Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: narikin on July 01, 2009, 01:45:56 pm
-
Was looking at the Zeiss MTF charts for their Sinar 'ZH' mount AutoFocus lenses, and they are off the charts good!
the 80mm ZH Planar is simply astonishing, way better than every other MF 'standard' out there, including Zeiss' own Hasselblad Planars:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...r_2-8_80_06.pdf (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar_2-8_80_06/$File/Planar_2-8_80_06.pdf)
compare it to Hasselblad Planar:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...FE_102211_e.pdf (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_CFE_102211_e/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_CFE_102211_e.pdf)
Please Zeiss make this lens in other mounts - its AF, newly designed with latest optics, and I doubt you've sold 100 of them in Sinar mount.
So do the smart thing and make it in Mamiya and Hasselbald fit, like you are doing with your 35mm lenses. its simple, and all professionals love Zeiss quality and we have the $ to pay for it!
-
Was looking at the Zeiss MTF charts for their Sinar 'ZH' mount AutoFocus lenses, and they are off the charts good!
the 80mm ZH Planar is simply astonishing, way better than every other MF 'standard' out there, including Zeiss' own Hasselblad Planars:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...r_2-8_80_06.pdf (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar_2-8_80_06/$File/Planar_2-8_80_06.pdf)
compare it to Hasselblad Planar:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...FE_102211_e.pdf (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_CFE_102211_e/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_CFE_102211_e.pdf)
Please Zeiss make this lens in other mounts - its AF, newly designed with latest optics, and I doubt you've sold 100 of them in Sinar mount.
So do the smart thing and make it in Mamiya and Hasselbald fit, like you are doing with your 35mm lenses. its simple, and all professionals love Zeiss quality and we have the $ to pay for it!
I once wrote to Leica suggesting they consider expanding their mounts to Nikon, but they replied by telling me about the R range... oh dear, what a world.
Rob C
-
Was looking at the Zeiss MTF charts for their Sinar 'ZH' mount AutoFocus lenses, and they are off the charts good!
the 80mm ZH Planar is simply astonishing, way better than every other MF 'standard' out there, including Zeiss' own Hasselblad Planars:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...r_2-8_80_06.pdf (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar_2-8_80_06/$File/Planar_2-8_80_06.pdf)
compare it to Hasselblad Planar:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...FE_102211_e.pdf (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_CFE_102211_e/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_CFE_102211_e.pdf)
Please Zeiss make this lens in other mounts - its AF, newly designed with latest optics, and I doubt you've sold 100 of them in Sinar mount.
So do the smart thing and make it in Mamiya and Hasselbald fit, like you are doing with your 35mm lenses. its simple, and all professionals love Zeiss quality and we have the $ to pay for it!
BUT - have you checked out the price of these lenses for the Sinar M system? - that might chgange your mind or not.
As for Leica making lenses for CaNikon - according to a recent Leica response to the issue - they aren't allowed as the Japanese camera community industry jealously guards their patents and pretty much allows only Japanese manufacturers to make alternatives ...
-
As for Leica making lenses for CaNikon - according to a recent Leica response to the issue - they aren't allowed as the Japanese camera community industry jealously guards their patents and pretty much allows only Japanese manufacturers to make alternatives ...
perhaps Zeiss has better negotiating skills ...
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711B005A77C4 (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/8E8AE439A3FD6101C125711B005A77C4)
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...12572820048463E (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/42B1E57EA6944280C12572820048463E)
-
"perhaps Zeiss has better negotiating skills ...
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711B005A77C4 (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711B005A77C4)
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...20048463E" (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...12572820048463E")
Those are Cosina-lenses, the ZH-lenses are from Carl Zeiss - the brand name is irrelevant here.
I don't know why the 80mm has a better MTF, the 120mm and 180mm seem to be identical to the old designs!? The only real new design seems to be the 40IF (which later was also brought to Hasselblad).
The ZH-lenses seem to be top-notch but they're quite expensive. For some reason, Pros buy >>10k€-MFDBs every 2-4 years but don't want to spend as much on lenses that last for decades...
-
BUT - have you checked out the price of these lenses for the Sinar M system? - that might chgange your mind or not.
As for Leica making lenses for CaNikon - according to a recent Leica response to the issue - they aren't allowed as the Japanese camera community industry jealously guards their patents and pretty much allows only Japanese manufacturers to make alternatives ...
?
Which is the reason why the Pentax K mount is an open-source mount and, for that, chosen by so many russian manufacturers and Cosina-Vivitar offerings as their own mount.
-
BUT - have you checked out the price of these lenses for the Sinar M system? - that might chgange your mind or not.
As for Leica making lenses for CaNikon - according to a recent Leica response to the issue - they aren't allowed as the Japanese camera community industry jealously guards their patents and pretty much allows only Japanese manufacturers to make alternatives ...
Hoqwash. The first releases of the lenses from the Cosina made Zeiss lenses (Nikon F mount, Pentax K mount etc,) is that those mounts had fallen out of patent protection, so those were fair game so Zeiss could proceeded with those first. The reason the Zeiss ZE series (Canon EF mount) took so much longer to reach the market was due to patent issues with the Canon EF mount. This was stated openly by Zeiss.
"perhaps Zeiss has better negotiating skills ...
