Mirrorless Expansion

From Mirrorless Rumors - http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/zeiss-cosina-voigtlander-sigma-and-tamron-all-do-join-the-sony-nex-system/
In a flurry of activity over the past few days we have seen announcements that Zeiss, Schneider-Kreuznach and Komamura have "joined" micro-thirds in addition to Cosina-Voigtlander. Today Sony have announced that Zeiss, Cosina-Voigtlander, Sigma and Tamron are going to be "joining" the Nex system.


So it looks like we are going to be getting an expansion of what both these systems are able to offer in terms of lenses. Since both Panasonic and Sony have produced video cameras in addition to stills cameras that share the same mounts, some of what is planned is obviously destined for that. The ultra-expensive Zeiss movie lenses being an example. Zeiss is no surprise for the NEX system as they already make lenses for Sony.


The rapidly increasing sales of these compact system cameras is obviously of interest to 3rd. Party lens makers and they see an opportunity for sales and probably also don't wish to be involved in any "boat missing".


What will come out of all this in terms of products, we can only wait and see.
All this a day after Canon seemingly signaled their continuing non-involvement (non-interest?) in anything "mirrorless", with the announcement of the 600D and 1100D.


If nothing else all this should make for some interesting speculative posting over the next few days!


UPDATE.


Sigma are going to make lenses for m4/3 as well as NEX.

From 43 Rumors - http://www.43rumors.com/sigma-announces-they-will-join-micro-four-thirds/

Leica M9 Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar

Extraordinary levels of sharpness and resolution from the Leica M9 and the Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar lens. These are hand held, jpgs straight from the camera. It seems to me that the only advantage a digital medium format back could have over the M9 is size of image.

The clarity of the blow up from the golfers shot is just breathtaking. I've had some Zeiss lenses that proved disappointing. The £1100 18mm f3.5 T* for Nikon F mount was a particular let down. However the 21mm F2.8 Biogon and 50mm f2 Planar are both stunning and combined with the M9's sensor produce images with a clarity I've never seen before.

Wonderful.

Words - D

Images - D & A

Zeiss ZM T* 50mm f2 Planar

Looks quite unassuming doesn't it? Doesn't get a lot of attention with its moderate F2 aperture. Its small, compact and (relatively) cheap for a Zeiss M-Mount lens. However this may just be the best lens I've ever used.

PICTURES TAKEN ON A LEICA M9

PICTURES TAKEN ON A PANASONIC GH1

Its jaw dropping sharp, even at F2. I knew it was something special when I was focusing it on my GH1. With most ordinary lenses the point of focus can sometimes be difficult to see, and it takes a fair amount of back and forth to find the precise point of focus. Not so with this little gem. As you approach the point of focus it just gets sharper and sharper until it snaps into focus. Its even easy to focus at smaller apertures such as f8, again the precise point of focus is easy to see. It rivals my Lumix 20mm f1.7 "pancake" for being clean wide open. I now have a second lens that I would be perfectly happy to use wide open. I've used faster lenses but only used them wide open in an emergency, because of softness and CA. No such problems with the Planar.


On the M9 it is simply sensational. Extraordinary clarity. It also has a wonderful warm colour balance. All the above shots were taken in very grey light & the colours "pop" beautifully.


Certainly those T* and Planar trademarks have significance for photographers who have ever use Contax gear. They were an indication of quality then and seemingly so now.


Its not quite as well made as a Leica lens, but then not much is. The focusing ring has a typical Zeiss feel, i.e. its a bit "rubbery" However its built like a tank, compared to most DSLR lenses.


I thought my Nikon 50mm f1.2 was the best lens I'd ever used, but now I'm not so sure. A test is called for.


I'll stop gushing now!!

UPDATE

Having just done a test between the Zeiss Planar 50mm f2 and the Nikon 50mm f1.2 on a Panasonic GH1 - I can definitely say that the Zeiss IS the best lens I have ever used - but so is the Nikon! It was an absolute tie. The only differences are the Nikon is fractionally (and we are talking incredibly small fractions here!) sharper in the centre. The Zeiss is fractionally sharper at the edge. It is absolutely of no significance whatsoever. The test was carried out at f2 - f16 which are the apertures both share.

