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


Well-Known Member
Happy CRISTmas to you all,

May the joy of the Lord Jesus Christ be upon you all, and not just for the day. Remember it it not called Christmas because of the presents and the food and drink!!

I hope Father Christmas, Saint Nicolaus, Santa Clause et all brings you what you need and want, (ie NDII & G3, 30 mp full frame or better, N, G & C/Y lens mount, 1000 shots per battery charge, RAW Preview, etc, 21 & 35mm f1.4 N Distagons, and cheaper than Canon/Nikon)!!

Oh and a wonderful dentist for Marc, who will do a house call for $20.



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

''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". Marc said.

Just some questions to Marc. I shoot JPEG with Sony 717, 828 and R1, I loaded them into the iPhoto of Apple, they all look very "Zeiss" to me. I don't need to process them at all.

On the other hand, if I shoot JPEG with 10D on Zeiss lenses, they don't look "Zeiss" to me at all.


This was taken with 10D Zeiss C-Y 100 2 camera colour balance to flash.


The second image was taken with Sony 717 camera colour balance to flash.

Both of these were the same person taken in ISO100, studio flash, same place in the room. Apart from image resizing for the web, no colour balance were done after shooting.

The different results are very much to do with how the cameras are 'tuned'.


Well-Known Member
Okay Joseph, since a toothache has me up in the middle of the night, I'd be happy to respond to your post ... mostly to share with others ... again, I am not disputing that the Sony is a fine camera worthy of serious consideration ... and it is nice to see a beautiful woman as the subject rather than test charts : -)

First off, you have presented 2 pictures who's only commonality is the subject. They were shot at different times in different light: The light direction is obviously different on the Canon shot, and the light quality is slightly more contrasty on the Canon shot. The Canon shot is slightly overexposed for a portrait, and the Sony shot is slightly underexposed. That has nothing to do with how the Camera is "tuned" except perhaps how it comes from the factory with a default settings. With most cameras, default settings are for average conditions.

In addition, the Canon shot is slightly cooler in color temperature. This is very much in keeping with the tendency of many Zeiss lenses to be a touch cooler in feel than say Leica R lenses for ex&le. You have to have shot neutral transparency films to have witnessed this. It is not pronounced, but subtile. So even though it is not properly exposed, I find the Canon shot color temperature to be more in keeping with my previous experiences with Zeiss glass.

It has to be said that the Canon 5D is a sophisticated camera with some consumer features you won't find on the 1DsMKII. To take advantage of those features you have to set the camera to your tastes (which differ person to person and from condition to condition). These settings are primarily for jpeg shooters as RAW files tend to be exactly that: RAW ... allowing all settings to be altered after the fact.

If you read the manual on the 5D, you'll see almost anything can be achieved to taste. The camera comes set to a standard default, but the picture style can be altered at will and saved. For ex&le, you can select "Portrait" style which is slightly warmer in temp, and less contrasty than the default "Standard" picture style.

The point is that you can "tune" the camera to your taste when shooting jpgs ... and then change it for different conditions. The menu allows you to register 3 different "User Default" settings marked #1, #2 and #3. You can also control color temp. and tune exactly to personal preferences.

Here's an ex&le of the Canon menu selections: (I'll get to the pictures in the next post) ...



Well-Known Member
Now, if you download the photos posted by Joseph, and open them in Photoshop, then check the levels you can see how the toe of the histogram doesn't reach the far right.

Here I've made adjustments to the Canon shot to simulate less contrast and a warmer color temperature ... both of which can be set in the camera by selecting your menu preferences discussed in the post above.

While I can simulate some things like color temperature, I can't totally alter the original lighting, nor the ability of the larger Canon sensor to register the fine detail possible with a Zeiss lens such as the 100/2. More of the micro contrasts of the Zeiss is captured and shows up in skin areas and the hair.

In a way, Joseph is right in that the Sony may come from the factory with defaults set for the lens included. After all, Canon doesn't sell Zeiss glass.

However, 5 minutes with the Canon and a Zeiss lens, and you can set your own "Defaults" to taste and register them as one of the user "Default Settings" ... then go there anytime you mount a Zeiss lens on your Canon 5D. This way you can get the absolute best from your existing C/Y lenses, while still retaining a second or third "User Default" setting for your Canon AF lenses.



Well-Known Member
Further demonstration: Here is a grey chart used for commercial temperature balance. It was shot with a D5 using a Profoto D4 generator box and profoto strobe heads... which are daylight balanced to 5,500K (the amount of light and temperature of the light is a constant with these pro level, digitally controlled strobes).

The Canon 5D menu Temperature controls were set to the Maximum adjustment at either end (2,800K & 10,000K) to show how a Neutral grey card can be effected by how you set the temperature in the camera. Jpegs were shot of each and the level adjusted to provide absolute white and absolute black.

