company or particular product that blinds them to the reality that seldom will you find a company or product that is absolutely the best in everything. At its worst, the discussion degenerates in to the equivalent of a bar room brawl. At best it is filled with opinions that may have little basis in fact. Not that there is anything wrong with expressing an opinion. But when someone comes along and presents a better way to arrive at an objective conclusion it seems strange to hear someone else suggest that it is less of a contribution then someone else's subjective opinion.

Steve Wong said:

Carl Zeiss own its reputation by history. Read the Yashica T5
review (Carl Zeiss T* lens). This little compact camera beats
almost all compact camera (Of course, not Contax T2, T3, or the
lovely Leica Minilux).

Don't expect too much from any consumer level Carl Zeiss though,
especially with the zoom lens. These are cheap things. That's why
people don't even bother to do very scientific test on these.

Click to expand...

Still what you are implying is that any consumer level Carl Zeiss lens is going to beat any other consumer level (equivalent) brand X lens. That may or may not be true. Objective testing will support or refute that claim - subjective speculation is just that.

Steve Wong said:

But, it's still a Carl Zeiss. The vividness of the color speaks by
itself. True!

Click to expand...

Another example of fuzzy thinking? How about the accuracy of the color as compared with the source as measured objectively on a test bench? If you want to talk about color and it turns out some or all CZ lenses are more accurate then any other - then you have said something worthwhile. If you are going to make a subjective comparison that includes not only the lens but the imager - be it a CCD or CMOS chip or a piece of film - you are deluding yourself. You seem to put a lot of faith in Carl Zeiss. Do you think he or his company would have evaluated their lenses that way?

Pete

Steve Wong said:

Steve Wong.

Click to expand...

Pete said:

The original question was really more in the nature of 'what is it
about Carl Zeiss lenses - - - - '. There are plenty of relevant
areas that could have been discussed here: glass formulation (and
it's consistency), lens blank processing, lens surface design,
groupings, coatings, lens barrel mechanical design and material
choices, lubricants, material and process quality control and etc.
The problem is that most of us - including me are not really
knowledgeable enough to evaluate CZ's merits in these areas vs.
other manufacturers. So instead we find subjective comparisons that
include so many other variables that they are virtually meaningless.

Click to expand...

What? Is that what you mean by scientific and logical evaluation of lens? lol!

Pete said:

Another example of fuzzy thinking? How about the accuracy of the
color as compared with the source as measured objectively on a test
bench? If you want to talk about color and it turns out some or all
CZ lenses are more accurate then any other - then you have said
something worthwhile. If you are going to make a subjective
comparison that includes not only the lens but the imager - be it a
CCD or CMOS chip or a piece of film - you are deluding yourself.
You seem to put a lot of faith in Carl Zeiss. Do you think he or
his company would have evaluated their lenses that way?

Click to expand...

Sorry! I don't really see any new idea of your own here!

And you are wrong AGAIN! Leica still owns the best lens. The Carl Zeiss T* comes second.

Last, but not least. Please learn to put your ideas in short paragraphs. Just that you wrote more doesn't mean you know more (It is only a copy of what you have read somewhere else.). Nothing in your writings is your own ideas. What a waste of time!

Sorry, if I made you feel bad. But this is my last reply to your posting.

Steve Wong

Pete said:

• • • which further brings home the point. If you want to compare

lens performance the comparisons you can trust are the ones made
with test images on a test bench. And these need to be sensor
independent (like tests done on removable 35 mm camera lenses)
otherwise we are really talking about performance of both the lens
and the imager.

Pete

Click to expand...

Pete,

This is a very interesting point, cause some lens defects, theoretically, can be corrected by the shape of the imager. Or at least it can be optimized for the best cost/performance combination. For example: arrange the pixels of imager in cushion pattern and you would compensate for barrel distortion. Even focal surface doesn't have to be a plane anymore. You can make imager to be an integral part of lens. This might be already the case when they say: "the lens should be manufactured all together with the electronics".

Of course, optical zoom makes this concept less feasible, but, in my opinion, future belongs to fixed focal length lenses and digital zoom anyway.
Fascinating.
Vlad.

Mike

A pleasure to hear from you. Quads eh? very nice.
I'm a Naim active SBL with 4x135's myself

Hope you too have a great 2002.

I'll probably be on the forum as always
Though one of my New years resolutions is to
spend more time on improving my picture taking
and editing skills than worrying about hardware specs

I've got my G2. It's not perfect
But the real issue is that
I'm not even close

Rob

Mike Fitzgerald said:

Robert Holloway said:

This has to be a joke Eh?

Click to expand...

Heh heh heh... The joke for me is attempting to think about cinema
sound, along with Lowthers or Quad ESL 63's, at the same time.

Yeah, THX — the Texas view of Hi-Fi (come to think of it, the
initials even come close). The no-substitute-for-cubic-inches V8
boys must love it )

This "bigger and more spectacular is better" view is all around us,
and of course the marketeers don't think it's a joke at all.
Corollary: the increasing number of whitegoods bulk stores just
beginning to flog computer gear (not to mention digicams), about
which they immediately proclaim themselves to be experts.

Happy New Year, and watch out for wet concrete!
Mike

Mike Fitzgerald said:

I'm far more into home theater and stereo than digital photography
Speakers that are THX certified are not even close to the best
in fact, the specification set down by Tomlinson Holman makes them
very different to conventional speakers.

I won't get into crossovers and everything else on this forum
But trust me.... THX is not a sign of the best speakers

That said, THX speakers by definition are not bad speakers either.

Rob

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--Take lots of of pictures - Have fun with your cameraRobert

Steve Wong said:

What? Is that what you mean by scientific and logical evaluation of
lens? lol!

