|
|
Re: 3rd Party Lens Makers
Jeremy wrote:
> Gordon Moat wrote:
> >
> > Don't you think some of the lack of lens sales might have been due to the cost?
> > The Zeiss lenses are coming in at near half the price of similar Leica items.
> > Someone buying Zeiss or Voigtländer lenses might be able to afford more than two.
> >
>
> I am reluctant to raise the point, for fear of being thought of as a
> dreaded Leicaphile, but might one factor have been that those lenses
> were well made and were unlikely to have required replacement?
I was not commenting about replacement, but having a selection of more than one (or
two) focal length. It is not just Leica either. Older manual focus lenses often were
made just a bit better than newer autofocus lenses. Many companies older manual focus
lenses can still be used, so unless they get scratched or otherwise damaged there
would be little reason to replace them.
>
>
> Another factor might be that the shooting style associated with a
> precision rangefinder might not have lent itself to the use of very many
> lenses.
Maybe a bit better guess. Some people want to emulate a few well known photographers
of the past, and stick to one or two focal lengths. Seems a bit odd to do that with an
interchangeable lens camera body, but if that is what people like then oh well.
> The camera accomodates a narrower range of focal lengths than
> does an SLR, and there were a lot of shooters that satisfied themselves
> with a kit consisting of a "Holy Trinity" of lenses. It was the
> Japanese SLRs that promoted the concept of the system camera.
Zeiss and Leica both had extensive systems for their cameras prior to WWII. Even Nikon
had quite a system of parts and accessories for their rangefinder cameras. I think the
desire to use convenient zoom lenses, and longer telephoto lenses, is what drove the
SLR, though we could also claim that the ability to view through the lens was huge
draw for sales.
>
>
> The guys that bought--and USED--Leicas were not gearheads. The Japanese
> manufacturers were the ones who were more naturally oriented toward that
> market. I can't think of any Leica guys that walked around with a half
> dozen lenses in their kit, but there were numerous Nikon afficianods
> that did.
Using Bob M. numbers and comments again, it seems that medium format users were not
buying lots of lenses either. However, I don't think the low lens count purchases
compared to body purchases is strictly a Leica realm (my opinion). People today seem
to place more emphasis on the camera body than the lenses with 35 mm and D-SLRs, and
often spend more on the bodies than they do on the lenses.
I am less certain about the gearhead comment, since using a Leica is a very
mechanically interactive process (sort of like using a manual transmission). Look how
many comments came out against the M7 when it was introduced, yet that has become one
of the better selling modern Leica choices. Could we state that Leica users are
control freaks . . . maybe, but I think there might be more to the mythos or mystique.
It seems that Zeiss thinks there is a market for people who want to use a rangefinder
camera. Using a rangefinder is definitely a different approach to imaging than using
an SLR. Voigtländer have done well with the entry level rangefinder market, so maybe
there is some sales potential in the middle ground between Voigtländer and Leica.
It is interesting that Zeiss claim the lenses are based on Cine lens designs, rather
than 35 mm or medium format designs. In the motion imaging business, Zeiss prime cine
lenses are highly regarded.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
|
|
|
| |
Martin Francis wrote:
> Disclaimer: I love my 500CM kit. With the exception of to trade up for a
> 503CW, I wouldn't be without it even though I don't use it often. Most of
> the photography I judge to have been my best was done with this camera- most
> of which I believe is down to the time taken per shot, and the willingness I
> have to shoot from somewhere other than eye level.
>
Then it sounds like you have found a camera that matches the way you
want to shoot, and does not distract your concentration. Personally, I
never liked the ergonomics of the Hasselblad 500 series, so I found that
it was a distraction.
> Now, while all this is true, I would love to get into doing photography for
> magazine articles- portraits of interviewees, band shots etc.- at some time
> in the future, and I think realistically speaking i'm going to need to
> consider a DSLR for actual "work". However, I have to admit I want to try
> and keep my actual shooting style as similar to my medium format work as
> possible. My only pro shoot so far was with a cheapo Canon 350D and adapted
> manual lenses. Metering was stop-down, manual focusing was damn near
> impossible and there were too many good images spoiled by things I could
> have avoided with at least some automation.
>
First off, some of the magazines that people might consider cool, or the
latest style, often pay little to nothing. This is not as bad as it
might sound, since advertising people do look at some of these
magazines, and hire photographers based upon shoots in some magazines.
While it might seem like I am dissing the older members of this news
group, many of these magazines I speak about are not what they would be
viewing, nor are they what most would consider photography magazines.
Three publications really get looked at often, those are Communication
Arts, Lu"rzer's Archive, and PDN. Of course, there are many more,
depending upon what magazine type work you want to do. If you look at
the style of images in Black Book, for example, you will find some
interesting interviewee and musician shots . . . I am guessing here at
the approach you are trying.
Understand that magazines might state a tight turnaround, but mostly for
no good reasons. Lead times for printing are often months, so unless you
get a job really close to the end of an issue (rare situation), you
don't have to rush that much. If they really are rushed, then you have
another big issue, and that is RGB or CMYK file delivery. Whether you
scan film or do direct digital capture, delivering print ready CMYK for
the publication is the only safe way to get consistent and predictable
(sort of ) results. Very few amateurs understand this, and get burned on
some occasional magazine prints when their RGB file get poorly converted.