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711B005A77C4 (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711B005A77C4)
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...20048463E" (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...12572820048463E")
Those are Cosina-lenses, the ZH-lenses are from Carl Zeiss - the brand name is irrelevant here.
Hogwash. Cosina is acting as an OEM in the above regard. The designs originated from Zeiss, but in cooperation with Cosina, the designs were tweaked to best fit Cosina's manufacturing capabilities, and the need to reach a certain price point. The Zeiss/Cosina relationship was not a match made in heaven though. It was rocky at first. Certain procedures and processes were not available through Cosina. Case in point, the ZM 15/2.8 lens had issues, so Zeiss had to bring production of that lens back to Germany.
-
BUT - have you checked out the price of these lenses for the Sinar M system? - that might change your mind or not.
yes of course, but as a 30+ year pro, I'm used to serious investing in my equipment, and don't find those figures out of line compared to my digital backs or other equipment.
to spend $6-8k on an off-the-charts-good prime lens is perfectly feasible for me and many other professionals, especially if it makes our images stand out in their colour quality and resolution. In fact its a relatively small investment, considering its timescale it would pay back over compared to MF backs!
-
"perhaps Zeiss has better negotiating skills ...
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711B005A77C4 (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711B005A77C4)
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...20048463E" (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...12572820048463E")
Those are Cosina-lenses, the ZH-lenses are from Carl Zeiss - the brand name is irrelevant here.
I don't know why the 80mm has a better MTF, the 120mm and 180mm seem to be identical to the old designs!? The only real new design seems to be the 40IF (which later was also brought to Hasselblad).
The ZH-lenses seem to be top-notch but they're quite expensive. For some reason, Pros buy >>10k€-MFDBs every 2-4 years but don't want to spend as much on lenses that last for decades...
if you've actually used any of these lenses, instead of spending all your time reading charts
and graphs and paying too much attention to the "Made in XXXX" stamp, nothing about
their optical performance and characteristics suggests they are not Zeiss lenses.
Case in point, the ZM 15/2.8 lens had issues, so Zeiss had to bring production of that lens back to Germany.
as was the case with the ZM 85/2
-
I have all 4 ZH lenses and I had the old 80 mm Hasselblad (The Sinar m has a Hasselblad V bayonet). The new 80 mm is really better. The others are the same lens designs as the newest Hasselblad V lenses. Because of the smaller image circle the MTFs are cutted off at 30 mm instead of 40 mm at the Hasselblad V lenses.
If someone is interested, I can send some test images. That are really big lenses, as you can see on the attached picture.
Christopher
-
Comparing 80mm ZH lens to a Hasselblad V lens is unfair. The ZH lens has a much smaller image circle.
-
I haven't noticed the different image circle in the MTFs - but the 80 Planar still seems to be superior!?
I know how well lenses like the 1,4/85 Planar from Cosina perform - but that's the technical standard Carl Zeiss reached decades ago and was first brought to Kyocera and now Sony/Cosina. The dfifference in mechanical quality is one thing but the optical design is another. When somebody would order a 1,4/85 or MF 2,8/80 from Carl Zeiss and would be willing to pay for their highest design/manufacturing standards in Oberkochen/Jena, you would get a - visibly - different performance. Lenses which are designed and manufactured this way are an good example, just like the Summilux 1,4/50Asph from Leica - much more expensive but also much higher performing and you're not buying a Cosina instead of the native lens because of it's price, you want to drive your 8k$-DSLR to it's limits!
Leica and especially Carl Zeiss have a different production staff (Facharbeiter), machines (like CNC-machining of aspheric lens elements) and experience - that's the reason why they are able to deliver unique performances - not because of "Made in" or the brand name and this is the only thing that matters in the end. Most MF-lenses from today represent the technical standard of the 1970s (no floating elements, aspherics, radical different non-gauss designs - most Zeiss/Hasselblad-lenses introduced in this time like the 3,5/100 are still comparable to todays lenses) which usually results in good results when stopped down. But fast primes with high-contrast at open aperture or compact zooms above f4? Zeiss could surely deliver those lenses, but most users seem to be more focused on megapixels...
-
Comparing 80mm ZH lens to a Hasselblad V lens is unfair. The ZH lens has a much smaller image circle.
And on which V camera was this useful?
-
....I know how well lenses like the 1,4/85 Planar from Cosina perform - but that's the technical standard Carl Zeiss reached decades ago and was first brought to Kyocera....
Not all lenses have a direct lineage from the Contax RTS (Zeiss/Yashica) through the Contax-N (Zeiss/Kyocera) to the Zeiss ZF/ZS/ZK/ZE (Zeiss/Cosina). I will use your 84/1.4 as an example.
The original 85/1.4 CY lens began in 1975 made in West Germany. In 1990, production of that lens eventually went to Japan, up until the demise of the Contax line. Along the way, there were subtle changes such as coating changes, iris blade changes, etc. Some CY lenses underwent lens formula changes, but there is no documentation that the 85/1.4 was one of them. All in all, the 85/1.4 CY stayed pretty much the same.
The 85/1.4-N lens, an all electronic auto focus lens, bears little resemblance to its CY cousin. That lens was designed from the ground up to be an entirely new design for the N-series.
The 85/1.4 Z series was designed with Cosina's manufacturing capabilities and a competitive price point in mind, but all in all, a new design while having some roots from the original 85/1.4 CY design.
