Carl Zeiss

Well put on the stereo. THX certification does not mean quality sound, just consistant ambiance in a 5.1 channel room/theater. Its like saying URL certified. Just because it wont burn your house down doesnt make it a good appliance.

Steve_K said:

Mishik said:

xsivone said:

Buying a camera with the Carl Zeiss lens is like comparing home
speakers that are THX certified. The highest standards of quality.
Guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I assume your joking here. True, Zeis lenses are among the best in
the world but Nikkor lenses are top quality professional equipment.
Many pro photographers swear by Nikon equipment & lenses. I'd put
a real Nikkor (not the ones in their digicams) up against a Zeis
any day, but for now the Sony's with the Zeis lenses have to be the
best prosumer deal out there.
Also, I'd be interested if someone out there could answer this but
I'll bet that Sony probably manufactures the lenses under licence
from Zeis. I doubt that (with the quantities of cameras they sell)
Zeis makes & supplies the lenses themselves.

As far as the THX certified speakers ... LOL !!! Don't even
compare home theater junk with real hi-end audio. Go to a hi-end
audio showroom & listen to some systems with some of the better
B&W, JMLab or Theil's. Even something like the Paradigm Reference
(Canadian) speakers wihich are only 'B' rated will blow away the
'THX' stuff.

Click to expand...

SFishy said:

http://www.company7.com/zeiss/history.html

Click to expand...

Thanks you for the link, Amy. It shared light on the company itself.

Now only if we can find the same kind of detailed info for the CZ lens on the 707, then we can really conclude if the lens is top quality or not ... If could be the lack of knowledge on my part, but do we currently even know what model this lens is? The only rumor I heard is it isnt their top of the line.

After all, even companies like IBM and Compaq had have made some pretty bad computers products, some times a given model (Compaq Deskpro N model), some times a production line (IBM PS2 line).

Btw, please dont get me wrong, I am in the market for a 707 myself and that is why I am here on STF.

jc

I'm confident myself that with the reputation of CZ and Sony combined, the 707 is a good product.

You aren't going to get "top of the line" in a $1000 consumer level digital camera. Look around. Anything with even close to the same features is much more money. And top of the line digitals get into thousandS of dollar.

Amy

Jimmy Chen said:

Now only if we can find the same kind of detailed info for the CZ
lens on the 707, then we can really conclude if the lens is top
quality or not ... If could be the lack of knowledge on my part,
but do we currently even know what model this lens is? The only
rumor I heard is it isnt their top of the line.

Click to expand...

--beauty is really in the LCD/EVF of the beholder http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

SFishy said:

I'm confident myself that with the reputation of CZ and Sony
combined, the 707 is a good product.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with that POV and this is why now I am looking at getting the 707 after following the digitcam development since the CP900.

SFishy said:

You aren't going to get "top of the line" in a $1000 consumer level
digital camera. Look around. Anything with even close to the same
features is much more money. And top of the line digitals get into
thousandS of dollar.

Click to expand...

I know that, you know that. But some seems to believe the CZ lens on the 707 is the TOL in the consumer market, meanwhile their cheapest zoom costs as much as the 707. ;p

jc

I am glad some of you jumped on this. THX is an applied certification for meeting 5.1 home theater requirements. In general, it is used with good to excellent speakers. I don't think there are 'bad' speakers with THX certification, because a minimum quality would be expected to meet THX requirements. But there are certainly vastly superior (and very expensive) speaker systems that do not have such certification.

U/L certification has no bearing on performance, but is strictly a minimum safety standard required by every electrical appliance or equipment manufactured for use in America.

Zeiss is not a certification, simply a well recognized manufcaturer of quality lens along with Canon, Nikkor, Olympus, and others that produce high quality lens.

You can not be judging speakers based on whether they are THX certified any more than you can judge lenses by the brand name.

You have to evaluate each model based on recognized standards and testing methodology, and for speakers some subjective evaluation besides.

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...

I just sold my Contax G system to buy a 707. The G lenses were the best resolving prime lenses ever made as a group. amazing lenses. The T* coating, which we do not have, was fantastic, I have a great shot right into the sun with almost zero flair!