There could be many reasons for an RGB file to get screwed up from your
file you send to them, to the final print. Some companies have a
horrible practice of stripping out RGB colour space tags when they get
files, then converting to CMYK. Some places hire temps to do the graphic
design, with a luck of the draw approach to whether or not the CMYK
conversion is done properly. Often in the case of direct digital,
without any original to prove you had everything right, the blame for a
poor print would go back to the photographer . . . an the results would
be that they would not use you again. With transparencies, when such a
problem happened, the photographer could show he had it write at the
start, and the graphic design guy was blamed . . . . . Unfortunately
not really that simple today with film shooters largely providing their
own scans, so if you are scanning, they could still blame you for bad scans.
Getting proper CMYK specs out of a publication is like pulling teeth on
crocodiles . . . great when you finally get one, but not always a sure
bet you got the right one. I know all this sounds like a hefty learning
curve, and it is one. Even if you stick with film, you don't avoid this
due to the desire of nearly all publications to want a CD-R of your
images. You will become your own best insurance that your final
publication prints will be the best quality they can achieve . . .
create your own job security.
I expect some dissenting voices here, but this really is fast becoming
the way for photographers to do work. Learn CMYK, and understand
printing, or be at the mercy of others who might f*(k it up.
> My plan is to shoot with a D200- primarily for its ergonomics and wireless
> flash system. I have an AF 85mm f1.4, my favourite Nikkor, already and am
> considering other lenses. For sheer convenience, the 17-55mm f2.8 is calling
> me- it handles beautifully, and has many admirable qualities... but it's a
> zoom, and when I shoot with a zoom I don't feel like i'm putting the work
> in. While it's possible to treat it as a series of FFL lenses, the
> discipline to use it as such is apparently beyond me. My real desire would
> be an f1.4 outfit- a 28mm, 50mm and 85mm kit (the forthcoming Zeiss 50mm
> f1.4 would be nice :-) ). The problem is the 28mm- it is difficult to find
> in the UK, very expensive, and "try before you buy" just ain't gonna happen.
> I think I can work with a 28mm (my aforementioned shoot was done entirely
> with a Contax 28mm and Leica 50mm) but i'm very aware how limiting this will
> be. There were moments, during the shoot, when I was pressed into a corner
> of a small room to get everyone into the shot. Yes I could get something
> wider to supplement it, but not straight away- the price of a 28/1.4 pretty
> much discourages the thought of buying anything else for a while!
>
Okay, some good Nikon lenses exist, though some fast ones are manual
focus (like the 35 mm f1.4). A zoom can be convenient, but better for
event work than editorial. I never thought much of the 28 mm f1.4, and I
think the 35 mm f1.4 is a better lens. The 24 mm f2.0 would be another
one to consider, and I think better as a wider lens than any 28 mm that
Nikon has made.
Night shooting, like music events, brings up other issues. While there
are few fast lenses in medium format, your only choice might be a
smaller format camera, either film or direct digital. The bad thing
about direct digital and low light is the way the sensor work, whether
CCD or CMOS. A simple way to consider this is that white is a full
charge of electrons, while black is removal of electrons. Sorry if this
sounds weird, I am paraphrasing Seth Resnik on this, so you might want
to find some of his articles. Anyway, basically the really dark areas
are represented by very few electrons; combine that with Bayer
interpolation, and coloured noise appears.
Another weird thing that a few have found is that Blue channel noise in
direct digital can be troublesome in some low light conditions, sensors
being more red than blue sensitive, and twice as many green sensor areas
as blue, and the thickness required for blue filtering . . . anyway, to
simplify this, there is often more problems in Blue channel noise, and
that can show up as yellowish pixelation in a final print (complements:
red to cyan, green to magenta, blue to yellow, black created from
luminance of all). I hope I am not being to cryptic here. One
controversial approach to this has been to use blue filters, much like
used when shooting film under low light conditions, then setting white
balance to daylight. Strange approach, and not everyone doing this type
of shooting is convinced it works.
Okay, so with mentioning all the craziness around low light digital
capture, even weird things like conditions where there is no "white"
point (mid to dark only in the scene), you might get an idea that film
is better for low light imaging. Sometimes this is still true, but even
with film under low light, there are issues. Add in that many scanners
don't capture the darker tones as well as lighter tones, and you might
remove any "advantage" of film. So, more issues to consider, but film
might not be a bad choice, or at least maybe you don't want to dump all
your film cameras.
I expect complaints and denials on much of this . . . do your own
research. Don't just take my word on this, and investigate.
> I don't know if anyone has any opinions, suggestions or personal experience
> here, but i'd be glad to hear any.
>
> Martin
>
>
Too many suggestions to even type that much. Most of what you will run
into when shooting commercially (like editorial work) has more to do
with work practices than gear. The gear is really only a small part of
making all this work for you, and generating income. Sure, there are
technical issues, work practices, and things to learn, but it really
will come down to your unique creative vision, and your ability to sell
that to potential clients. Best of luck to you.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
|
|