Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Zeiss - please make your Medium Format lenses in other mounts!  (Read 10660 times)
Christopher Arnoldi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2009, 05:49:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: filmcapture
Comparing 80mm ZH lens to a Hasselblad V lens is unfair. The ZH lens has a much smaller image circle.

Sorry, I've not heard before that the Sinaron Digital AF 2,8/80 mm has a smaller image circle that don`t fit the 6x6 format. Is that a fact? My shutter has the size of the old 4,5 x 6 format (56 mm width, the same as 6x6 format) and I was told that I could use backs with larger sensors in the future.

I didn't compare the two lenses in the way that the V-lens is bad, I only wanted to confirm that the 80 mm ZH lens is a new calculated lens with bette MTF curves. On all 4 ZH lenses the sensor glass is calculated into the optical path.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2009, 06:14:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
And on which V camera was this useful?
The larger image circle is an advantage on the Flexbody.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2009, 07:37:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
The larger image circle is an advantage on the Flexbody.

I am looking for information on the image circle of the Sinaron 80, and cannot find anything, neither at Sinar nor at Zeiss. The datasheet both display doesn't have this information, as far as I can see. Where is the information available?
Logged

stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2009, 09:10:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterA
BUT - have you checked out the price of these lenses for the Sinar M system? - that might chgange your mind or not.
As for Leica making lenses for CaNikon - according to a recent Leica response to the issue - they aren't allowed as the Japanese camera community industry jealously guards their patents and pretty much allows only Japanese manufacturers to make alternatives ...


Well that explains why my prayers have gone unanswered!  I always thought Leica would sell more R lenses to Canon and Nikon than they made selling them to Leica R owners.

I think if Zeiss Germany would make MF lenses again, I would buy whatever camera system they would work on.  And maybe the Leica S system will be the winner after all.
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2009, 09:17:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stevesanacore
Well that explains why my prayers have gone unanswered!  I always thought Leica would sell more R lenses to Canon and Nikon than they made selling them to Leica R owners.

I think if Zeiss Germany would make MF lenses again, I would buy whatever camera system they would work on.  And maybe the Leica S system will be the winner after all.

Zeiss has recently released a line of classic V lenses, but I suppose that doesn't count. The Contax lens lineup from Zeiss is great (but end-of-line), and the Sinar M is still in business. I guess you want a more traditional 645 or 6x6 however.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 09:17:50 AM by carstenw » Logged

stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2009, 09:56:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
Zeiss has recently released a line of classic V lenses, but I suppose that doesn't count. The Contax lens lineup from Zeiss is great (but end-of-line), and the Sinar M is still in business. I guess you want a more traditional 645 or 6x6 however.

My last MF system was the Contax and I loved it but traded it in as soon as they were out of business. At that point I my biggest client had me switch to digital and I didn't look back.  Now I would consider a digital MF if I could really find one that had Leica quality optics (or old Zeiss quality). I am just not convinced that the Hasse or Mamiya are in that league. I had a Mamiya 645 before the Contax and didn't like it at all. So I sit and wait....
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2009, 09:59:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
I am looking for information on the image circle of the Sinaron 80, and cannot find anything, neither at Sinar nor at Zeiss. The datasheet both display doesn't have this information, as far as I can see. Where is the information available?
92mm, if it is the CAB lens you are interested in. Interestingly, the image circle of the 90 mm is 140 mm.

http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/digital/cabspecs.htm

Often the European manufacturers/marketers give less info than the US retailers!
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2009, 10:35:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
92mm, if it is the CAB lens you are interested in. Interestingly, the image circle of the 90 mm is 140 mm.

http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/digital/cabspecs.htm

Often the European manufacturers/marketers give less info than the US retailers!

The CAB lenses appear to be for tech cameras:

http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1790-50-1911.html

I am looking for the ZH80, I guess.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 10:36:36 AM by carstenw » Logged

David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2009, 10:36:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christopher Arnoldi
Sorry, I've not heard before that the Sinaron Digital AF 2,8/80 mm has a smaller image circle that don`t fit the 6x6 format. Is that a fact? My shutter has the size of the old 4,5 x 6 format (56 mm width, the same as 6x6 format) and I was told that I could use backs with larger sensors in the future.

I didn't compare the two lenses in the way that the V-lens is bad, I only wanted to confirm that the 80 mm ZH lens is a new calculated lens with bette MTF curves. On all 4 ZH lenses the sensor glass is calculated into the optical path.

