Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Rangefinder, now I am a believer
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:15 pm    Post subject: Rangefinder, now I am a believer Reply with quote

On their site, Zeiss wrote that they made the ZM lens line in order not to have to deal with the reflex limitations and produce uncompromising lenses.

My experience with rangefinder was limited to the Contax G2, from which I always obtained excellent results, last of which the Garda series.

Today I have received the roll I shoot with the Kiev-4 just before being hospitalized. I am going through the slides as I write with my 8x loupe. I am absolutely amazed at the details captured. And I don't have top lenses for it: I have two Jenas and four Soviet Jupiters.

Well now I am definitely converted and a believer: when it comes to slides film, rangefinder system gives superior results compared to reflex.

P.S. samples maybe tomorrow.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is absolutely true , Yashica Electro produce better result than most of my SLR lenses Embarassed


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oooh, do you make me want to get some slide film for the Fed!

Hope to see the pics soon, and post a loupe too so we can see what you do Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what does the camera have to do with capturing image details? that would come down to lens, film, proper exposure, and proper developing.

one camera over another isn't going to allow for capture of more detail on a specific film, all the camera does is expose the film to light. you can certainly lose detail if your camera isn't working properly and then gain more detail or rather gain back lost detail after the camera is adjusted and working properly, but I fail to understand how a rangefinder can allow for capture of more detail on a specific film versus an SLR or any other camera type. something I'm missing here?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samuis wrote:
what does the camera have to do with capturing image details? that would come down to lens, film, proper exposure, and proper developing.
one camera over another isn't going to allow for capture of more detail on a specific film, all the camera does is expose the film to light. you can certainly lose detail if your camera isn't working properly and then gain more detail or rather gain back lost detail after the camera is adjusted and working properly, but I fail to understand how a rangefinder can allow for capture of more detail on a specific film versus an SLR or any other camera type. something I'm missing here?


Yes: the rangefinder camera does not sport a mirror and therefore it is possible to bring the rear glass of a lens very near the film plane. This is an optimal situation that allows to build lenses without those compromises that are necessary to allow the room for a mirror.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

but that doesn't explain how that equals capturing more detail on the film. im very curious about this... how do rangefinder lenses have less compromises? if this is the situation wouldn't, hypothetically an SLR lens therefore be able to allow for more detail capture if it could be moved closer to the film plane, without any changes to the optical formula of the lens?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am unable to give a technical reply, I can only point you to what Zeiss say about their ZM lenses:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/51174405A82B6ADCC125722900400C68

Specifically, note their words:

Quote:
From the lens designers perspective, a rangefinder camera offers an exciting advantage over single lens reflex (SLR) cameras: more space. After all, there is no moving reflex mirror and drive mechanism. This allows for a short distance between the last lens element and the film meaning more opportunities for designing of superior lens types, including high performing wide-angle lenses.


And here's a link where they speak of their goal to bring to photography the best of their arriflex movie lenses (movie cameras have no mirror):

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/51174405A82B6ADCC125722900400C68


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could be this (lens is too close to the sensor) the reason that digital conversion of RF cameras is more difficult .
"Light arriving at an angle to the centered microlens isn't as efficiently steered into the photosite's sensitive center. Add to that the factoid #2 that wide angle lenses don't have corner coverage as bright as their optical center coverage--a different kind of optical phenomenon, but always a consideration in wide lens design--and a common result is that full-frame images increase corner vignetting with certain legacy wide angle designs."
...
"The new Leica M8 digital rangefinder confronted this issue--and it isn't even a full-frame camera. Because of Leica's basic design geometries, the back elements of Leica lenses are considerably closer to the image plane than those in typical DSLRs. "
Source http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am more convinced by Koji shots than by all the literature
super wide without distortion, maybe that is what Zeiss call superior lens type


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the way, regarding the issue from my previous post I remeber it was post on our forum an example with the same lens on a Epson RD1 and on a FF film RF. On the first one the lens was producing a vignette even if the sensor is a 1.5x crop one and on the film sample the vignette was less visible (or nonexistant).
The Epson's sensor I think is the same 6Mpx Sony crop sensor found in many dSLRs (Nikon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta).


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

montecarlo wrote:
Could be this (lens is too close to the sensor) the reason that digital conversion of RF cameras is more difficult .


Yes for sure.
In fact, I spoke of film (and Zeiss is meaning film in their text)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I know, retro-focus lenses are much harder to correct than "normal" designs. That's whay RF cams/lenses show better results when it comes to wide angles, unless you use an excellent SLR wide angle lens. I think that a 28mm Zeiss SLR lens is not at all worse than a Russian 28mm RF lens. But even a performance on the same level is amazing regarding the price difference. This alone is a good reason to use a RF now and then. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking forward to those pics, Orio! Smile


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am as well, since I have been very well stunned by the quality of other photos Orio has posted.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a great point alone:
Carsten wrote:
But even a performance on the same level is amazing regarding the price difference. This alone is a good reason to use a RF now and then.