Makten wrote:
More DR needs more PP. It's like comparing negative film to slide film.
+1 You are on to something here I'm sure. Definitely the owners of these cameras are going to need to update their PP approach if they haven't used a camera like the D600 or D800 before.
I remember opening the first few images I shot on the D800 and being quite disappointed, shocked actually. It took me a few moments to realize I was using sharpening settings I'd adopted as a baseline for the AA-free GXR/M; the D800 files even with its supposedly light AA filter needs a *much* different approach IMO.
Made some changes to create a new baseline import preset tuned for the D800... Night and day difference.
Makten wrote:
I agree, perhaps except for Zeiss lenses generally giving very pleasing colors. I was fooled by the "3D" talk for a while, until I realized that the lens that gave me most pop and the best colors was not a Zeiss. It was the Summicron 28/2 ASPH.
The Zeiss look for me is a certain design philisophy which is of course variable as obviously different FL require different looks.
If you look at Zeiss MTF, you will notice more often than not a bell shaped graph, while for Leica you will see more often than not a wavy graph that drops in zone B and goes up again in zone C.
Of course these are generalities.
Add to that Zeiss committment to quality but within reasonable pricing.
As for 3D, high microcontrast...etc, these are characteristics not exclusive to Zeiss, but many of their lenses have that.
You are probably right about the summicron since I have come to realize wavy MTF produce the most 3D. As for high microcontrast, T* coatings are almost a guarantee you will get that.
+1 @ PP matched to AA vs. non-AA vs. light-AA.
+1 @ PP matched to might micro-contrast vs. Oly vs. Leica vs. Voigt
+1 @ Zeiss not the only micro-contrast option ... just using it as an example of the variance between drawing styles of the glass can warrant variant expectations that if you've come to like the Zeiss look (say from the 35/2) ... the Oly's might be an acquired (or pp adjusted) expectation / taste for those not well initiated with Oly's at first glance. Not unlike variance between Leica, or Rokkor approach is diff than Zeiss approach. Neither better, nor worse ... just diff @ diff taste, diff pp to yield individual goals.
Just don't expect to swap a Zeiss to an Oly and expect to get the same sooc images without an adjustment to camera settings or pp without recognizing the differences in drawing styles.
In this first post he confirmed the performance of the Leica C 40mm f2 Summicron performed well on the A7r with the exception of the extreme corners. Martin (Makten) demonstrated the same and also indicated that the lens performs this way for the extreme corners in film.
In this post he confirmed that the Leica 28mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH did not perform well on the A7r for the corners at least and the edges. But his order of the identified photos is incorrect. They should be M9, A7r, A7r, M9, A7r, M9.
I suspect that some of the flatness in images may be cause by Sony's JPEG engine. That little feature Sony calls the Dynamic Range Optimizer can be annoying.
philber wrote:
...
Actually, I intend to use it in crop mode on my A7R, as a 18mm (or less if the image circle happens to be just a bit wider than APS-C), and think it is a great solution for WA for now on my new camera.
...
Besides the weight of the lens there is the issue of the fixed petal hood. Unless we could figure out a way of removing the hood for usage with rectangular Grad filters and square or rectangular ND filters this is a major obstacle.
The Ultron 21 does indeed look good on the a7r. I had a chance to shoot with the combo briefly a week ago (which I believe in mentioned here, and if not, apologies). Using focus assist, stopped down to f8 at infinity, the combo seemed acceptably sharp in the corners (nothing like the CV15+NEX-7 combination I'm currently using). Unfortunately, I didn't have a card in the camera at the time so was not able to capture what I was seeing. However, here's a shot I grabbed with the A7R + 21 Ultron at 1.8.
As you can see, there's some minor color shift (and the corners on this shot are indeterminate), but the center is quite sharp at 1.8. Keep in mind the subject, and photographer, were both in motion, and that very little was in focus. With a bit of CF/LR corrections, this lens should be a great performer on the a7r.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Besides the weight of the lens there is the issue of the fixed petal hood. Unless we could figure out a way of removing the hood for usage with rectangular Grad filters and square or rectangular ND filters this is a major obstacle.
Rich
Simply cut it off with a micro drill and a cutting disc.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Besides the weight of the lens there is the issue of the fixed petal hood. Unless we could figure out a way of removing the hood for usage with rectangular Grad filters and square or rectangular ND filters this is a major obstacle.
Rich
With the dynamic range of the sensor, is use of such filters that relevant now?
But the hood was one of the few things I disliked about it. Somewhere in the FM archives (I think) there's a post by someone who removed the built-in hood of either the current CV15, or CV12... I think he just sawed them off, then filed down the edges.
