Sony/Zeiss sharper?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Autocollimator, Sep 14, 2003.

  1. Do the Sony cameras with Zeiss lenses outperform other cameras?
    Autocollimator, Sep 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Autocollimator" <> wrote:

    > Do the Sony cameras with Zeiss lenses outperform other cameras?


    No. The better cameras are all very close in performance.

    The high end Sony cameras (S85, F717) were the top of their respective
    classes for a while, but the S85 is only 4MP and the 5MP Olympus C5050 edges
    the F717 out (at the cost of only a bit more noise).

    IMHO, the C5050's P&S squintfinder camera design is a crime against
    humanity, but Olympus did a good job on the resolution. (I much prefer the
    F717 design, and I've the owned C2020, S85, and F707.)

    While Zeiss does claim to have designed the Sony lenses, they're actually
    made by Sony, so there's some argument about the purity of the Zeissness of
    the lenses.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Autocollimator

    J. B. Dalton Guest

    IMHO, yes.

    Autocollimator wrote:
    > Do the Sony cameras with Zeiss lenses outperform other cameras?


    My 770s have non-Zeiss lenses, but are nearly identical to others with
    Sony lenses carrying that label. They outperformed all 3.3 MP cameras of
    their era, while only having 1.5MP.

    A camera is a system for recording images, and all elements in the
    system have a contribution to make. From illumination and object, to
    tripod/holder, through lens, and onto the sensor, those results are even
    impacted by the data handling after that. IMO, the primary two sharpness
    (fine-detail) limiting elements are the lens and the sensor (with tripod
    right in there on longer fl shots and macros).

    Most consumer cameras have true crap for lenses, and few can resolve
    anywhere near the pixel count of their sensors. Slower, wasted bigger
    storage and more noise is all the smaller cells often buy you. :-(

    Take a lot of tripod-held shots of the USAF test chart if you don't
    believe me. I did.

    JBD
    J. B. Dalton, Sep 14, 2003
    #3
  4. When it comes to digital cameras, the whole camera imaging system is much
    more important than just the quality of the lens alone.

    The top of the line Sony cameras, the F717, fitted with the Zeiss lens remain
    about the best performers in the fixed lens, 5Mpixel class.

    The lens is a Zeiss design, assembled by Sony with lens components (most
    likely) manufactured by Kyocera, so many people denigrate it as not being a
    "real" Zeiss lens ... I find that somewhat disingenuous as Zeiss and Kyocera
    have been manufacturing partners for over 20 years now, and the Zeiss name on
    a lens design remains highly valued because all such lenses have proven over
    time to perform well. The notion of having the lenses assembled into the
    cameras at the point of manufacture is not new either, Zeiss and Rollei did
    that for many years, very successfully, with the Rollei 35 cameras.

    All that said, consider the total package as more important than the lens
    alone. The only 5mpixel fixed lens camera to appear that challenges the Sony
    for resolution has been the Olympus 5050. It's a good camera with barely
    measureable resolution improvement, but I find the Sony produces a smoother,
    more pleasing photograph and the Sony's twist body, additional zoom range and
    lens speed, and EVF provide more capability.

    Godfrey


    On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:19:10 -0700, Autocollimator wrote
    (in message <>):

    > Do the Sony cameras with Zeiss lenses outperform other cameras?
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Sep 14, 2003
    #4
  5. Autocollimator

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: Sony/Zeiss sharper?
    >From: "David J. Littleboy"
    >Date: 9/13/03 9:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time


    >While Zeiss does claim to have designed the Sony lenses, they're actually
    >made by Sony, so there's some argument about the purity of the Zeissness of
    >the lenses.
    >
    >David J. Littleboy


    With every Zeiss license comes engineering, production and quality control
    personnelle to oversee and supervise every step in the production of any lens
    bearing the Zeiss name.


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
    ArtKramr, Sep 14, 2003
    #5
  6. Autocollimator

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: Sony/Zeiss sharper?
    >From: "J. B. Dalton"
    >Date: 9/13/03 9:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time


    >Take a lot of tripod-held shots of the USAF test chart if you don't
    >believe me. I did.
    >
    >JBD


    Shooting the USAF test charts is not just a lens test. It tests the entire
    system. poor results may not be the result of the lens but may be a CCD or
    alignment problem.


