Leica Jupiter-3 Plus Compared with Three Rare Sonnar lenses

http://corephotonics.com/products/low-profile-camera/

They seem to be using two cameras in one: a high-res camera and a low-res camera with big pixels that are sensitive in low-light. Use the high-res, noisy image to extrapolate resolution from the low-noise image. This is well suited for small modules. BSI technology is also best for small sensors, more efficiency. In the 80s I did a lot with computer-generated synthetic imagery using Fractals. I had to convince some viewers that the scenes were not real. Fun stuff, will never replace a Sonnar formula lens on the M9 and M Monochrom for me. Ot the 1952 J-3 on the M8.
 
ZEISS 50MM F/1.5 ZM C SONNAR T* LENS BLACK USA NEW!

Popflash documents the issue with optimizing focus for film vs digital quite well, except "1997" should be "2007". Someone lost 10 years. It agrees with what I find- if I set a lens to focus perfectly on the M9 and (other people's) M240- it will back-focus on the M Monochrom, and even more on the M8. Film cameras- just does not make as much difference, so it is fine on the M3. The C-Sonnar that I bought from Popflash is perfect at F1.5 on my M8, and perfect at F1.5 on my M Monochrom used with an Orange filter- which shifts focus back. On the M9- best used at F2~F2.8. It is clear that my Lomography J3+ is set for the M9/M240, as are most of the lenses that I've adjusted. But I have a lot of lenses- some optimized for the M Monochrom and M8.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wasn't there a product on the market I saw a few years back that was a fractal based image interpolator for upscaling resolution?

As far as modern sonnar based lenses......this sonnetar baffles me. Miyazaki claims (I do not speak Japanese but Bellamy sort of interprets) that he laments the perfect clinical lenses from mainstream companies and is nostalgic for lenses that not only have aberrations but substantially modifiable aberrations using simple techniques....expanding the possibilities of photographic vision. However, the rear element moving Sonnetar may have too many moving parts since coma and other aberrations are altered in the same operation that changes focal length. Instructions vary to minimal movement of elements (by practice and eating through film) closely around a 4m optimimum. However, with digital you can vary from 1m to infinity focus... I guess he is betraying his design towards the flexibility of digital and live view with instant image feedback. You can't play that game with film cameras. Even Dante, as sharp and as good a writer as he is, clearly seemed befuddled but on the right track in his fine review. At the end it seemed he loved the lens because it was challenging to use and appeared to have maximum flexibility. It's kind of maddening but not a killer that you have to know your shooting requirements in advance because the adjustment requires removing the lens, changing the coma adjustment, and remounting for a new set of possibilities.

It is a very very fast lens...apparently designed to shot wide open....with exotic glass and fully modern multicoatings.
 
If you didn't like the Israeli minitiarized prototype, well, how about the new offering from DXO? This looks like a happening little camera and smartphone combo.....much better than the original DXO One.
DxO ONE | Professional Quality Connected Camera for iPhone | www.dxo.com

Now I remember the PS plugin....Genuine Fractals. Brian....have you tried this?

It's not that I do not like the Israeli device, or Genuine Fractals- I just like doing things my way, whether with a lens optimized to be used wide-open with an Orange filter or run through my own FORTRAN code to convert to 16-bit pixels using a Gamma curve. It's my outlet on a number of planes. I prefer CCD's as the image capture is as close to RAW as you can get, CMOS adds on-chip processing. I prefer lenses designed without computers, told that to the optical engineer that worked for me. He had designed optics since the early 60s and told me that computers really did make his job easier.
 
No offense intended.....hopefully none taken . It seems that applied computational imaging opens up a lot of possibilities for human progress and even expression. In my spare time it's definitely my preference to pick up a fine mechanical camera and vintage lens, walk about, record what catches my eye and maybe get surprised. If I were to go to the moon tomorrow I'd probably want to take a hasselblad and sonnar.
 
No offence taken at all- I think the technique is really cool. But for me- it's the optics of the classic lenses that gets my interest, like the Jupiter-3+. No way to make it work on a cell phone, the sensor is too tiny.
 
For me ....that's why I was attracted to Miyazaki. He's more like the old designers but looking at the old designs...and then adding a little in new ideas and manual craftsman ship, as befits a lens designer for toy telescopes. Japanese minimalism. What you get is something interesting... Like 70 plus gram lenses, tiny, triplets etc. then contrast with the Sony master g or the Zeiss Otis.....great lenses , complex presumably close to supercomputer with few preconceptions.....very large and expensive.

Neither appropriate for smartphone sensors......for that I foresee very novel solutions in optics , computing, capture beyond me.

I am holding in my hand a collapsible elmar 50....2.8. To me it's beautiful. The j8 is always on camera or close by.
 
For me ....that's why I was attracted to Miyazaki. He's more like the old designers but looking at the old designs...and then adding a little in new ideas and manual craftsman ship, as befits a lens designer for toy telescopes. Japanese minimalism. What you get is something interesting... Like 70 plus gram lenses, tiny, triplets etc. then contrast with the Sony master g or the Zeiss Otis.....great lenses , complex presumably close to supercomputer with few preconceptions.....very large and expensive.

Neither appropriate for smartphone sensors......for that I foresee very novel solutions in optics , computing, capture beyond me.

I am holding in my hand a collapsible elmar 50....2.8. To me it's beautiful. The j8 is always on camera or close by.


It is fun to compare the old and the new. I'm currently traveling, but when I get back I plan to take my Leica M-E out with the 1937 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar side-by-side with my Canon 6D and Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon ZE. Those two lenses have almost nothing in common except the company name and the fact that they are both great examples of the state-of-the-art in fast standard lenses of their respective eras. Another thing they have in common is incredible image quality, though for very different reasons.
 
I sawa the Otus in a glass case at OC Camera. Looked like nuclear device. I have Zeiss binos and this lens had the same sorts of curves and shapes of design.
 
I like the small size of the Jupiter-3 Plus over my larger Fast-50s. I have those as well. A number of people must agree, the first batch of the J-3+ has sold out. More on the way. All three of my Digital M's have Sonnar formula lenses on them right now.
 
Yes...I was once recently tempted to purchase a used CV 50 1.5 Nokton. In the same price range used or perhaps a bit less expensive than a J3plus....but big . Alternatively, I thought a CZ post war Sonnar could be OK, but not a moderrn one, although modern are 200 bucks off at BH.

I think most people read the newspaper clippings and saw that the J3 plus getting love from all the right places. It could have been panned coming from Lomography and all , but didn't. Once the folks saw it was not the crapshoot buying a vintage lens from the Ukraine is, they got comfortable.
 
Back
Top