There was a lot of talk on the Contax forums that the reason Contax was so slow in coming out with autofocus slr's was CZ didn't think the focussing systems were up to their standards and they did not want Zeiss lenses used under these circumstances. While the sony contract must be worth a lot to CZ,they seem picky about how their lenses are used.

Chip

Naveed Afridi said:

Naveed Afridi said:

Naveed Afridi 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...

--
All the best,
Michael

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Homer said:

While I cannot state for sure that the figures below indicate that
the Zeiss lens is better than any other consumer grade lens in a
Digicam........
I CAN say that the lens is absolutely NOT a limiting factor in the
5MP Sony.....whereas it might be in other cameras.

Click to expand...

You may be 100% correct - but I'm not sure you can say that with certainty unless you have resolution measurements on the lens by itself. I realize that is no easy task - unless you (can safely) take a saw to it or CZ could provide an assembly with the rear portion of the barrel removed - or you could get this information from the lens alone from CZ. There's a good chance they have the data. I assume Phil gets the cameras he tests from the manufacturer. I can imagine their reaction if he returned it in pieces!

Homer40784 said:

The lens is all about resolution.
No, not CCD resolution, but photo resolution.

The Sony F707, with CZ lens, is the ONLY camera that can resolve
to at least 1450 LPH with extinction at 1800 LPH.
Other cameras use the very same CCD but cannot touch it. Why can't
they? Well it "could" be the lens . It certainly isn't the CCD in
the case of the minolta for instance, Same CCD.
But most certainly the lens is capable of a higher demonstrated
photo resoloution than any other camera out there.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can say its the lens - the most you can say is what the camera as a system is capable of.

Differences between the D7 and F707 could also be due to the degree of "in camera sharpening" still present even when the camera with adjustment is at its softest setting. When Phil checks cameras for resolution performance, he uses the manufacturers default settings:

"Studio light, cameras set to auto, all settings factory default. Exposure compensation +0.7 EV for all cameras."

For some purposes (like resolution), it might be better to use RAW files but not all cameras have this option.

As far as resolution goes, if you look at the results from a number of cameras in the four and five megapixel range they roughly relate to the sensor effective resolution - with some minor exceptions:

From Phil's test results and listed in rank order (low to high) according to effective Pixel Count or Resolution - depending on the column:

Pixel Resolution
Vertical/Horizontal Vert Horiz

EOS1D (4.09) D1X, D7 (1150) D7 (1300)
D7, DSC-F707 (4.92) EOS1D (1200) EOS1D (1400)
D1X (5.33/2.67) F707 (1300) F707 (1450)
D1X (1500)

First off, the lens glass should be a homogeneous material and not have noticeably distinct resolution properties for horizontal and vertical measurements. Departures from homogeneity are not likely to show up in ways that skew higher resolution towards horizontal or vertical. Film camera lens resolution is typically reported for the center and edges of the image, as there are expected differences on and away from the center axis. Right away this tells you that there are significant things going on beyond the lens in these digital cameras that determine the numbers reported. This is most obvious for the D1X - but then we know the CCD is responsible because of the details of its unique layout. It should also be obvious that it isn't all in the sensor effective pixel count either when we compare the EOS1D horizontal numbers to the F707 - they are less but not by much and yet we are talking about 4.09 vs. 4.92 megapixels. Yes its a seven grand camera with a high quality lens but then the lens quality can't make up for a limiting factor some where else in the system (sensor). If it could and CZ lenses "are the best out there" there should be more then a 50 line improvement for the 707 over the EOS1D.

There is no arguing that the resolution numbers reported for the DSC-F707 are good - better then the D7 with the same sensor. Still - my only point is it is hard to attribute some feature of a system to one portion of the system unless you can isolate that portion and test it alone. And the principle of limiting factors applies (when you consider RAW - not processed files). The lowest resolution item in the system sets the limit. There is some boost when two items in the same system have very close to the same resolution numbers and you improve one of them. Beyond that zone, you can make the lens OR sensor as good as possible with very little effect on the overall system resolution. That's part of why it is hard to draw specific conclusions about the lens alone based on measurements made on the whole camera.