Edit, looked at the linked image and it indeed looks good. Sharp edges. Unfortunately aperture was not indicated by the photographer. EXIF indicates 1/20 second SS... considering the direct autumn sunlight and assuming no ND filter use, he probably stopped down a fair amount.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Besides the weight of the lens there is the issue of the fixed petal hood. Unless we could figure out a way of removing the hood for usage with rectangular Grad filters and square or rectangular ND filters this is a major obstacle.
Rich
The weight is indeed an obstacle, but the lens is considerably lighter than the 21 summilux asph. The non-removable petal hood is my single biggest irritant--what were they thinking? They could have kept everyone happy and made the damn thing detachable!
If the DRO setting is 'on' by default and the shooter simply wacks on a lens and rushes out the door then posts the results...yes, you may see odd results. It is a very sophisticated feature however for jpeg users who understand what is going on and have enough shadow data.
A lot of what emerges thus far is a combination of flat light conditions, poor shooting technique, settings, and image preparation, adapters too play a part. The a7/a7r will go close to making everyone a better photographer but there are limits.
'More DR needs more PP'
I disagree, as more DR is the very property that gives you subtle tone transitions, and contrasty lenses (i.e. good ones) can use every bit of the DR. This is related to a property Mike Johnston calls 'microcolor' which is tonal changes across a coloured object - more DR gives you more of it, which is quite intuitive. It is also one hidden secret of depth or 3D.
In fact, less PP is the result for obvious reasons - less need for shadow recovery, highlight recovery, and less of the tone range needs altering as exposure is more forgiving. Like shooting negs after slides!
rscheffler wrote:
With the dynamic range of the sensor, is use of such filters that relevant now?
But the hood was one of the few things I disliked about it. Somewhere in the FM archives (I think) there's a post by someone who removed the built-in hood of either the current CV15, or CV12... I think he just sawed them off, then filed down the edges.
Ron,
Thanks. I know about the DR and even putting Grad ND filters in in LR. But, sometimes, I get better results using them in the field when I have the time and they are with me. Also, I have square or rectangular Singh-Ray ND in 4X and 5X ranges which can be used to slow down water and for very long exposures.
I was wondering about possibly sawing and filing, but there is concern about damage to the front element. If I decide to go that route, maybe it would be worth a call into Steven Gandy at Cameraquest about this.
I disagree, as more DR is the very property that gives you subtle tone transitions, and contrasty lenses (i.e. good ones) can use every bit of the DR.
/.../
Like shooting negs after slides!
That's what I meant. If you want high contrast images, a sensor with good DR will need more PP (more contrast enhancement) than a sensor with poor DR. I love the look of slides.
fwiw, here's what has me most concerned about the 50 Lux on Sony's new FF cameras -- both are crops from near top-left from Ron's test shots. One is the 50 Lux on the Sony, the other is on the M9. Let's see if you can guess...
the difference is certainly there, but i don't think it's that big. i think if someone with access to the raws (ron?) normalized color and contrast between the two and either upsized or the leica or downsized the sony so they were equal sizes the difference would appear much smaller.
We are all square, Martin...I get your drift. I'd like to add that I'd like ACR and I guess LR (if it does not have this feature) to enable users to increase contrast for user-specified parts of the tone range. So if you have a lot of pixels between 70 and 120 for example, you could add contrast just to that range. I often do this in PS which has a couple of ways to achieve it.
philip_pj wrote:
We are all square, Martin...I get your drift. I'd like to add that I'd like ACR and I guess LR (if it does not have this feature) to enable users to increase contrast for user-specified parts of the tone range. So if you have a lot of pixels between 70 and 120 for example, you could add contrast just to that range. I often do this in PS which has a couple of ways to achieve it.
Interesting discussion about the PP for these files. My first shock was the difference viewing them at 1:1 compared to the M9 files. It's hard to get your head around how tiny a part of the frame you are viewing at 1:1.
It seems to require shutter speeds around 1/ (3 x focal length) handheld and the files do look a little blue in white balance comparing them to the M9 which is very good out of the camera.
I am only shooting Raw and converting with Lightroom. I'm seeing results between medium format scans and M9 quality. I still like the M9 at base iso but the high iso on the sony is an incredible advance and opens up a world of low light opportunity handheld.
The jpegs on Flickr don't allow you to see the differences you can see in the raw files. I'll try to upload some raw files from different lens comparing there Sony and M9 over the next few days. I have a CV15 4.5 but have not even tried it yet as I don't hold out any hope on the A7r, it was always pretty bad for colour shift on the M9.
I'm not understanding all the comments in the last few pages about the fact that Leica has optimized their lenses for digital while keeping them small so so-and-so should be able to as well, the question of why Leica lenses perform better on Leica cameras than the A7/r, etc.
We know that's not true. Their cameras have compensation profiles that hide how digital-unfriendly their lenses are. That has been objectively proven. What are people talking about?
It's like comparing negative film to slide film.
It was the Summicron 28/2 ASPH.
