DPReview: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM user review

Here's a tantalising opener if I've read one:

Carl Zeiss ZM lenses is an amazing phenomenon is (sic) photography: despite their excellent quality and ergonomics, most Leica M shooters do not even know about them. The main reason for their relatively low popularity, besides snobbish attitude of “those with the best glass in the world”, is that at any focal length Leica optics surpassed Zeiss ZM lenses in speed. That is until now…

This review, written by DPReview forum member, Irakly Shanidze, is salted with well thought-out images (and the above freakish thing); and though it doesn't prove anything intrinsically different, or better, about the Zeiss, it is a worthwhile read.

Source: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM user review

Read more

'Mirrorless is the tablets of the camera world'

Speaking of DPReview's interview with Samsung, clickbait, and all that, DPReview member, sfpeter, distills the state of mirrorless cameras perfectly: 

“I’m as attached to a mirror as I am to whether you turn the on switch left or right. Right now mirrorless cameras are for the most part like advanced bridge cameras that can change lenses. Give me a mirrorless that is full frame, has the picture quality, battery life, and performance of a DSLR ad I’d use it. It HAS to have an EVF, and really the only shooting advantage I’ve seen is the display shows more clearly what the end result image will look like. Otherwise I keep feeling like mirrorless is the tablets of the camera world, something manufacturers tell us we need but we’re not too sure yet.”

Of course, mirrorless cameras must be defined as a non-Leica dSLR-alike interchangeable cameras that rely on a naked sensor for all photographic tasks from focusing to exposure. And, which are marketed as 'small', 'light', and 'the future of photography', among other things.

Thom Hogan addressed the interview perfectly in his article entitled: How Internet News Distorts Things.

Sans Mirror: Mirrorless to Outsell DSLRs ‘in three years’

Last week's headline-grabbing DPReview article entitled: CES 2015 Samsung Interview: Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years is bubbling with market-baiting undercurrents.

In Thom Hogan's words: 

“However, the actual quote in the interview is “In the last year…market reports are predicting that in 2018/19 mirrorless cameras will outsell DSLRs.” In other words, Samsung was quoting one of those private, for-money-only market analyst reports. I say “one” and not “reports” because I only know of one that makes the prediction Samsung claims. Others that I’m aware of say something slightly different. Indeed, there’s great disagreement amongst analysts on where DSLR sales will eventually settle (if they don’t just decline into oblivion).

I’d also point out that, even if that analyst report quoted by Samsung turns out to be correct, that doesn’t necessarily mean great things for mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras peaked in sales two years ago and have been flat since. The report Samsung referenced assumes that significant current DSLR volume will become mirrorless volume, for example.

Oh, and did I point out that these expensive reports are targeted at…you guessed it…camera and camera accessory makers, companies like Samsung? Thus, in the case of Samsung you have them parroting something they paid money for that tells them what they wanted to hear. I note that Samsung didn’t mention other aspects of that report that might be unflattering to Samsung, or other reports that disagree entirely. In other words, Samsung was picking and choosing what to repeat.”

It's like paying a seer to give you good news, then telling your supporters that you and your descendants will be around for generations, enemies, and acts of god be damned.

A shallow review of the Sony A7 MKII

Beating search engine spiders in order to maintain traffic, and Google rank, requires verbosia. It requires cut-copy-insert-paste style reviews. Here's what I mean:

Here are some images taken by (name of camera) which just got released. It is so new and hot. And the (name of feature) is vastly improved. This review of the (name of camera) will show you how (name of city) looks like [sic] through the great (name of lens) and (name of camera) combination.

Do that as often as possible. You will beat Google. Your If you're an honest blog like the super-honest The Phoblographer, you'll even put out out a proviso:

“At the moment of initially publishing this review, we haven’t done a lot of in-depth testing for the reason that Adobe Lightroom doesn’t support the RAW files at the moment, so we’re going to update this section when that happens.”

Why thank you, The Phoblographer. And congrats. You have just beat Google. Later on, all you got to do is change the wording of the title from 'Impressions' to 'Review', paste in some Lightroom comparos, and voila! Review!

But I prefer to have my leek soup with leeks.

Source: Review: Sony A7 MK II

Summilux FLE 35 VS Nokton 35 VS Canon LTM 35/1,5

One of Rangefinder Forum's most helpful contributors, jonmanjiro, in 2013, posted a lovely comparison of four lenses:

Leica Summilux 35 FLE
Voigtländer M Nokton 35/1,4 MC
Voigtländer M Nokton 35/1,4 SC
Canono LTM 35/1,5

As you can see, although many decades newer, the Noktons appear to be cut from a very similar cloth to the classic -- and much more expensive -- Canon lens. The Summilux produces noticeably smoother bokeh. I am a long-time fan of the Canon LTM 35/2, about which I wrote at length. Later last year, I sold it to a collector because its aperture blades were in poor repair and I repairing them is costly, and difficult. 

In its stead I purchased the Canon LTM 35/1,5 about which I will be writing soon.

The above Rangefinder Forum link comes from a reader named Adam, with whom I've been communicating since October of last year. Thank you Adam.

Read more

Camera makers focusing on other camera makers, not on customers

According to Thom Hogan, camera makers look at other camera makers, not at customers, when designing new cameras.

“Further, it’s abundantly clear that the camera makers are all looking at each other, not at customers. Anything different (more pixels, different sensor size, lower light capability, different focus system, IS, you name it) tends to be quickly matched or reacted to in some way very quickly by most of the players (uh, Pentax, hello?). Sometimes it’s just marketing message or pricing that adjusts, but often we see things like the Canon EOS M putting a mirrorless stake in the ground, which has a FUD-like drag effect on the others. Short of a truly breakthrough technology that’s patent protected, none of the camera makers are going to manage to beat the others to the punch by more than a cycle or so. ”

By targeting other manufacturers, sales are netted on the slippery backs of system jumpers. Endemic to system jumping is dabbling, and its apparent market growth. This occurs only when a technology excites the enthusiast. When that technology ripens, enthusiasts move on.

It is an unsustainable market. Camera companies gaining market share in a dwindling market will result in the death of numerous mounts, the wholesale liquidation of lenses, accessories, and cameras, and the alienation of investing customers. 

Mirrorless or not, everyone is making a wannabe dSLR. Everyone is making fantastic lenses. And yes, there are some cool technologies underpinning today's latest mirrorless cameras. But apart from smartphones, nothing new, nothing that revolutionises the way the user interacts with their camera, or the world they are shooting, has hit market.

It was never the camera that we wanted: it was us. And the easiest way for us to get more of what we want is the smartphone.