Homer40784 said:

Read

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/page17.asp

For a true test of Photo Resolution/lens resolutiuon/
This is IMO the only Viable "scientific" methodology available to us.
It is just not practical to remove the lens and test it.

Scientific and logical must be logical.

Click to expand...

No - it isn't practical to remove the lens and test it separately. But given that restriction it is then not logical or scientific to go back and claim the reason for the good numbers IS the lens. Given the amount of in camera processing in each camera and the fact it can't be turned off in the 707, the most you can do without a lensectomy is to say that the 707 camera has higher resolution then the D7 camera.

Pete

Homer40784 said:

Homer

Click to expand...

Jimmy Chen,

Excuse me!

Please tell us what kind of objective lens parameters you are talking about (don't screw up your chance). Do you know what people use to compare Leica and Carl Zeiss T* lens?

Give me a break !

Steve Wong.

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

Not one shred of evidence exists that this has ever been done any
company. And there are good technicl reasons why this is so.

Click to expand...

So even you agree that no one has shown the quality of the lens on
its own merit.

Jimmy Chen said:

As to the My post....you missed the whole point. Probably my fault.

THere is a finite resolution that can be reached with 5MP. That is
approx 1800 LPH. It is nearly impossible because there is no
"perfect" lens that has total purity. Even the electronics are
suspect. It is generally agreed that about 1400LPH is about all
that is possible.

Click to expand...

No, Homer, I understood your point very clearly, and I totally
concur with the fact that the CZ lens on the Sony can offer some
very fine res. But is res. the ONLY factor one should use to
determin the quality of the lens? I hope you arent suggesting that.
That is my point. There are MANY lens even in the 35mm world that
offers sharp images, but fall short on other aspects.

Jimmy Chen said:

THis will be my last post on the matter unless you present some
eveidence instead of demanding it.

Click to expand...

LOL, so we should all just accept it as a fact that the CZ on the
707 is the best in the market w/o any facts other then that is it a
CZ?

Btw, I do not believe I need to the facts when I have raise the
questions of doubt ... It is the "truth" sayers that needs to
present the eveidences to prove my doubts are wrong. The burren of
proof isnt on my shoulders ...

The only fact that I have seen as of today is no one has presented
any data on the quality of the lens itself.

jc

Click to expand...

Chip,

I bet that was a big decision to sell your Contax G system. I love T* coating.

Steve Wong.

Chip Greenberg said:

There was a lot of talk on the Contax forums that the reason Contax
was so slow in coming out with autofocus slr's was CZ didn't think
the focussing systems were up to their standards and they did not
want Zeiss lenses used under these circumstances. While the sony
contract must be worth a lot to CZ,they seem picky about how their
lenses are used.

Chip

Chip Greenberg said:

Chip Greenberg said:

Chip Greenberg 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...

--
All the best,
Michael

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

Not one shred of evidence exists that this has ever been done any
company. And there are good technicl reasons why this is so.

Click to expand...

So even you agree that no one has shown the quality of the lens on
its own merit.

Click to expand...

Jimmy:

The only reason that I responded to Pete and not you was that Pete was being an arrogant butt, while you were just being pleasantly narrow-minded. I simply felt that I would be wasting my breath. However, since you are so incessant and since there are a large number of lurkers in this forum who might be swayed by your incessant illogic, I will respond as a public service.

Before reading more of this post, please click this link and read my message to Pete, carefully.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1974075

Now, with that under your belt, please read this:

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/E8B873E7C487F87AC12569770054B146
Then read: Comparison of digital & film

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/911080C7F5DCD057C12569770054C1A1
Then: Why CZ Lenses made in Japan

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/8A44E2E57B046DC0C125697700549957
Then this: Lens Resolution

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/73D528C09B620A11C125697700548CD6
Then this

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/AD374A192F982690C12569770054CA7B

Now, after you have digested those tidbits, I will admit that it it obvious that they were written by CZ with a CZ bias. Notwithstanding that one must understand that the Carl Zeiss have a reputation. A reputation that has been hard earned. A reputation that has been exposed to the review of its peers in the optics industry.

