warren_williams

I have used perspective control lenses from the film days so I’ve always wanted full frame cameras (to maximize the wa effect of pc lenses). I went mirrorless to be able to preview exposure in the viewfinder and for in camera stabilization. Those two factors were enough for me and I’ve been very happy with my choice of the Z7.

If you want to recreate a F4/20mm/Velvia experience, get a Z7 and one of the 21mm Voigtländer color Skopar lenses in an M mount and use an M adaptor. If you set the cameras picture control to vivid, the out of the camera jpegs will recreate velvia pretty well. The weight and bulk of this setup will be the same or less than your old setup and about as convenient to use with many added features. The current Z lenses are excellent but bulky and heavy though 28 and 40 pancake lenses are promised. However, if you don’t mind giving up autofocus, there are many rangefinder lenses which make Z’s a compact system. Once you are accustomed to the pluses of mirrorless digital - scene preview and vibration reduction for all lenses did it for me - you’ll wonder how you managed without them.

Many good reviews for some of the Voigtlander ais lenses and much more reasonably price than Zeiss glass.

Orsetto Thanks for your thorough explanation. The topic is of more than academic interest to me since I frequently use a Irix 15mm and a Nikkor 24 PCE on a D800. Fortunately, my subjects (buildings and landscapes) allow moderate apertures, even off tripod, so I suspect the green dot will continue to serve me though I’m now more interested in experimenting with live view. My other camera is a x pro 2 but I’ve used it mostly with Fuji lenses and auto focusing. I’ve regretted the weight of the D800 and the lack of pc lenses for the Fiji so when more used Nikon Z’s appear, I’m definitely going to consider switching and bagging the Fuji system. Again, many thanks for your response.

It’s pretty darn expensive and the houses don’t hold their value.

Photographic theory, as an applied science, has said for years that it doesn’t matter. Depth of field calculations incorporate predicted image size and viewing distance for someone of average visual acuity. Previously, the film resolution was usually the limiting factor, now the display screen or the print resolution may be. The question is are we making images that bear up to scrutiny by someone with a magnifying glass or at something like normal view distance.

I completely agree with you that live view in a dslr, if you don’t mind the semi-awkward camera position, will nail focus with any lens in manual mode IF you magnify the image sufficiently, but I don’t see how using an evf or live mode is superior to using the ground glass field in a reflex system without magnification or the peak focus gimmick (when it does work). I think it’s sad that the options for accurate manual focus at large apertures are so few. Just for the record, I agree that it never made sense to me why split image screens couldn’t be an option for a piece of technology costing several thousand dollars. Reminds me of the original Leicaflex fiasco.

I agree absolutely but this, short of macro photography, would be the most demanding form of photography I can think of. Tripod and either focus peaking or an eyepiece magnifier would be called for. But for any f stop from f4 and smaller, results from the electronic focus assist will look the same as a photo using a more precise technology - especially hand held. As photographers, we all live within depth of field.

I looked at the three lenses again. On all three, the first depth of field lines are approx 2mm off center, on the 24 and the 105 this represents f8 and on the 55 it represents f11. The actual travel on all three is probably closer to 1.5mm or 1mm which I think places the focusing “accuracy” within the marked depth of field at 5.6 to f8. I’m aware that depth of field calculations involve subjective elements like circle of confusion, but to claim these results are “unreliable” seem to be a stretch. It seems to me that the green dot is pretty reliable at moderate f stops for anything but long telephotos. Philosophically, does the availability of more reliable technology (focus peaking) make other technology unreliable? There are good arguments on both sides. However, if you printed up 20 photos from 20 photographers using the green dot (hand held) and 20 more using focus peaking (hand held), could you tell which was which?

I’m still not understanding the green dot issue. I tried to focus a 55 2.8 ais, a 105 2.5 ai and a 24 pce. For each one of them the green dot went away after moving the focus collar less than 2mm either direction which is well within the depth of field markings.

I’m interested that the green focus dot is met with universal ridicule. When using my D800e the throw of the focus when the dot appears is almost always less then the depth of field mark on my manual focus lens. I’m usually using a normal to wide focal length and shooting at moderate aperture (f5.6 -f11). Are the complaints concerning wide open shots with a telephoto or am I missing something?

My own experience (with adequate eyesight) was that by age 50, my autofocus Nikon was more consistently accurate in focus execution with 50 mm and wider lenses. When I got a 24 meg digital full frame camera, the results were as good as my typical results with my medium format equipment. A D700 and a 50mm 1.8 af would give you results that would surprise you.

I understand the general opinion is that the 50mm f2 postwar Sonnar is a very very good lens but the 1.5 Sonnar is noticeably better. Is the same true of the early s mount Nikkor's - is the 1.4 considered noticeably better than the 2.0? Overall, how do the Nikkors compare with the Sonnars of similar vintage and would most differences go away by 5.6? I assume most would feel that either one is inferior to the Summicron or Summilux of a similar age. When I say better, I'm considering mostly overall sharpness and contrast.

<p>Back in the day, people went to large format for adjustments and for image quality. "Documentation", with a capital D meant 4x5 at least to meet both requirements. If an architect wanted to document buildings pre 1947 he would be using a Kodak Eastman wooden view camera (or Deardorff) and after 1947, a Sinar if he could afford it. He could also use a Linhof and get portability while giving up a little corrective abkility. <br> I still think for his own use a Contax and then a SWC would be about right but as soon as the 35mm perspective control lens became available for the Nikon F in 1962 any architect would want one. He could even fit a 21mm on the F body from 1959 to 1967 and a 20 mm starting in 1967 viewable through the lens.</p>

<p>I'm intrigued by the idea of your book since I am an architect and serious amateur photographer. Most architects love taking photos of buildings when traveling and frankly don't want to be bothered by tripods and even lighter field view cameras. The purpose of the photos is for visual note taking rather than publishing so shifts and tilts can be sacrificed. Even so, extreme keystoning by pointing the camera off horizontal is a huge distraction so very wide lenses are loved (also handy for interiors). Also, architects are often techno gadget freaks so they will save to afford high quality tools and appreciate them for their craftsmanship (this is easily taken to unhealthy extremes). I would have your architect use a Contax (often cited as the "professioinal" 35mm camera) with the 28mm or 21 mm lenses mentioined above until about 1956 when he lands a fat commission and treats himself to a brand new Hasselblad SWC. I hope you let the forum know when you finish the book, Good Luck</p>