I have used Maurizios Profiles for a while now and in my experience they aren't a cure for every setup, i use his "standard"-profile quite often, especially when there is much red in the scene, but as often i prefer LRs default setting, especially for greens.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I have used Maurizios Profiles for a while now and in my experience they aren't a cure for every setup, i use his "standard"-profile quite often, especially when there is much red in the scene, but as often i prefer LRs default setting, especially for greens.
Agreed, Phillip, except that I would start from Neutral and adjust from there. I find it very difficult to balance the reds properly when using Adobe Standard.
Just got my Nex 7 - not only am I new to the 7, I'm also relatively new to photography, to the point where I don't know what ZE, ZM, CZ and CV stand for. I have the 18-55 kit lens and a couple of old Nikon lens - a 50/1.4 a 200/f4. I really have a hardtime getting photos that are sharp with either of these 2 lenses without using a tripod. Are most of you shooting manually and handheld? I just saw a used lens - a Voigtlander Skoppar 50/3.5. Is this a worthwhile lens to acquire? Is there an adapter? Has anyone purchased the 55-210 Sony? Is it worthwhile?
Sorry, but one other question what does LV mean? I saw the photos at -2LV, -4LV etc.
ZE: Zeiss SLR Lenses for Canon's EF mount (EOS Camera's)
ZM: Zeiss Rangefinder lenses for Leica M Mount.
CZ: Carl Zeiss, often used to refer to Zeiss lenses for the Contax & Yashica SLR Mount.
CV: Cosina Voigtlander, Voigtlander branded lenses designed & built by Cosina, a small Japanese lens & camera maker.
The NEX-7 requires very good technique to get sharp shots handheld. I'd recommend keeping the shutter above twice the focal length as a good starting point.
There's a Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar and a Voigtlander 50/2.5 Color-Skopar. Both are excellent lenses. These will use either a Leica Thread Mount or Leica M mount adapter (Can't remember which mount they have). If they're LTM, I'd recommend an LTM-M adapter and then using a Leica M adapter.
I think you've got LV (short for Live View) and EV (short for Exposure Value) mixed up. -2EV is underexposing by 2 stops, -4EV is by 4 stops.
I've not shot with the 55-210, but it has a reputation comparable to the 18-55 OSS. IE quite a good lens, but not exceptional.
Are you shooting through the viewfinder, or are you shooting with the LCD screen on the back? It's common when shooting with the LCD screen to hold the camera in front of you, away from your body, but it can be difficult to hold the camera steady that way (and may lead to unsharp shots). Try flipping the screen up 90 degrees, and then bracing the camera against your body. You definitely should have no problems getting sharp shots with the 50/1.4 without a tripod.
freaklikeme wrote:
Agreed, Phillip, except that I would start from Neutral and adjust from there. I find it very difficult to balance the reds properly when using Adobe Standard.
After some experimenting i have to agree: Neutral seems to give better colors than standard.
In the shown picture i still prefer Adobe default, but i have other rather green images were i prefer Maurizios neutral setting.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
another test: how much can the Nex-5ns files be pushed/pulled?
I think pulling by 2 LVs and pushing by 3 LVs seems to be okay without a loss in image quality.
Judging by this test, I'd have no problems pulling 3 EVs. When you overexpose and then pull back, sure you can't recover all the highlights, but that information wasn't in the RAW to begin with. When you underexpose and then push the file, you lose some shadows, but you also amplify noise across the image. Which is what you see in your test.
I would like a f 1.2 or 1.1 for my Nex, I would like it to be sharp wide open, have a small adaptor and have a focal length in the 35mm to 50mm range, I would appreciate your suggestions. thanks joanlvh
Thanks for posting this - I would have thought the NEX7 would have been a bit more competitive with the D800, but I guess I haven't realized the D800 is that good.
corposant wrote:
Thanks for posting this - I would have thought the NEX7 would have been a bit more competitive with the D800, but I guess I haven't realized the D800 is that good.
Competitive how? The D800 has both more pixels and a larger sensor, so I guess I'm not sure why they'd be comparable?
The more interesting thing to me is how the Sigma 30 competes with the 50 Summilux in that test.
douglasf13 wrote:
Competitive how? The D800 has both more pixels and a larger sensor, so I guess I'm not sure why they'd be comparable?
The more interesting thing to me is how the Sigma 30 competes with the 50 Summilux in that test.
Don't they have similar pixel densities?
That's definitely interesting, though I think a Leica lens with a closer focal length and maybe a f/2.8 aperture would have been more interesting. Maybe the sigma can outperform the 28 Elmarit?
The NEX-7 actually has a higher pixel density, but you still can't beat that sensor size and pixel number of the D800.
I believe that the 28 Elmarit is even sharper than the 50 Lux in the center at f2.8, according to mtf, and I don't have f4 MTFs for Leica. Still, the fact that the Sigma 30 is even in the discussion is quite remarkable. I jokingly starting calling it the "Sigmarit" 30, but I didn't think it actually competed in resolution.
