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!

Contax FX1-screen

Hi! Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to my previous posting ( September 15th ). However I did have the FX1 fitted to my N1, and the resultant effect is exactly the same as Simon's. Initially I was really worried about the focusing of the N1, with all the various remarks that had been posted,even to the extent that I almost went back to Canon. That thought has now left me, as the focusing as Simon says is more or less spot on,and even if I do notice a slight difference it is very minute. In fact,even when I use the A/F I nearly always adjust the with the focusing ring on the lense, which gives me a greater satisfaction that everything is OK, so much so that I have no intention of putting the original screen back in, another thing is, that being retired I have plenty of time to play about. I hope these few comments gives you the N1 users a little more confidence.
 
Ken

I believe we are seeing the anomaly created by having a hybrid camera - both AF and MF in one body. If it was a pure manual focus camera we would all be using the ground glass and split image and be very happy users. If it was pure AF then we would let the camera focus and, as long as the images were in focus, we would again be happy users.

Where we have the issue is that we have an AF camera whose focus we can check with the split image, and I believe we are seeing the difference between the AFaccuracy and the split image accuracy. I have to say that the adjustment need to get the split image to align after and AF operation is so minute that I doubt the focal plane has moved anywhere near enough to fall outside of the depth of field, and probably by not more than a fraction of a millimetre.

I use manual focussing all the time for macro work of course, as even a fraction of a millimetre at f/22 on a macro shot can render the image out of focus.

Simon
 
I am so furious right now that I probably should not comment but I fell like I have to vent somewhere. I just tested my N1 autofocus and FX-1 slit image by putting the camera on a tripod and focusing on different points. Since I work a lot with cinema lenses, I measured the distance to my focus points with a tape measure and compared the results to the lens markings. The result was that the autofocus seemed to match my measurements more exactly than the split image focus obtained with the FX-1. I have just taken a couple of rolls of slides during a trip in Germany and I am very worried because I trusted the split image.

For my next test, I reinstalled the original focusing screen, and by manually determining critical focus by eye on this screen, the autofocus seems to be dead on.

So here is my WARNING: It seems that we should quickly discard of the FX-1 because it seems to be highly inaccurate for critical focus situations. I will definitely do so myself since I take a lot pictures with shallow depth of field taking advantage of the 1.4 T-stop of the 50mm.

The FX-1 has definitely made me very insecure about the reliability of the N1, which I think is a shame with a camera of this price.
I have always loved the quality and accuracy Carl Zeiss products and I am starting to think that their partnership with Kyocera might not have been the best decision.

Please if any of you has an OFFICIAL answer about the accuracy of the FX-1 versus the autofocus, please let me know because I really feel like selling my whole package and switching to LEICA.
 
I have just ordered the FX-1 for my N1, but I will not install it based on many comments on this site, the camera was sent back once for recalibration, and I have thought about going the same route as you.
good luck

Rick
 
Berndt, I can't comment on the accuracy of the N1 and the FX-1, but I can assure you the 50mm 1.4 lens is an F stop not a "T" stop. Zeiss do not quote the actual T stop of their lenses(I'm not aware of any manufacturer who currently delcares the T stop). It probably doesn't matter too much in these days of built in exposure meters anyway.
Colin
 
Hi Collin, I haven't even thought about the fact that still camera lenses do not give T-stops. Obviously on the 50mm it is the same since it is a prime lens. On the 70-300mm with all the glass however, I am sure that there is a difference. It really doesn't matter since it is usually no more than a third stop difference at the most anyway, which is nothing that can't be compensated for in post anyway. It is only habit that makes me refer to T-stops since I am usually concerned with exposure more than with depth of field.
It made me think though that maybe the zooms let in less light on the long end and Zeiss therefore quotes the 24-85mm as a 3.5-4.5 and the 70-300mm as a 4-5.6 respectively.
 
> Bernd I would do a more thorough test if i were you. Like running some film through with the fastest lens you have wide open and compare Autofocus against MF. I am not sure from where you made your mesurements but I believe that you would have to measure distance from film plane to subject. It seems to me that this would be hard to do easily and to the tight tolarances that you described (the small possible difference between AF and Mf) You may find that the AF is off slightly. This may only matter/be noticable wide open. Also Variable Zoom lenses do lose light on the far end as the focal length is increased. This is somehow akin to Bellows Extension--If you Have ever worked with large format cameras you are very familiar with this concept.

Hope this suggestion heps Kevin
 
Kevin I will definitely run some sharp slide film through the camera and focus on a lens test chart and I will let everybody know about the results. However, I am not complaining about a significant difference between MF and AF at all. On the contrary, the AF seems to be dead on when compared to MF with the original ground glass. But the forum, I am commenting on is concerned with the FX-1 split screen, and believe me that is considerably off. To give you an ex&le, I measured to an object that was 10 feet away from the film plane. I let AF focus on it and the lens read 10 feet exactly. With the FX-1 split image, I focused and the lens read almost 20 feet. Trust me, Zeiss would never put such numbers on their lenses if they were that far off from the actual object distance.

My second question is, now that we have established that zoom lenses are slower on the long end due to bellows extension and there are now T-stop markings on the lens, is what is marked on the lens as f8 still an f8 or do I have to compensate and open up a touch when I'm on the long end of my zoom?

This question of course is more theoretical because the difference is probably not that significant.
 
Bernd
I have a question,which is off, is the split screen correct and the focus off, or is the focus ok and the split screen off,I just ordered a FX-1 but I am holding off installing it,or I may send it in and let Contax do it, I am having a tough time manual focusing with the original screen in some situations, I am really giving this a chance ,do to the fact we will take a beating on the resale ,and the optics are just so superb

Rick
 
Back
Top