Click to expand...

The meaning of scientific and logical evaluation speaks for itself. If you think there is something humorous about the subject or that opinion and speculation are superior - that is your prerogative.

Steve Wong said:

Sorry! I don't really see any new idea of your own here!

Click to expand...

I never claimed any of these thoughts were original to me - just that they were a better way to evaluate lens performance (objective - scientific - logical as opposed to subjective and emotional).

Steve Wong said:

And you are wrong AGAIN! Leica still owns the best lens. The Carl
Zeiss T* comes second.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I said anything about who was first or second - just that there is a better way to find out.

Steve Wong said:

Last, but not least. Please learn to put your ideas in short
paragraphs. Just that you wrote more doesn't mean you know more (It
is only a copy of what you have read somewhere else.). Nothing in
your writings is your own ideas. What a waste of time!

Click to expand...

Of course you are right quantity is no substitute for quality - but then I wasn't trying to substitute one for the other. Some ideas take a few more words to express. And I never claimed that the ideas were my own. I didn't invent optical bench testing or methods - but you can be sure they are used fairly universally by companies that make lenses and people that evaluate them. These ideas are not a waste of time - but it does seem the logic of them is wasted on you.

Steve Wong said:

Sorry, if I made you feel bad. But this is my last reply to your
posting.

Click to expand...

Steve - you didn't make me feel bad. I never made any (objectively) unsupported claims as to who made better lenses so I have no basis for feeling one way or the other. My only claim is that there is a better way to decide these things and it is the one used by the companies you seem to respect so highly. Beyond speculation and opinion there is something called truth. It is in the numbers that come from the measurements made on these lenses. Now maybe not all the tests are run or the results available on all the lenses but that doesn't mean that speculation and opinion can step in and be elevated to the same level.

Reply or not as you choose. What I've stated is fairly simple and fairly basic and has NOT made any claim as to who or what is better. If you choose to elevate opinion above fact and logic - that is your right.

Pete

Steve Wong said:

Steve Wong

Click to expand...

Ray

You are sorta right.

It's not really a standard, more a list of specifications and criteria that have to be met. These include crossover levels, SPL, etc.

It used to be a sign of quality in the early stages of the home theater market and, don't get me wrong. THX did a great job in raising the bar.

However, it increasingly became an aggressive licensing program from Lucasfilm with THX even applied to computer speakers. They have recently tried to address the plethora of poor prodiucts with THX on them by introducing THX ultra.

Worse still. Their laserdisc mastering efforts in the early days were sign of gold standards. it went the same way with THX applied to some simply awful transfers.

The advent of DVD almost killed it because Sony (in particular), through Columbia were producing stunning non THX transfers that were far superior.

Hope that helps.

Rob

.Ray said:

.Ray

xsivone said:

Kelcey said:

Hi! What is good about the Carl Zeiss lens that makes it better
than any other lens? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--Take lots of of pictures - Have fun with your cameraRobert

Amando Hernández said:

Of course, there are so many more factors that contribute to the
final result, but at least these two are closely related to the
quality of lenses.

Click to expand...

This is one of the major problems with any digitcam, however. I do not claim myself to be knowledgeable in photos, but even I know a good lens can make a bad 35mm body good, or bad films can make it all bad no matter what lens/body you use.

However, here we are in the digital world assuming the CZ is the best lens availabile in the digital world ... Here is a question then ... Has anyone actually taken apart the lens and place it on another digital body and test if there are improvements due to the lens? I mean, how do we know the CCD is not the one causing the problems? How do we know the firmware isnt the one causing the problems? Or to reverse the issues, how do we know the firmware isnt actually correcting any possible issues of the lens? If they can correct the firmware to fix the BFS, whose to say they didnt code the firmware to have more or less red?

Here we are, assuming CZ on the Sony is the best, meanwhile no one has taken the subject matter and perform an indendpenant test of it. All objective observations, I'll say.

jc

Pete said:

Larry G said:

I was handed some digital images on a CD a few weeks ago and was
asked to prepare some 'flyers' and promo material for an
exhibition. The pictures were sharper and cleaner than I was used
to seeing (having once owned a Fuji 6900) and curiousity got the
better of me. I discovered the shots had been taken on a Sony S70.
Need I say more... for me, that Carl Ziess lens lived up the name.

--
Larry G

Click to expand...

No - I think you said enough. But what I think you need to do is
think about what you are saying before you say it.

Click to expand...

Pompous git!

Pete said:

If you want to compare the performance of a particular lens with
another, the worst way you can possibly do it is to introduce other
variables into the evaluation. You are talking about two different
lenses on two different cameras. The camera imagers don't have the
same resolution (interpolated six megapixels is not the same as six
megapixels or even five). The imager pixel patterns are different.
The 6900's is definitely processed to get the final image. Plus you
don't know what other processing is done in the camera for the two
images. It doesn't even sound like you are comparing the same
subject matter shot with two different cameras. And I sense you
know little about how the pictures were taken (do photographers A
and B have steady hands, use tripods - was each camera at optimum
focus?). I can't imagine much worse of a foundation for stating
that "Carl Ziess lens lived up the name".

Now it sounds like you are in the business of looking at pictures -
so I have no reason to doubt your statement that the 707 shots were
"were sharper and cleaner" then the 6900 shots.

Click to expand...

Who mentioned a 707?????????????????????????????????????????
Larry G.
All I'm saying is

Pete said:

there is much more then the lens involved in your comparison. And
the only true way to compare lens performance is with test images
on a test bench.

Pete

Click to expand...

--Larry G