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
    ArtKramr, Sep 14, 2003
    #6
  7. Autocollimator

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: Sony/Zeiss sharper?
    >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
    >Date: 9/14/03 8:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
    >Message-id: <>


    >The lens is a Zeiss design, assembled by Sony with lens components (most
    >likely) manufactured by Kyocera, so many people denigrate it as not being a
    >"real" Zeiss lens ... I find that somewhat disingenuous as Zeiss and Kyocera
    >have been manufacturing partners for over 20 years now, and the Zeiss name on
    >
    >a lens design remains highly valued because all such lenses have proven over
    >time to perform well. The notion of having the lenses assembled into the
    >cameras at the point of manufacture is not new either, Zeiss and Rollei did
    >that for many years, very successfully, with the Rollei 35 cameras.
    >
    >All that said, consider the total package as more important than the lens
    >alone. The only 5mpixel fixed lens camera to appear that challenges the Sony
    >for resolution has been the Olympus 5050. It's a good camera with barely
    >measureable resolution improvement, but I find the Sony produces a smoother,
    >more pleasing photograph and the Sony's twist body, additional zoom range and
    >
    >lens speed, and EVF provide more capability.
    >
    >Godfrey
    >
    >

    More capability does need mean greater sharpness. For example if we take a lens
    that can resolve 200 lines/mm and use a film that can do the same, the final
    resolution will be 100 lines/mm The same relationship must exist in digital
    cameras where the lens resolution interacts with the CCD's. The better the
    lens, the better the resolution. I think one must take lens performance very
    seriously..


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
    ArtKramr, Sep 14, 2003
    #7
  8. Autocollimator

    c le Guest

    > They are all made to very high standards. Noit the samme swtandards.
    They don't have to be. Fir example the Zeiss Planar S lenses at $4,000
    each are made to much higher standards than a Zeiss Tessar for a
    consumer camera, But the Tessar made by Zeiss are either equal to or
    better than that same formula made by lesser companies. Leica
    maintains that same high standard. with Nikon and Canon close behind
    at lower cost. When we get into the stratosphere of optical
    quality, small improvements add big bucks.

    Autocollimator: It's not true what you wrote. The 45mm Planar for my
    Contax G2 does'nt cost big buck. I own these following lenses: 28 mm
    (Ricoh GR1s), Nikkor AF(D) 24 (2.8), 50 (1.8) , 85 (1.8) all very
    sharp. But the photos made by the Planar always stand out from the
    rest (bokeh ?). Only the 50 Nikkor is cheaper, others are more or at
    least equal in price. If you want quality lenses, and don't want to
    pay big bucks, Contax G is the way to go - don't have to be Leica.
    c le, Sep 16, 2003
    #8
  9. "Autocollimator" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > Do the Sony cameras with Zeiss lenses outperform other cameras?


    All cameras in the budget zone (maybe below 800$) are NOT limited by some
    "high-tech-sceiling".

    All budget caeras are limited by smart (not peak) design and rational
    production and efficient bureacracy.

    If a camera in the budget ranged where branded NASA, it would probably be of
    lower quality compared to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji. Why?

    The well established and larget camera producers are the best organized to
    deliver high quality BUDGET products... NASA on the other hand conquer
    space.

    The real trick is to design such a well composed lense that it can be
    produced at a low cost and still keep high resolution. Everything in a chain
    of production is costs, costs and costs (at maintained efficency and
    quality).

    Are Zeiss, Leica or Schneider competent to design more cost-efficient
    lenses compared to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax or Fuji?

    Maybe, but probably not as a general rule!


    Morgan O.
    Morgan Ohlson, Sep 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Autocollimator

    David Chien Guest

    >>Do the Sony cameras with Zeiss lenses outperform other cameras?

    No. That's why the resolution tests of the Canon G5 vs. the Sony V1
    doesn't show anything of interest.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv1/page16.asp

    "In summary
    * Best resolution / detail - Canon G5 followed by Sony DSC-V1
    * Best lens sharpness - Canon G5 followed by Sony DSC-V1"

    Keep in mind that one of the prevailing factors that prevent these
    digicams that are under 8MP from showing any improvements even when
    coupled to a Zeiss lens is that the resolving power of the imaging
    sensor itself is far lower than any focusing and other problems in most
    well designed lenses -- the camera simply can't benefit from an improved
    lens because the sensor can't use the extra resolution!

    Let's keep in mind that even the Olympus Stylus Epic, a $79 P&S 35mm
    camera, gets all the way up to almost 90lp/mm of resolution (Popular
    Photography test results; confirmed by many happy owner reports on
    www.photographyreview.com) on a 'cheap' lens -- yet, the quality of the
    prints from this camera is very high.

    For digital cameras to benefit from a high-quality lens, you'd have
    to get them above the 50lp/mm resolving mark, that's about 8MP, first.
    David Chien, Sep 22, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. -= Hawk =-
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    415
    -= Hawk =-
    Mar 2, 2004
  2. Brian H¹©
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    Brian H¹©
    Mar 2, 2004
  3. Robert D Feinman

    Why do pictures appear sharper than they should?

    Robert D Feinman, Dec 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    421
    Robert A. Barr
    Dec 23, 2003
  4. Which is sharper? Thanks!

    , Jul 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,058
  5. Alan Browne

    Sony Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.7 -- too sharp for the Maxxum 7D

    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    585
    David J Taylor
    Jul 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page