I'm not publishing results because you can only see the differences by staring intently at the full resolution file at 100% on an iMac screen & then its far from obvious. Identical colour balance, both have incredibly low CA, even at F2 and both sets of images look like they were taken with the same lens.

Interestingly the Zeiss gets slightly more in the frame, though that may just be the fact that I have two adapters on the Nikon. Both are stellar lenses - two of the best ever produced. Both I believe are better than anything Panasonic or Olympus have so far produced, with the exception of the Lumix 20mm f1.7. I believe both are sharper than the Panasonic/Leica 45mm f2.8, but not by very much and that lens has other virtues.

So a good result. The advantage for me is that the Zeiss is smaller and lighter. Plus the obvious advantage that its an m-mount lens and is designed for my Leica full-frame M9. It will be sitting on that camera an awful lot.

I have said before that there aren't that many advantages to using legacy lenses on m4/3. I still believe that. These two lenses both do offer an image quality advantage but they are special, very well engineered and optically excellent examples. That it takes only lenses of this quality to improve on what Panasonic in particular have come up with says a lot for their designers and engineers.

With some care and the motivation to test and experiment, m4/3 is capable of results that can impress even the most demanding of users. The images that I can produce with this lens/camera combination are significantly better than I have obtained with many DSLR cameras. I prefer images taken with m4/3 and these two lenses over images I have taken with cameras such as Nikon D3, D300, Canon 550D. They are so much better than the results I obtained with a Pentax K7 (even with limited lenses) Sharper, better colour, less CA.

In many ways this is not surprising. The only difference after all between m4/3 and other small cameras such as the Samsung NX10 and Sony NEX5 is the lack of a mirror.

If you need speed, and lots of fancy functions then DSLR's can provide that. If however you are mostly concerned about image quality and less about the size of your equipment!!! then m4/3 offers an excellent alternative.

Interestingly I seem to be accumulating more equipment as time moves on, but it occupies less space!


D

Constantly coming back to Micro Four Thirds.

The previous thread is an illustration of how despite all my reservations I constantly keep coming back to m4/3. Despite having many other things to do I spent yesterday working with my GH1 to see if I could come up with a solution to a couple of my criticisms of the system. i.e. Burnt out highlights and an often less than punchy rendition.

After much commuting between the garden and the computer screen I may have come up with a solution. Under-exposing on the GH1 by 2/3 or 1 stop helps with both the highlight problem and increases the colour saturation. It doesn't seem to produce much more noise when the files are lightened. It does allow a dynamic range that doesn't eliminate all detail in the whites and still allows for a reasonably contrasty image.

I also went through many of the film mode jpg options seeing if I could produce an out of camera jpg that was punchy yet clean. The closer that I can get the jpgs from any camera looking like the "finished product" the shorter time I have to spend processing and the quicker I can get images on stock photography websites. I was pleased with the results and settled on a customised version of the standard jpg setting with the contrast, colour and sharpness turned right up. Not to everybody's liking I'm sure but a very popular look with picture buyers.

A look very reminiscent of what I get with the Samsung NX10. Which leads to the obvious question of why not use that camera? Its a question I really do find difficult to answer. I am unsure as to why I like using m4/3 so much. Despite having bouts when I think I'm done with it I keep on returning over and over again. None of this is rational or sensible, but I've never rated either of those too highly!! Its very much a gut feeling. I've always liked a challenge. In this case the challenge is to produce top quality results from a small sensor. But thats not the whole story. Despite being able to use a Leica M9 and having used pretty much all the top of the range Nikons and Canons I keep getting drawn back to these little cameras from Panasonic & Olympus.

Because of the results I've been getting from the Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 50mm I'm even getting enthusiastic for the Manual Focus/Legacy lens method again. I have a suspicion that some of this is an attempt to re-live the unbelievable excitement that I had when I dived headlong into photography all those years ago. With m4/3 + MF lenses I'm very much into the territory that I occupied when I started. Learning how to use the hyperfocal distance, estimating depth of field, working with a lot of manual settings. Its partly the pleasure of using the knowledge that you have accumulated as opposed to just relying on automation all the time.

None of this gives me the complete answer. One day it may become obvious. I do know that my enjoyment of the process has always defined my photography and I will always let my heart rule my head when it comes to the equipment I use. I constantly try to fight this and try to apply some common sense and "professionalism" to what is after all, the way I make a living. However I do sometimes think that I am fighting a loosing battle and should just give in and stop denying what appear to be my natural instincts.