....When somebody would order a 1,4/85 or MF 2,8/80 from Carl Zeiss and would be willing to pay for their highest design/manufacturing standards in Oberkochen/Jena, you would get a - visibly - different performance....
The Carl Zeiss lenses we know today have not been made in Jena since the end of WWII. What remained in Jena was but a mere shell of the original Carl Zeiss, and after WWII became V.E.B Carl Zeiss Jena, a 'peoples owned corporation' behind the iron curtain. They had their own line of optical products.
....and now Sony/Cosina....
There has been no data or charts posted that I have seen on the Sony lenses. Anyone have any to post? From what I have read, Sony manufactures them, and Zeiss is a minor player there, providing some design guidance.
Posted below are the three Zeiss 85/1.4's (all at same scale)
-
I have all 4 ZH lenses and I had the old 80 mm Hasselblad (The Sinar m has a Hasselblad V bayonet). The new 80 mm is really better. The others are the same lens designs as the newest Hasselblad V lenses. Because of the smaller image circle the MTFs are cutted off at 30 mm instead of 40 mm at the Hasselblad V lenses.
If someone is interested, I can send some test images. That are really big lenses, as you can see on the attached picture.
Christopher
just out of interest, which back are you using on the Sinar M ?
I know the P65+ (or any Phase back) does not have a Sinar fitting, so am wondering what there is that can make use of the amazing lens resolution
-
Leica and especially Carl Zeiss have a different production staff (Facharbeiter), machines (like CNC-machining of aspheric lens elements) and experience - that's the reason why they are able to deliver unique performances - not because of "Made in" or the brand name and this is the only thing that matters in the end.
no, "the only thing that matters in the end" is the picture, the photograph, the image.
... all else is gearhead talk and forum fodder.
not one of the Zeiss lenses i use, some German and most Japanese made, give my
photographs/images any less than what i expect from Zeiss.
but i also realize that some out there still believe that a Canadian-made Leica lens is
not a real Leica lens, either.
-
There has been no data or charts posted that I have seen on the Sony lenses. Anyone have any to post? From what I have read, Sony manufactures them, and Zeiss is a minor player there, providing some design guidance.
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...125711E004AD17C (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/C7FB960ED6F52805C125711E004AD17C)
-
just out of interest, which back are you using on the Sinar M ?
I know the P65+ (or any Phase back) does not have a Sinar fitting, so am wondering what there is that can make use of the amazing lens resolution
I have tried a few backs (all from Sinar) with my Sinar M. The only one I think is extremely good is the old Sinarback 54H.
That back in multishot with a Sinar M makes the newer backs look like a bad dream!
-
Hoqwash. The first releases of the lenses from the Cosina made Zeiss lenses (Nikon F mount, Pentax K mount etc,) is that those mounts had fallen out of patent protection, so those were fair game so Zeiss could proceeded with those first. The reason the Zeiss ZE series (Canon EF mount) took so much longer to reach the market was due to patent issues with the Canon EF mount. This was stated openly by Zeiss.
Dear Chap - I was merely quoting - what a Leica spokesman said only a few days ago regarding this issue.....also a mount is a very different thing to a direct connection between electronics on board the camera systems transfer of metadata synced autofocus etc etc etc..
Cheers and do have a nice weekend.
-
just out of interest, which back are you using on the Sinar M ?
I know the P65+ (or any Phase back) does not have a Sinar fitting, so am wondering what there is that can make use of the amazing lens resolution
I'm using the Sinarback 54H and the eMotion 54 LV. Actually I use the 54H with the Sinar m on a Sinar p3 and the 2nd Sinar m with the eMotion 54 LV with the Zeiss ZH lenses.
I hoped for the new Leaf 54 megapixel back, but I guess it will not come for Sinar …
-
Comparing 80mm ZH lens to a Hasselblad V lens is unfair. The ZH lens has a much smaller image circle.
Sorry, I've not heard before that the Sinaron Digital AF 2,8/80 mm has a smaller image circle that don`t fit the 6x6 format. Is that a fact? My shutter has the size of the old 4,5 x 6 format (56 mm width, the same as 6x6 format) and I was told that I could use backs with larger sensors in the future.
I didn't compare the two lenses in the way that the V-lens is bad, I only wanted to confirm that the 80 mm ZH lens is a new calculated lens with bette MTF curves. On all 4 ZH lenses the sensor glass is calculated into the optical path.
-
And on which V camera was this useful?
The larger image circle is an advantage on the Flexbody.
-
The larger image circle is an advantage on the Flexbody.
I am looking for information on the image circle of the Sinaron 80, and cannot find anything, neither at Sinar nor at Zeiss. The datasheet both display doesn't have this information, as far as I can see. Where is the information available?
-
BUT - have you checked out the price of these lenses for the Sinar M system? - that might chgange your mind or not.
As for Leica making lenses for CaNikon - according to a recent Leica response to the issue - they aren't allowed as the Japanese camera community industry jealously guards their patents and pretty much allows only Japanese manufacturers to make alternatives ...
Well that explains why my prayers have gone unanswered! I always thought Leica would sell more R lenses to Canon and Nikon than they made selling them to Leica R owners.
I think if Zeiss Germany would make MF lenses again, I would buy whatever camera system they would work on. And maybe the Leica S system will be the winner after all.
-
Well that explains why my prayers have gone unanswered! I always thought Leica would sell more R lenses to Canon and Nikon than they made selling them to Leica R owners.
