| Author |
Message |
    
Don Congdon
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:29 am: | 
|
This question is a bit off-topic, although it does pertain to classic cameras (or rather, classic lenses).
I've noticed that many modern digital cameras use the names of famous classic lenses (various Schneiders, Zeiss Tessars, etc.) to describe their optics. Are these modern lenses actually following the formulas of the classic lenses that we all know and love, or is the manufacturer just using the name to acquire some reflected glory from the past?
If the latter, I'm not surprised given the history of photography and the marketing tricks manufacturers have used in the past (like the many post-glory-days Exakta offerings of the 1970s). |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
I think many of the lenses just use the old names. I just read an article written in 1999 about a new Elmar version on a Leitz 35mm compact camera. This 'Elmar' had 5 lenses and the aperture behind the lens. It roughly followed the standard Elmar/Tessar formula but had a cemented front element.
I also read a test report about new digital cameras in a french magazine. One of the cameras came with a Leitz branded zoom lens. This camera had the worst lens of the whole gang, inferior to no-name lenses on Samsung cameras etc. |
rick
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 04:26 pm: |
|
I think you can count on a Tessar being a Tessar; other than that, they are probably new formulas, and most of the ones I've seen have been zooms. I've seen some shots from the Schneider zoom on one of the Kodak digitals, and from the pictures I saw it looked pretty nice. in particular, shots directly into the setting sun with no flare or ghosting in the silhouetted dark areas, and what looked like good sharpness and low distortion. definitely looked better than the Nikkor zoom on my Coolpix 3100.
: ) = |
Jan Dvorak
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 07:50 pm: |
|
My understanding, at least as far as Leica is concerned, is that the Leica Digilux 1 and the Digilux 2 use real Leica lenses. So do the Panasonic equivalents of those cameras.
As to the names - all Leica f:2 lenses were always called Summicron, their f:2.8 lenses were Elmarit and Leica is using the same naming pattern for the digital lenses. Of course the designs of the digital zooms are totally different from the prime Summicrons and Elmarits.
If you do read any reviews of the Leica lens equipped digital cameras, you'll find that their performance is really up to Leica standards. I can confirm that - a 4MP Sony with a 'Zeiss' lens was a far cry from a 4MP Panasonic with a real Leica lens, given the same sensor size.
Apparently the Sony 'Zeiss' lenses are a generic lens, made for Sony by a Japanese digital lens manufacturer. I cannot say however, how much input Carl Zeiss actually had in the design of the lenses. And I guess the same would go for Schneider.
Sorry to use words like 'digital' and 'sensor' on this forum.......
All the best,
Jan |
Mark Wood
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 02:35 am: |
|
I seem to remember a lot of discussion/speculation when the Leica Digilux 1 was first released that the lens was in fact made by Canon and was the one from the G2. (I thought that the final conclusion was that this was sadly true.) It certainly looks identical, has an identical specification and it even has the same level of barrel distortion that seems to plague the G2 (and most other digital camera zoom lenses) at the wideangle end. Given the fact that they let Panasonic make the camera, I wonder whether even Leica would go to the trouble (or even have the development resources) of making a lens so different from anything they'd made before if they could buy a half decent one in? It certainly seems like sensors and image processing software make more difference to picture quality than lenses with current digital cameras. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 05:25 am: |
|
I think you will find that the Panasonic tech blurb states that their Leitz/Leica lenses are manufactured to Leitz designs, using Leitz specified methods and testing tolerances/proceedures.Given that with computer controlled design and manufacture you can create a new lens in days rather than months, the performance of these licensed made products depends on 1,the human assembling the bits 2,does the manufacturer replace worn tooling on time or does he extend it's use,hoping the tolerance limits will hide problems and thus allow more profit.A study of the M4-2 production and its attendant problems when Leitz Canada were given the task of producing a camera that would turn a profit,shows the differances between traditional Leitz methods and the newer methods that have to be adapted to make money.The likes of Leitz, Zeiss etc need to make money and the licensing of their products/technology is a way of doing that.That this can backfire is certain, just look at the Contax debacle in the last few weeks.Modern technology used properly has allowed tighter tolerance limits and more parts able to meet those limits and all things being equal a Leitz lens made in China will perform the same as one made in Germany.If people are too snobbish to hang the Chinese one on their MP then that's up to them not the performance of the lens.As already stated by Mark Wood there are so many variables in modern cameras that testing one example is not a true indicator of lens performance.If you could mount the optics on an optical bench you might get acceptable performance! |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 12:11 am: |
|
Rick, I am not sure about the consistency of the Tessar designators. At least the early Tele-Tessar had almost nothing in common lens-design wise with the 4-element Tessar formula. |
rick
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 07:41 am: |
|
A Tele-Tessar is not necessarily a Tessar; and a Pro-Tessar is not a Tessar. But as far as I've seen, a Tessar follows the basic Tessar formula. |
CJ
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 02:30 am: |
|
Don, et. al.,
I'm glad you brought this up, as I've noticed the phenomenon also. I think it's an unfortunate development, but I guess that's partly why forums like these are so important to those interested in separating the wheat from the chaff.
As someone with a marketing degree, I'll share with you that this is one reason why I decided to not make it a career--too much slime covered with glib ad copy all too often.
This practice of buying a highly-regarded name of an old manufacturer to glue onto lower-quality creations isn't new. Two names that come to mind are Carver (previously high-end audio) in the early 90s, and Elgin (watches) available these days at your local Wal-Mart.
-CJ |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 04:23 am: |
|
Yes, it is really a shame. Still in the 70s there was Lenco, a swiss manufacturer building rock-solid record players (the turntable had a weight of 10 lbs approx.). When they went bancrupt, the name was used for off-the-shelf far east audio equipment. I think most of the original Lenco record players are still working (since they had only 10 components or so), but I don't think the later stuff sold under that name has survived more than a few years. |
|