Time will tell.

D

Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Biogon and Panasonic GH1

We realise that we don't have many "fans" & our pictures are only average (http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2010/06/more-wide-angle-over-saturated-pictures.html)

but we persist nonetheless.

There have been a few posts here on this lens - http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/search/label/zeiss%2021mm%20f2.8%20Biogon

The headline image and the following are taken with this lens on the Leica M9.

The very sharp results led us to test the lens on a GH1.

Excellent results. We did a test of this lens against the lumix 20mm f1.7. http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2010/04/m43-and-lenses.html

We concluded -

"We could not see any significant difference between the 20mm f1/7 and the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 in terms of sharpness. There was a slightly different colour balance but that was all."

However thats not the whole story. Together with the Novoflex Leica M > m4/3 adapter that we use we get true infinity focus with the 21mm on the GH1. i.e. The lens reaches infinity only when it reaches the infinity mark. Many modern AF lenses focus past this point. Apparently to prevent the lens becoming mechanically damaged by constantly jolting against its maximum focus point. Achieving infinity focus used to be easy - just rotate the lens to its maximum and you could be sure that objects in the distance would be in focus. Very handy for landscape photography. The Zeiss 21mm being an old design manual focus lens keeps this facility. In practice, it means that for a lot of outdoor photography in good light there is no need to constantly re-focus a lens. Stopping down brings more and more of the foreground into focus. A bright sunny day will easily allow apertures of f11 and often f16 plus a reasonably fast shutter speed at low ISO. Very useful for hand-held travel photography.

On m4/3 the 21mm (because of the 2x crop factor) produces an image equivalent to that produced by a 42mm lens on a camera with a 35mm equivalent (or full-frame) sensor. However it still has the same depth of field characteristics of a 21mm lens. Again handy for hand-held travel photography, allowing a bit more leeway for focusing and depth of field.

So in some ways this lens is much more useful than the the 20mm f1.7 lumix for what we do. Experience teaches you where to focus using an AF lens. The general rule if trying to get as much depth of field as possible is to focus approximately on a point one third of the way into the framed image. With apertures of f8 + this will in many cases work a good deal of the time. There is a technique using the depth of field scale on a lens (if it has one) to produce even more depth of field at a given aperture. This is called the hyperfocal distance. However this depends on the distance scale being accurate on a lens. Many are not. We tried it on the Zeiss and it wasn't particularly useful.

All in all using the lens on the GH1 proved very successful. In much of what we do it is important to obtain as much depth of field as possible. Using a manual focus lens can be very useful in this regard. Using a manual focus lens on m4/3 with the ability to use wide-angle lenses in a tighter crop is also an advantage. Its one of the reasons why m4/3 is such an attractive format for certain types i.e. landscape photography. It is more difficult to throw backgrounds out of focus with m4/3 unless you have very fast lenses with wide apertures. That is a disadvantage for some kinds of photography but a bonus for others, including a good deal of our work.

Photoshop CS5 / Open Air Art

PHOTOSHOP CS5.

The images in this post are processed using Photoshop CS4. Strange you may think considering previous posts about CS5 and the new features, particularly the new raw processing and content aware fill.

We have had the trial version of CS5 for 30 days and that has just run out. Normally we buy the upgrade automatically, but this time decided to try before we buy.

We have decided to stick with CS4 for the following reasons.

1) CS5 crashes repeatedly on our i7 iMac.

2) Most of the new features seem more for graphic designers than photographers. (Well these photographers at least)

3) Content aware fill, while seeming incredible is very hit and miss. When we really needed it to sort out a difficult area, it usually comes up with nonsense. It works well on the easy stuff, but then so do the previous tools.

We find that using our previous techniques, of cloning, patch tool, warping and skewing achieves the same results in about half the time.

4) The new raw processing engine, while seeming better initially, doesn't seem to offer any advantages in final image quality. Since we mainly develop "flat" we haven't seen any significant improvements in our files.

5) For some reason the latest version of camera raw has removed support for the Samsung NX10, a camera we use extensively.

6) CS4 absolutely flies on the i7 iMac.