I think if Zeiss Germany would make MF lenses again, I would buy whatever camera system they would work on. And maybe the Leica S system will be the winner after all.
Zeiss has recently released a line of classic V lenses, but I suppose that doesn't count. The Contax lens lineup from Zeiss is great (but end-of-line), and the Sinar M is still in business. I guess you want a more traditional 645 or 6x6 however.
-
Zeiss has recently released a line of classic V lenses, but I suppose that doesn't count. The Contax lens lineup from Zeiss is great (but end-of-line), and the Sinar M is still in business. I guess you want a more traditional 645 or 6x6 however.
My last MF system was the Contax and I loved it but traded it in as soon as they were out of business. At that point I my biggest client had me switch to digital and I didn't look back. Now I would consider a digital MF if I could really find one that had Leica quality optics (or old Zeiss quality). I am just not convinced that the Hasse or Mamiya are in that league. I had a Mamiya 645 before the Contax and didn't like it at all. So I sit and wait....
-
I am looking for information on the image circle of the Sinaron 80, and cannot find anything, neither at Sinar nor at Zeiss. The datasheet both display doesn't have this information, as far as I can see. Where is the information available?
92mm, if it is the CAB lens you are interested in. Interestingly, the image circle of the 90 mm is 140 mm.
http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/digital/cabspecs.htm (http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/digital/cabspecs.htm)
Often the European manufacturers/marketers give less info than the US retailers!
-
92mm, if it is the CAB lens you are interested in. Interestingly, the image circle of the 90 mm is 140 mm.
http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/digital/cabspecs.htm (http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/digital/cabspecs.htm)
Often the European manufacturers/marketers give less info than the US retailers!
The CAB lenses appear to be for tech cameras:
http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1790-50-1911.html (http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1790-50-1911.html)
I am looking for the ZH80, I guess.
-
Sorry, I've not heard before that the Sinaron Digital AF 2,8/80 mm has a smaller image circle that don`t fit the 6x6 format. Is that a fact? My shutter has the size of the old 4,5 x 6 format (56 mm width, the same as 6x6 format) and I was told that I could use backs with larger sensors in the future.
I didn't compare the two lenses in the way that the V-lens is bad, I only wanted to confirm that the 80 mm ZH lens is a new calculated lens with bette MTF curves. On all 4 ZH lenses the sensor glass is calculated into the optical path.
Hi Christopher,
I also have the Sinar m system and the ZH lenses. All of the ZH lenses are based on the Hasselblad CFE versions, and the lens formulas are basically the same (ie, same elements and groupings). The differences are in the barrel design and in tighter control of the manufacturing tolerances to take into account the sensor glass (indeed, as measured within a 60mm image circle). I specifically asked a Zeiss engineer about the marked improvement of the 80ZH, and he confirmed the above, noting that the Planar design and its focal length benefited most from these changes.
I also have the Hasselblad CFE lenses, and truth be told, I cannot distinguish between an image from the CFE lens and from the ZH lens, using either the eMotion 75LV or the 54H backs. The real strength of the ZH lenses are their incredibly fast and accurate autofocus, when shooting untethered of course. I previously shot with the Contax 645 as my AF camera, but I found the speed of the Sinar m and the Zeiss ZH lenses more to my liking.
David
-
I also have the Sinar m system and the ZH lenses. All of the ZH lenses are based on the Hasselblad CFE versions, and the lens formulas are basically the same (ie, same elements and groupings). The differences are in the barrel design and in tighter control of the manufacturing tolerances to take into account the sensor glass (indeed, as measured within a 60mm image circle). I specifically asked a Zeiss engineer about the marked improvement of the 80ZH, and he confirmed the above, noting that the Planar design and its focal length benefited most from these changes.
I also have the Hasselblad CFE lenses, and truth be told, I cannot distinguish between an image from the CFE lens and from the ZH lens, using either the eMotion 75LV or the 54H backs. The real strength of the ZH lenses are their incredibly fast and accurate autofocus, when shooting untethered of course. I previously shot with the Contax 645 as my AF camera, but I found the speed of the Sinar m and the Zeiss ZH lenses more to my liking.
interesting to know there are a number of people here with the full Sinar M system. The problem is it's a system waiting for the right back to exploit its amazing AF and lens quality.
The backs exist, (P65+) the complete Sinar M system exists, but the two aren't talking to each other, which is just ridiculous.
Sinar - if you want to make money, and sell cameras, then open your platform up. simple!
-
Hi David,
nice to hear that there are other Sinar m users. The speed of the autofocus is great. One other thing is the sound and feel of the autofocus that is significant. The sound of the Schneider AF lenses on the Hy6 is like from a tractor in comparison.
I'm searching for a longer lens than 180 mm, perhaps the Hasselblad 5,6/350 mm Superacromat. Do you have any experience with that lens?
-
the angular field specs for the 80ZH would suggest
a frame coverage area in the vicinity of 48x36
-
interesting to know there are a number of people here with the full Sinar M system. The problem is it's a system waiting for the right back to exploit its amazing AF and lens quality.
The backs exist, (P65+) the complete Sinar M system exists, but the two aren't talking to each other, which is just ridiculous.
Sinar - if you want to make money, and sell cameras, then open your platform up. simple!