The third one is an ex&le of a RAW file simply using the eye dropper to neutralize the color temperature. It's there as a control to show what neutral looks like (if it has a color cast to it, then your monitor needs calibrated).

The point is that you can set all kinds of aspects that effect picture quality right out of the 5D when shooting j-pegs. The options are there to go beyond the strictly default amateur settings from the factory. Very good if you shoot Zeiss lenses and want them a touch warmer.



Well-Known Member
Correction: The Sony photo above was taken with a 717, and the Canon photo was taken a 10D, which if recall correctly also has in-camera user adjustments you can make to control jpgs. The 10D is not a full frame sensor, and yet still appears to be registering more skin detail ... but that could be the function of the more contrasty lighting.

Sorry about the flub up, but the principles are still the same.


Well-Known Member
Thanks Marc,
That is all a big help, perhaps especially to a person like me who is still a digital switherer mainly on the grounds of cost.
I hope your tooth is better.
did you try the cloves?


Well-Known Member
Hi Marc,
I don't know if you have seen this but if not I wonder if that is the reason for the problem you had - with the camera that is not your tooth.

January 3rd, 2006

Dear Hasselblad/Imacon owner,

Warning: Adobe Bridge can potentially corrupt 3f files!

We have come across a serious issue with using Adobe Bridge on a Mac to alter metadata or ratings of 3f files.

When doing this Bridge will add an XMP meta data tag to the file AND unfortunately it will also make some incorrect updates to the 3f TIFF header.
This can lead to various results but a typical symptom is that opening the image in FlexColor will show an incorrect noisefilled preview.

Attempts to use the detail view or saving an image will usually work since the raw data itself hasn't been affected.

Hasselblad and Adobe are working on a solution to this problem, but meanwhile you should not manipulate 3f files in Bridge on a Mac.

Hasselblad will contact you when the problem has been solved.

Best regards
Carsten Kronborg
After Sales Manager

__________ NOD32 1.1350 (20060103) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Hi Sony R1 owners,

since we talked here a lot about the Sony R1, I just wanted to ask for your experience. Maybe I am too dump to use an R1, but I am very disappointed with it. I just bought it 3 days ago.

Images are nice but firmware is a nightmare. Has anybody tried the auto-iso function in combination with aperture priority (A) or speed priority (S)

I made some snapshots today and tried some of thses combos.

1. ISO auto only works in the bandwith from ISO 160 up to ISO 400. Everything above is ignored by the firmware. I understand something else under the name "iso Auto". This is already strange.

2. and even worse, try to set speed to 1/125 or faster in speed priority (s) on a cloudy day (flash turned off). You will be surprised, that the firmware forces you to use ISO 160 making the image way too dark.

I wonder why speed priority with ISo auto is an option then, if the firmware ignores my "wish". Instead of increasing ISO setting (if lens is already at full aperture) to match the bad wheather, it makes the image with ISO 160 and therefore too dark? Any logic behind this?

Can you imagine how disappointed I was to see the results this evening?

Did I have overseen something here? Anybody else with this experience? I will send my R1 back, if this turns out to be the way how Sony thinks ISO auto & aperture and speed priority should work...


This are some Sony R1 photo i'm taken recently.
This is the first time i'm use the camera, and i'm really like it, until i'm "forget" to use my the other medium format 617 Panorama Camera

All photo taken with Aperture Priority and ISO 160, i'm not tested the Auto ISO, because i will never use the option, so i'm not even bother to test it.




Hi Cheamg,

lovely pix. Yes, the image quality is really good with the R1. I have seen in Exif data that you did these shots in aperture priority & ISO 160.

Have you experienced same problems as I described above with the R1?

Have you ever been able to shoot in iso auto setting & aperture priority so that the R1 was using ISO 400 or higher?

Or anybody else?

Thanks in advance

(addendum: sorry, I just saw now the comment above your images. For me ISO auto is very important, this is IMO one of the main advantages of digital imaging. I need it often in situations, in which I do not have the time to go back and forth in the menu while shooting i.e. family snapshots. Wheather in Germany is not that good. ISO setting above 200 is often used)


For quick snapshots, i would suggest you use the Program (P) setting in the camera. With this setting, you still can sellect the prefer aperture and let the camera set the rest.

Some other Sony R1 photos





Well-Known Member
I never experienced those problems you describe as I have never use aperture priority or autoISO. I only use manual mode in R1.

The only thing I am not quite happy with the R1 is the telephoto part of the lens. Its maximal aperture is f4-4.5, but it does not generate results as good as my C-Y lenses such as 100mm f2 at f4.

However, the wide angle part of R1 is impressive. At 24mm,it can focus down to 35cm and produce sharp and contrasty images even at the corners. In order to produce similar results with a 5D, you might need Leica 35-21, which is a lot more expensive.


Hi Cheang,

I know that there are easier ways to make snapshots, but this is not how I want to use the camera.

