ManWearPants
Senior Member
Scheduled for April. Fuji XE1 paired with these lenses should look cool. So we have an effective 18/2.8, 48/1.8 and 75/2.8 macro with both NEX and Fuji X. Too bad no 35/2 equivalent.
Last edited:
Anything Zeiss....
- Thread starter ManWearPants
- Start date
- Status
Scheduled for April. Fuji XE1 paired with these lenses should look cool. So we have an effective 18/2.8, 48/1.8 and 75/2.8 macro with both NEX and Fuji X. Too bad no 35/2 equivalent.
Kenneth67C
New Member
My assessment is only based on the compressed pics on the screen, which to me the Canon and Kodak colors appear similar, very slight negligible differences, whereas the Foveon colors are different from the other two. Not sure what you are saying because if Kodak colors are accurate, then so are the Canon's.
Kenneth67C
New Member
ZE100MP.
Shizuma
Senior Member
I agree with you, the flower petals texture is really WOWz when compared side by side.
Just a newbie question: if we shoot Raw, does the image bypass the processing, including the AA filter?
ManWearPants
Senior Member
With regards to the red, actually they are quite similar (same same but different). The WB of the Sigma is warmer, that's why it looks way off. That test is not well controlled and to be fair, some parameters cannot be made the same. The Kodak excel at ISO160. However, the Sigma does not have ISO 160. The Sigma x3f format is also not supported in LR. The Kodak does not have a Custom WB and Neutral profile. So a bit of compromise. That's why I mentioned that it is just for fun.
I think I might have been at the border of the MFD, so both the Canon and Kodak have parts of the petals that are not in focus. Both the Sigma and Kodak does not have AA filter.
The AA filter is a physical layer in front of the sensor, you cannot bypass it.
Last edited:
ManWearPants
Senior Member
Another set of test done today. Slightly better controlled. All at f5.6, the optimum aperture of this lens. ISO200 which all cameras have. All in camera NR, sharpening OFF. Focus on blue smiley. No thin DoF though the FF goes to blur background easily. Manufacturers software used merely to correct WB by selecting from the "White colour" in the chart and convert from respective raw to jpg. LR3 used to adjust WB and exposure so all looks identical. No colours adjustments.
To be honest, I realized there is no amateurish ways to compare them. If you change the shooting condition slightly, the results may be different. So just take these for fun and don't read too much into it.
Canon:
Sigma:
Kodak:
To be honest, I realized there is no amateurish ways to compare them. If you change the shooting condition slightly, the results may be different. So just take these for fun and don't read too much into it.
Canon:
Sigma:
Kodak:
Last edited:
ManWearPants
Senior Member
Comparison:
Canon vs Sigma
Canon vs Kodak
Kodak vs Sigma
Is it the same flower? Same same but different
The correct colour to me consist of the red in Canon along the edges of the petals gradating towards the pink of Kodak. The Canon has too much red and not enough pink in its transition towards the center of the flower. The Kodak petal edge is not red enough. The Sigma has too much white. The Sigma comes as a surprised as I thought I have over exposed. But apparently not according to the exposure graph and colour chart in the background.
Anyway, the 2 tests have shown that little changes in shooting condition can yield different results. So no point comparing sensors. Mastering the camera according to its limitations is more important.
Canon vs Sigma
Canon vs Kodak
Kodak vs Sigma
Is it the same flower? Same same but different
The correct colour to me consist of the red in Canon along the edges of the petals gradating towards the pink of Kodak. The Canon has too much red and not enough pink in its transition towards the center of the flower. The Kodak petal edge is not red enough. The Sigma has too much white. The Sigma comes as a surprised as I thought I have over exposed. But apparently not according to the exposure graph and colour chart in the background.
Anyway, the 2 tests have shown that little changes in shooting condition can yield different results. So no point comparing sensors. Mastering the camera according to its limitations is more important.
Last edited:
Kenneth67C
New Member
Hey MWP, after this whole exercise, I bet your eyes must have been having problems trying to differentiate which was which.
Anyway...thanks for taking the effort to do it. Certainly informative.
Anyway...thanks for taking the effort to do it. Certainly informative.
To compare colour rendition of various sensors, would it be better to shoot a Macbeth colour chart? You used ZS50 lens. But if you used another lens for all 3 sensors, maybe result will be different and not consistent?
Kodak is out of business. It is dead. Sigma Foveon DSLR has very small market share. Not much point comparing.
Kodak is out of business. It is dead. Sigma Foveon DSLR has very small market share. Not much point comparing.
ManWearPants
Senior Member
Not much effort. I thought should add something different to CS Zeiss thread whenever possible to keep it interesting and alive.
ManWearPants
Senior Member
It is just for fun. Anyway, it is more interesting to be seeing living colours than a colour chart. You cannot see the tonal colours or textual of petals in colour charts.
I choose to see it differently. Kodak is still in Leica ME which means it is going to be supported for x years. There are also the medium format digital backs. I think someone will do something with those sensors. I am sure you also know how popular the Sigma DP series is. I think Foveon sensor will be big if Sigma can make a small DSLR. Even if they are destined to fail eventually, it would be a pity for someone to not have taken their love ones in a different light, using these sensors that have its unique signature other than the sharp, high resolution, clean high ISO CMOS.
Ok, let's go back to Zeiss lenses....
Last edited:
Kenneth67C
New Member
The thread will survive but some support for the efforts of those who put up photos for others to view is needed/appreciated.
ManWearPants
Senior Member
Last edited:
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
Kudos to what you did, very unselfish effort for the good of the community, may not suit all, but many will still appreciate. Keep it up, you have my support.
Shizuma
Senior Member
ManWearPants
Senior Member
Thanks Anthony.
Nice raw metal barrel. I am also targeting some CZJ but in plastic form. Too bad the Pancolar are ridiculously priced nowadays.
Last edited:
Shizuma
Senior Member
50/1.8 are among top performer. But expensive -__-.
Try the Pentacon (oops out topic, here Zeiss), 50/1.8 , it is pretty decent...or even the Super Takumar SMC 1.4 (8 element Planar killer)
Firstly, :thumbsup: for the sample shots.
Its never easy to go through the tedious process of doing them and always subject to nitpick and scrutiny. (almost like a thankless task)
Personally, I like the overall color from the Canon and Kodak more.
But then, if I was shown any of the samples individually, I probably won't figure out any difference.
IMO, color varies so much even with the same camera due to the ambient lighting (time of day; color casted from reflected environment), throw in accurate color vs pleasing color and I doubt there is any right in any of it, just individual preferences.
Ok, back to lenses.
Whats the opinion regarding using the Pentacon CZJ lenses on a 5D?
Will they be too clunky? (thats my main concern)
- Status
Similar threads