I will only add this: Do you think that a company (whose largest optics business is no longer cameras) would risk its reputation by putting 5 million substandard lenses, with its name emblazoned all over them, into the hands of people who, quite likely, will be making buying decisions on its other products?

Can you really believe that a company like CZ, that makes lenses for high tech medical, research, industrial and astronomical optics would sell its name to Sony to slap on an inferior product?

Can you imagine a company like Intel, whose machines for photo reduction of integrated circuits use CZ lenses, reconsidering its next multi-million dollar purchase because several of its executives have had a bad experience with CZ lenses? And because CZ made knock-off lenses once, might they not do it again?

The CZ lenses on Sony products have been given the most severe critical evaluation by every expert in the industry and have come out of it with excellent ratings.

-Ed (Void Where Prohibited, Your Mileage May Vary) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ þ)

well put

Sony cameras may well be how much of the "general" public is introduced to Zeiss optics.

Ed (;¬ >) said:

Now, after you have digested those tidbits, I will admit that it it
obvious that they were written by CZ with a CZ bias.
Notwithstanding that one must understand that the Carl Zeiss have a
reputation. A reputation that has been hard earned. A reputation
that has been exposed to the review of its peers in the optics
industry.

I will only add this: Do you think that a company (whose largest
optics business is no longer cameras) would risk its reputation by
putting 5 million substandard lenses, with its name emblazoned all
over them, into the hands of people who, quite likely, will be
making buying decisions on its other products?

Can you really believe that a company like CZ, that makes lenses
for high tech medical, research, industrial and astronomical optics
would sell its name to Sony to slap on an inferior product?

Can you imagine a company like Intel, whose machines for photo
reduction of integrated circuits use CZ lenses, reconsidering its
next multi-million dollar purchase because several of its
executives have had a bad experience with CZ lenses? And because CZ
made knock-off lenses once, might they not do it again?

The CZ lenses on Sony products have been given the most severe
critical evaluation by every expert in the industry and have come
out of it with excellent ratings.

-Ed (Void Where Prohibited, Your Mileage May Vary) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ )

Click to expand...

Kelcey,

Sorry if you think your thread is being messed up with rubbish. Sometimes I just lost my temper.

Here is a link for you and everyone who is interested in reading.

Here is the quote ......

"I have been down this primrose path of lens testing, and I've even been sucked into thinking it was useful. Afterall, as an engineer with a Ph.D., I should be in favor of objective testing, right?

Well, I've gotten over it, and I finally agree with Ansel Adams, who said when asked about lens testing, that he took pictures with the lens, and if he liked the pictures, he kept the lens."

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001Yo

Steve Wong.

I love Carl Zeiss T*.
I am not so sure about my S75.
But so far, I am more than satisfied with it.
When I travel, I use both Contax and S75.

Kelcey said:

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

Click to expand...

Jimmy:

What is your point? You continue to simply hurl assailments at people without any serious attempt to arrive at the truth. You're a pale reflection of Socrates...you mimic the style but don't understand the process.

Namely, you point out that no one has offered veridical, objective evidence that the CZ lens is the "best," so therefore it's only someone's freaking opinion. You further go on to insult the majority of the people that have offered up evidence which, in their opinion, buttresses their assertion that the CZ lens is best. You base this again upon the solitary fact that no scientific experiment has been conducted, so again, the majority are dealing in subjective opinions while you keep waiting for facts.

Socrates didn't simply question people's knowledge, he tried to arrive at the truth. I'll assert you've done neither. All you've done is continue to offer your same statement back in people's face. You've committed a fundamental logical error...you've created a self-seeling argument, which by definition is illogical.

First of all, there are many, many definitions of what could qualify as best. This should include subjective things like how sharp the pictures look. This absolutely must count for something, especially since we're talking about pictures here. Best might include sales volume (market share). In other words, if enough people say that Sony picture are superior, then in some sense of the word, Sony pictures are best.

Of course, as you assert, best might mean some objective definition of best that can be validated in a lab. You've still got to deal with reality here. Phil's designed many tests that get at this...color accuracy, resolution, etc. Read his reviews. Your suggestion of physically removing the lens from the body, software, CCD, etc to test sharpness will never be actualized, and therefore is a flawed proposition. Any test must have the vital component of being able to actually be performed. In other words, reality is an important component of any testing standard.