Hi Christopher,

I also have the Sinar m system and the ZH lenses.  All of the ZH lenses are based on the Hasselblad CFE versions, and the lens formulas are basically the same (ie, same elements and groupings).  The differences are in the barrel design and in tighter control of the manufacturing tolerances to take into account the sensor glass (indeed, as measured within a 60mm image circle).   I specifically asked a Zeiss engineer about the marked improvement of the 80ZH, and he confirmed the above, noting that the Planar design and its focal length benefited most from these changes.

I also have the Hasselblad CFE lenses, and truth be told, I cannot distinguish between an image from the CFE lens and from the ZH lens, using either the eMotion 75LV or the 54H backs.  The real strength of the ZH lenses are their incredibly fast and accurate autofocus, when shooting untethered of course.  I previously shot with the Contax 645 as my AF camera, but I found the speed of the Sinar m and the Zeiss ZH lenses more to my liking.

David
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2009, 11:14:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Klepacki
I also have the Sinar m system and the ZH lenses.  All of the ZH lenses are based on the Hasselblad CFE versions, and the lens formulas are basically the same (ie, same elements and groupings).  The differences are in the barrel design and in tighter control of the manufacturing tolerances to take into account the sensor glass (indeed, as measured within a 60mm image circle).   I specifically asked a Zeiss engineer about the marked improvement of the 80ZH, and he confirmed the above, noting that the Planar design and its focal length benefited most from these changes.

I also have the Hasselblad CFE lenses, and truth be told, I cannot distinguish between an image from the CFE lens and from the ZH lens, using either the eMotion 75LV or the 54H backs.  The real strength of the ZH lenses are their incredibly fast and accurate autofocus, when shooting untethered of course.  I previously shot with the Contax 645 as my AF camera, but I found the speed of the Sinar m and the Zeiss ZH lenses more to my liking.
interesting to know there are a number of people here with the full Sinar M system. The problem is it's a system waiting for the right back to exploit its amazing AF and lens quality.
The backs exist, (P65+) the complete Sinar M system exists, but the two aren't talking to each other, which is just ridiculous.

Sinar - if you want to make money, and sell cameras, then open your platform up. simple!
Logged
Christopher Arnoldi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2009, 11:27:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi David,

nice to hear that there are other Sinar m users. The speed of the autofocus is great. One other thing is the sound and feel of the autofocus that is significant. The sound of the Schneider AF lenses on the Hy6 is like from a tractor in comparison.

I'm searching for a longer lens than 180 mm, perhaps the Hasselblad 5,6/350 mm Superacromat. Do you have any experience with that lens?
Logged
cyberean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2009, 01:14:39 PM »
ReplyReply

the angular field specs for the 80ZH would suggest
a frame coverage area in the vicinity of 48x36

Logged

check out the size of my sensor ...
David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2009, 04:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: narikin
interesting to know there are a number of people here with the full Sinar M system. The problem is it's a system waiting for the right back to exploit its amazing AF and lens quality.
The backs exist, (P65+) the complete Sinar M system exists, but the two aren't talking to each other, which is just ridiculous.

Sinar - if you want to make money, and sell cameras, then open your platform up. simple!
The right back to really exploit the Sinar m is still the Sinar 54H, at least in the studio.  In 16-shot mode, the P65+ cannot hold a candle to it.  I have mentioned this fact several times on this forum.  It is because the 54H can physically capture 88MP each of Red, Blue and Green.  The P65+ is a single shot back that captures 30MP of Green, 15MP of Red and 15MP of Blue, and then uses software to estimate the remaining 120MP of needed pixels.  There is simply no comparison when this much information is estimated.

Even for non-tethered work, I do not agree that a P65+ is needed, unless you depend on heavy cropping (ie throwing away a lot of captured pixels) or print really large.  The Sinar eMotion 75LV is more than capable.  If you compare actual printed images on a 11500 or 9900 printer to see where the advantage of the P65+ kicks in, you will not see any difference in the prints until you start going significantly beyond 24x30.  This is using Zeiss FE glass (e.g., 110FE, 300FE) with the P65+ versus the Zeiss Sinaron digital glass with the e75LV, to be as fair as possible.  And, I am being incredibly generous here in the print size, since even at 30x40 you may still need a magnifying glass to try to argue over any final print details between the two.  With this much money involved, I strongly recommend renting these systems and doing the test yourself.

