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!

What will hapen with my zeiss lenses

I believe potro has the answer to his initial question, and then some. Can we declare this thread irreversibly deceased?

Best,

--Rick
 
Michael,

If that is such a 'dumb statement' then why are n't digital camera manufacturers claiming and / or proving that their images are as good?

Thay shy away from this very issue for the very good reason that at present their images are not as good as conventional prints.

If I can spot a digital image from a top of the range camera on a low resolution magazine page, then I cannot see how a pure digital print can be better or as good as a conventional film derived print.

I suspect that those who have already bought into digital are simply trying to justify their purchase.

This is a Zeiss fan club. We have a duty to uphold the very best photographic images and digital is not even in the ball park - Yet.

Clive
 
> Clive,

Ok, this is a Zeiss thread and the quality of Zeiss lenses is superb. Take a great quality Zeiss lens and put it on a nice body like the ND and at 6 megapixels you can make images that are just as good as their 35mm counterpart. I will send you some s&les. My original statement which disagrees with the assertion that 35 mm point and shoot cameras can take better quality photos then a high end digital still stands. A high end digital is equal to a high end 35 mm film camera. There are several major componenets to the photo process:

The concept. The split second. The photographer. The lens. The camera body. The camera capture device (film or digital!) The development process. The printing.

The capture device (film or digital), is the only real difference between the film and digital world! The final image quality is based on ALL of these ingredients. The capture device is only one part ... and the difference between film and the digital process for capturing is getting closer to Zero!

michael.
 
> Hi Joe , whilst I think I largely agree with your sentiments , I dont think you can just ignore all the other film based cameras that are still being sold . You mention 1,2 million digital cameras vs. 156190 SLR's - clearly , more than 90% of those digital cameras would be of the P&S variety , yet you dont mention the number of film based Point & shoots that were also sold in the corresponding period , nor the even higher number of disposable cameras . I dont know why you would deliberately choose to ignore these when it is also clear that all the people investing all this money in digital cameras are for the most part not "serious" photographers with high end digital cameras either . For my own part , I have no intention of going digital for some time to come as I have no need for it , however , I do print digitally via a scanner and inkjet printer . So please dont think of me as one of these anti digital nuts , I just like to see things in their correct perspective! Steve
 
Hi Steve,

(Have I been censored from responding to this thread?)

You're quite right: I wouldn't compare my SLR to a banana. Or an apple, however I find it very hard to get all worked up about digits.

The ratios I referred to were 45.9million (2001) to 42 million (2002) for SLR shifts, and from 24.1 million to 347.6 million for digital in the same period. I'm referring to the rates of growth rather than any static principle of statistical comparison (I just don't get excited about digits).

I thought I was clear in making the ironic statement that they had excluded Fisherprice cameras from the SLR, however maybe you're right - I need to spell it out: there is no rationale in comparing something with a reflex mirror to a digital format, since the former is not the medium.

Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.

The Focus on Imaging exhibition seems quite interesting; I quite fancy the digital version of the TVS actually.

However, I might have to shelf that, as I have plans to acquire a digital camera for my museum; it's too difficult trying to excavate the archives for some fossil, so I thought I'd start collecting the spirit of the modern zeitgeist, which lasts all but a marketing season.

Oops! That's my Palm PC going off, warning me its battery is going to expire. Shame about technology polluting the planet; never mind: thumbs up for digits, and digits up for those who recommend a thumbs up.
 
Thanks a lot guys for your messages. I think they are really interesting. It is the first message I put forward and there have been up to now 35 messages. Thanks again. Regards. Thepotro7
 
Dear All!
I've just read a study published by a famous German lens producer. According to that study analog lenses are not really suitable for digital photography. CCD is able to receive only total straight light beam. Throught analog lenses the light arrives to the film/CCD from different angles that's why new line of lenses - digital lenses - have been developed for digital photogaphy. A P&S type 5MP camera may performe better than a D SLR with an analog lens. If it's true we've lost a hope. But CCD is not the final solution...

Zoltán
 
Hi Zoltan,

Call me a cynic if you like (and others have) but I believe that the special digital lenses are more to do with sustaining profits than resolving images.

The main issue with the CCD chip is not how or whether it will handle light from an analogue lens, but as we have recently found out courtesy of Sigma, all the other CCD chips, Fuji, Nikon, Canon & Contax amongst them, have pixels, each of which can only read just one of the three colours.

That is why any decent 35mm compact will deliver a better photographic image than any current digital camera.

Clive
 
Zoltán,

Modern digital sensors have micro-lenses to bring off-axis rays to a more vertical incidence. Acute incident angle may be a concern for wide-angle lenses of symmetric design, e.g. Biogon. For normal and telephoto lenses, I hear complete satisfaction (Canon people, who have the 1.3x sensor in the 1D, and 1x in the 1Ds). Note that wide-angle lenses for C/Y mount are of the reverse-telephoto design (Distagon) in order to clear the mirror, so no problem with acute angles!
 
All mirror-down wide-angle lenses for SLRs are, and must be, retrofocus, aka inverted telephoto, eg Distagaon designs. Some mirror-up designs, which effectively convert an SLR to a rangefinder, have been marketed in the past; I am not aware of any manufacturer which is currently doing so, although there may be some.
 
Back
Top