I urge you to read Ed's response to your request earlier in this thread entitled "reason sacrificed at the altar of scientific method." [I've noticed you haven't responded to him, which doesn't surprise me in the least.]

If people want to say that the CZ lens is the best, and they simply point to the resolution from Phil's test and the sharpness that they see in their own eyes, who are you to say they're wrong or flawed? That might in their own eyes be best.

Best might also mean "best for me." Some might not like the low-end WA range of the F707. Clearly, no matter how good the CZ lens is, it still might not be best for that person.

But best must in your eyes must be based on some objective lab standard. Can you imagine getting together enough people to simply agree on what a SCIENTIFIC definition of best might be? I'm sure Canon, Fuji, Minolta and Nikon would like a chance to comment on the process, let alone Carl Zeiss. Any company that would wish to fund such a series of tests would most certanily bias the test in their favor. And until some industry trade group, or the fine people at Consumers Union decide to step up and answer this question, I think we're stuck with what's available out there...namely, Phil's tests, and the general public's satisfaction with the cameras they've bought.

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

Not one shred of evidence exists that this has ever been done any
company. And there are good technicl reasons why this is so.

Click to expand...

So even you agree that no one has shown the quality of the lens on
its own merit.

Jimmy Chen said:

As to the My post....you missed the whole point. Probably my fault.

THere is a finite resolution that can be reached with 5MP. That is
approx 1800 LPH. It is nearly impossible because there is no
"perfect" lens that has total purity. Even the electronics are
suspect. It is generally agreed that about 1400LPH is about all
that is possible.

Click to expand...

No, Homer, I understood your point very clearly, and I totally
concur with the fact that the CZ lens on the Sony can offer some
very fine res. But is res. the ONLY factor one should use to
determin the quality of the lens? I hope you arent suggesting that.
That is my point. There are MANY lens even in the 35mm world that
offers sharp images, but fall short on other aspects.

Jimmy Chen said:

THis will be my last post on the matter unless you present some
eveidence instead of demanding it.

Click to expand...

LOL, so we should all just accept it as a fact that the CZ on the
707 is the best in the market w/o any facts other then that is it a
CZ?

Btw, I do not believe I need to the facts when I have raise the
questions of doubt ... It is the "truth" sayers that needs to
present the eveidences to prove my doubts are wrong. The burren of
proof isnt on my shoulders ...

The only fact that I have seen as of today is no one has presented
any data on the quality of the lens itself.

jc

Click to expand...

Ed,

In words, your wisdom shines.

Let me quote this again .......

"I have been down this primrose path of lens testing, and I've even been sucked into thinking it was useful. Afterall, as an engineer with a Ph.D., I should be in favor of objective testing, right?

Well, I've gotten over it, and I finally agree with Ansel Adams, who said when asked about lens testing, that he took pictures with the lens, and if he liked the pictures, he kept the lens."

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001Yo

Shall we put this lengthy thread to a conclusion now?

Steve Wong.

I love Carl Zeiss T*.
I am not so sure about my S75.
But so far, I am more than satisfied with it.
When I travel, I use both Contax and S75.

Ed (;¬ > ) said:

Jimmy Chen said:

Ed (;¬ >) said:

Not one shred of evidence exists that this has ever been done any
company. And there are good technicl reasons why this is so.

Click to expand...

So even you agree that no one has shown the quality of the lens on
its own merit.

Click to expand...

Jimmy:

The only reason that I responded to Pete and not you was that Pete
was being an arrogant butt, while you were just being pleasantly
narrow-minded. I simply felt that I would be wasting my breath.
However, since you are so incessant and since there are a large
number of lurkers in this forum who might be swayed by your
incessant illogic, I will respond as a public service.

Before reading more of this post, please click this link and read
my message to Pete, carefully.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1974075

Now, with that under your belt, please read this:

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/E8B873E7C487F87AC12569770054B146
Then read: Comparison of digital & film

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/911080C7F5DCD057C12569770054C1A1
Then: Why CZ Lenses made in Japan

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/8A44E2E57B046DC0C125697700549957
Then this: Lens Resolution

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/73D528C09B620A11C125697700548CD6
Then this

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/AD374A192F982690C12569770054CA7B

Now, after you have digested those tidbits, I will admit that it it
obvious that they were written by CZ with a CZ bias.
Notwithstanding that one must understand that the Carl Zeiss have a
reputation. A reputation that has been hard earned. A reputation
that has been exposed to the review of its peers in the optics
industry.

