mikethevilla wrote:
I don't really care how optimistic Steve is, the rendering, smoothness, and clarity of this says it all to me:
EXIF for that photo says f/1.2. The article claims it was shot at T/0.95.
The other photo claiming insane sharpness wide open with the crop embedded says f/1.0 in the EXIF.
I do care when reviewers are so optimistic that they don't state the correct aperture.
alundeb wrote:
EXIF for that photo says f/1.2. The article claims it was shot at T/0.95.
The other photo claiming insane sharpness wide open with the crop embedded says f/1.0 in the EXIF.
I do care when reviewers are so optimistic that they don't state the correct aperture.
The reviewer has said in the comments that he had to input the lens as a f/1.0 Noctilux in the camera. Remember, Leica M mount is completely "dumb" apart from the 6-bit coding kludge. Which is not available for non-Leica made lenses anyways.
Spyro P. wrote:
Ι kinda hate f1 photos, they all look the same to me...
had an Oly 50/1.2 once upon a time, the blur took over the photo. At least it was small-ish.
Hah. Most of the people out there can't even hope to ever make one. My brightest lens is f/1.8 and it's not very workable at that.
Is it just his photography/processing or does anyone else think that these images are awfully flat looking? They manage to make incredibely shallow DOF look boring.
Spyro P. wrote:
Ι kinda hate f1 photos, they all look the same to me...
had an Oly 50/1.2 once upon a time, the blur took over the photo. At least it was small-ish.
Agreed, 99% of the time it seems like shooting wide open just because one either A) can, or B) paid a ton of money and feels they need to get their moneys worth
Sometimes it can make for a cool look, but many other times, such as of the model shots on Steve's site where just her fingertip is in focus, its not remotely interesting to me.
Its the photographic equivalent of a guy revving his engine at a stoplight, not getting him anywhere faster, wasting gas, and just trying to show off.
I don't care if its the smoothest most beautiful "bokeh" in the world, if its a boring shot of a random object, its still boring if 1cm of it is in the plane of focus or several meters of it are in focus
millsart wrote:
Agreed, 99% of the time it seems like shooting wide open just because one either A) can, or B) paid a ton of money and feels they need to get their moneys worth
Sometimes it can make for a cool look, but many other times, such as of the model shots on Steve's site where just her fingertip is in focus, its not remotely interesting to me.
Well, what can we do - the shallow DOF craze has taken root! Oddly enough, when speaking of personal experience, I was often finding myself with too little DOF, not too much of it, and could not stop down more for fear of inducing subject motion blur...
Andrew Wood wrote:
I think "SLR Magic" is an awful name.
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one
millsart wrote:
Agreed, 99% of the time it seems like shooting wide open just because one either A) can, or B) paid a ton of money and feels they need to get their moneys worth
Exactly. For instance, the street shot... I don't see the point in using shallow DOF... to put his hands outside the focus plane?? To me this is distracting from what would have otherwise been a nice portrait. Not the best examples, IMO. Anyone can point a fast lens at an every day subject and come away with lots of blur. I'm sure the lens has the potential for handling some more creative work.
The same could be said about any optical/photographical tool. "Landscapes with distorted perspective, strong foreground and leading lines? OVERDONE!!!"...
You guys don't like it and don't do it, fine, then get the "#%"#% out of fast-as-hell-lenses-Kansas.. No use for you guys being in this thread now, is there?
My brightest lens is f/1.8 and it's not very workable at that.