If you are shooting hand-held, then you will really see nothing gained by the P65+.  I don't know anyone who can shoot hand-held and be able capture 50 lp/mm.  The mirror slap on any SLR is enough to blur such fine details (with any MFDB).  As a result, you get more pixels but not with more resolution.  So, if hand-held AF is your primary method of shooting, then the P65+ is not delivering any extra image information compared to a back with lesser megapixels.

To be fair to the P65+, I think its strength is mainly when you are in situations where you cannot use a multishot back, and where you can shoot slowly and with careful technique to extract any resolution gains from it, AND need to print very large (or crop very heavily).  Otherwise, I find the Sinar m system is the perfect balance for my needs, whether it be for fast AF with Digital Zeiss lenses, or as a shutter on a p2/p3 system with Digital Schneider/Rodenstock lenses.  So far, I have not found any other camera/back that can produce a better print (up to 30x40).  Again, there is no substitute for your own tests.  Give them both a try and you may be surprised.

Lastly, I totally agree with your plea to open up the Sinar m interface!.  This will give people opportunity to compare the backs easier and see for themselves how many megapixels is enough for their prints.  
Logged
David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2009, 04:48:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christopher Arnoldi
Hi David,

nice to hear that there are other Sinar m users. The speed of the autofocus is great. One other thing is the sound and feel of the autofocus that is significant. The sound of the Schneider AF lenses on the Hy6 is like from a tractor in comparison.

I'm searching for a longer lens than 180 mm, perhaps the Hasselblad 5,6/350 mm Superacromat. Do you have any experience with that lens?
Yes, I shoot the 2.8 300FE Superachromat with the Sinar m, and the results are incredible.  It is probably the best telephoto lens on the market.  However, it is somewhat heavy and very expensive.  If you don't mind the slower 5.6 of the 350SA, then I would heartily recommend this lens instead.  A colleague of mine uses it on his Sinar m camera and the results appear to be every bit as sharp and saturated as the 300FE, only you don't get that special bokeh like with the 2.8.  On the other hand, the 350SA is much more lightweight and portable.  So, either lens is a great choice and you won't be disappointed.

Logged
David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2009, 04:56:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cyberean
the angular field specs for the 80ZH would suggest
a frame coverage area in the vicinity of 48x36
The data presented in the specs reflect its usage with a 48x36 (49x37) size sensor, since that is the common size of the Sinar sensors available for the m camera (e75, e54, 75H, 54H, 54M, etc.).  The angular coverage, etc, is presented this way so there will be no confusion to the photographer once the lens is put into use.  The actual image circles do cover the full 645 format.  (The shutter inside the Sinar m camera is actually the same as the shutter inside the Contax 645.)
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2009, 08:59:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Klepacki
The right back to really exploit the Sinar m is still the Sinar 54H, at least in the studio.  In 16-shot mode, the P65+ cannot hold a candle to it.  I have mentioned this fact several times on this forum.  It is because the 54H can physically capture 88MP each of Red, Blue and Green.  The P65+ is a single shot back that captures 30MP of Green, 15MP of Red and 15MP of Blue, and then uses software to estimate the remaining 120MP of needed pixels.  There is simply no comparison when this much information is estimated.

Even for non-tethered work, I do not agree that a P65+ is needed, unless you depend on heavy cropping (ie throwing away a lot of captured pixels) or print really large.  The Sinar eMotion 75LV is more than capable.  If you compare actual printed images on a 11500 or 9900 printer to see where the advantage of the P65+ kicks in, you will not see any difference in the prints until you start going significantly beyond 24x30.  This is using Zeiss FE glass (e.g., 110FE, 300FE) with the P65+ versus the Zeiss Sinaron digital glass with the e75LV, to be as fair as possible.  And, I am being incredibly generous here in the print size, since even at 30x40 you may still need a magnifying glass to try to argue over any final print details between the two.  With this much money involved, I strongly recommend renting these systems and doing the test yourself.

If you are shooting hand-held, then you will really see nothing gained by the P65+.  I don't know anyone who can shoot hand-held and be able capture 50 lp/mm.  The mirror slap on any SLR is enough to blur such fine details (with any MFDB).  As a result, you get more pixels but not with more resolution.  So, if hand-held AF is your primary method of shooting, then the P65+ is not delivering any extra image information compared to a back with lesser megapixels.

