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!

Will we ever see a digital body for our Manual Focus lenses

I think you've nailed it here Marc. The original Contax was a trend setter. The Contax RTS was too. So was the 645. All were good news for Zeiss. You either go super niche (wrong for Zeiss, I suspect) or you go front foot and get "on the curve".

Marc wrote:
"IMO, what we need from Zeiss is Autofocus lenses of the highest optical quality. They can dabble in retro fits until the cows come home, and it'll just be a slow death of a great photographic name because their consumer base will simply die off ... or be so small that Zeiss will have to become a registered charity to survive."
 
I agree with Marc that we really need to see some AF glass from Zeiss in a competitive mount. I still have a bunch on N glass and it was wonderful but it would be even that much better when coupled with a top-tier AF system.

I may prefer Nikon to Marc's Canon preference but that is beside the point, Zeiss on a modern digital SLR, with fast and reliable autofocus, would be fantastic. I'd have my credit card out now if they would accept pre-orders!

Kent

ps- The lens I'd REALLY like to see in the Nikanon mount would be the 85mm from the N range. Love that lens. (I know they have the MF version).
 
It seemed there are some forms of incompatability between Zeiss and autofocus systems.

Contax N and 645 are short living.

Hasselblad deliberately kept Zeiss out of the H system.

Sony also kept Zeiss out of the Alpha system.

Technically, Zeiss chooses heavy materials for the lens elements and makes autofocus slow. Unless Zeiss makes up their mind and commit herself to make fast and great autofocus lenses, the status quo will prevail.


"--So, the statement that Nikon has the highest durability over the years while Canon is only a workhorse doesn't make sense, nor is it borne out in actual demanding experience as opposed to theory.--"

Let me elaborate what I was saying. Nikon's body do have the highest durability in 35mm and the one I am talking about is F2. It was the introduction of F1 and F2 which made Nikon earned the reputation for professional users. F2 was made to the highest mechanical standard and it is one of the ideal platform for the new NF lenses. Nikon system was known to be superior to Canon by mechanical measures but the situation reversed after Canon excels in the digital sensors. To me, Canon system is a workhorse. Their lenses are not durable and the digital bodies will be out of date very soon. 1Ds mark 1 was the workhorse a few years ago but I am sure people like DJ would like to use 1Ds mark 2 right at this moment. F2 was great many years ago and is still one of the best if you choose to use film as the recording medium.
 
"Hasselblad deliberately kept Zeiss out of the H system"

I was told Zeiss only licensed their AF lenses to Contax.

I have no idea what is the deal with Sony uses Zeiss AF lenses for their P&S, camcorders, and now the Alpha.
 
Contax N and 645 were relatively short lived not because of Zeiss AF lenses. The cost of digital development, and the late entry of the ND with poor initial attributes was more likely the problem.

Hasselblad needed a full systems integration supplier to move into the digital age with medium format ... which Zeiss is less able to do than Fuji. That is already becoming apparent as Lens correction aspects are coming on line with new camera firmware, digital back advancements and improved Flexcolor software versions that maximize lens performance. While HC lenses offer some pretty fast apertures considering they are leaf shutter designs, the H system is the fastest AF of any MF system. So large aperture lenses don't necessarily mean slow AF.

Nikon mechanical cameras were most certainly built to professional expectations. They were the first in and best dressed when it came to SLRs. Once a system was started, few would dump all their lenses to switch to a "Johnny come lately" like Canon. This doesn't change the fact that the Canon F-1 was every bit the tough pro level camera the Nikon Fs were. The absolute king of all mechanical SLRs is the Leica SL-2 ... like that used by E. Haas. Even today, most of them are still in use because they were so over-engineered that Leica lost money on everyone it sold. You have not experienced mechanical SLR perfection until you shoot with a Leica SL-2.

Canon did not need to wait for digital sensors to start it's ascendancy in the market. With the risky move to the EOS mount, Canon redesigned the modern SLR to include the AF in the lenses rather than having to retrofit AF in the camera body to accommodate existing lenses. The result was a leap forward in AF speed, which provided a real reason to select Canon over Nikon. As Image Stabilization came into play for the longer "sports" lenses, Canon then sealed the deal with many, many professional photographers. That ascendancy continues with their self-contained digital development and manufacture.