The right back to really exploit the Sinar m is still the Sinar 54H, at least in the studio. In 16-shot mode, the P65+ cannot hold a candle to it. I have mentioned this fact several times on this forum. It is because the 54H can physically capture 88MP each of Red, Blue and Green. The P65+ is a single shot back that captures 30MP of Green, 15MP of Red and 15MP of Blue, and then uses software to estimate the remaining 120MP of needed pixels. There is simply no comparison when this much information is estimated.
Even for non-tethered work, I do not agree that a P65+ is needed, unless you depend on heavy cropping (ie throwing away a lot of captured pixels) or print really large. The Sinar eMotion 75LV is more than capable. If you compare actual printed images on a 11500 or 9900 printer to see where the advantage of the P65+ kicks in, you will not see any difference in the prints until you start going significantly beyond 24x30. This is using Zeiss FE glass (e.g., 110FE, 300FE) with the P65+ versus the Zeiss Sinaron digital glass with the e75LV, to be as fair as possible. And, I am being incredibly generous here in the print size, since even at 30x40 you may still need a magnifying glass to try to argue over any final print details between the two. With this much money involved, I strongly recommend renting these systems and doing the test yourself.
If you are shooting hand-held, then you will really see nothing gained by the P65+. I don't know anyone who can shoot hand-held and be able capture 50 lp/mm. The mirror slap on any SLR is enough to blur such fine details (with any MFDB). As a result, you get more pixels but not with more resolution. So, if hand-held AF is your primary method of shooting, then the P65+ is not delivering any extra image information compared to a back with lesser megapixels.
To be fair to the P65+, I think its strength is mainly when you are in situations where you cannot use a multishot back, and where you can shoot slowly and with careful technique to extract any resolution gains from it, AND need to print very large (or crop very heavily). Otherwise, I find the Sinar m system is the perfect balance for my needs, whether it be for fast AF with Digital Zeiss lenses, or as a shutter on a p2/p3 system with Digital Schneider/Rodenstock lenses. So far, I have not found any other camera/back that can produce a better print (up to 30x40). Again, there is no substitute for your own tests. Give them both a try and you may be surprised.
Lastly, I totally agree with your plea to open up the Sinar m interface!. This will give people opportunity to compare the backs easier and see for themselves how many megapixels is enough for their prints.
-
Hi David,
nice to hear that there are other Sinar m users. The speed of the autofocus is great. One other thing is the sound and feel of the autofocus that is significant. The sound of the Schneider AF lenses on the Hy6 is like from a tractor in comparison.
I'm searching for a longer lens than 180 mm, perhaps the Hasselblad 5,6/350 mm Superacromat. Do you have any experience with that lens?
Yes, I shoot the 2.8 300FE Superachromat with the Sinar m, and the results are incredible. It is probably the best telephoto lens on the market. However, it is somewhat heavy and very expensive. If you don't mind the slower 5.6 of the 350SA, then I would heartily recommend this lens instead. A colleague of mine uses it on his Sinar m camera and the results appear to be every bit as sharp and saturated as the 300FE, only you don't get that special bokeh like with the 2.8. On the other hand, the 350SA is much more lightweight and portable. So, either lens is a great choice and you won't be disappointed.
-
the angular field specs for the 80ZH would suggest
a frame coverage area in the vicinity of 48x36
The data presented in the specs reflect its usage with a 48x36 (49x37) size sensor, since that is the common size of the Sinar sensors available for the m camera (e75, e54, 75H, 54H, 54M, etc.). The angular coverage, etc, is presented this way so there will be no confusion to the photographer once the lens is put into use. The actual image circles do cover the full 645 format. (The shutter inside the Sinar m camera is actually the same as the shutter inside the Contax 645.)
-
The right back to really exploit the Sinar m is still the Sinar 54H, at least in the studio. In 16-shot mode, the P65+ cannot hold a candle to it. I have mentioned this fact several times on this forum. It is because the 54H can physically capture 88MP each of Red, Blue and Green. The P65+ is a single shot back that captures 30MP of Green, 15MP of Red and 15MP of Blue, and then uses software to estimate the remaining 120MP of needed pixels. There is simply no comparison when this much information is estimated.
Even for non-tethered work, I do not agree that a P65+ is needed, unless you depend on heavy cropping (ie throwing away a lot of captured pixels) or print really large. The Sinar eMotion 75LV is more than capable. If you compare actual printed images on a 11500 or 9900 printer to see where the advantage of the P65+ kicks in, you will not see any difference in the prints until you start going significantly beyond 24x30. This is using Zeiss FE glass (e.g., 110FE, 300FE) with the P65+ versus the Zeiss Sinaron digital glass with the e75LV, to be as fair as possible. And, I am being incredibly generous here in the print size, since even at 30x40 you may still need a magnifying glass to try to argue over any final print details between the two. With this much money involved, I strongly recommend renting these systems and doing the test yourself.
If you are shooting hand-held, then you will really see nothing gained by the P65+. I don't know anyone who can shoot hand-held and be able capture 50 lp/mm. The mirror slap on any SLR is enough to blur such fine details (with any MFDB). As a result, you get more pixels but not with more resolution. So, if hand-held AF is your primary method of shooting, then the P65+ is not delivering any extra image information compared to a back with lesser megapixels.
