tarek_wazzan

<p>thank you all for the valuable input..<br>

I do already have the zeiss lenses ( loved them with the contax g1, but had to switch to digital for many reasons)... i have also recently purchased the nex-5n.. as for the adaptor i have to order it from abroad, i was wondering wether it is worth the relative (hassle) or wether to opt for other lenses/options...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>hi</p>

<p>do you have any experience or info about using contax G Zeiss lenses (esp 45 and 90) on nex-5n via adaptor? and how would the operation and image quality compare with other (common) choices for nex such as sony a-mount lenses and zeiss sonnar e24 1.8.<br>

would appreciate your feedback.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot.</p>

<p>tarek</p>

<p>50 / 1.4 .. i love the focal length (and i have an aps-c) , frequently not wide enough but i still would like it more than say a 24 or 28 ( although i dnt have any of these, but have the 18-55 ) .. it has a great image quality, it is light and small and fairly well built.. great for low light and shallow depth of field..</p>

<p>i dnt have the 5dii, but i am considering buying the ef 24 f1.4, i read good reviews about it (i am interested in it not just for landscape but also for low light and DOF options).. any more opinions about this lens would be appreciated..</p>

<p>i dnt have the L, but have the ef 1.4 and LOVE it... i bought it for low available light work but it became my overall favorite lens... wide open the results are at least usable ( ie for web display) and at best very good to excellent.... it's light and small, honestly i wouldnt even consider the L here and maybe use the saved money for another focal length or accessory...</p>

<p>".. dxo are fools if they think the pentax is better in anyway"</p>

<p>Dave, not to stray way off topic but, dpreview.com finds that the pentax kx is clearly better than the 60d ( which has a sensor essentially identical to 7d i believe) in low light/high iso performance, are they fools too?</p>

<p>"<em>DxO is drivel. Anybody with eyes in his head who has actually taken the time to figure out 7D and 5D Mk II files for themselves, knows that whatever DxO is telling us, it's nothng whatsoever to do with Real World image quality or noise performance" </em><br>

<em>"dxo is a drivel....."</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>Keith, and Jack..</p>

<p>Really?! how can you be so sure?!<br />it seems some other posters here have opinions that are in principle in agreement with DXO mark on this particular question..</p>

<p>i dont have either.. but for what it's worth dxo mark ranks the 5Dii highest among tested canon bodies for low light iso performance, and the 7d tenth.. with iso indexes of 1815 and 854 respectively...</p>

<p>"<em>Apparently, people here are not photographers. How can a true photographer resist the feeling of dense brush metal of the 50 f1.2 against bare skin in a cold dark winter's night?"</em></p>

<p>mmm... interesting defenition of a true photographer...</p>

<p>the 50 1.2 of course....<br>

just kidding..... please!...</p>

<p>"once shutter lag disappears from non-DSLRs ..."</p>

<p>that's the key phrase for me.. (actually i just remembered that SLT camera's may already have solved the shutter lag issue, but i think they still "lag" in low light performance)..</p>

<p>as far as i know, other forms of cameras directed to the masses are not as quickly responsive as DSLRs ( shutter lag) and that may be of paramount importance in shooting moving objects... for me that's the main advantage of a dslr compared to other systems with interchangeable lenses ( let alone a camera where you can not change lenses)..<br>

addendum: rangefinders may not have that limitation but usually fall behind in range of lenses available ( esp on tele-end and macro)..</p>

<p>if it does not have to be pocketable but has to be reasonably light and small, how about a digital rebel and a fixed lens ( such as 28/1.8 or 50/1.4).. this way you do not much compromise image quality and yet can use whatever other lenses you already own on a given day..</p>

<p>some aps-c sensors are already being rated higher than some very good full frame sensors (such as 5d ii) ( i am referring to dxomark ratings), what do you all think of that? it seems a larger format sensor is not necessarily a superior one?</p>

<p>actually the 60d sensor example is not a good one as it is rated lower than 5d ii, but i think the idea is clear! thanks all</p>

<p>Wouter and Bruce.. thanks a lot for your responses.. i know 5d mkii in good hands is capable of excellent results, and surely i realize that the camera ( let alone one aspect, the sensor) is only one element, and maybe a relatively minor one.. nonetheless, asuming all other elements ( lens, photographer etc) being equal, if i find out that 60D sensor (as an example) is better for a lower price ( and weight/size i think), then i guess you see where i am going..  thanks again..</p>

<p>hello..<br>

it has been my impression that canon 5d mark ii is currently one of the best digital cameras as far as image quality (especially for landscape photography) .. however, recently i came across DXO mark sensor rating ( raw) and was really surprised .. overall the 5d ii was ranked 14 and for landscape ( where the rating was reportedly mostly based on dynamic range) was rated 40! preceded by many aps-c sized sensors etc.. while i really dnt understand much of the technical aspects that could have been involved in that rating, i would appreciate your thoughts and practical advise / experience . thank you..</p>

<p>tarek</p>

<p>thanks a lot scott.. your notes are very helpful and straight to the point.. i appreciate it.. best regards..</p>

<p>tarek</p>

<p>hi</p>

<p>is there a readily noticeable difference in print quality (color AND b/w) between the above mentioned printers ( in A4 and A5 sizes)?<br>

Thanks a lot</p>

<p>tarek<br>

PS i use 450d</p>

<p>thanks a lot Craig for your helpful comment.. and thanks again Bob, i checked the link, excellent review ( as usual), best regards..<br>

tarek</p>

<p>thanks a lot Nathan and Bob for your thoughtful input.. i truly appreciate it.. i have the 18-55 IS.. i also have the 50/1.4 ( for low light, very good) and i have 100/2.8 macro ( for macro and short tele, excellent).. i am looking for a better walk around lens (i'd rather not have to change primes if doing street photography or while hiking/traveling etc).. i do not expect the 15-85 to be any match to the primes i have in IQ but i was wondering wether there is a noticeable difference in IQ compared to the 18-55 IS..(i have considered the 17-55 but the disadvantages to me are the very similar focal range to what i have, the price, and size/weight.. as i have the 50/1.4 the advantage of the 17-55 for low light is not a strong plus for me anymore) .. again thanks for your insight</p>

<p>Thnaks a lot RB..<br />JD, you have a valid point; however, some credible review sources (such as photozone) imply similar image quality between the 2 lenses.. clearly many issues (besides image quality) affect the pricing.. but thanks a lot</p>

<p>hi,<br>

is there a real difference in image quality between those two lenses and is the 3 mm difference at the wide angle end real significant?<br>

Thanks a lot ..</p>

<p>tarek</p>

<p>thank you all for your valuable comments.. i really appreciate it..</p>

<p>hi,<br>

i shoot with an eos 450d.. i shoot raw.. sometimes i am bothered by the fact i have to wait for the images to be stored if i shoot several consequtive shots.. would using a faster memory card ameliorate this limitation in the camera?<br>

thanks a lot..</p>

<p>tarek</p>