This is as close as I get to the Leica 100 APO for now ... M645 80mm macro 100% crop (& pp sharpen) f11 1/160 @ appx 5-6 ft subject distance (timer & MLU)
This is my first outdoor shot with this lens since I got the Fotodiox adapter the other day ... I think I'm gonna like it.
My fuji f31fd is also sharper than my 5D Mark II was at the pixel level. No AA filter in that camera either. covering a small image circle is much easier in lens design, on-centre those little lenses tend to not have any fringing either, but if we look at corner crops the 100/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit will stomp all over it.
How about I resize the image to 12 megapixel? then we do a comparison? Can you link to the full frame of your shot?
Exif of alt lens don't necessarily give the correct information regarding aperture and focal length. Most chipped adapters are permanently programmed to give only 1 aperture reading and 1 focal length. These are used mainly for focus confirmaton.
I have a chipped adapter for Nikon lenses and any lens mounted on the camera with this adapter is always a 100mm F2. I can attach a Voigtlander 40, Zeiss ZF 21, Ageneiux 180, Nikon 105 UV and all will display in the EXIF as 100mm shot at F2.
My Rokkor that I got with an EF mount is permanently set at 58mm aperture F1.2, again no matter what aperture is actually used.
Yes you can get a programmable chip now and do some some programming to it while on the camera but most photographers will be more concerned on taking the shot vs fidgitting will the camera to program the chip to show the correct EXIF information.
thrice wrote:
My fuji f31fd is also sharper than my 5D Mark II was at the pixel level. No AA filter in that camera either. covering a small image circle is much easier in lens design, on-centre those little lenses tend to not have any fringing either,
Yup! Exactly true and accurate - those were the "advantages" I spoke of in my lens design/crop factor.
but if we look at corner crops the 100/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit will stomp all over it.
I'm not sure about that. At least the GT lens on the A2 has exceptional corner sharpness. It's center sharpness and CA is generally not much better than the corners given a low contrast scene.
How about I resize the image to 12 megapixel? then we do a comparison? Can you link to the full frame of your shot?
Sure. That sounds like fun to me. I would be totally into it! I think we should start a new thread though because a few people here just turn it into a non-sensical monkey-zoo type ruckus of bizarre comments totally unrelated to anything of merit. It seems like I'm being left with the blame for it too. Kinda sucks... So if we do it let's do it in a different thread. I think it's interesting. I know I've learned a few things by doing this - even if others haven't.
Or not. I dunno. I suppose I can just not reply to anyone who isn't on track with the sub-topic here. I'll leave it up to you. I'm OK either way.
12mp would be ok. 8mp would be better as the A2 is an 8MP camera. But does your camera sensor crop for lower pixel sizes or does it scale in camera? I think most cameras don't scale but I dunno the specs/engine of the 5D Mark II and things change all the time.
Anyway if it is a sensor crop there wouldn't be much point to it if indeed you can recognize the results already shown because as you were astute enough to recognize, this is what I essentially already did. The scene lighting was different of course but that can usually be recognized and rationalized. Additionally, the corner sharpness of your lens won't come into play if it's a sensor crop. But it would be a more accurate test if we could match scenes a little closer and this kinda thing (camera and lens comparisons) is pretty fun for me.
burningheart wrote:
Exif of alt lens don't necessarily give the correct information regarding aperture and focal length. Most chipped adapters are permanently programmed to give only 1 aperture reading and 1 focal length. These are used mainly for focus confirmaton.
I have a chipped adapter for Nikon lenses and any lens mounted on the camera with this adapter is always a 100mm F2. I can attach a Voigtlander 40, Zeiss ZF 21, Ageneiux 180, Nikon 105 UV and all will display in the EXIF as 100mm shot at F2.
My Rokkor that I got with an EF mount is permanently set at 58mm aperture F1.2, again no matter what aperture is actually used.
Yes you can get a programmable chip now and do some some programming to it while on the camera but most photographers will be more concerned on taking the shot vs fidgitting will the camera to program the chip to show the correct EXIF information.
Ah, right... Spaced that one off. Thanks! So his was shot at 2.8 then and not 2.0 assuming he used the Leica 100mm APO macro. My bad. Good catch tho! Thanks!
