Carl Zeiss

Steve Wong said:

There are basically the educated and the uneducated.

Click to expand...

Steve Wong said:

Your whole "discussion" rooted in one question: "why people don't
do the objective lens test you have seen in photographic magazines
on those digital camera lens?"

Begin exercising your brain by giving 10 answers to the above
question. THINK!!! (You don't have to search it somewhere in the
net or magazines!)

Click to expand...

Steve ... ask youself one question in return ...

If us uneducated knew how to think and figure out the 10 answers you expect me to ... Would I be here looking for people like you to provide the answers? Just because un-funded review sites offers their reviews, it doesnt mean quality test equipment doesnt exist.

Here is a real life problem ... You have work your 707's heart out. One day God forbit the lens got over worked and misaligned.

How do you expect anyone to fix it, if they cannot test the lens? Do you expect some low end repair guy to just rescrew a few screws and reseat your lens and return it back to you? God, I hope that isnt what you expect out of your warranty.

Peace ...

jc

Jimmy Chen said:

Steve ... ask youself one question in return ...

If us uneducated knew how to think and figure out the 10 answers
you expect me to ... Would I be here looking for people like you to
provide the answers? Just because un-funded review sites offers
their reviews, it doesnt mean quality test equipment doesnt exist.

Click to expand...

Oh you didn't follow me. You are repeating it again, showing your "knowledge" on lens test you read somewhere else.

In fact, I was hoping you could answer me like "I know THE answer, I don't have to give you 10."

After all these years, I tend to accept that as a kind of cognitive functioning though.

Jimmy Chen said:

Here is a real life problem ... You have work your 707's heart out.
One day God forbit the lens got over worked and misaligned.
How do you expect anyone to fix it, if they cannot test the lens?
Do you expect some low end repair guy to just rescrew a few screws
and reseat your lens and return it back to you? God, I hope that
isnt what you expect out of your warranty.

Click to expand...

Did I say they cannot test the lens? (Short-circuit in your brain???)

BTW, I have a lot of respect on the "lens repair guy", many of them are professional photographers. Don't even try to put your already-limited judgement on them! (I won't forgive you on this!!!)

Steve Wong.

VladN68497 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Correct ... If the lens is too red, the firmware can always reduce the redness and the lens is still the same overly red len.

Just as digitial zoom is nothing more then a shrink down version of a image processing sw residing in the firmware, not the lens itself, other functions can be written into the firmware to translate the actual data however they like it. This is why raw format presents the most unchanged information when it comes to digital film.

jc

Well, i don't think we have any problems.
I truly didn't know the price of te Pentax SMC Lens'
Some of the lens' people are talking about here are $500 or even $5000.
The lens on the 707 can't possibly be compared to them.
The only area I think that needs clarification is.....

alex wetmore said:

Yup. That is why this discussion was flawed in the first place (it
was talking about how the CZ is better than any other lens...of
course it is not).

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. I don't think that is what the discussion is about at all.

Jimmy Chen might think so, but the rest of us have been quite careful to refer to it as best in class. And that class is obviously the lens' used on pro-sumer $1000 cameras.

alex wetmore said:

It is very hard to compare the pricing of an SLR lens to the
pricing of the f707 lens. For one thing we don't know the retail
value of the f707 lens. For another thing digital camera lenses
are designed to focus onto a much smaller image capture area so
they have a different design.

Click to expand...

That's true. I was talking about the fact that some people were comparing lens that cost more than the whole Darn F707.

That's not fair. Of course I would expect the SLR $1000 lens to be better than the lens on a $1000 camera.

alex wetmore said:

Anyway, a Pentax SMC FA 50/1.7 lens which retails for about $150 is
much better at avoiding flare than the f707 lens. So is the
$200ish Pentax SMC FA 28-70 4/L. I don't own any Pentax lenses
which are 5x like the CZ lens in the f707 (I don't own any other
SLR zoom lenses besides the 28-70 4/L). I believe that this is
mostly a matter of Pentax having a better coating system than CZ.
Pentax SMC coating has always been known for being exceptionally
good at avoiding flare.

