Luvwine Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
MichaelErlewin wrote:
First, I will definitely work to keep related posts to the same categorical thread. My apologies. And, yes, the a7r does work for focus stacking. It might be easier for me if it did not, but it does, but there still are issues.
Aside from that, there are many other thoughts to respond to, so I will just jump in. The factors that appeal to me about the a7r include the 36mp image quality, coupled with the great EVF, and the ability to magnify what you are shooting to see if it is in focus. The rest of the features of the a7r are nothing special to me, and the short battery life and spaghetti-menu approach sucks IMO.
And of course the D800E is more familiar, but this is what happens when a camera with new features appears, only in the past the newcomer was obviously "bigger and better." Here it is smaller and better in some respects, but worse in others and certainly not a slam/dunk kind of decision, thus a post like this.
This leaves the perennial issue of personal taste. I hope we can agree that each of our approaches to image style is individual, to our own particular taste. One style obviously does not please all, which is why variety, as they say, is the spice of life.
The images shown here are not meant to convey "atmospherics" or mood. That is something I work for "after' I decide if a particular camera or lens will be suitable for the work I do. I used to shoot wall charts for line definition, but decided that doing that was not that helpful to me, plus MTF charts abound and are better done by others, IMO. DxOMark seems to do a great job.
So what we have here are images to satisfy my own mind that the a7r will be workable IMO or should I send the camera back and wait for one that is more useable. And this is a question I have, since there is a lot about the a7r that is a pain for me, in particular the problem of a very light camera body supporting both an adapter and then hanging a huge lens like the Otus 55mm off of that. I have to prop up the Otus at the far end of a long Arca rail with a folded piece of Styrofoam, etc. That is not preferable. And then there is the more serious problem of the shutter-shake, where the bang of the shutter sends waves of shock at the same moment the sensor is recording the image. This is painful to behold.
Again, for the casual user, this problem perhaps does not register on their radar screen, but when we are stacking focus many layers deep, it can matter a lot, so for me this is a very serious problem when it comes to the a7r, one that may not be able to be solved.
As for the "plasticky" look of pure focus for my sample images, again, I don't usually stack from front to back like this. Here I am trying to compare a stacked photo to a photo taken at very high apertures. I am amazed, for instance, by the DOF of the new Zeiss Otus 55mm at even f/16. I know that diffraction is nature's law, like gravity, and we don't break nature's laws -- period. However, it does appear that highly correcting lenses (aberrations, etc.) does permit better images at narrowing apertures. This alone was a mind-bender for me, and I am still trying to verify this fact. It seems to be so, and makes some focus stacking unneeded, and THAT is a surprise. And here is the more subtle point:
Even if f/16 (or thereabouts) on APO lenses like the new Zeiss Otuss 55m works well, it still carries the (for me) unwanted side effect of destroying bokeh in the background and putting too much in focus in the shot. My history has been to use lenses that are very fast wide-open (and thus have a very narrow -- but sharp -- depth-of-field) to paint focus where I want it, allowing everything else to devolve into good bokeh. I include two examples my work at this link.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/98006906@N05]
Check it out and you will not see plasticky focus, but rather judicial use of focus for effect. As I have written elsewhere, macro photography to me is impressionistic. I am not trying to mirror-reflect what I see in the outside world of nature on the sensor, but rather to reflect the impression of beauty nature makes on my mind to the sensor. There is a difference.
I also have some 20 or so free video tutorials on focus stacking and related subjects (and free e-books) here:
[http://dharmagrooves.com/#&panel1-1]http://www.flickr.com/photos/98006906@N05]
Check it out and you will not see plasticky focus, but rather judicial use of focus for effect. As I have written elsewhere, macro photography to me is impressionistic. I am not trying to mirror-reflect what I see in the outside world of nature on the sensor, but rather to reflect the impression of beauty nature makes on my mind to the sensor. There is a difference.
I also have some 20 or so free video tutorials on focus stacking and related subjects (and free e-books) here:
[http://dharmagrooves.com/#&panel1-1[/url]]
...Show more →
Wow! Fabulous additional image and generous of you to share your craft with others! The idea of these flower images as "test" images makes perfect sense and explains my aesthetic reaction. The idea of not avoiding background blur, but rather "painting" it where you want it, speaks of thoughtful artistic vision and patient craft. Ell done!
|