erichard
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I understand, but the zoom had a shutter of 1.3 seconds, while the 50 had a shutter speed of 1.6 seconds and is noticeably brighter on my screen, so apples and oranges out of the camera. Same is true for the second set, where they actually had the same aperture setting. The 50 got 4 seconds of shutter, while the zoom had 3.2 seconds. That's a significant difference. That said, I think on the margin you are probably somewhat correct, meaning that 50 is probably slightly more contrasty out of the camera.
One separate thing to keep in mind is that higher contrast is not always better, and not simply because of taste. I believe it's easier to go from moderate contrast to harder contrast in Raw or jpg than it is to go from hard contrast to moderate contrast. That's my intuition on this.
And what we are discussing is really the macro contrast, not the unique Zeiss microcontrast, I believe, in the shots above. Microcontrast in Zeiss and Leica is simply not something we can conjure up in PP, in my experience.
|
they're so expensive for my current camera, gofigure. 