Click to expand...

CZ also has a coating, the "T" coating I understand. The 707 doesn't have this and I don't know if it is as good as the SMC, I'll take your word for it that the SMC is outstanding, although not as sharp.

alex wetmore said:

I'm not disappointed with the lens in the f707, I think it performs
well, especially considering the price of the camera. I'm just
pointing out that it is far from perfect.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree. But I still believe that it is demonstrably better than any other digicam lens in it's price class. And that still leaves it as you say, far from perfect.

Homer

alex wetmore said:

alex

Click to expand...

Homer40784 said:

Homer40784 said:

Yup. That is why this discussion was flawed in the first place (it
was talking about how the CZ is better than any other lens...of
course it is not).

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. I don't think that is what the discussion is
about at all.

Click to expand...

Homer40784 said:

Jimmy Chen might think so, but the rest of us have been quite
careful to refer to it as best in class. And that class is
obviously the lens' used on pro-sumer $1000 cameras.

Click to expand...

Homer, while you have many times in your posts indicated the 5mp limit, others have not ... an example of this is Ed pointing to CZ professional lens info so he expects me to accept the Sony CZ are of the same high quality, meanwhile the clostest "best in class" proof he provided is based on the DSC-F55, which isnt even a zoom lens.

So yes, while you are trying to stay within the "class" (5mp), not everyone else has when showing why Sony CZ is the best lens.

I must say I happen to agree with Alex here only because claims are made about the Sony CZ lens based on data generated from the CZ lens and the F707 body. No one has any data on the lens itself, but yet plenty of statements of "fact" saying it is the best lens in the class.

As for me, the 707 happens to be the best because it provides features others do not, mainly nightshot/frame. I also do need the hi-res as you pointed out earlier. I only wish its macro is as good as the CP995 (macro = IMHO only). But one can only expect so much out of a $1,000 digitcam. ;p

Peace ...

jc

Gets the award for attracting the most retarded contributions than any in recent memory. Consider...

1) The original question was simply a plea from someone asking why the CZ lens in the F707 is better than others. Sort of like going to your local watering hole and asking people for their opinions. It seems that the poster wanted some good-natured input, and may have expected the kind of spectrum of opinions one would get when asking such a question.

2) Many contributed their personal satisfaction with the lens, others provided helpful links to the Carl Zeiss Web site, and still others provided their experience with the downsides of the lens and/or camera itself.

3) We also had the pleasure of being exposed to two arrogant posters interested in foisting their laws of discussion on the rest of us unenlightened souls. These two posters showed little or no tolerance for divergent opinions, and went further by insulting others that harbored different opinions.

What I don't understand is why anyone, regardless of their education level, communicative abilities or intellectual capacity would feel compelled to browbeat a singule point over and over again. The entire purpose of this forum is to educate, and you'll find that the STF is quite a warm, open community. Although this forum tolerates many points of view, we also treat each other with a great deal of respect. Many here work hard to be respectful of others.

I cannot remember the last time anyone stood on a pedestal and insulted the rest while dictating to the group "this is science, that is subjective opinion, you haven't taught me anything." On the contrary, the spirit here is to share and grow from one another's experiences.

Many here have come by to determine whether they want to purchase a Sony digicam, and have not only been provided with excellent input, but have stayed to become part of this vibrant community after having purchased their cameras, due in small part to this very forum.

If your aim is to insult, talk down to others, or generally not be respectful, I do not believe that this forum benefits.

Kelcey said:

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

Click to expand...

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Correct ... If the lens is too red, the firmware can always reduce
the redness and the lens is still the same overly red len.

Click to expand...