I expect from a camera that offers aperture and speed priority in combination with ISO auto to work also properly in that way.

ISO automatic is a kind of very clear wording. It shall set the ISO automatically and shall get higher as soon as the other limiting factors do not guarantee otherwise a proper exposed picture.

This is the whole sense of ISO auto at all camera brands. If Sony forces you in ISO Auto always to use ISO 160, this is a unknown bug and has to be fixed or Sony does not know who they are targeting with this camera and lens.

I am sorry that this sounds harsh, but we have to be aware that Sony is planning to step into the DSLR market now and if they screw their reputation with things like this, nobody will take their efforts seriously anymore. They screwed once already with their communication in respect to the F828 Blooming issue. This is not the massmarket anymore, where you can afford to ignore user complaints. This is neither the market anymore, where you can afford to put products in the shelves that do not work properly. Canon and Nikon only wait for mistakes like this of Sony.

The Sony R1 is not a TC9 or other P&S. It is clearly targeted to the advanced amateur. This is why they have the APS size sensor in it, the great Zeiss zoom and an originally price tag of 1000 USD. So if they target this group and if they offer A, S and ISO Auto in the camera-menu, they have to be aware that the costumer wants to use this also properly.

I called yesterday the R1 hotline and they have no clou what the R1 is capable of and what not (camera-settings). They promised to call back, but did not yet. I do not want to call our other contacts to Sony for this, this would be "too much", but I am shocked about this, to say the least.

I will keep you updated. All I need to know is whether this is a problem of my R1 only, or with every R1 model the same. As soon as our Sony and Minolta forums are merged this week, I will post there the same question...


Hi Chi

thanks for this information. I think the image results are very good on the screen (I have not printed yet).

IMHO it would be unfair to expect a 14.3-71.5 Zoom on the long end to have simlar results as a FFL 100

From the point of view of image quality for this price and zoom range, I am very surprised (positive).

It is just the basic menu functionality, which could (if it turns out to be a bug) be easily corrected with a firmware update.

I would have liked a bigger aperture in the 35mm equivalent of 50mm. It is with the R1 around F4. But I guess this is the compromise for having very good image quality and low price of the R1. A zoom with a bigger aperture would have been bigger, heavier, more expensive and probably not as good in the final image...


... as a side note:

The reason why I am so "allergic/sensitive" with this, is our experience in the past.

If we assume that there will be a Sony DSLR with KM mount and Zeiss lenses in the future, Sony should make sure that they get the right "start".

We all had our bad experience in the past with the Contax brand, the communication and ignorance of user demand.

If Sony will target the same audience in the future, they better make sure, that everything is "perfect" right from the beginning.

I do not know how it is with all you guys, but I do not want to make the same experience with Sony in the future, like we had over the last 5-7 years with Contax in the past.

This is why I am extremely sensitive to this. Every little sign turns on a big red light on my desk.

The R1 is an ideal possibility for Sony to show what they are able to do and attract new costumers to their future DSLRs. But marketing goes - as we all know from the Contax times - in both ways, if you do not pay attention to it...

Sony has to gain our trust, if they want to get our money to invest into their new DSLR system. But trust has to be earned. The DSLR market is highly competitive and not all brands will survive.

I want to have strong signals, that Sony is really longterm committed to my target group. I do not want to invest in a brand, if it seems that the costumer is not taken seriously.

Who is guaranteeing me that Sony is not just "trying" something in the DSLR market and in 3 years, they suddenly change their mind and exit DSLR, focussing again on the mass market like all their other businesses?

How can I know this? I will never be able to "know" this. But I can look at indications, whether Sony takes "us/the advanced photographer" seriously or not. This is what I try to find out.

Buttom line: I want to make sure, to spend my money on the right place. I want to avoid the Bill Murray experience in the movie "Groundhog Day"

Just my 2 cents...


Well-Known Member
I only use R1 at ISO160. It is alright at ISO400, but becomes "noisy" at ISO800.

By the way, I just brought a new Mac with Intel chip and Photoshop CS. I am quite impressed with the way you can achieve with the Photoshop. In order to compensate for the reduced dynamic range compared to film, you could shoot the same scene with tripod in different exposures with R1. With multiple images at different exposures you can get a film like image with good details in both highlights and dark areas.


Well-Known Member
Hi Dirk, I understand your frustration in R1.

If you are using the automatic features of R1, it is difficult that Sony could satisfy everyone.

It is a general rule that when you rely on the camera to determine the basic variables like ISO, f-nos or aperture time, the camera makes wrong decisions no matter which brand you are using. I am sure it would be the same with other brands like Canon or Nikon.

I always have a gut feeling that the automatic functions of the camera are not as good as the human mind, this is why I decide for the camera instead of the other way round.

Dirk, you might be expecting too much from the camera. To me, I am in general very happy with my R1.