CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Sony to consider developing body for Contax N Mount

albert4321

Well-Known Member
First, I agree with Joseph that Sony makes killer digital P&S camera. I bought a V1 couple years ago and it produce one of the best images I’ve ever seen even in today’s standard. I used it with an external Sony flash (bigger than the V1 camera body) and it made wonderful flash photography because the camera can be set in pgm, Tv, Av and pure manual mode. That body has a optical viewfinder which I like. I went to HK last Feb 2004 and looked at the 828 at Sony show rm. The EVF is a piece of crap, so I decided I need a real dSLR. I ordered an ND from a US dealer while I was still vacationing in HK. I can’t be happier with the ND except for the hi ISO, poor battery life and lack of RAW software support. Going to the ND is a logical route for the people invested in N-mount lens, and it was (and still is) one of the very few full frame body available at the time. Eventually, I sink big bucks in Canon dSLR and its L glasses for my paid gigs.

I have not looked at the R1 and I should not make any comment. From Joseph's s&les, I am impressed with the "no-franging" from a hi-contrast scene. The reason I write this because of my personal experience going to the digital photography world. For those considering going digital, I must warn you that try to decide want you need and go straight to that gear. Have you heard of the story from Photo.net that one guy spent eventually $1700 for the tripod+head that really worked for him at the end. He wasted so much money and time because he started a mediocre gear and keep upgrading. Sure, I understand we all have to start somewhere because of the budget. So plan carefully. Did I feel I wasted $600 for the V1, no, it is because I gave it to my brother in HK. He and his wife were blown away from the image quality from the V1. I really feel wasted $400+ for the Contax U4R I got few months back for my wife. Well made camera but the image quality is really shitty especially it is a relative new camera from Contax.

As I mentioned earlier, ND really comes back to life because of the Adobe ACR and Bridge.

DJ, I heard your frustration. Who wants to stuck with the Nikon 1.5x sensor limitation. Can’t one use current c-y mounts with Nikon adaptors? If Zeiss really goes with the ZF, like the ZM, I think this company stuck in the past (50’s, 60’s) and limit its market to the older hardcore zeiss supporters in stead of going into the future.

Personally, I won’t have hi hope for Zeiss in the next Photokina. Remember how disappointing we were from the last one, especially with Kyocera. What I really hope for is a cheaper digital back for the C645.

I apologize for this long post. Slow day at work. Do I sound angry with Contax? No, I am way over it. When you have no expectation, there is no disappointment.

Happy Holidays!
 
D

djg

Indeed, Albert. Two sets of words of wisdom come to mind:

1. Buy cheap, buy twice
2. No expectation, no frustration

Happy Holidays to all!

DJ
 

wang

Well-Known Member
Part of the reason that I have been dealing with Sony so often is that her digital cameras are more tuned to produce the Zeiss look. If you are used to the typical colour tone of Contax cameras, you will also find a similar reproduction of these tones by Sony. The photo showed earlier in this panel looks very "Zeiss" to me. This colour tone cannot be reproduce by using Zeiss lenses on Canon bodies, the ''Zeiss" feel is just not there.

John,

if you wish to have large screens, try Sony's T series, they all have ginormous screens

Merry Christmas !
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Thanks Joseph. I'll have a look at them.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.

John
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
"This colour tone cannot be reproduce by using Zeiss lenses on Canon bodies, the ''Zeiss" feel is just not there."

Huh? Sorry to be contrary again. This has everything to do with how your file management is set up in post processing, and little to do with how the camera is "tuned".

Canon camera jpegs can be tuned in any way you wish, just like with about any digital camera of that stature including the ND. Different profiles can be put into sets and selected at will.

But RAW is where it's at. So, more important is how you set up RAW defaults in ARC for certain cameras and personal tastes. I have RAW default profile for each camera set in ARC. Leica DMR defaults are different than those set up for Canon ... and you can set up a default for Zeiss lenses on Canon cameras or Leica R lenses on Canons. Load a CF card select the RAW default for that camera and it stays there until you change it.

All the qualities of the Zeiss lenses like micro contrast, 3D pop, and color cast are abundantly apparent when used on a Canon digital camera ... if the file is processed correctly. It is the lenses that differ, and RAW defaults need to be set up to take advantage of those characteristics.
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
For ex&le, IMO the comparison you showed above is slanted to make the R1 point, when in fact the Canon 10D file is the best of the three by a long shot ... if it had been set up correctly going in.

The shot of the walkers and path is a very nice photograph Joseph, however the highlight areas are devoid of any tone and read 0 on the info dialog panel ... which means they cannot be recovered.

I know you really don't like anyone challenging your authority, but all I'm saying is please just present your enthusiasm for a product without denigrating another ... especially with claims that are not taking into account the reality and limitations of each system or important aspects like in camera options and post processing settings.

 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Marc,
I just wonder how you learn about "tuning" and so on and if it is by trial and error like most things. Also do you know if the R1 can be "tuned".
Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy and prosperous New Year.
John
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
John, I just wrote Dirk an explanation of how to set up Camera RAW default settings for a specific camera. It involves shooting a grey card strip/color chart in neutral lighting, and balancing the whites (color temp & Hue), as well as tweaking contrast/brightness/exposure default settings... then saving that set for future work.

I'm sure the R1 can be set up in-camera for some control of jpgs ... most D cameras can ... like altering saturation and contrast combinations for different lighting conditions ... then save them as sets for recall when needed.

But I only shoot RAW files and don't rely on in-camera processing. Since I shoot thousands of images, it heightens the importance of refining RAW default settings.