True, But since it is not a general purpose lens like an SLR lens, it no longer matters. So the red would be a non issue. The resolving power however is not something that can be done in firmware. So, if you design a great lens that has a red cast, it doesn't matter if the target is the fixed lens Sony with the Anti-red in the Firmware.

For all I know the Canon consumer lens' cause a green cast and that is rebalanced in firmware.
One thing you cannot do is affect resolution.

Again, it just doesn't matter.

Jimmy Chen said:

Just as digitial zoom is nothing more then a shrink down version of
a image processing sw residing in the firmware, not the lens
itself, other functions can be written into the firmware to
translate the actual data however they like it. This is why raw
format presents the most unchanged information when it comes to
digital film.

Click to expand...

Actually Sony builds the CCD that it and many other competing products use and can "probably" affect various parameters. This would obviously affect the raw data.

Raw is good. But it is a big file and slow. And very few photo editing packages will manipulate raw data.

As to digital zoom.
All other digicams, to my knowedge, do just as you say.

They take the saved Jpeg image and crop exactly half of the pix evenly around the edges, then interpolate the resulting image back up to full resolution before saving it again. Generally you can see the jpeg jaggies even at 5x7 and most certainly above that.

However, Sony doesn't do this.

Search on Digital zoom and pay particular attention to posts by Pondria and Ulysses.
Or accept what I am going to say.

You take your best shot in PS or any other Photo editing software and I wil best it in the camera.
How Can I do this amazing feat?
The Sony does NOT crop the Jpeg image.
It crops the RAW data then interpolates it up and then saves it as a Jpeg.
One jpeg save, just as normal. Not two, or more like the other guys.
You can print a Sony Digital zoom photo and you will not see jaggies at 8x10.

In fact, it takes a very very good eye to see any difference between Optical and digital zoom on a Sony.
But anybody can see the difference when compared to the PS version.
There are many many posts on this forum. And comparison pix are avail.
This is not just on the latest cameras. It goes back at least a couple of years.

Homer

Jimmy Chen said:

jc

Click to expand...

Way to go Mike...well said...

...you're right...it's getting pretty tiresome to voice an opinion in certain threads only to be beraded by an anonymous jerk...I don't know what it is, but only 2-3 months ago I never saw threads that turned like this one or the one about piracy...our little community is getting bigger and bigger and with it come the problems...

debadguy
--debadguy

Jimmy Chen said:

Homer, while you have many times in your posts indicated the 5mp
limit, others have not ... an example of this is Ed pointing to CZ
professional lens info so he expects me to accept the Sony CZ are
of the same high quality, meanwhile the clostest "best in class"
proof he provided is based on the DSC-F55, which isnt even a zoom
lens.

Click to expand...

The limit does exist with the current design. And it is around 5 to 6MP. Phils also talked about this in the review.

Jimmy Chen said:

So yes, while you are trying to stay within the "class" (5mp), not
everyone else has when showing why Sony CZ is the best lens.

I must say I happen to agree with Alex here only because claims are
made about the Sony CZ lens based on data generated from the CZ
lens and the F707 body. No one has any data on the lens itself, but
yet plenty of statements of "fact" saying it is the best lens in
the class.

As for me, the 707 happens to be the best because it provides
features others do not, mainly nightshot/frame. I also do need the
hi-res as you pointed out earlier. I only wish its macro is as good
as the CP995 (macro = IMHO only). But one can only expect so much
out of a $1,000 digitcam. ;p

Click to expand...

I still don't understand the logic. Has any professional done a very scientific analysis and comparison on consumer-level 35mm compact cameras?

Steve Wong.

Well, I got the answer I wanted

debadguy said:

Way to go Mike...well said...

...you're right...it's getting pretty tiresome to voice an opinion
in certain threads only to be beraded by an anonymous jerk...I
don't know what it is, but only 2-3 months ago I never saw threads
that turned like this one or the one about piracy...our little
community is getting bigger and bigger and with it come the
problems...

debadguy

--
debadguy

Click to expand...

