Sony FE Images Thread
p.1416 #1Sony FE Images Thread
Helena, all different lenses renderings at the side , your pics are just wonderful !
Cheers
Werner
Cheers
Werner
Feb 08, 2016 at 04:37 AM
p.1416 #3Sony FE Images Thread
Photo taken October 3, 2015 at 3:29 PM in the Adirondack Mountains. It is looking across I believe South Bay of Tupper Lake which is on the west side of south bound New York State Route 30, Tupper Lake, NY. Image taken with my tripod mounted A7r and my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens, ISO 100, lens set to approximately f11 for 1/100 second. Processed in LR6.
Rich
Rich
Feb 08, 2016 at 06:23 AM
p.1416 #5Sony FE Images Thread
Phillip Reeve wrote:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1546/24797044171_b44b5a7de2_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1707/24262282544_3f75ffa67d_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1620/24594962340_bd77cbcc84_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1643/24263558173_4339e53fdb_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1538/24890424695_2a32e6118e_o.jpg
I love the big,sandy snout.Oink!
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1546/24797044171_b44b5a7de2_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1707/24262282544_3f75ffa67d_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1620/24594962340_bd77cbcc84_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1643/24263558173_4339e53fdb_o.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1538/24890424695_2a32e6118e_o.jpg
I love the big,sandy snout.Oink!
Feb 08, 2016 at 07:49 AM
p.1416 #7Sony FE Images Thread
Jochenb wrote:
I've always loved the 50/1.4 ZE/ZF Planar. I still have a ZF.2 version that I use on the A7 series. I feel that the field curvature is quite a bit stronger on these cameras than when I used it on my ex Canon cameras. Probably because of the thicker sensor cover glass.
I actually think it has become nearly unusable for landscape shooting on my A7RII (I already felt this way ever since I starting using it on the first A7). It's sharp enough, but the curvature is so strong that I'm very often not able to get everything in the...Show more →
Hmmm, I have not noticed so big difference between A7r (/A7) and 5DmkII, actually none with 50mm Planar. Are you sure absolute amount of focus shift has changed significantly OR are you comparing 100% pixels when A7rII will have much more focus shift?
Landscape shooting is something I don't do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I'm travelling. During "the era of A7" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on 2015 in Tenerife I used Loxia as a normal lens. So in addition to test images, I have only shoot few random frames of landscapes with ZE 1.4/50 = I may have missed this.
With other lenses there have been random bad suprices due to thick sensor cover glass, for example C/Y Distagon is much worse in A7 and A7r compared to 5DmkII in corners of image. I hope that Kolari modification will also improve multiple lenses, which are borderline case like Contax G 2/45, Contax C/Y 2.8/28 and Zeiss ZE 2/28 - maybe also Zeiss ZE 1.4/50.
Bobu wrote:
This means if I'm not happy with the Loxia I will probably have to either try the Sony 55mm or keep my Otus and live with the weight and no Exif info.
While testing, make sure you also shoot at f/5.6. To my eye images are better than at f/8. While on 2015 holiday in Tenerife I made the mistake that I defaulted to f/8, because I was slightly afraid of the midzone dip and wavy field curvature - I didn't have any computer with me so I did see the images 1st time at home - also lens was very new (I think I had been shooting ONCE before going to Tenerife with the lens) - yes very rookie mistakes taking new equipment with me, I'm shamed of my behaviour, but it was new and shiny lens and I couldn't resist... I have very strong feeling that many images would have come better simply using f/5.6 instead of f/8. Also I still haven't done the systematical test to be 100% sure about this. With ZE APO135 I'm 100% sure that f/4 and f/5.6 result more "crisp" results than f/8, which appear more dull and colors muted. Considering A7rII has even smaller pixels, it's obvious that for best results one needs to shoot f/4 or f/5.6 to avoid diffraction caused dullness.
If you only shoot closed down landscapes FE55 might actually be a good choise. Personally I can't stand FE55: 1) the DOF-focus transition 2) boke structure 3) large contrast on boke compared to focus plane 4) hard vignetting on corners, it's there even at f/8 5) focus by wire, the changing rotation speed is supposed to improve the experience but it's directly from hell if you ask from me, as an engineer I could not invent as bad usability even if I would try it on purpose. Many people love FE55, some even call it mini-Otus, so opinions vary.
Few samples of FE55 closed down lanscape images, I ripped few pants to the sharp rocks at Grete, so hopefully images will relay the sharpness of rocks well
1, 2, 3 and 4 (these I'm pretty sure I have posted here, so don't want to repost, just linking).
Samuli
I've always loved the 50/1.4 ZE/ZF Planar. I still have a ZF.2 version that I use on the A7 series. I feel that the field curvature is quite a bit stronger on these cameras than when I used it on my ex Canon cameras. Probably because of the thicker sensor cover glass.
I actually think it has become nearly unusable for landscape shooting on my A7RII (I already felt this way ever since I starting using it on the first A7). It's sharp enough, but the curvature is so strong that I'm very often not able to get everything in the...Show more →
Hmmm, I have not noticed so big difference between A7r (/A7) and 5DmkII, actually none with 50mm Planar. Are you sure absolute amount of focus shift has changed significantly OR are you comparing 100% pixels when A7rII will have much more focus shift?
Landscape shooting is something I don't do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I'm travelling. During "the era of A7" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on 2015 in Tenerife I used Loxia as a normal lens. So in addition to test images, I have only shoot few random frames of landscapes with ZE 1.4/50 = I may have missed this.
With other lenses there have been random bad suprices due to thick sensor cover glass, for example C/Y Distagon is much worse in A7 and A7r compared to 5DmkII in corners of image. I hope that Kolari modification will also improve multiple lenses, which are borderline case like Contax G 2/45, Contax C/Y 2.8/28 and Zeiss ZE 2/28 - maybe also Zeiss ZE 1.4/50.
Bobu wrote:
This means if I'm not happy with the Loxia I will probably have to either try the Sony 55mm or keep my Otus and live with the weight and no Exif info.
While testing, make sure you also shoot at f/5.6. To my eye images are better than at f/8. While on 2015 holiday in Tenerife I made the mistake that I defaulted to f/8, because I was slightly afraid of the midzone dip and wavy field curvature - I didn't have any computer with me so I did see the images 1st time at home - also lens was very new (I think I had been shooting ONCE before going to Tenerife with the lens) - yes very rookie mistakes taking new equipment with me, I'm shamed of my behaviour, but it was new and shiny lens and I couldn't resist... I have very strong feeling that many images would have come better simply using f/5.6 instead of f/8. Also I still haven't done the systematical test to be 100% sure about this. With ZE APO135 I'm 100% sure that f/4 and f/5.6 result more "crisp" results than f/8, which appear more dull and colors muted. Considering A7rII has even smaller pixels, it's obvious that for best results one needs to shoot f/4 or f/5.6 to avoid diffraction caused dullness.
If you only shoot closed down landscapes FE55 might actually be a good choise. Personally I can't stand FE55: 1) the DOF-focus transition 2) boke structure 3) large contrast on boke compared to focus plane 4) hard vignetting on corners, it's there even at f/8 5) focus by wire, the changing rotation speed is supposed to improve the experience but it's directly from hell if you ask from me, as an engineer I could not invent as bad usability even if I would try it on purpose. Many people love FE55, some even call it mini-Otus, so opinions vary.
Few samples of FE55 closed down lanscape images, I ripped few pants to the sharp rocks at Grete, so hopefully images will relay the sharpness of rocks well
1, 2, 3 and 4 (these I'm pretty sure I have posted here, so don't want to repost, just linking).Samuli
Feb 08, 2016 at 11:12 AM
p.1416 #8Sony FE Images Thread
A7 + 55FE
_DSC3836 by songoku1981, on Flickr
_DSC3827 by songoku1981, on Flickr
_DSC3824 by songoku1981, on Flickr
_DSC3836 by songoku1981, on Flickr_DSC3827 by songoku1981, on Flickr_DSC3824 by songoku1981, on FlickrFeb 08, 2016 at 11:19 AM
p.1416 #9Sony FE Images Thread
Thanks Samuli! Even if you 'can't stand the F55', I'm afraid I like your 55 images. Maybe I should get one and do my own comparison to the Loxia.