To be fair to the P65+, I think its strength is mainly when you are in situations where you cannot use a multishot back, and where you can shoot slowly and with careful technique to extract any resolution gains from it, AND need to print very large (or crop very heavily). Otherwise, I find the Sinar m system is the perfect balance for my needs, whether it be for fast AF with Digital Zeiss lenses, or as a shutter on a p2/p3 system with Digital Schneider/Rodenstock lenses. So far, I have not found any other camera/back that can produce a better print (up to 30x40). Again, there is no substitute for your own tests. Give them both a try and you may be surprised.
Lastly, I totally agree with your plea to open up the Sinar m interface!. This will give people opportunity to compare the backs easier and see for themselves how many megapixels is enough for their prints.
you make some very fair points, and will not get a lot of disagreement from me.
I am sure the 54H in multi shot mode is an amazing back for studio photography, but surely the main point of the M camera with mirror module, AF lenses, etc, is that is can be used hand held to shoot that way. so that's the end of multi-shot.
as for your argument that single shot beyond a certain number of Mp is a waste as mirror slap etc destroys definition, thats a bigger issue, that I suspect has some truth in it up to a point, though of course there are cameras (Alpa, Cambo, etc) that have no mirror and are hand held, so they'd benefit, or shooting with a mirror, but using flash...
Alas, I am precisely one of your exceptions, I do print big, and do need the megapixels for that. its how I make my living.
definitely Sinar are suffering from their closed platform.
The M needed multi back adapters, and preferably the ability to use the digibacks power source, instead of that power module.
given those, I would now own one
-
definitely Sinar are suffering from their closed platform.
The M needed multi back adapters, and preferably the ability to use the digibacks power source, instead of that power module.
given those, I would now own one
I doubt that multi-back adapters are doable with the M. The Sinar-M has their own back mount and electronic interface. You cannot mount a Mamiya /Contax / H-series Phase One back through an additional adapter, there is no space. Either Sinar will have to rebuild the camera and offer the M with the P1/M645 mount or Phase One will have to offer their own p65+ backs with the Sinar-M mount. I don't think that P1 will be going do that.
BTW the new side battery is small and light, why the camera needs to be powered from the back battery?
Yevgeny
PS
-
BTW the new side battery is small and light, why the camera needs to be powered from the back battery?
Yevgeny
can you point me to a link for this new battery? not heard about it. thanks
-
can you point me to a link for this new battery? not heard about it. thanks
I was trying to illustrate my point with a pic from Sinar online shop and cannot connect to the site.
Sinar.ch and Sinarcameras.com also look down. Or something wrong with my connection from Russia?
The Item: Sinar catalogue #493.03.020, Sinar m PowerGrip, left. The biger one is called :Sinar m Powergrip, Bottom
https://shop.strato.de/epages/Store10.sf/?O.../Shops/15493234 (https://shop.strato.de/epages/Store10.sf/?ObjectPath=/Shops/15493234)
Yevgeny
-
as for your argument that single shot beyond a certain number of Mp is a waste as mirror slap etc destroys definition, thats a bigger issue, that I suspect has some truth in it up to a point, though of course there are cameras (Alpa, Cambo, etc) that have no mirror and are hand held, so they'd benefit, or shooting with a mirror, but using flash...
Alas, I am precisely one of your exceptions, I do print big, and do need the megapixels for that. its how I make my living.
I don't think there are any autofocus MF/LF cameras without mirror, whereas the AF Zeiss Sinaron lenses are a major feature of the M camera.
Also, for hand-held shooting, I have not found any resolution difference between an image from the P65+ and the e75LV. Even if you are printing larger than 30x40, hand-held shooting limits the details that you can physically capture. The extra megapixels in such images are similar to up-sizing, i.e., a larger image, but no real resolution gain.
We basically use two backs/systems, the 54H and technical cameras when in studio, and e75LV and the M camera when shooting portrait or events with autofocus. I think two such systems, each with their own backs, are ideal, although we have decided to go with the Sinar backs since they are easily interchangeable on all of our camera systems.
-
Here are some images of my Sinar M camera that show the side grip (with and without grip). I did not like the original bottom grip at all. It was too bulky and heavy. I think Sinar actually discontinued that bottom grip for the M. The new side grip is really lightweight and much nicer. It uses the same popular batteries as those used in the Hy6/AFi and similar camcorders.
-
Here are some images of my Sinar M camera that show the side grip (with and without grip). I did not like the original bottom grip at all. It was too bulky and heavy. I think Sinar actually discontinued that bottom grip for the M. The new side grip is really lightweight and much nicer. It uses the same popular batteries as those used in the Hy6/AFi and similar camcorders.
How long does this new battery last (shooting-time)?
Henrik
-
Also, for hand-held shooting, I have not found any resolution difference between an image from the P65+ and the e75LV. Even if you are printing larger than 30x40, hand-held shooting limits the details that you can physically capture. The extra megapixels in such images are similar to up-sizing, i.e., a larger image, but no real resolution gain.
having just gone from P45+ to P65+ I can tell you there are very real gains to be made in that back, besides resolution - dynamic range being one of them. Its very noticeable. would like to see what your lovely Zeiss lenses could do with that image depth, but alas, its impossible, which is the original point of this post - make the lenses available to other users!
it is hard to make any definitive assessment of hand held digiback resolution limits as its all so random, when its truly 'handheld'....