I will only add this: Do you think that a company (whose largest
optics business is no longer cameras) would risk its reputation by
putting 5 million substandard lenses, with its name emblazoned all
over them, into the hands of people who, quite likely, will be
making buying decisions on its other products?

Can you really believe that a company like CZ, that makes lenses
for high tech medical, research, industrial and astronomical optics
would sell its name to Sony to slap on an inferior product?

Can you imagine a company like Intel, whose machines for photo
reduction of integrated circuits use CZ lenses, reconsidering its
next multi-million dollar purchase because several of its
executives have had a bad experience with CZ lenses? And because CZ
made knock-off lenses once, might they not do it again?

The CZ lenses on Sony products have been given the most severe
critical evaluation by every expert in the industry and have come
out of it with excellent ratings.

-Ed (Void Where Prohibited, Your Mileage May Vary) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ þ)

Click to expand...

Steve, it was a big decision. The G lenses are great. I just started working with a studio that uses the Fuji S1 and was VERY impressed with the results. Decided that the quality was there and I should go digital! The Zeiss glass influenced me towards the Sony. I too wish it went out to 28mm .
Chip

Steve Wong said:

I bet that was a big decision to sell your Contax G system. I love
T* coating.

Steve Wong.

Chip Greenberg said:

There was a lot of talk on the Contax forums that the reason Contax
was so slow in coming out with autofocus slr's was CZ didn't think
the focussing systems were up to their standards and they did not
want Zeiss lenses used under these circumstances. While the sony
contract must be worth a lot to CZ,they seem picky about how their
lenses are used.

Chip

Steve Wong said:

Steve Wong said:

Steve Wong 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...

--
All the best,
Michael

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I see you haven't read my previous message to you:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1974075

For the same reason that I replied to Jimmy I am going to again comment on your post. It is quite likely that among the many lurkers out there your techno-babble and illogic might have some unfortunate negative influence.

Pete said:

Homer wrote:

Click to expand...

[Removed for space limitations]

Pete said:

You may be 100% correct - but I'm not sure you can say that with
certainty unless you have resolution measurements on the lens by
itself. I realize that is no easy task - unless you (can safely)
take a saw to it or CZ could provide an assembly with the rear
portion of the barrel removed - or you could get this information
from the lens alone from CZ. There's a good chance they have the
data. I assume Phil gets the cameras he tests from the
manufacturer. I can imagine their reaction if he returned it in
pieces!

Click to expand...

Please tell me what "resolution" measurements you would make on the lens system itself and how you would make them. Then tell me how that would relate, either to another lens or to the lens and camera system? What exactly would this prove?

Homer has succinctly related the crux of the matter:"I CAN say that the lens is absolutely NOT a limiting factor in the 5MP Sony.....whereas it might be in other cameras."

Pete said:

I don't think you can say its the lens - the most you can say is
what the camera as a system is capable of.

Click to expand...

What about this concept is so difficult for you to understand? Tests performed on a lens outside of the camera in no way relate to the lens performance with the camera.

Pete said:

Differences between the D7 and F707 could also be due to the degree
of "in camera sharpening" still present even when the camera with
adjustment is at its softest setting. When Phil checks cameras for
resolution performance, he uses the manufacturers default settings:

Click to expand...

Pure poppycock

Pete said:

First off, the lens glass should be a homogeneous material and not
have noticeably distinct resolution properties for horizontal and
vertical measurements. Departures from homogeneity are not likely
to show up in ways that skew higher resolution towards horizontal
or vertical.

Click to expand...

Pure unabashed techno-babble. What are you trying to say here? This only serves to illustrate that you havent the foggiest grasp of optical glass (which is far from homogeneous,) optical systems, or methods for measuring them—let alone interpreting the results.