To be fair to the P65+, I think its strength is mainly when you are in situations where you cannot use a multishot back, and where you can shoot slowly and with careful technique to extract any resolution gains from it, AND need to print very large (or crop very heavily).  Otherwise, I find the Sinar m system is the perfect balance for my needs, whether it be for fast AF with Digital Zeiss lenses, or as a shutter on a p2/p3 system with Digital Schneider/Rodenstock lenses.  So far, I have not found any other camera/back that can produce a better print (up to 30x40).  Again, there is no substitute for your own tests.  Give them both a try and you may be surprised.

Lastly, I totally agree with your plea to open up the Sinar m interface!.  This will give people opportunity to compare the backs easier and see for themselves how many megapixels is enough for their prints.

you make some very fair points, and will not get a lot of disagreement from me.
I am sure the 54H in multi shot mode is an amazing back for studio photography, but surely the main point of the M camera with mirror module, AF lenses, etc, is that is can be used hand held to shoot that way. so that's the end of multi-shot.
as for your argument that single shot beyond a certain number of Mp is a waste as mirror slap etc destroys definition, thats a bigger issue, that I suspect has some truth in it up to a point, though of course there are cameras (Alpa, Cambo, etc) that have no mirror and are hand held, so they'd benefit, or  shooting with a mirror, but using flash...

Alas, I am precisely one of your exceptions, I do print big, and do need the megapixels for that.  its how I make my living.

definitely Sinar are suffering from their closed platform.
The M needed multi back adapters, and preferably the ability to use the digibacks power source, instead of that power module.
given those, I would now own one
Logged
ynp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2009, 12:05:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: narikin
definitely Sinar are suffering from their closed platform.
The M needed multi back adapters, and preferably the ability to use the digibacks power source, instead of that power module.
given those, I would now own one

I doubt that multi-back adapters are doable with the M. The Sinar-M has their own back mount and electronic interface. You cannot mount a Mamiya /Contax / H-series Phase One back through  an additional adapter, there is no space. Either Sinar will have to  rebuild the camera and offer the M with the P1/M645 mount or Phase One will have to offer  their own p65+ backs with the Sinar-M mount. I don't think that P1 will be going do that.

BTW the new side battery is small and light, why the camera needs to be powered from the back battery?
Yevgeny
PS
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2009, 12:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ynp
BTW the new side battery is small and light, why the camera needs to be powered from the back battery?
Yevgeny
can you point me to a link for this new battery? not heard about it. thanks
Logged
ynp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2009, 12:27:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: narikin
can you point me to a link for this new battery? not heard about it. thanks

I was trying to illustrate my point with a pic from Sinar online shop and cannot connect to the site.
Sinar.ch and Sinarcameras.com also look down. Or something wrong with my connection from Russia?  

The Item: Sinar catalogue #493.03.020, Sinar m PowerGrip, left. The biger one is  called :Sinar m Powergrip, Bottom

https://shop.strato.de/epages/Store10.sf/?O.../Shops/15493234

Yevgeny
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 01:04:40 PM by ynp » Logged
David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2009, 12:25:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: narikin
as for your argument that single shot beyond a certain number of Mp is a waste as mirror slap etc destroys definition, thats a bigger issue, that I suspect has some truth in it up to a point, though of course there are cameras (Alpa, Cambo, etc) that have no mirror and are hand held, so they'd benefit, or  shooting with a mirror, but using flash...

Alas, I am precisely one of your exceptions, I do print big, and do need the megapixels for that.  its how I make my living.
I don't think there are any autofocus MF/LF cameras without mirror, whereas the AF Zeiss Sinaron lenses are a major feature of the M camera.  

Also, for hand-held shooting, I have not found any resolution difference between an image from the P65+ and the e75LV.  Even if you are printing larger than 30x40, hand-held shooting limits the details that you can physically capture.  The extra megapixels in such images are similar to up-sizing, i.e., a larger image, but no real resolution gain.

We basically use two backs/systems, the 54H and technical cameras when in studio, and e75LV and the M camera when shooting portrait or events with autofocus.  I think two such systems, each with their own backs, are ideal, although we have decided to go with the Sinar backs since they are easily interchangeable on all of our camera systems.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad