On broken links to Flickr images, the reason for the issue is the "@" symbol in Flikr links isn't picked up by FM's content processor as being a valid bit of the URL. A little tweaking of the regular expression behind that bit of code is all that is needed. Fred can ask any one of us that are developers for help and it'll be gladly offered. Simple fix.
In the meantime, messy URL's can be successfully copied and pasted into FM without any real hassle by using the add url button on the side of the post entry box (globe with chain icon).
For flickr, here's two *easy* solutions to getting links or shared images in here cleanly:
1) Use the share feature in Flickr - "Grab the link"
If the user hasn't enabled broad sharing, you only get a link. Grab it (copy) and then come to FM here and click on the add url button (Globe with chain) to the left of the post entry box. Paste the link in as text and URL, and perhaps consider adding a title below e.g.:
2) If the Flickr user permits embedding, another option is available "Grab HTML/BBCode" - you want "BBCode", grab it, choose a reasonable but not too large size, and paste here and you are done:
Ah, so that was you! Thank you. What we kinda need however, is a shot of something without depth, where the focus is on something in the corners. Preferably shot wide open. Perhaps a good old exciting brick wall.
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for posting these Derek. Would you mind putting up the center crops too? I'm curious...
Also, yes, unfortunately the weather was very murky the morning I had the a7.
yeah, i was in a hurry to get to bed last night. here are the center crops:
i switched the color profile for the a7 to "camera deep" to come closer to the m9's kodachromesque colors and gave the a7 a more aggressive tone curve to try to match contrast despite the very different light.
i used LR5's default sharpening for the m9 (25, 1, 25,0) but gave the a7 a more aggressive sharpening since it has an AA filter (42, 0.7, 70, 20) and downsized the a7 files to be the same size as the m9 files using PS5 with bicubic (better for smooth gradients).
eightfold wrote:
I'm not really interested in lenses wider than 35mm, so I don't know if this is bordering off topic. Has anybody seen any promising samples from 35mm RF lenses, and more specifically: has anybody seen any samples of the Voigtländer 35mm F1.4 Nokton?
Don't worry you can talk about your laundry in this thread
michaelwatkins wrote:
On broken links to Flickr images, the reason for the issue is the "@" symbol in Flikr links isn't picked up by FM's content processor as being a valid bit of the URL. A little tweaking of the regular expression behind that bit of code is all that is needed. Fred can ask any one of us that are developers for help and it'll be gladly offered. Simple fix.
In the meantime, messy URL's can be successfully copied and pasted into FM without any real hassle by using the add url button on the side of the post entry box (globe with chain icon).
For flickr, here's two *easy* solutions to getting links or shared images in here cleanly:
1) Use the share feature in Flickr - "Grab the link"
If the user hasn't enabled broad sharing, you only get a link. Grab it (copy) and then come to FM here and click on the add url button (Globe with chain) to the left of the post entry box. Paste the link in as text and URL, and perhaps consider adding a title below e.g.:
2) If the Flickr user permits embedding, another option is available "Grab HTML/BBCode" - you want "BBCode", grab it, choose a reasonable but not too large size, and paste here and you are done:
the problem is that flickr should have ESCAPED that @ to begin with (flickr is doing it wrong)...can't really blame FM's CMS to treat @ differently because it is a special character in http urls...you can actually use it to pass authentication in the URL itself...
Yeah, Flickr should do it right to begin with, but for the target audience I figure copy and paste into the UI provided by the Link Button is probably quicker than manually url-encoding flickr's problems.
I don't understand that, is it a typo in their datasheet? Why would the contrast be 600 times higher at 160 lines/mm than at 80 lines/mm?
Or am I reading it backwards, eg at 80lp/mm the contrast is 1/1.6 (or 62.5%) and at 160lp/mm it's 1/1000 (or 0.1%). That would make more sense. 62.5% contrast at 80lp/mm is great, some lenses today might do that in the center (haven't seen any MTF charts that go that fine, so far). And 0.1% at 160lp/mm essentially means that the film grain is bigger than that, there's no information surviving at that resolution.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
I don't understand that, is it a typo in their datasheet? Why would the contrast be 600 times higher at 160 lines/mm than at 80 lines/mm?
Or am I reading it backwards, eg at 80lp/mm the contrast is 1/1.6 (or 62.5%) and at 160lp/mm it's 1/1000 (or 0.1%). That would make more sense. 62.5% contrast at 80lp/mm is great, some lenses today might do that in the center (haven't seen any MTF charts that go that fine, so far). And 0.1% at 160lp/mm essentially means that the film grain is bigger than that, there's no information surviving at that resolution.
Nope that's pretty standard. You should note that 1000:1 contrast ratio is impossible to achieve with any lens. It only can be done when you expose the film as a contact sheet. However, as far as I understand, 80 lines per millimeter actually means line pairs, so you can safely double that number. That would be equal to the theoretical resolution of a 24mp sensor, except that the real resolution is about 1/3 lower due to the bayer array.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Yeah, Flickr should do it right to begin with, but for the target audience I figure copy and paste into the UI provided by the Link Button is probably quicker than manually url-encoding flickr's problems.
watcha talkin bout willis? you replace one occurrence of @ with %40 .. no need to url-encode the whole string.
dalegaspi wrote:
[watcha talkin bout willis? you replace one occurrence of @ with %40 .. no need to url-encode the whole string.
The issue isn't encoding one character or many but the "target audience" meaning not you or me. That would be the folks that routinely have problems linking in anything, not only URIs with encoding issues. One button (which already exists), one approach, no matter what the nature of the link = less to remember, hopefully no support, and fewer off topic conversations like this one.
click on the image names: i've never seen the lens so sharp, but u be the judge.
Oh, thank you! At what aperture did you snap the doggie pic? Did you crop the picture? The leaves and grass in the lower right corner looks surprisingly sharp!
eightfold wrote:
Oh, thank you! At what aperture did you snap the doggie pic? Did you crop the picture? The leaves and grass in the lower right corner looks surprisingly sharp!
It's a guy in Turkey, but if you ask he may answer.
I would not expect the extreme corners, since I don't get them on my 5n, but the edges look very good.
But I think the corners are not a smearing issue, but curvature--blanking on the right term: i.e. you can get deep corners if you focus directly on them. You might loose the center, and you might not be able to get them if your adapter doesn't go past infinity on longer shots.
This thread is coming to 100 pages now, I will do a first update for the OP as we now have quite a lot of images. Some conclusions here.
- A7 got significantly less color fringing/magenta cast. And also significantly less vignetting. (for RF wides). The A7r's offset micro lenses have done nothing good. Pixels are too small and far away from where the light comes.
- I get no definitive Idea about smearing, most claim says it the same but I dont find that substantiated. Though "height of sensor stack" is a factor. Some lenses worse than others. This is not a Leica problem at all (?) - or are there some adjustments in fitmware for edge sharpness impacting this?
- Vs Leica M digital below 35 the Sony's look worse. Always (?). But longer focales seem to be a match where things like higher detail level and better DR make the A7's have means to outperform Leica.
Ron Pfister wrote:
But I honestly think the age of lenses with manual aperture control is coming to an end (see e.g. Zeiss Otus). I'm afraid the Leica M-system and different of MF/LF-systems will be the only ones seeing new lens designs with manual apertures in the future...
Sorry, brain fart - the Otus ZF retains manual aperture control, and I'm glad that's the case. Shame that this will likely not be the case with Zeiss' own manual FE-lenses.
Everyone doing links, make sure you use the "link" tool on the left side of the quick entry box. It takes care of the @ symbol...don't just paste the URL into the text area...use the tool Fred provides.
Same holds true for image references I would think.
I know when I posted one of my Flickr shots, it didn't work right due to the "@" symbol until I used the link tool Fred provides.
Steve Spencer wrote:
These are not new. They were posted a couple of days ago.
Yikes! Color shift even from the Leica 35 ASPH. That wasn't expected. I do hope they provide in-body correction. Was expecting so much from the UWA up until 28 but not at 35. It's worse than the NEX 7.
A good portion of the corners and edges are getting cropped off on the NEX 7.....an even tougher nut to crack on FF.
j.liam wrote:
Yikes! Color shift even from the Leica 35 ASPH. That wasn't expected. I do hope they provide in-body correction. Was expecting so much from the UWA up until 28 but not at 35. It's worse than the NEX 7.
wfrank wrote:
This thread is coming to 100 pages now, I will do a first update for the OP as we now have quite a lot of images. Some conclusions here.
- A7 got significantly less color fringing/magenta cast. And also significantly less vignetting. (for RF wides). The A7r's offset micro lenses have done nothing good. Pixels are too small and far away from where the light comes.
- I get no definitive Idea about smearing, most claim says it the same but I dont find that substantiated. Though "height of sensor stack" is a factor. Some lenses worse than others. This is not a Leica problem at all (?) - or are there some adjustments in fitmware for edge sharpness impacting this?
- Vs Leica M digital below 35 the Sony's look worse. Always (?). But longer focales seem to be a match where things like higher detail level and better DR make the A7's have means to outperform Leica.