-
Here are some images of my Sinar M camera that show the side grip (with and without grip). I did not like the original bottom grip at all. It was too bulky and heavy. I think Sinar actually discontinued that bottom grip for the M. The new side grip is really lightweight and much nicer. It uses the same popular batteries as those used in the Hy6/AFi and similar camcorders.
looks great. thanks for posting. jealous!
-
How long does this new battery last (shooting-time)?
Henrik
For me, they last a plenty long time. The battery in the side grip is dedicated to the camera. An additional battery of the exact same type is used by the Sinar eMotion backs, so they are interchangeable. When shooting on location, I only take four batteries with me (one backup each for camera and MFDB), and only in extreme cases of shooting continuously all day with only the one camera do I need to replace one of them (and usually the one in the MFDB). When I return to the studio, I just pop them into the charger, and they are ready for the next day of shooting.
I don't shoot in extreme cold weather, so I cannot say how much that would reduce their duration under such conditions. Remember, these batteries were originally designed for power-hungry videocams that last for 90 minutes or more of pure recording time. When used on a still camera like the M, that translates into a lot of image captures.
-
having just gone from P45+ to P65+ I can tell you there are very real gains to be made in that back, besides resolution - dynamic range being one of them. Its very noticeable. would love to see what your lovely Zeiss lenses could do with that depth, but alas, its impossible, which is the original point of this post - make the lenses available to other users!
it is hard to make any definitive assessment of hand held digiback resolution limits as its all so random, when its truly 'handheld'....
Yes, the P45+ uses an older chip technology from Kodak, so I believe you will see a marked improvement in the P65+ using its new Dalsa chip. There are also some color tolerance issues with that Kodak chip in comparison to Dalsa's chips, as reported nicely by Joe Holmes on his website.
Actually, the Dalsa chip inside the Sinar e75LV has the same dynamic range as the Dalsa chip in the P65+. The e75LV has perhaps a bit more due to the greater signal-to-noise capability of its larger pixels. However, this difference is so small that I think it is fair to say that both of these chips deliver about 12 f-stops of equivalent dynamic range.
So indeed, one can enjoy the Zeiss Sinaron glass with such depth
-
Yes, the P45+ uses an older chip technology from Kodak, so I believe you will see a marked improvement in the P65+ using its new Dalsa chip. There are also some color tolerance issues with that Kodak chip in comparison to Dalsa's chips, as reported nicely by Joe Holmes on his website.
Actually, the Dalsa chip inside the Sinar e75LV has the same dynamic range as the Dalsa chip in the P65+. The e75LV has perhaps a bit more due to the greater signal-to-noise capability of its larger pixels. However, this difference is so small that I think it is fair to say that both of these chips deliver about 12 f-stops of equivalent dynamic range.
So indeed, one can enjoy the Zeiss Sinaron glass with such depth
i never understood completely what had lead sinar to make the HY6 adventure instead of going the M way further, and working here on the few shortcomings this camera has ( slow sync speed at first ). its a fantastic camera and in higher numbers i doubt it would be significant more expensive than other systems.
-
For me, they last a plenty long time. The battery in the side grip is dedicated to the camera. An additional battery of the exact same type is used by the Sinar eMotion backs, so they are interchangeable. When shooting on location, I only take four batteries with me (one backup each for camera and MFDB), and only in extreme cases of shooting continuously all day with only the one camera do I need to replace one of them (and usually the one in the MFDB). When I return to the studio, I just pop them into the charger, and they are ready for the next day of shooting.
I don't shoot in extreme cold weather, so I cannot say how much that would reduce their duration under such conditions. Remember, these batteries were originally designed for power-hungry videocams that last for 90 minutes or more of pure recording time. When used on a still camera like the M, that translates into a lot of image captures.
Do you mean the side-grip battery is not a "compact" battery like the power-grip they made first?
Can you open the grip and change the battery inside like in the back?
Henrik
-
Do you mean the side-grip battery is not a "compact" battery like the power-grip they made first?
Can you open the grip and change the battery inside like in the back?
Henrik
yes
-
i never understood completely what had lead sinar to make the HY6 adventure instead of going the M way further, and working here on the few shortcomings this camera has ( slow sync speed at first ). its a fantastic camera and in higher numbers i doubt it would be significant more expensive than other systems.
Absolutely correct..also note that the Hy6 used a Rollie mount - great lenses - but again - how many lens systems did Sinar wish to support? The M system as a studio camera should have been improved - I think that F&H were the primary beneficiaries of Sinar and Leaf 'thinking' that they needed a MF system ala Hblad - sadly they delivered very late and now even sadder for people (like me) who bought..we are left with nothing except bad taste in mouth..and Sinar is left with ..maybe even less..
very very sad times - brought on by silly management decisions chasing the wrong markets. Instead of wasting time with Hy6 - they could have brought out artec and improved M stystem and stayed true to sensible thinking...
oh well we are all wiser - after the fact..I just hope that Sinar doesn nto get thrown away liek Kodak did to Leaf..and we are left with rubbish ...
-
i never understood completely what had lead sinar to make the HY6 adventure instead of going the M way further, and working here on the few shortcomings this camera has ( slow sync speed at first ). its a fantastic camera and in higher numbers i doubt it would be significant more expensive than other systems.