-- www.pbase.com/kelcey/galleries

Nah dude, it's cool. I mean, it don't matter It's not just my thread, it's just a discussion place

Steve Wong said:

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...

Click to expand...

-- www.pbase.com/kelcey/galleries

Homer40784 said:

As to digital zoom.
However, Sony doesn't do this.
Search on Digital zoom and pay particular attention to posts by
Pondria and Ulysses.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info ... I manage to find this on the web ...

"With Sony?s newly developed proprietary Super Resolution Converter (SRC), the Cybershot DSC-F505V is also able to provide larger sized images with interpolation of greater accuracy. Because SRC takes original data directly from the CCD before JPEG compression, it performs interpolation with up to 16 times more actual picture data than conventional methods. Relying on newly developed high-speed DSP technology, SRC provides the benefit of larger images of remarkable clarity without many of the drawbacks commonly associated with interpolation."
http://www.epc-online.com/cameras/sony_dscf505v.html

jc

Steve Wong said:

I still don't understand the logic. Has any professional done a
very scientific analysis and comparison on consumer-level 35mm
compact cameras?

Click to expand...

If CZ can offer data for their other lens, such as this one for the Vario-Sonnar T 3.5-4.5/24-85 lens ...

http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/3187a822cd4605b7c125670900704e24/6cc1fb9f4a697462c125693000465a1f/ $FILE/Vario-Sonnar%2024-85_e.pdf

They must have data for the Sony CZ lens as well, or else how can they do any quality control? I mean, isnt that pure data which inform us the quality of the lens, and not related to any image taking body, be it film or digitial? Or am I missing something else here, that our digital lens are not worth it for them to provide that kind of data? They make the lens, right? So they must have ways to test the lens before it gets assembled on a Sony body, right? So just show us the results ...

Peace ...

jc

Alex,

I am not really sure that users prefer tele to wide angle zoom. Maybe they simply do not voice out their requirements.

I conducted a small survey on the Nikon forum asking whether they prefer the 28-85mm (x3) to 35-105mm (x3). To my surprise out 12 replies, 10 preferred the 28-85 mm, only 2 preferred the 35-105 mm. The sample of replies is too small to proportionally represent the general feeling, but I think we can safely say the majority prefer to have a zoom starting with 28mm.

If I extended the zoom range to (x4) or (x5) in my survey , I am sure the tendency would still be more towards the 28mm-... mm zoom.

I wonder whether the same result will be obtained here. If there is a general interest for that, myself or someone else may duplicate the survey here... to tell our camera makers what we want.

Best Regards
John

alex wetmore said:

John Lai said:

Hi All,
I read with much interest this thread. No doubt the CZ lens is a
excellent lens. I have seen a lot of great, high resolution
pictures from it. My question is why Sony & CZ did not introduce a
28 mm in their zoom: 28-85 (x3) , 28-110 (x4) or 28-140 (x5). The
Sony DSC-D700 is the only Sony digicam with a 28 mm (28-140 mm).
Any idea why this practice has been discontinued? Are 28 mm zooms
so difficult or expensive to manufacture? How many of you here
would have preferred a zoom starting with 28mm? In my opinion the
28 mm is very versatile (indoor spaces, group photography,
landscape, architecture, street scape etc.) As for me the 28mm is
determinant in my choice of a digicam. I need a 28mm for most of
the time. Having the Sony or Canon WD-58 attached to the F707 most
of the time renders it unappropriate to me.

Click to expand...

I agree that I would have liked a 28mm lens on the f707. The lack
of 28mm is one of the main things that made me think twice about
buying it.

I believe that it is missing the 28mm wide angle because most
consumers are more interested in telephoto lenses than wide angle
lenses. It would be nice if they made two versions of the f707,
one with a 28-xx zoom and one with the 35-190, but I'm not suprised
that they didn't do so. It would alternatively be nice if a camera
manufacturer took initiative to teach consumers the value of a wide
angle lens, but I don't think any of them want to take that risk.

