Hi John!
Reading your reviews and tests I constantly realize you like some aspects of file, bodies and lenses that I also like.

I would like to know if you have tested or maybe tried the Sony A900, and in those cases what do you think of it and of the Alpha system.

I think I'd like the A900 body: more compact that my 1DsII, with a better viewfinder (crucial for me) and I think files that from what I've seen have plenty of detail and a gentle roll off towards pure white. I'd also like Zeiss 85 and/or 135, possibly the 16-35 but I'd miss a fast and good wideangle (the old Minolta 28/2 should be good, but is a rare beast).

Abandoning my 1DsII + Leica and Contax lenses for Sony is a big decision to take for me...You know... I need to convince myself

Mattia - Don't worry, I won't spend your money I've looked at the Sony A900 also, but ultimately a couple things come up short:

1) Lack of lenses, not a very wide selection.

2) No Zeiss ZF / ZE types for the Sony (Minolta) mount

Technically, the camera is a bit hit or miss:

1) No live view, that bugs me.

2) ISO performance is weak

3) Autofocus points are bunched up at the center

4) 12 bits; it's a 14-bit world now...

5) Opinions about sharpness vary; I'm not sure what to make of it.

The GetDPI boards have a dedicated forum that you might want to check out - GetDPI Sony A900 Forum.

I have a used 1Ds Mark III on the way; I'll update the 135 Blog as to why that happened. Without getting into details here, after looking at the A900 for awhile, I still decided to stay with Canon.

Your 1Ds2 is a great camera and holds highlights better than a 1Ds3; you should think long and hard before parting with it.

For giggles and grins, check out the new picture galleries at my site (click here). Select "Vacation" pictures. That's a very good case study because the three galleries are:

Boston - 100% 1Ds3

San Francisco - 100% 1Ds2

Mexico - 33% Mamiya ZD and 66% Leica M8

I see differences in the color, but I'm biased since I had to work those files. While I bitch and moan about the 1Ds3 (and always will!!!), I do like its color the best. For black and white work the M8 and ZD both do a great job. For color, they are okay - sort of 1Ds2 vintage. My big gripe with the A900 is 12-bits. I like the 1Ds3's deep, rich colors. I want that! I don't think an A900 would measure up, and at 12-bits its files will fall apart quicker in photoshop. Whereas the 1Ds3's file can be pushed around quite abit before falling apart.

If Sony releases an A900 Mark II w/ 16-bit files, then I'll probably take a closer look at Sony. I'd also like to see some ZA primes like a 50mm F1.2, the 100mm F2 Planar of course and some others. I view Sony as future option, but it really depends on where Sony goes with it. If they dumb down their line towards more of a consumer line-up instead of professional line-up, then I'll lose interest. Time will tell.

"The" problem with Sony system at the moment is lack of primes. And really Nikon suffers the same. Regardless of whether or not somebody likes Canon or not, I think anybody agree that Canon has the widest range of lenses. I've got my gripes with Canon, but ultimately the lens range that keeps me as a Canon customer.

I just published a quick review of the Leica Universal Polarizer (13356) and these images were taken with the 1Ds Mark III and Contax 100mm F2 Planar. As we know, I like the 100mm Planar, but the Contax version is a lousy product lens because after F5.6 its image quality degrades. For product there is never enough DOF, so the Contax 100mm F2 Planar and product pix are not the best match. That said...







Those pix would have a bit more kick had they been taken with something like a Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro-Planar ZF, but I don't have that lens on hand, so such is life. The Mamiya ZD with the 80mm F2.8 AF D & 12mm extension tube would have yielded sharper images, but moire and false color would have been issue (especially with the baffles on the polarizer's hood).

What the 1Ds3 does produce is a very clean file that polishes up nicely in photoshop. Some of these files had some hefty levels adjustments and highlights in the shadow areas were boosted to add some pop. I can't get away with that as much with the M8 or ZD; the Phase One P25 was best in that particular area. Cameras like the Sony A900 where they have their best DR at ISO 200 are a nightmare for this type of work because to get the best DR, you have to deal with added show noise. And noise in the highlights can turn into banding super-duper fast.

