alba63 wrote:
Peire: I like your images as such, but on my monitor they look very washed out, at least 1-1,5 stops too bright...
I agree Peire's image are always ~0.66 stops overexposed. This is consistent with all Peire's images also have in EXIF information that "Exposure Bias: +0.70 EV" which will generally result overexposure with A7-series. I can't remember many times Peire had 1 stop overexposure, and I don't remember ever seen 1.5 stop overexposure from Peire (but I also don't follow other threads than this, Zeiss & Leica threads). I guess over the years I have adjusted my brain for Peire's shots as they have always been like this and I just compensate with brains.
What cd/m2 value and gamma you have calibrated your monitor? Your photos seem ~0.66 stops underexposed (based on the architectural post few pages ago and these marine images), or you aim to very grungy and dark look? I have my main computer now 150cd/m2 (gamma 2.2), and secondary computer is 120cd/m2 (gamma 2.2). With both computers your images look too dark (unless that is the artistic look you prefer) and Peire's overexposed.
Hard to judge on forums as some people don't have professional workflow including calibration, and many people have artistic preferences, for which they don't aim natural image rendering style.
Thanks, Samuli, I have calibrated my monitor to print brightness, as far as I remember 100cd/m2, will recalibrate later... If I adjust it to the recommended 120, I always found printed images to be too dark (respectively my monitor too bright).
So there is something I don't get: If I calibrate my monitor too dark (100cd/m2), I would logically tend to edit my images too bright, and those with a monitor adjustet brigher, should see it even brighter than I do. For the Jellyfish the light in the Aquarium is obviously very dark, lots of almost black I feel the images already brighter than the real thing...
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Wow, that looks really good, thanks for posting. These look really good; the focus plane stands out from picture, almost like with Zeiss, but they still look like a Leica photos.
I love the 80-200/4 Leica-R, but was hesitant to get 35-70 because I had seen ONLY bad samples of boke, but your samples look pretty good. From your samples the only thing I didn't like was the 2nd last image (35mm, f/4, vertical, subject was rusty water pump), in which corners indicate either radically larger DOF in corners or forward field curvature (either one is not good for boke shooter) - forward field curvature would explain also your note "Only a trace of softness in the farthest corners wo at 35mm".
Did you get any random really ugly boke shots or was boke generally this good?
I did not have enough time to test the Vario Elmar 35-70/4.0 thoroughly,so more pictures are ahead to come.So far I didn't see bad boke examples,but only some flare,photographing darker object against bright background.This brown colour is unnatural for a Leica indeed.Maybe A7R's auto WB set itself a little too high.
What struck me most,was the very little field curvature at the distance of 1,5-2m,wide open at any focal lenght ,compared to the C/Y Vario Sonnar 35-70/3.4.For example,at 35mm the Leica is almost entirely sharp across the frame,with only a hint of softness in the farthest corners,whereas the Zeiss has soft corners up untill f8.At 50mm the Leica is just sharp everywhere and the Zeiss still shows a little corner softness.At 70mm they are pretty much the same.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I agree Peire's image are always ~0.66 stops overexposed. This is consistent with all Peire's images also have in EXIF information that "Exposure Bias: +0.70 EV" which will generally result overexposure with A7-series. I can't remember many times Peire had 1 stop overexposure, and I don't remember ever seen 1.5 stop overexposure from Peire (but I also don't follow other threads than this, Zeiss & Leica threads). I guess over the years I have adjusted my brain for Peire's shots as they have always been like this and I just compensate with brains.
What cd/m2 value and gamma you have calibrated your monitor? Your photos seem ~0.66 stops underexposed (based on the architectural post few pages ago and these marine images), or you aim to very grungy and dark look? I have my main computer now 150cd/m2 (gamma 2.2), and secondary computer is 120cd/m2 (gamma 2.2). With both computers your images look too dark (unless that is the artistic look you prefer) and Peire's overexposed.
Hard to judge on forums as some people don't have professional workflow including calibration, and many people have artistic preferences, for which they don't aim natural image rendering style.
I have set exposure compensation +0,7EV on every Mirrorless camers that I have,to balance out the light lost caused by mechanical adapters.
On my laptop pictures look well exposed,but yes,when I look at them,placed on different sites,I sometimes see that they are usually slightly overexposed.
They look overexposed to me as well. I'm sure you check histograms though. I view my screen in a dark room and find that 75 cd/m2 produces prints of the correct brightness. If you view the screen in a light room you will need more. iMac screens typically run at 160, a level which would invalidate the warranty on my EIZO, but are tailored, I suspect, for use in bright office environments.
Peire wrote:
This is probably caused by bad calibration of both my and your monitors.
A crystal clear day in the desert. These shots are taken from the top of a high mesa. The final shot is taken down in the low desert "wash" or "arroyo" which has water flowing this time of year. A7RII with FE 24-240mm.
when did you get the g35? do you think you'll keep it?
it's one of those lenses that i avoid shooting wide open not because it's unsharp, but because the focus transitions and bokeh are both so harsh. at f/4 both have mostly cleared up nicely...
sebboh wrote:
when did you get the g35? do you think you'll keep it?
it's one of those lenses that i avoid shooting wide open not because it's unsharp, but because the focus transitions and bokeh are both so harsh. at f/4 both have mostly cleared up nicely...
A reader of my blog borrowed me the Techart Adapter + G35,G45 and G90. Yesterday was the first time I really used it so I have very little experience with it yet.
I think I underestimated it initially and might warm up toward it, the size is certainly very nice and I like it's character.
Have you put yours in a proper housing yet? And how do you like it for landscape photography? I ran one test series with focus on the center but when I look at the MTF diagram that was a mistake.
I also had problems with massive veiling flare if the sun is in the image even though the Techart adapter is flocked and there are no reflective parts.