Yes, unfortunately the Hy6 turned out to be a strategic mistake. If Sinar really thought there was a market for 6x6 AF, they should have built a M-2 camera with square shutter and new Zeiss 6x6 AF digital lenses that could be used with either a leaf shutter or a focal plane shutter (like an AF equivalent of the Hasselblad 203 camera), similar to the concept of the Leica S2.....but with the modular concept of the M system. If they had done that, by now it probably would be the dominant MF camera in the market, possibly preventing Leica from ever getting off the ground. They could have also captured the large Contax 645 user market, if they had only built an AF mirror module for the M camera.
As far as faster flash sync, I believe Sinar did a good thing with the M camera by supplying a M-sync port in addition to the standard (slower) X-sync. The M-sync port fires as soon as the shutter begins to open. This type of sync was originally intended to trigger older flash bulbs that needed more time to reach their peak output by the time the shutter fully opens. However, you should be able to add a custom delay circuit to this port in order to sync much faster when used with electronic strobes.
I have not yet had time to test how fast this port can actually sync when a modern electronic strobe is attached to it. You may be able to get 1/500 out of it. Basically, just connect your strobes to it and keep firing with faster shutter speeds until you reach one that syncs with it. Once you know its maximum sync speed, you can use a simple timer/delay mechanism with it to control your sync speeds.
-
Yes, the P45+ uses an older chip technology from Kodak, so I believe you will see a marked improvement in the P65+ using its new Dalsa chip. There are also some color tolerance issues with that Kodak chip in comparison to Dalsa's chips, as reported nicely by Joe Holmes on his website.
Actually, the Dalsa chip inside the Sinar e75LV has the same dynamic range as the Dalsa chip in the P65+. The e75LV has perhaps a bit more due to the greater signal-to-noise capability of its larger pixels. However, this difference is so small that I think it is fair to say that both of these chips deliver about 12 f-stops of equivalent dynamic range.
So indeed, one can enjoy the Zeiss Sinaron glass with such depth
try as you might you are not going to convince me that every Dalsa sensors ever produced has the exact same qualities as the latest P65+ sensor, and that basically its all the same except for resolution. no - its not, anymore than Canons 1Ds 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 sensors are all basically the same as they're from the same company... things improve, technology moves forward, and that's a fact of our digital life.
however the point of this whole post is that you shouldn't have to - the M should have been an open platform, and I should be able to put whichever back I like on it - that was Sinar's mistake, and they lost a lot of sales. I doubt 100 people are working with M cameras hand held in the entire world, because of that wrong decision.
-
Actually the P65 and P40+ is more like 12.5 to 13 stops . Certainly about a 1/2 stop on a P45+ and every other Kodak sensor that I have tried and about a stop on the P25+. The biggest difference really is the color profile, they are just different. Here is a test between the P30+,P40+ and P45+. Obviously some feature differences as well.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8090 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8090)
-
I just asked an engineer from Zeiss about the image circle of the Sinaron Digital AF 2,8/80 mm ZH and he wrote me that all ZH lenses are made for cameras with image diagonal of 78 mm. Of course the image circle does not end at 78 mm.
-
I just asked an engineer from Zeiss about the image circle of the Sinaron Digital AF 2,8/80 mm ZH and he wrote me that all ZH lenses are made for cameras with image diagonal of 78 mm. Of course the image circle does not end at 78 mm.
great to know you have a hotline to an engineer - please ask them to make the lenses in other fittings!
-
try as you might you are not going to convince me that every Dalsa sensors ever produced has the exact same qualities as the latest P65+ sensor, and that basically its all the same except for resolution. no - its not, anymore than Canons 1Ds 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 sensors are all basically the same as they're from the same company... things improve, technology moves forward, and that's a fact of our digital life.
No, I am not trying to convince you of anything. It just sounded like you were not happy with the lens choices that can be used with your P65+. It is a very personal choice. Some people decide on a back and live with whatever lenses are available to them, and others decide on their lenses and live with whatever backs are available to them. There is no right and wrong here, just different choices for different needs and preferences.
however the point of this whole post is that you shouldn't have to - the M should have been an open platform, and I should be able to put whichever back I like on it - that was Sinar's mistake, and they lost a lot of sales. I doubt 100 people are working with M cameras hand held in the entire world, because of that wrong decision.
Regarding your plea for an open MF camera, it is unfortunately not the trend. As you say, technology moves forward, and the technology trend is for closed camera systems, such as the Hasselblad H3D, or even the Leica S2. The Sinar M is no less open than these cameras.
-
Actually the P65 and P40+ is more like 12.5 to 13 stops . Certainly about a 1/2 stop on a P45+ and every other Kodak sensor that I have tried and about a stop on the P25+. The biggest difference really is the color profile, they are just different. Here is a test between the P30+,P40+ and P45+. Obviously some feature differences as well.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8090 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8090)
It is interesting that the measured data from DxO labs actually shows a maximum of 11.5 stops dynamic range for the P65+ and 11.75 stops for the P45+:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...abase/Phase-One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Phase-One)
-
David that very well could be true or not . I did not actually measure them but from a visual look the new Dalsa sensors seem to have more DR. Personally i don't have much faith in those DXO tests as some folks do. But the point being there seems to be more in the Dalsa. Just never got the chance to really test it since we had to take them on the workshop and I ran out of time.
I do have a old test with a preproduction P65+ that looked like it had more DR than the P45+ and certainly more than my P25+ at the time. Obviously C1 could also be at play here with each of the camera profiles as well. That is something I am just not sure about.
-
David here is the test from the CI folks I just found look at the shadows which lends some clue