The 1Ds3 could be sharper for sure - and I wish it was - but when it comes to color editing and pushing files around in photoshop, it handles very well. The 5D Mark II files did NOT have the elasticity. To be blunt, I did not like the 5D Mark II at all. There several occasions where I need to take some quick family pix. I had picked up the 5DII, but before leaving the house I changed my mind and opted for the M8 instead. The M8 is not some mythical wonder-machine, but I find it much more enjoyable than the 5D Mark II. I'd love to see the 1Ds Mark IV have a removable grip like the old film Canon 1V, but we haven't seen that yet, so I wouldn't count on it.

BTW - here's a quick shot from the ZD -



For webbies like that, the difference between medium format and a dSLR is slim and none. A digital back is complete overkill for web presentation IMO. But what I LOVE about the ZD is the feel of an 80mm lens as normal kit lens (the 80mm's FOV is effectively the same as 50mm on a 1Ds3) -



That look can be matched somewhat with the 50 'Lux on the M8 or the Contax 100/2 on the 1Ds3, but the ZD does it more naturally, more often and with less fuss. I think the 1Ds3 equally capable with the right lens(es), so I am anxiously waiting for the Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar in the ZE. I loved the lens, but hated the ergonomics on the ZF version because the aperture is very difficult to access.

I think the difference with 645 is the use of longer lenses. As you said, we use an 80mm on 645 and 50mm on 135. With that comes different compression, different angle of view, different DOF (especially the ingress and egress of DOF). With 645 I "step into" the shot and close the distance, thus shortening DOF even more so. With 80mm we can shoot F5.6 and have a nice solid DOF for the subject, and still have a quick egress from DOF which separates the subject from the background. This is 100% do-able with 36x24mm dSLRs - with the "right" lenses. Two of lenses for me have been the Contax 100mm F2 Planar and Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH.

Contax 100/2 (Canon 1Ds & 1Ds2) -











Leica M8 and 50mm F1.4 Summilux-M ASPH













I'm sure there are other lenses out there that can do the same. And people post plenty of 3D images in various forums threads, so the results are not unique to the Contax 100 & Leica 50. But these lenses work for me and tend to get the results. Now, to make your argument for 645, here are some from the Mamiya 200mm f2.8 APO on the ZD -









Regarding the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III; I spent the afternoon with a friend who had the 1Ds2, sold it and is in the market for a 1Ds3. He played with the 5D Mark II a couple weeks and shot around 50 frames with mine before it was sold. Today he clicked off ~40 frames on the 1Ds3. He emailed earlier tonight saying the 1Ds3 did much better in terms of detail and less "mush" in the backgrounds. It's pretty hard to say a 1Ds3 is worth the extra $2k (new 5DII in the US is $2699, a used 1Ds3 is ~$4750), but it does seem to deliver better color and slightly better detail. The 1Ds3 isn't worlds better, but there does seem to be a difference. Sometimes I think I imagine this stuff, so it's nice when somebody else sees similar results.

I borrowed several L lenses, so now I have some lenses to work with on the 1Ds3. I'll probably end up selling the ZD to pay for Canon lenses, but I really don't want to sell the ZD. It has its look.

As usual you are very helpful and informative!
Plus you images are really wonderful and share a style that I like a lot!


I hope this off-topic doesn't bother you.

Many Zeiss lenses with their micro-contrast draw scenes that pop in a lovely fashion.

I use some modern and very well corrected Leica R lenses (such as the Apo 90/2 and Apo 180/2.8) and I find that even these stellar optics doesn't draw like good corrected Zeiss (such as the C/Y 100/2), but have a good draw nonetheless.

Problem is that I have found that, honestly, adapting lenses on 5D / 1ds has a lower keeping ratio compared to using Canon EF objectives (or using Contax C/Y on my RTS II with a viewfinder developed for manual focus).
With a razor sharp plane of focus, e.g. of the 180/2.8 Apo @ 2.8, every *minimal* focus error is immediately evident.