Boris
Boris
Feb 08, 2016 at 11:44 AM
p.1416 #10Sony FE Images Thread
Sony A7 + Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZF 2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Feb 08, 2016 at 12:53 PM
|
p.1416 #11Sony FE Images Thread
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Hmmm, I have not noticed so big difference between A7r (/A7) and 5DmkII, actually none with 50mm Planar. Are you sure absolute amount of focus shift has changed significantly OR are you comparing 100% pixels when A7rII will have much more focus shift?
Landscape shooting is something I don't do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I'm travelling. During "the era of A7" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on...Show more →
I didn't expect any difference either, but sadly there is. I quickly vizualised the issue. A test shot on the original A7, @ F8. Focused on the trees in the background. Everything that's in focus is painted over with red: example field curvature
Look how curved the plane of focus is. Almost the whole center is out of focus. When I focus more to the foreground the opposite happens: everything that's now painted in red (in focus) will be out of focus. So annoying.
When I examine my old 5DII photos with this lens things look completely different. A much milder forward field curvature. The lens was already useful at F5.6 for landscapes.
The FE55 has almost no field curvature. That makes it very easy to use for landscapes. I really dislike the focus by wire and strong vignetting of it though. Maybe I should give the Loxia a try too.
Hmmm, I have not noticed so big difference between A7r (/A7) and 5DmkII, actually none with 50mm Planar. Are you sure absolute amount of focus shift has changed significantly OR are you comparing 100% pixels when A7rII will have much more focus shift?
Landscape shooting is something I don't do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I'm travelling. During "the era of A7" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on...Show more →
I didn't expect any difference either, but sadly there is. I quickly vizualised the issue. A test shot on the original A7, @ F8. Focused on the trees in the background. Everything that's in focus is painted over with red: example field curvature
Look how curved the plane of focus is. Almost the whole center is out of focus. When I focus more to the foreground the opposite happens: everything that's now painted in red (in focus) will be out of focus. So annoying.
When I examine my old 5DII photos with this lens things look completely different. A much milder forward field curvature. The lens was already useful at F5.6 for landscapes.
The FE55 has almost no field curvature. That makes it very easy to use for landscapes. I really dislike the focus by wire and strong vignetting of it though. Maybe I should give the Loxia a try too.
Feb 08, 2016 at 01:02 PM
p.1416 #12Sony FE Images Thread
Jochenb wrote:
The FE55 has almost no field curvature. That makes it very easy to use for landscapes. I really dislike the focus by wire and strong vignetting of it though. Maybe I should give the Loxia a try too.
Exactely my thoughts and the reason why I use the Loxia 2/50 now. Surprisingly, the Contax 3.4/35-70 nearly equals the 1.8/55 at landscape apertures in terms of sharpness. I miss the calm background of the 1.8/55 - the Loxia can be distracting sometimes although the rendering of in-focus-areas and the pop are great.
Here is one landscape shot with the 1.8/55:
The summit by Jannik Peters, auf Flickr
The FE55 has almost no field curvature. That makes it very easy to use for landscapes. I really dislike the focus by wire and strong vignetting of it though. Maybe I should give the Loxia a try too.
Exactely my thoughts and the reason why I use the Loxia 2/50 now. Surprisingly, the Contax 3.4/35-70 nearly equals the 1.8/55 at landscape apertures in terms of sharpness. I miss the calm background of the 1.8/55 - the Loxia can be distracting sometimes although the rendering of in-focus-areas and the pop are great.
Here is one landscape shot with the 1.8/55:
The summit by Jannik Peters, auf Flickr
Feb 08, 2016 at 01:43 PM
p.1416 #13Sony FE Images Thread
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Landscape shooting is something I don't do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I'm travelling. During "the era of A7" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on 2015 in Tenerife I used Loxia as a normal lens. So in addition to test images, I have only shoot few random frames of landscapes with ZE 1.4/50 = I may have missed this.
Samuli
Samuli et al.,
I find this topic fascinating and have been known to waste more than my share of time comparing lens, but coming from a background in science, I'd make one comment. That is, the images we end up with are influenced by a range of factors of which the lens is just one - the atmospheric conditions, lighting, aperture etc., can all influence outcomes.
This makes it quite difficult to assess the comparative performance of two lenses by subjectively comparing one set of images shot with one lens, with a quite different set of images shot in different conditions with another - as you hint at above. In my view, a much more robust process is to shoot the same scene with a couple of lenses, preferably with a tripod, and perhaps over a range of apertures, and then process them identically. Otherwise, the risk is that we build an impression of how a particular lens performs and then 'see' the evidence that confirms that view, but miss the evidence that contradicts it - or confuse the influence of other factors with the performance characteristics of the lens.
Doing an exact comparison like this really starts to expose the significant differences between lenses, and sets you up to identify the subtle changes in use and processing required to achieve particular effects. For example, I know that my nFD 35 when focused at infinity gives sharper edges at F/8 than my Ultron 35 at the same aperture, but the FD requires increased vibrance and clarity to give an equivalent look to the Ultron - but it will never match the Ultron's wide open performance.
Even better, get someone else to shoot the same scene in an identical fashion with two lenses, give you the results labelled only as 'lens A' and 'lens B', and do your assessment before you find out which is which.
Happy testing - John
Edited on Feb 08, 2016 at 02:14 PM · View previous versions
Landscape shooting is something I don't do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I'm travelling. During "the era of A7" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on 2015 in Tenerife I used Loxia as a normal lens. So in addition to test images, I have only shoot few random frames of landscapes with ZE 1.4/50 = I may have missed this.
Samuli
Samuli et al.,
I find this topic fascinating and have been known to waste more than my share of time comparing lens, but coming from a background in science, I'd make one comment. That is, the images we end up with are influenced by a range of factors of which the lens is just one - the atmospheric conditions, lighting, aperture etc., can all influence outcomes.
This makes it quite difficult to assess the comparative performance of two lenses by subjectively comparing one set of images shot with one lens, with a quite different set of images shot in different conditions with another - as you hint at above. In my view, a much more robust process is to shoot the same scene with a couple of lenses, preferably with a tripod, and perhaps over a range of apertures, and then process them identically. Otherwise, the risk is that we build an impression of how a particular lens performs and then 'see' the evidence that confirms that view, but miss the evidence that contradicts it - or confuse the influence of other factors with the performance characteristics of the lens.
Doing an exact comparison like this really starts to expose the significant differences between lenses, and sets you up to identify the subtle changes in use and processing required to achieve particular effects. For example, I know that my nFD 35 when focused at infinity gives sharper edges at F/8 than my Ultron 35 at the same aperture, but the FD requires increased vibrance and clarity to give an equivalent look to the Ultron - but it will never match the Ultron's wide open performance.
Even better, get someone else to shoot the same scene in an identical fashion with two lenses, give you the results labelled only as 'lens A' and 'lens B', and do your assessment before you find out which is which.
Happy testing - John
Edited on Feb 08, 2016 at 02:14 PM · View previous versions
Feb 08, 2016 at 01:46 PM
p.1416 #14Sony FE Images Thread
Helena. love the snow images. I would like to see a same scene comparison between the -Voigtländer CV 50/1.5 and the -C/Y 50/1.7
A7RII FE 24-240 - Three desert panos. I keep using the FE 24-240 because it is an all purpose lens and it leaves me only one lens to keep clean in Western Arizona where I have been shooting between short dust storms.
And one night shot after the wind died down, taken with Leica WATE at 16mm
A7RII FE 24-240 - Three desert panos. I keep using the FE 24-240 because it is an all purpose lens and it leaves me only one lens to keep clean in Western Arizona where I have been shooting between short dust storms.
And one night shot after the wind died down, taken with Leica WATE at 16mm
Feb 08, 2016 at 01:57 PM
p.1416 #15Sony FE Images Thread
Sunset in Acadia. This is one from October last year from our balcony in Bass Harbor.
Acadia Sunset Zeiss 21mm Distagon
© Mnd1 2016
Acadia Sunset Zeiss 21mm Distagon
Feb 08, 2016 at 02:45 PM
p.1416 #16Sony FE Images Thread
Another capture of Anne-Sophie at the Mask Carnival in Venice.
Anne-Sophie and her yellow pigeon
 |
||
 © AGeoJO 2016 |
||
 |
Anne-Sophie and her yellow pigeon
Feb 08, 2016 at 03:24 PM
p.1416 #17Sony FE Images Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
Another capture of Anne-Sophie at the Mask Carnival in Venice.
Ok guys, I realized Joshua, besides to be a great photographer (my personal opinion is more near to consider him a genius) is also addicted to this thread
Manuel
Another capture of Anne-Sophie at the Mask Carnival in Venice.
Ok guys, I realized Joshua, besides to be a great photographer (my personal opinion is more near to consider him a genius) is also addicted to this thread
Manuel
Feb 08, 2016 at 03:57 PM
p.1416 #18Sony FE Images Thread
Gellert hotel and baths in Budapest.
A7s, FE 1:4.0/16-35
DSC05287 by Thom Koster, on Flickr
DSC05237 by Thom Koster, on Flickr
DSC05244 by Thom Koster, on Flickr
Edited on Oct 25, 2016 at 11:28 PM · View previous versions
A7s, FE 1:4.0/16-35
DSC05287 by Thom Koster, on FlickrDSC05237 by Thom Koster, on FlickrDSC05244 by Thom Koster, on FlickrEdited on Oct 25, 2016 at 11:28 PM · View previous versions
Feb 08, 2016 at 04:03 PM
p.1416 #19Sony FE Images Thread
Jochenb wrote:
Everything that's in focus is painted over with red: example field curvature
Look how curved the plane of focus is. Almost the whole center is out of focus. When I focus more to the foreground the opposite happens: everything that's now painted in red (in focus) will be out of focus. So annoying.
When I examine my old 5DII photos with this lens things look completely different. A much milder forward field curvature. The lens was already useful at F5.6 for landscapes.
Question: have you knocked the lens hard or dropped it to hard surface between shooting with 5DII and A7?
Why I'm asking? I have seen this exact same behaviour earlier, but with 5DmkII. A fellow Finnish photographer had ZE 1.4/50, which worked exactly this way with his 5DmkII few years ago. To demonstrate he made similar picture, but he used ripe cornfield (quite homogenous) and sharpened the image 10+ times and it clearly visualized identical field curvature as your red overlay. He had a loooooooong fight with the Finnish importing company and Zeiss - that ended up sadly, when importing company finally agreed to send it to Zeiss, Zeiss just returned the lens and said it's according to the spec!!! That lens was clearly defective, some misalignment of lens elements or something else broken. At that time I counted this as a outlier as at that time Zeiss service still had great reputation.
My own ZE1.4/50 (with 5DmkII) was sharp over whole image area already at f/4.5 - There was really strong wind on mountain pass when I took this (sorry little small for our standards in 2016, but it's from 2011...) and whole frame is VERY sharp. The 1/1250s shutter speed was needed because I took the shot in conditions I needed to lean ~30 degrees to not fall in the wind and was barely able to walk few meters from car - tripod did not stand on ground without supporting it 100% of time - it was weird experience as I moved half kilometer for next shot, there suddenly was not much wind (photo has GPS coordinates in case somebody wants to study geography, it identifies pretty exact shooting location, of course there can be slight time sync issue with GPS and camera timestamps, but it can't be far off).
I installed ZE 1.4/50 to A7r, and take it with me when I go next time shooting - it will be hard time to find suitable test scenario at this time of year, but I'll see what I can do on weekend if there is any change to get outdoors while there is daylight.
navmannz wrote:
I find this topic fascinating and have been known to waste more than my share of time comparing lens, but coming from a background in science, I'd make one comment. That is, the images we end up with are influenced by a range of factors of which the lens is just one - the atmospheric conditions, lighting, aperture etc., can all influence outcomes.
This makes it quite risky to assess the comparative performance of two lenses by subjectively comparing one set of images shot with one lens, with a quite different set of images shot in different conditions with another...Show more →
This approach works for stuff what is easily explained and measurable (the stuff science likes ==> sharpness, aberrations, etc.) - I can't see this methodology to work to find out rendering style differences on real life conditions. In real life conditions the light is interesting when it's constantly changing, but it makes it A-B comparison next to impossible. There is no change to do it if ANY clouds in sky OR sun is low - generally leaves possibility to shoot only when sun is high in the sky, and that quite often doesn't look good (it can look good sometimes in some scenes, but it's rare). Even wind can change how things look in nature so that A-B can be no longer done if there is any wind, for example when leafs in three are pointhing to left compared to right the three in image looks different.
I have tried this scientifical approach and it's quaranteed to kill my interest to photography - and in record time. Reminds me of sitting on the boring glassed on technical university...yawn... When I have done this I find I always "prefer" the lens which is better at 100% pixel peeping, but which I may hate in real life shooting because it doesn't deliver what I actually want.
But I know people who can do this all day and get kicks from it. So as usual what makes world interesting is people and how different we are. From the tests people have done this way I have never found anything what really interests me - for sure it may reveal some things regarding sharpness (generally great interest withing photographers, not mine). For photographer like me whom doesn't care sharpness as long as there is enough of it, I pay attention >95% to other stuff. What I have seen by attempts of doing this scientifically 80% fail because they chosen scene which is controlled (=indoors) but extreme boring and not at all telling anything about real life outdoor rendering. The remain 20% fail because they have tried to do it outdoors and the minute differences in light cause the images to be not comparable even would have been shoot with same lens.
navmannz wrote:
Doing an exact comparison like this really starts to expose the significant differences between lenses, and sets you up to identify the subtle changes in use and processing required to achieve particular effects.
I see people all the time killing their lenses interesting rendering style features by their processing, but never seen for example anyone been able to change DOF to boke transition or something else really interesting via systematical/practical method (for one photo it can be done by gigantic work drawing masks for hours etc.).
Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 ZE @ f/5.6, HDR (1/10s, 1/40s, 1/160s) ILCE-7 @ ISO 200
[no matter what I do, there is no way to get same intensity of blood red sky I did see in front of me shooting this]
Samuli
Everything that's in focus is painted over with red: example field curvature
Look how curved the plane of focus is. Almost the whole center is out of focus. When I focus more to the foreground the opposite happens: everything that's now painted in red (in focus) will be out of focus. So annoying.
When I examine my old 5DII photos with this lens things look completely different. A much milder forward field curvature. The lens was already useful at F5.6 for landscapes.
Question: have you knocked the lens hard or dropped it to hard surface between shooting with 5DII and A7?
Why I'm asking? I have seen this exact same behaviour earlier, but with 5DmkII. A fellow Finnish photographer had ZE 1.4/50, which worked exactly this way with his 5DmkII few years ago. To demonstrate he made similar picture, but he used ripe cornfield (quite homogenous) and sharpened the image 10+ times and it clearly visualized identical field curvature as your red overlay. He had a loooooooong fight with the Finnish importing company and Zeiss - that ended up sadly, when importing company finally agreed to send it to Zeiss, Zeiss just returned the lens and said it's according to the spec!!! That lens was clearly defective, some misalignment of lens elements or something else broken. At that time I counted this as a outlier as at that time Zeiss service still had great reputation.
My own ZE1.4/50 (with 5DmkII) was sharp over whole image area already at f/4.5 - There was really strong wind on mountain pass when I took this (sorry little small for our standards in 2016, but it's from 2011...) and whole frame is VERY sharp. The 1/1250s shutter speed was needed because I took the shot in conditions I needed to lean ~30 degrees to not fall in the wind and was barely able to walk few meters from car - tripod did not stand on ground without supporting it 100% of time - it was weird experience as I moved half kilometer for next shot, there suddenly was not much wind (photo has GPS coordinates in case somebody wants to study geography, it identifies pretty exact shooting location, of course there can be slight time sync issue with GPS and camera timestamps, but it can't be far off).
I installed ZE 1.4/50 to A7r, and take it with me when I go next time shooting - it will be hard time to find suitable test scenario at this time of year, but I'll see what I can do on weekend if there is any change to get outdoors while there is daylight.
navmannz wrote:
I find this topic fascinating and have been known to waste more than my share of time comparing lens, but coming from a background in science, I'd make one comment. That is, the images we end up with are influenced by a range of factors of which the lens is just one - the atmospheric conditions, lighting, aperture etc., can all influence outcomes.
This makes it quite risky to assess the comparative performance of two lenses by subjectively comparing one set of images shot with one lens, with a quite different set of images shot in different conditions with another...Show more →
This approach works for stuff what is easily explained and measurable (the stuff science likes ==> sharpness, aberrations, etc.) - I can't see this methodology to work to find out rendering style differences on real life conditions. In real life conditions the light is interesting when it's constantly changing, but it makes it A-B comparison next to impossible. There is no change to do it if ANY clouds in sky OR sun is low - generally leaves possibility to shoot only when sun is high in the sky, and that quite often doesn't look good (it can look good sometimes in some scenes, but it's rare). Even wind can change how things look in nature so that A-B can be no longer done if there is any wind, for example when leafs in three are pointhing to left compared to right the three in image looks different.
I have tried this scientifical approach and it's quaranteed to kill my interest to photography - and in record time. Reminds me of sitting on the boring glassed on technical university...yawn... When I have done this I find I always "prefer" the lens which is better at 100% pixel peeping, but which I may hate in real life shooting because it doesn't deliver what I actually want.
But I know people who can do this all day and get kicks from it. So as usual what makes world interesting is people and how different we are. From the tests people have done this way I have never found anything what really interests me - for sure it may reveal some things regarding sharpness (generally great interest withing photographers, not mine). For photographer like me whom doesn't care sharpness as long as there is enough of it, I pay attention >95% to other stuff. What I have seen by attempts of doing this scientifically 80% fail because they chosen scene which is controlled (=indoors) but extreme boring and not at all telling anything about real life outdoor rendering. The remain 20% fail because they have tried to do it outdoors and the minute differences in light cause the images to be not comparable even would have been shoot with same lens.
navmannz wrote:
Doing an exact comparison like this really starts to expose the significant differences between lenses, and sets you up to identify the subtle changes in use and processing required to achieve particular effects.
I see people all the time killing their lenses interesting rendering style features by their processing, but never seen for example anyone been able to change DOF to boke transition or something else really interesting via systematical/practical method (for one photo it can be done by gigantic work drawing masks for hours etc.).
Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 ZE @ f/5.6, HDR (1/10s, 1/40s, 1/160s) ILCE-7 @ ISO 200
[no matter what I do, there is no way to get same intensity of blood red sky I did see in front of me shooting this]
Samuli
Feb 08, 2016 at 04:12 PM
p.1416 #20Sony FE Images Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
Another capture of Anne-Sophie at the Mask Carnival in Venice.
Wonderful!
And at the other end of the scale of females wearing heavy make up or masks, here is a ewe (pronounced oooo in the local dialect) that has somehow managed to apply some of the blue numbering colour as eye-shadow!
Lambs 1 by petergthomas, on Flickr
It hasn't been anywhere near cold enough here for snow this year (we very rarely get much) so spring is more advanced than normal. We have had plenty of gales and rain however and these shots were taken when the rain slowed down slightly for a few minutes.
These are the first shots with my C/Y 180 f2.8 MMJ (at f2.8) on my relatively new A7R II
Primroses by petergthomas, on Flickr
Edited on Feb 10, 2016 at 12:43 AM · View previous versions
Another capture of Anne-Sophie at the Mask Carnival in Venice.
Wonderful!
And at the other end of the scale of females wearing heavy make up or masks, here is a ewe (pronounced oooo in the local dialect) that has somehow managed to apply some of the blue numbering colour as eye-shadow!
Lambs 1 by petergthomas, on FlickrIt hasn't been anywhere near cold enough here for snow this year (we very rarely get much) so spring is more advanced than normal. We have had plenty of gales and rain however and these shots were taken when the rain slowed down slightly for a few minutes.
These are the first shots with my C/Y 180 f2.8 MMJ (at f2.8) on my relatively new A7R II
Primroses by petergthomas, on FlickrEdited on Feb 10, 2016 at 12:43 AM · View previous versions
Feb 08, 2016 at 04:14 PM