So for the first time since buying Photoshop 4 in 1996 we haven't upgraded to the latest version of Photoshop. To be honest we would have probably done it anyway if it didn't crash all the time. However we see no reason to upgrade to a unstable buggy version.

OPEN AIR ART

A recent visit to a local stately home showed the trend for such places to display "works of art" in their public outdoor spaces. At our local such estate this involves some garishly painted benches.

There is also this amazing..... sculpture?? Looking like something from an Ann Summers catalogue it gradually looms into view at the top of an uphill path through the grounds. Looks like an instrument of torture (or pleasure possibly depending on your tastes!!!)

It seems unlikely that the creator was unaware of the visual similarities to something that needs a battery and we are unable to come up with a satisfactory explanation of what it means other than the obvious. If you have any suggestions, then please keep them to yourselves as we would probably get into trouble publishing them!

Images D & A.

Leica M9 on location

Our recent trip to Somerset was the first stock/travel trip that we have undertaken without using a DSLR. Having taken and used the Leica X1 and Samsung NX10 extensively the third camera we used was the Leica M9.

There have been many posts here concerning the quality of the images from this camera and they were superb as usual. This is the best camera we have ever used but the problem of the dust spots generated is becoming difficult. The Leica M8 was pretty bad and it seems the M9 is even worse. A lot of time is taken up with removing these and its getting to the situation where we are becoming reluctant to either include a lot of sky in our images taken with the camera or use an aperture wider than f5.6!!

The M9 sensor is going to have be cleaned and since all attempts here to clean sensors ourselves have ended in disaster then it will have to be sent away. It has now gotten so bad that we are considering using it, after having the sensor cleaned, with one fixed lens which seems a waste of its capabilities. We have even contemplated selling it - which we really don't want to do.

This is a common problem and there are posts all over the internet with people having the same problems. There is no real solution other than great care and regular cleaning.

This does highlight one of the ongoing problems with interchangeable lens digital cameras and full frame sensors in particular. Every large sensor camera we have used has been really bad for dust spots, whether it has "dust removal" or not. The D3, D3X and D700 cameras from Nikon were all awful. So were the Kodak pro 14n and SLR/n. The Canon 1DS MK II, 5D and 5D Mk II cameras we used also required a lot of work on the images.

The X1 gets more attractive by the day!! We are currently considering a selection of cameras with one lens permanently fitted to get over this problem. Shooting landscape in all weathers and conditions and constantly using different lenses is the worst possible scenario for creating sensor dust spots, but thats what we do. All the speed advantages of the new i7 iMac are being cancelled out by this never ending cloning out of dust spots, so something will have to change.

Images D & A

We do like to be beside the seaside

Anyone who knows the British will be aware of our tendency, when anything resembling summer approaches, to rip off our clothes and head off to anywhere, no matter how scruffy, beside the sea.

Speaking as someone who currently resembles a patchy lobster I can testify to the attraction of that! A few pictures from our recent glorious weekend, when for a few days Britain impersonated the Cote d'Azur.

D

Leica M8 - Clent Hills

Yesterday - A fairly steep climb to the top of the Clent Hills. I took the Voigtlander 15mm & 75mm + the Zeiss 28mm.

I'm getting better with the Leica, gradually becoming more familiar with the controls & anticipating what lens I'm going to shoot with.
Its quite difficult to explain why a camera that is so tricky to use is appealing. For me its to do with the satisfaction of knowing that to use it successfully I have to use all my experience & photographic knowledge to get the picture. When I press the shutter theres a satisfying clunk that indicates "objective achieved"
I do realise that this all sounds like pretentious nonsense & that I'm just a camera snob justifying spending lots of money on a "man toy" or piece of "male jewellery". I'm honest enough to admit that there is an element of that, but there is a lot more.
Using it makes me feel like a "real photographer" By that I mean someone who is in charge of the camera & not someone who is controlled by it. I often feel the latter when using one of my technological marvels. (See previous posts!) The Leica is actually pretty simple to use with very few controls & menu options. Using manual focus & manual exposure is actually far less confusing than cameras with auto-everything. Add to this the incredible image quality and the wonderful feel and it all starts to make sense.
I experience a great satisfaction when I take pictures with it & even more so when I look at them on the screen. If I wasn't doing commercial work then I would use the Leica exclusively. It makes me want to get out the door and take photographs with it & thats not something I experience with all my cameras.