So, what do you think of Canon lenses? I just sold most of my leica glass, and I'm thinking of purchasing a fast short telephoto lens: candidates are 85/1.2, 100/2 and 135/2.
I'm also leaning toward the 50/1.2 ad a very fast do it all, but I'm hesitant.

You had the chance to use them?

I have a very good copy of the normal 70-200/4 and found it a good performer, especially for a zoom, but in this range I'd like something that by f2 or, ok, f2.8 is capable of isolating the subject and make it bounce of the print, so to speak (of course English is absolutely not my mother language, so sorry for killing it every time I write here)


A perfect sum of my post is this image, taken with a 80/1.4 Leica at f2.8 I think, where I missed the focus on the door and front focused. At web sizes, with a bit of fosued sharpening, is ok. Print is out of the question.

I think you are right. I have never owned the Contax 100/2, but I saw many of your pictures
Probably the Contax 100/2 is better corrected and over a wider area from f2.
In my experience the 80/1.4 is like that from f4. F1.4 to F2 is "dream world", with non corrected spherical aberration all over the place, F2.8 is border line, from f4 is a razor. A Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde lens
Too bad is *very* difficult to nail the focus, because the rather soft and low contrast wide aperture.

Leica APO's are somewhat different: they have a plane of focus almost perfect, but the transition to out of focus is too abrupt for my taste, and I don't know why, but this I think this is not good for a credible 3D effect. Apart from that, the 90/2 Apo is a sweet and very small lens, perfect to carry around every time.

I however decided to let go every manual-adapted lens I own, save the Leica 35/2 first version, that has an truly unique style and is the 35mm with the best bokeh I ever tried.
(I like taking pictures like yours in Hawaii with the 28/2 distagon (that I had) near focus and open diaphragm: with the Contax often the bokeh gets very busy, with bright point showing a strong brighter edge. Leica 35/2 is buttery smooth at every f-stop.
On the other hand, the plane of focus of the 28/2 is incredible, even at near focus distance.)

The rest will be original AF Canon.



"Invest on glass, not in bodies" as they say


Is this one or the 85/1.2. One of these for sure. 85mm is more versatile to my taste, but is bigger, costs 2 times as much and AF is slower... mmm...

Your 135L pictures are wonderful as usual!
One of the things I envy you (ZD aside ) is the light you have by your home: it's absolutely fantastic, from what I's seen on many of your shots.
I live on a rather mountainous spot, and I don't have a true "golden hour" light, because the sunset is behind the mountains.


Yes, focus shift is an horrible thing: it is two years that i flirt with the 50/1.2 and this problem cools me down...


Indeed. Is a wonderful optic with an useful range in a rather small and light package. One of the reasons for I finally decided to stay with Canon is this zoom.




Not anymore: like I said, I finally decided to shift almost 100% to Canon lenses. I don't want to lose time and resources in adapting lenses, missing shots and so on.
This summer I'll go to Canadian Rockies for the second time in my life (I love that region, and I live near the Alps of Switzerland, so is a rather big compliment ) and I want to travel light.
Maybe I follow your example with the 200/1.8 and give the 300/2.8 IS to my girlfriend to carry everywhere

1DsIII is tempting, but I'm not sure about the blown highlights that is a thing I absolutely hate in digital. Maybe I'll give a Kodak slr/c a try

Hi Mattia -

In the Contax 100mm F2 Planar Review, there is now new gallery of images taken across a period of 4 years with the 1Ds, 1Ds2 and 1Ds3. Here's the gallery -

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_100mm_Planar_4.html

I'm also re-doing the entire Alaska gallery from 2005. Those images were taken with the original Canon 1Ds. It's hard going back to those files. At the time they seemed great, now they pretty low. The ZD and M8 put out higher quality files. The original 1Ds lacks DR compared to its predecessors. The color is a bit odd too. I've been meaning to re-process all those images for the past 2 years or so, but keep putting it off because it's such a boring task...

I've also been rebuilding a number of other galleries, so many 1Ds2 images have been reviewed too during the past week. At this point I don't think I could back to a 12-bit dSLR. The higher bit files from the 1Ds3 have a definite advantage in color, smoothness in the transitions and some general "pop". Maybe the A900 has that pop, but I'm skeptical.