Thanks. This is probably the 'cleanest', most 'natural' lens I own so far.
It doesn't have as much "WOW !! It looks so real !!" like the Leica 100 APO Macro does (which I drool & pine for), so I'll have to do my best to develop a 'recipe' in post to try & coax as much out of it as I can ... but I think that it is a lens that I'll be able to have great confidence in what it gives me to work with in post and handle tough situations, i.e. a 'go to' lens. (I may even trust it for camera jpgs.)
It certainly doesn't beat the king, but I think it may be a an overlooked frog ... turned into a prince ... definitely not a court jester.
Forgive me for posting non-APO images here in this fine collection of photographs but here's the minolta A2 with no significant PP. The PS resizing in this case was "Bicubic (best for reduction)" which sharpens as it scales though. With high contrast images it almost sharpens too much!
Wide open at 170mm
Here's another but I did a noise removal pass and a tiny bit of sharpening on this one:
Wide open at 170mm
Here's a side-by-side with Jon if he doesn't mind.
f/3.2 135mm. Taken under heavy shade.
I don't honestly remember how this was processed tho.
I have thousands more.
EDIT: I originally had thought that the white flower G1 image above was not an APO image so I felt free to post these as well. But from his message edit I see that it was.
Bifurcator, thanks for sharing your PS photos. I was interested because this technology presents an alternative to the bulkier and much more expensive DSLR. They would be great for travel -- compact and high quality. But after a while, they bore me. No doubt they are sharp. But they are boring with in the face candy-like color. They are also flat, have no characters and no soul to draw me in. It is very much like recordings undergone too much equalization where the sound engineer cranks up the treble and kaboom bass which will capture attention but kill my ears soon afterwards. Of course, your preference and mileage varies. Sorry if I sound harsh and I already feel guilty about distracting or hijacking this thread. That said, I will eager wait for this technology to improve. If the technology is the best as your photos indicate, I take my money somewhere else. Cheers.
Hi Bi, compare away, no problems at all from my side. But I do not have thousands more, so I might be a bit compareless from here. Nice flower pictures; mind you, both could be mistaken for exotic insect-like creatures but I don't think that has anything to do with the camera. Jon
Thanks Jon. I'm done though. I had originally thought burningheart was showing a kit-lens photo and wanted to pitch in and help out. In error now I guess I'll leave them up but it's not useful otherwise i think. Sorry about that guys.
Bifurcator wrote:
Thanks Jon. I'm done though. I had originally thought burningheart was showing a kit-lens photo and wanted to pitch in and help out. In error now I guess I'll leave them up but it's not useful otherwise i think. Sorry about that guys.
Bi, understood. I fear that we will never find the WMD, Worthiest Macro Device, but we can have fun debating where/what/which it is. Jon
Indeed! I like talking and typing about this stuff almost as much as doing it. Way fun dude!
Worthiness holds many avenues of consideration. I can say with personal confidence though that for macro shots of subjects from the size of a penny up to something a little bigger than a CD, the A2 offers me complete satisfaction. I wouldn't change unless whatever it was had a lower price-tag than what I have now. IMO, the A2 comes very close to matching or beats everything I've seen from any other manufacturer for that kind of photography. It's only when I take the lens out of macro or try to go smaller than a penny that it leaves much to be desired. Outside that it's a pretty typical "super-zoom" P&S I think - maybe even a little long in the tooth within that format. I could go for a lens with f/32 tho! Mine is limited to f/11 - but that's the only bummer.
From where I'm sitting considering mainly macro photography, lighting and processing are by far the most critical components - especially lighting!
Second shot has excellent moodiness to it. Choice of focal plane and the shooting angles really work well with the OOF second flower as a foil to the first.
IMO, the A2 comes very close to matching or beats everything I've seen from any other manufacturer for that kind of photography. It's only when I take the lens out of macro or try to go smaller than a penny that it leaves much to be desired. Outside that it's a pretty typical "super-zoom" P&S I think - maybe even a little long in the tooth within that format. I could go for a lens with f/32 tho! Mine is limited to f/11 - but that's the only bummer.