Pete said:

Film camera lens resolution is typically reported for
the center and edges of the image, as there are expected
differences on and away from the center axis. Right away this tells
you that there are significant things going on beyond the lens in
these digital cameras that determine the numbers reported. This is
most obvious for the D1X - but then we know the CCD is responsible
because of the details of its unique layout. It should also be
obvious that it isn't all in the sensor effective pixel count
either when we compare the EOS1D horizontal numbers to the F707 -
they are less but not by much and yet we are talking about 4.09 vs.
4.92 megapixels. Yes its a seven grand camera with a high quality
lens but then the lens quality can't make up for a limiting factor
some where else in the system (sensor). If it could and CZ lenses
"are the best out there" there should be more then a 50 line
improvement for the 707 over the EOS1D.

Click to expand...

If your intent here is to so confuse the reader that he is unable to find any trail of reason or shred of logical thought (because non exist,) then you have succeeded. The lay term for this is, "If you can't dazzel them with brilliance, blind them with BS."

Pete said:

There is no arguing that the resolution numbers reported for the
DSC-F707 are good - better then the D7 with the same sensor. Still

• my only point is it is hard to attribute some feature of a system

to one portion of the system unless you can isolate that portion
and test it alone.

Click to expand...

Fallacious and specious at best.

Pete said:

And the principle of limiting factors applies
(when you consider RAW - not processed files).

Click to expand...

Principle of Limiting Factors?????? Is this some new law thay passed since I went to school?

Pete said:

The lowest
resolution item in the system sets the limit. There is some boost
when two items in the same system have very close to the same
resolution numbers and you improve one of them. Beyond that zone,
you can make the lens OR sensor as good as possible with very
little effect on the overall system resolution. That's part of why
it is hard to draw specific conclusions about the lens alone based
on measurements made on the whole camera.

Click to expand...

Arbitrary, fallacious and specious reasoning bolstered by a chocking dose of techno-babble.

Pete said:

No - it isn't practical to remove the lens and test it separately.
But given that restriction it is then not logical or scientific to
go back and claim the reason for the good numbers IS the lens.

Click to expand...

False logic, arbitrary.

Pete said:

Given the amount of in camera processing in each camera and the
fact it can't be turned off in the 707, the most you can do without
a lensectomy is to say that the 707 camera has higher resolution
then the D7 camera.

Click to expand...

Which, in and of itself, says volumes.

Since opinions are like butt-holes (everybody has one and they all stink) you can take this for what it's worth. You will be much better off in a profession that depends less on truth and reason than on obfuscation and artifice. Suggestions include Attorney, advertising executive, salesman.

-Ed (Sniff, sniff... Phew!) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ þ)

LOL
Oh man! Sorry, I can't stop laughing after I read your critics!
Can't agree more with you, Ed!

Steve Wong.

Ed (;¬ > ) said:

For the same reason that I replied to Jimmy I am going to again
comment on your post. It is quite likely that among the many
lurkers out there your techno-babble and illogic might have some
unfortunate negative influence.

Pete said:

Homer wrote:

Click to expand...

[Removed for space limitations]

Ed (;¬ >) said:

You may be 100% correct - but I'm not sure you can say that with
certainty unless you have resolution measurements on the lens by
itself. I realize that is no easy task - unless you (can safely)
take a saw to it or CZ could provide an assembly with the rear
portion of the barrel removed - or you could get this information
from the lens alone from CZ. There's a good chance they have the
data. I assume Phil gets the cameras he tests from the
manufacturer. I can imagine their reaction if he returned it in
pieces!

Click to expand...

Please tell me what "resolution" measurements you would make on the
lens system itself and how you would make them. Then tell me how
that would relate, either to another lens or to the lens and camera
system? What exactly would this prove?

Homer has succinctly related the crux of the matter:"I CAN say that
the lens is absolutely NOT a limiting factor in the 5MP
Sony.....whereas it might be in other cameras."

Ed (;¬ >) said:

I don't think you can say its the lens - the most you can say is
what the camera as a system is capable of.

Click to expand...

What about this concept is so difficult for you to understand?
Tests performed on a lens outside of the camera in no way relate to
the lens performance with the camera.