Back on subject ... Zeiss is perfectly able to make superb AF glass ... anyone who has shot with Zeiss motion picture lenses knows this. They just need an outlet to apply their expertise. Unlike Leica, they are a lens maker without a camera body home, dooming them to be a specialty player ... where they should be the king of still photographic lenses.
 
Hi Joseph, I will have to disagree about your satement about the alleged superiority of Nikon build. Firstly, I must say, I am not one of those crazy brand loyalists..I have used most of the 35mm pro & semi-pro systems of the 70's & 80's. I currently have a Nikon F2AS with Nikkors and Zeiss ZF. The F2 is lovely. However I used a Canon F-1 (original) for years and have to say it is every bit the equal of the Nikon F2. If you have not used one, I would suggest you do not have enough infromation to make the statement you have. Indeed in some ways, I think the Canon F-1 is preferable to the Nikon F2. cheers Steve.
 
Still getting emails from this forum. Dirk, You said you were going to fix the problem. I do not collect plastic cameras and you misled me you dog when you said this forum was all inclusive. If you guys can not take me off the list, I feel I will have to show you up with some photos of Asians getting their final's I took during the real war with my Army issued Graflex and heaven forbid a Kodak (who are they----do they make film like Fuji does?) lens. God bless America. [Delete this line and type your message here]
 
Dear Richard,

lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
rofl.gif
rofl.gif
rofl.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif


You are such a wag.

And don't forget Richard God Bless You, Jesus died for you, so it's never to late to start loving people.
kiss.gif
kiss.gif
kiss.gif


Paul
 
I was looking up for the details of Canon F1. I found that the mirror does not move at the time when it is doing 9 frames per second, whereas Nikon F2 can do 7.

I certainly don't mind if someone could tell me about the merits of Canon F1. There isn't much written about it in cameraquest.

Despite the fact that Leica could be the best mechanical camera, Leica did not make it with a mirror lock. It restricts my choice to Leica R 6.2 instead.

MESSAGE TO RICHARD

Go ahead, Richard, you paid for writing in this forum. It is important to know about the history of mankind, many Asians seem to ignore and deny all these.

I do believe Germans are better than the Japanese in remembering the history of Mankind. However, Richard, since you are obssessed with the superiority of German cameras, I really hope you are able to understand what you wish to show. Rather than using them for blackmailling, you show them because you don't want them to happan again. Most Germans nowadays are able to think in a normal way instead of being obsessed with German superiority. Hilter was obsessed with German superiority, because deep inside, there was a horrible kind of inferiority complex.
 
Don't even go there Joseph. Bigoted ignorance is at best amusing ... at worst disgusting and dangerous. Frankly, I do not understand why Dirk doesn't just delete this fellows' account.

The merits of the Canon F-1 were mostly in durability. It, and the FTB were my first real 35mm cameras. I once slipped on the ice and fiercely smashed my FTB on the cement ... it still worked. Neither camera ever let me down in the 10 years I owned them.

I shot with a Leica SL-2 for a few years. I had the best SLR viewfinder I've yet experienced, and the most accurate meter also. Shutter speeds could be set at increments not even available on my modern EOS cameras. I did many macro shots with it and it was so buttery smooth and vibration free that I never saw a need for mirror lock up. I am not alone in thinking this specific camera is the best all mechanical 35mm camera ever produced by anyone. It has an almost cult like following.

But that is the past, and all those cameras are getting long in the tooth. For mechanical pleasures, and a slower pace of photography (when I have time : -) ... there is the Hasselblad V cameras and my delightful chrome Leica MP3 that looks and feels like the M3 I once owned.

35mm SLRs and DSLRs are work cameras for me. Just tools that provide the pleasure of making money. I don't care what name is on the camera as long as the thing works. Over the years I've used them all ... Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Contax. Except for the Contax with a couple of exotic $4,000 lenes, most were are the same to me. The only indulgence in 35mm format I have now is a Leica R9 with DMR ... which is a great camera that sees little use because it is too slow in every respect that matters to my work. I would have been better served buying a F6.
 
Back
Top