Funny how we've become the lab techs for all this.
 
D

djg

"This colour tone cannot be reproduce by using Zeiss lenses on Canon bodies, the ''Zeiss" feel is just not there."

And you're lumping an EOS 10D with the EOS 1D MkII, 5D and 1Ds MkII ...

OK, I'm not even going to go there! Tell you what, Joseph, you keep your Sony R1, I'll keep my 1DsII and Zeiss / Leica lenses, and we'll both be happy even though your pictures will be much more "Zeiss" than mine, especially when I use the Leica lenses
.

Happy Holidays to all!
 

wang

Well-Known Member
DJ, this is where the origins of my headache.

I suppose before becoming a qualified lab tech, I really have to get all these headaches first.

Cheers.
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Thanks Marc,
I understand now. I will have a look at what you said for Dirk. Yes we have to be computer wizz's now as well as photographers but it's fun, if straining on the eyes, and an alternative to the dark room I suppose.
John
 
D

djg

Joseph, it's safe to say there's always a learning and understanding curve in dynamically changing environments
.

You don't need to become a computer whiz for the digital darkroom, just like you don't need to be a chemist for the wet one. You do need to get the priorities right and where to invest:

1. You need the best monitor you can afford, and you need to get (or borrow?) a calibration tool and calibrate it from time to time.

2. Get enough memory, remembering that the bigger your working files the more you'll need.

3. Get the processing software you're comfortable with. Try a few and see, as they're all different in approach, presentation and general feel of the resulting images.

The workflow can be a bit tedious when learning, but it quickly becomes subconscious unless you're doing certain sophisticated adjustments to specific areas of an image.

I think the biggest problem here is the overwhelming amount of things that can be done. Best is to get a basics book, or workfklow guide from a web site, and start there.

Now here's a scary thought. My PC work area is the same as my home theatre area, a.k.a. my den or whatever. I work on a futton sofa, which of course has the TV 8-9 ft. in front. My PC workstation is a big server chassis with two monitors on top which I roll towards me from the left of the sofa.

My new 50" TV which is an a truck somewhere right now
will be displaying a slightly bigger apparent image than my (alleged) 22" monitors at working distances (2.5-3 ft vs. 8-9 ft.) and will resolve just about as much (1792x1344 vs. 1920x1080). I could conceivably get rid of the PC monitors if I could squeeze in a second TV, but unfortunately it's too big and would off-center the TV viewing position too much. I need a bigger room, dang it! Hmmm, unless I stack them vertically - there's a frightening thought.

But keep an eye on LCoS technology (Sony SXRD, JVC D-ILA), which although not flat screen (it's rear projection but slim) provides a better picture than LCD with no SDE (screen door effect) and is actually cheaper at the bigger sizes they're made. This stuff just doesn't let up!

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukka, and Wonderful Whatever to Everybody
.

DJ
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
No one is immune from being tortured by technology. In addition to a horrible tooth ache just in time for Christmas, my new H2D has suddenly decided to not allow me to open any of the DNG files ... but DNG files from the Leica DMR work just fine so the ARC 3.3 program seems okay. Checked all my permissions ... and only have to run Disk Warrior to see if it's some other hiccup. But hey, what do you want for $25,000.

Merry Whatever to you all.
 
D

djg

Ouch! Sorry to hear that, Marc. A double whammy
. Hope you get both resolved pronto. Bad toothaches are no joke (and neither are unopenable - is that a word? - DNGs).
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
Thanks DJ. Hope we can get together again this year and do a little shooting. I want to walk around and shoot some with a Hasselblad SWC (film) and see what that Zeiss 38mm will do there.

My face looks like a Gargoyle from the swelling. No Dentist to be found on Christmas Eve ... except the butcher that caught that rotten on-call duty ... I'd rather suffer through it than end up in his chair ; -)
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Bad luck Marc,
I hope it gets better soon - nothing worse than tooth ache.
Best wishes
John
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
My wife suggest pressing cloves on it if you have them which is an old fashioned remedy but our dentist still packs a temporary cavity with cloves or a clove compound while waiting for things to settle down.
John
 

albert4321

Well-Known Member
DJ, you are right about more memory for the computer. Just got a new workstation with dual processors, 4G RAM (max out) and super duper video card. My work flow is ten times faster now.

You give me an idea to lug my old laptop to use it with my 53" DLP display in the living rm. Just wonder if my spdyer can calibrate DLP screen.


Talking about toothache, my new desktop can't open RAW files from Photoshop CS. I hate to get another license for CS2.

Ho Ho Ho. One more photoshoot on X'mas day then I am done for the year (except for those print orders.)

BTW, I did a corp portraits yesterday in SF downtown and saw this kid playing at the front desk, shot with 85L available office light. I thought is kid is cute and more fun to shoot than those corperate dudes. Sorry for being off brand and off topic. (did someone mentioned the word Canon earlier?)


I am trying the hi-contrast grainy processing look.

 

albert4321

Well-Known Member
Marc wrote: "shooting a grey card strip/color chart in neutral lighting, and balancing the whites"

Sounds like a zone system for the digital domain. A true photographer practice.

BTW, I am using a "WhiteBal" and it works very well. not perfect but quick and dirty.
 
D

djg

Marc, I think you mean next year
, although I know a good dentist here in Queens ...

Old fashioned remedies are often the best. Myself I put alo vera on anything ... OK, maybe not on a tooth, but anything that itches or bleeds superficially. I've been amazed at what it does for burns.

I just did a batch of coffee roasting and the smell is killing me. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to try it, though. Time to say good night and Merry Whatever.
 
Top