Ed (;¬ >) said:

Differences between the D7 and F707 could also be due to the degree
of "in camera sharpening" still present even when the camera with
adjustment is at its softest setting. When Phil checks cameras for
resolution performance, he uses the manufacturers default settings:

Click to expand...

Pure poppycock

Ed (;¬ >) said:

First off, the lens glass should be a homogeneous material and not
have noticeably distinct resolution properties for horizontal and
vertical measurements. Departures from homogeneity are not likely
to show up in ways that skew higher resolution towards horizontal
or vertical.

Click to expand...

Pure unabashed techno-babble. What are you trying to say here? This
only serves to illustrate that you havent the foggiest grasp of
optical glass (which is far from homogeneous,) optical systems, or
methods for measuring them—let alone interpreting the results.

Click to expand...

.........

Thanks, Chip.

Your comments in this thread have been cogent, concise and conscientious. I, and I'm sure many of the lurkers out there, appreciate it.

I was somewhat surprized that you left Contax for the F707 and not The N1. I hope that you will find, as a lot of us have, that you will be taking lots more pictures and having lots more fun.

-Ed

Steve Wong said:

Ed,

In words, your wisdom shines.

Let me quote this again .......

"I have been down this primrose path of lens testing, and I've even
been sucked into thinking it was useful. Afterall, as an engineer
with a Ph.D., I should be in favor of objective testing, right?
Well, I've gotten over it, and I finally agree with Ansel Adams,
who said when asked about lens testing, that he took pictures with
the lens, and if he liked the pictures, he kept the lens."

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001Yo

Shall we put this lengthy thread to a conclusion now?

Steve Wong.

I love Carl Zeiss T*.
I am not so sure about my S75.
But so far, I am more than satisfied with it.
When I travel, I use both Contax and S75.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Steve. You've been a stoic trooper throughout this onslaught. Keep up the good fight and take lotsa pichas!

-Ed

Steve_K,

You're completely working yourself up over nothing. I just got the 707 and I realized that many people here way way overstated the problems. These problems do exsist, but I've yet to run into any of them. It seems more the case that people go over a product in such detail that one is left with the impression that LEVBFS etc are large things. I've yet to notice any real problems with the camera. Plus, look at the photos of those who complain and one can see that many people complain and can not shoot.

Steve_K said:

Yup. I agree. I really think Sonys designs are top notch. It's
just that they let their QC slip badly from where it was years ago.
I think their TV's are really better looking & sounding than any of
the competition, but you have to get a good one which is getting
harder & harder.

I've been trying to talk myself into upgrading my S75 to a 707 for
a while now. Problem is everytime I get onto this forum I see BFS
/ NO BFS / LEVBFS / Serial number lists & basically people talking
about variences in perfomance all over the place. With a product
that retails for $1000 you should be able to get top quality &
consistancy. There should not be a variation in quality from unit
to unit. I feel if I bought an F707 I'd be rolling the dice and
taking a real chance that the camera has problems. I shouldn't
have to count on service plans & stores return policies, hunt for a
box with a blue dot, black square, etc... . I just went lugging
100 lb + TV sets back & forth because of quality problems & don't
really want to do it again, even with a 3 lb camera .

For the money they want for this camera you should be assured of
getting a perfect one right out of the box. Seems more like a
50/50 proposition to me right now. I can live with the color
saturation issue as that is really a design choice & you know going
into this that the Sony digicams color philosophy is that way ( you
can argue though that not having user controlled saturation
settings is a poor design choice). What I can't live with is
paying that much & then having to fight with a salesman to return a
camera with some type of operational problem (like LEVBFS, hot
pixels, etc). I'm tired of that & don't feel I should have to
shell out extra $$$ for a service plan to ensure I'll be able to
return some piece of junk that fails 4 months down the road for
whatever reason. I know people say that no digicam is perfect &
you will find problems no matter what you buy. But, boy ... I
could live with that if I paid $200 or $300 for a product. When
you pay $1K or so (or even $750 discounted) you really should be
able to expect perfection right out of the box. Accepting anything
less is like telling the manufacturer its O.K. to put out junk.
People will pay no matter what.

Sorry for the rant

Click to expand...