What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

A question about Contax Digital

"....Also,I suspect that the reason not to produce lenses for the H1, is because of a conflict in interest with the Contax 645..."

Not excatly. We have inside information, but we are not allowed to disclose it. But there is no exclusive agreement for Zeiss and Medium Format Contax.

Regarding the Fuji-Hasselblad comparison. I know that Fuji can produce some very nice lenses. But there is a risk to compare lenses without the knowledge when they have been designed. If on a Hasselblad is an old Zeiss lens and the Fujis are using newer designs, it will be hard to beat them. But if you use the newest Zeiss design on your Hasselblad, this can result in significant differences, especially in difficult lightening conditions (lens flare etc.).

But we will here more about this in our interviews with Carl Zeiss in a couple of weeks.

But at the end of the day, it is the photographer who takes the picture. Even if you are using the best lenses, this is no guarantee for an above average photo
happy.gif
 
Sorry for the delay in response. Maybe there wouldn't have been a Hasselblad H1 at all, even though it is a Fuji, without the idea being promoted by Hasselblad and the name does give it kudos. I believe that the Leica Digilux is mainly a Panasonic but I understand that to be pretty successful. Just further thoughts,
John
 
> I went to www.fujirangefinder.com and saw a perfect fabulous picture > titled "Palo Alto Dawn". It is incredible that such a picture could be > taken with "worst medium format" Lens. Austin - lighten up. Alan - > enjoy your Fuji.

Howard,

You misrepresent what I waid. I specifically said that Fuji lenses are decent for landsscape work, which this photo you reference is, and is a spectacular image. As I stated, in landscape work, the lense characteristics I don't like with Fuji lenses don't matter. I happen to own a number of Fuji rangefinders and like them very much, for what they are good for.

It's a simple fact, Fuji MF lenses render out of focus areas unplesantly, and, from the pictures I've seen, this is true even in the new Fuji lenses for the Hasselblad H1. I pay particular attention to the OOF (Our Of Focus) rendering, and Fuji lenses do not perform well at all in this area. I also use fast lenses and shoot wide open, and again, Fuji lenses do not perform well at all in this area. Not everyone's requirements are the same as mine, which, of course, is simply fine.

Austin
 
Austin,
I am not trying to misrepresent anything; I expressed an opinion on a photograph. I saw your first post reference to landscape. Alan clearly exaggerated when he expressed his zeal about the quality of medium Fuji lenses, but that is no reason for you to try to make him feel bad about his decision by characterizing Fuji lenses as the "worst". Frankly, I do not know where Fuji lenses are rated. I do not own Fuji and am surprised to learn that you own Fuji rangefinders, if you find their medium format lenses "worst".

You are a smart person, have extensive photographic knowledge (some of the best on any forum) and I read your postings to learn. Dumping on Alan and his lenses for expressing his glee, diminishes what you have to say. Please focus on the positive and edification, and I will continue to hold you and your knowledge in high respect. Let's move on to photography.

Howard
 
Howard,

> I am not trying to misrepresent anything;

Well, yes you did. And, you did so again here. I in fact said that they were "decent" for landscape photography, which is the ex&le YOU provided and right after the ex&le you said "It is incredible that such a picture could be taken with "worst medium format" Lens." That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

> ...but that is no reason for you to try to make him feel bad > about his decision by characterizing Fuji lenses as the "worst". > ...Dumping on Alan...

That is in no way what I did. I simply stated well accepted facts, expressed MY experience and opinion on Fuji lenses, period...AND I provided detailed reasons for my dislike. I qualified what he said by stating CLEARLY what the issues I had with them were, as well as giving them credit where credit is due. In no way is that making anyone feel bad, and dumping. Alan is responsible for his own feelings, I am not. I did not direct my comments TO Alan, BTW, they were general comments on the subject.

> and am surprised to learn that you own Fuji rangefinders, if you find > their medium format lenses "worst".

I'd suggest you re-read what I wrote, with a more clear head. I said SPECIFICALLY what they are bad at, and also said that they are good for certain circumstances, and the reason I have Fuji rangefinders is because they are in fact better than others as far as folding cameras, where other cameras I have are far worse...for the purpose one would use a folding camera for. I would not try to stuff a Contax 645 in my jacket pocket, but I would a Fuji GS645...and I would be confident that the images I'd get from my GS645 would be quality images, at least due to the qualities of the lense if nothing else.

If you want to continue this, as it is a personal "issue" you seem to have with me, please do so off list.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin,

I am sorry if I offended you or misrepresented any of your statements. I do not even know you to have a personal issue with you. Let's get back to photography and be friendly.

Howard
 
No harm, no foul.

In a world of opinions, I chose to use verbage like "some of the best" to reflect the fact that I believe they are worthy for consideration and mention among those who desire excellence. Often verbage like "simple fact" and "well excepted facts" are misused when describing something as subjective as the pleasantness of out of focus areas.

Everyone has a right to their OPINIONs, even OJ.

Peace
 
Hi Alan,

> In a world of opinions, I chose to use verbage like "some of the best" > to reflect the fact that I believe they are worthy for consideration > and mention among those who desire excellence.

I do agree they are "some of the best", and was simply qualifying that as being true for certain aspects and uses, and not so, IMO, for others. It was in no way meant to demean your opinion.

> Often verbage like > "simple fact" and "well excepted facts" are misused when describing > something as subjective as the pleasantness of out of focus areas.

What I was saying is that people that I have specifically discussed this issue with's general opinion was that the OOF rendering of Fuji lenses aren't as good as Zeiss or Leica, and that is a fact. I was not factualizing their actual subjective opinion...but in reality, the difference is substantative in this case, and infact, I was specific in stating the reason my criticisim, and those reasons, IMO, are not subjective. Whether you like choppy and not smooth or not is subjective. There are people who may think eating dirt is plesant ;-)

Regards,

Austin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top