Hopefully in a few years D-SLR cameras will be less expensive and
we can choose our own lenses focal lengths.

alex

Click to expand...

Kelcey said:

Well, I got the answer I wanted

Click to expand...

Well, when all is said and done (and I hope all IS said and done) this what is important.

I hope this experience hasn't made you gunshy about particpating in the forum?

-Ed

Cool. I didn't think you would find it on the net.
This also goes for the S70-75-85
The Mavica FD95-97-CD200-300-1000
And of course the F707.
SOny p's me off now and then but they do an awful lot "right".

Homer

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

As to digital zoom.
However, Sony doesn't do this.
Search on Digital zoom and pay particular attention to posts by
Pondria and Ulysses.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info ... I manage to find this on the web ...

"With Sony?s newly developed proprietary Super Resolution Converter
(SRC), the Cybershot DSC-F505V is also able to provide larger sized
images with interpolation of greater accuracy. Because SRC takes
original data directly from the CCD before JPEG compression, it
performs interpolation with up to 16 times more actual picture data
than conventional methods. Relying on newly developed high-speed
DSP technology, SRC provides the benefit of larger images of
remarkable clarity without many of the drawbacks commonly
associated with interpolation."
http://www.epc-online.com/cameras/sony_dscf505v.html

jc

Click to expand...

Jimmy,

That is also many people's wish here!!!

But of course it's a $1200 T* coated lens. Zeiss does it for every lens like that.

You know the answer, the 707 (not to mention S75) lens is way out of the league. It's a business decision I believe. Then the independent professionals, who cares? It's a consumer-level compact digital camera anyway.

If the camera lives long enough, some people may be crazy enough to do an independent analysis though. A good example is the Carl Zeiss lens on the Yashica T4/T5. It is a T* lens though (I love it).

Steve Wong.

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

I still don't understand the logic. Has any professional done a
very scientific analysis and comparison on consumer-level 35mm
compact cameras?

Click to expand...

If CZ can offer data for their other lens, such as this one for the
Vario-Sonnar T 3.5-4.5/24-85 lens ...

http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/3187a822cd4605b7c125670900704e24/6cc1fb9f4a697462c125693000465a1f/ $FILE/Vario-Sonnar%2024-85_e.pdf

They must have data for the Sony CZ lens as well, or else how can
they do any quality control? I mean, isnt that pure data which
inform us the quality of the lens, and not related to any image
taking body, be it film or digitial? Or am I missing something else
here, that our digital lens are not worth it for them to provide
that kind of data? They make the lens, right? So they must have
ways to test the lens before it gets assembled on a Sony body,
right? So just show us the results ...

Peace ...

jc

Click to expand...

Jimmy Chen said:

They must have data for the Sony CZ lens as well, or else how can
they do any quality control? I mean, isnt that pure data which
inform us the quality of the lens, and not related to any image
taking body, be it film or digitial? Or am I missing something else
here, that our digital lens are not worth it for them to provide
that kind of data? They make the lens, right? So they must have
ways to test the lens before it gets assembled on a Sony body,
right? So just show us the results ...

Peace ...

jc

Click to expand...

I think the major difference is that they WILL show the data to the customer.

They are in a profit making biz and the customer must be catered to.....or you don't get te contract.
However in the case under discussion, Sony is the customer, not me or you.

It keeps coming back to the fact that you can't compare lens that are designed to be sold individually with a component part of a camera.

Homer

Thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my post

-Ed

No way man This is a great place

Ed (;¬ > ) said:

Kelcey said:

Well, I got the answer I wanted

Click to expand...

Well, when all is said and done (and I hope all IS said and done)
this what is important.

I hope this experience hasn't made you gunshy about particpating in
the forum?

-Ed

Click to expand...

-- www.pbase.com/kelcey/galleries