ecarlino wrote:
spoken like a true gear head. of course you "firmly believe" - as are all your beliefs, I'm sure.
ask Michael Stipe or Mozart about how many tight constraints they forced upon themselves. but then again, you probably would not see the equivalence given you hardly approach photography as an art form.
there are so many types of photography that it would be impossible to make any such categorical statement. certainly no artist ever would about whatever their format - the great ones would simply say 'the rules are there to be broken'.
is that so?
I took a workshop with Joe McNally a few years back - I would consider him personally amazing (and humble) and his work extraordinary: http://portfolio.joemcnally.com
Not a single MF - and perish the thought - quite a few zooms! ...Show more →
Some artists like constraint. Some don't. Shakespeare for example as a poet and playwright loved constraint. Can you imagine writing a whole play in iambic pentameter? It seemed to work for him. And many poets like strict patterns to their poetry. Others, however, like very few constraints. I prefer free verse myself. Same is true in dance and in music and in all art. I once heard Brandon Marsallis discussing playing classical music vs. jazz. He likes playing classical for the constraint. He likes jazz for the freedom. Although he is better known for his jazz, he also developed a very respectable reputation in classical. So, yes to constraint and no to constraint both can work and there is a place for both, IMO.
Joe McNally is certainly an excellent photographer, IMO and yes he uses AF lenses, but how many of his images rely on AF? Most in reviewing his portfolio on the web in my view rely on his eye and his excellent use of light. He also has exceptional skills in creating a scene in the studio. I would say far less than 10 percent if any really rely on AF.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I can't imagine that anyone using MF would try to do what Rouse was doing in the AF tests 2 & 3. Instead, you would pick a spot where you would expect the owl to fly to in test 2 or the otter run to in test 3, focus on that spot and try to capture the image as the animal came to that spot. I do think that somebody like Doug (but not me) could get excellent images of these animals using such a technique, but I can also see why most togs would prefer to have AF for this type of shooting. What I think this analysis is missing, however, especially for this sort of wildlife shooting that knowing these animals, how to get close to them, and their habits is a necessary part of the process. Being in the right place and being ready to shoot these animals is really the required skills and that is what Rouse and Doug share and why they can both produce amazing shots. ...Show more →
+1. Knowledge of the subject, vision, infallible technique, ability and good fortune are essential, but the technology has a say too in the 'keeper rate'.
I'm not really understanding what the debate about AF vs MF is. Sure, some of us prefer MF, and MF is certainly capable of great results, but MF users are in the minority, and the big camera companies are going to cater to AF users. It's been that way for decades. Even with these Loxia lenses, much of the criticism that I've seen across the web has been in regard to their lack of AF. I like manual focus lenses, but I know I'm in the minority.
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm not really understanding what the debate about AF vs MF is. Sure, some of us prefer MF, and MF is certainly capable of great results, but MF users are in the minority, and the big camera companies are going to cater to AF users. It's been that way for decades. Even with these Loxia lenses, much of the criticism that I've seen across the web has been in regard to their lack of AF. I like manual focus lenses, but I know I'm in the minority.
Douglas, I think the debate is that with these lenses Zeiss has decided to not cater to AF users and instead cater to MF users. Some as you noted in the criticism you mentioned seem to be upset by Zeiss' decision. I for one and happy that Zeiss went this way as I shoot pretty much exclusively MF. I too know I am in the minority, but I am happy that Zeiss often caters to me.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Some artists like constraint. Some don't. Shakespeare for example as a poet and playwright loved constraint. Can you imagine writing a whole play in iambic pentameter? It seemed to work for him. And many poets like strict patterns to their poetry. Others, however, like very few constraints. I prefer free verse myself. Same is true in dance and in music and in all art. I once heard Brandon Marsallis discussing playing classical music vs. jazz. He likes playing classical for the constraint. He likes jazz for the freedom. Although he is better known for his jazz, he also developed a very respectable reputation in classical. So, yes to constraint and no to constraint both can work and there is a place for both, IMO.
Joe McNally is certainly an excellent photographer, IMO and yes he uses AF lenses, but how many of his images rely on AF? Most in reviewing his portfolio on the web in my view rely on his eye and his excellent use of light. He also has exceptional skills in creating a scene in the studio. I would say far less than 10 percent if any really rely on AF. ...Show more →
to be clear about my perspective and to clarify my comments:
a) I'm not biased one way or another (MF vs AF) rather only opposed to people who try to suggest there is only one way
b) wrt to Joe McNally - his photographs are certainly amazing primarily because of his composition skills and his lighting effects - and while many are not 'action' shots, many are and do require AF but more to my point: he ONLY uses AF lenses (and when I was with him for 5 days, he didn't manually focus a single time nor did he mention that he ever manually focused - but this is not to suggest that he never uses MF, but that he certainly relies on AF).
in both points, I do not mention particulars to suggest "this is the only way" but simply to oppose the view put forth by another that there is only one way by pointing one or two obvious examples (from which there are too many to mention).
I actually have been interested in sony mirrorless (b/c of the EVF and magnification) as a way to get into Zeiss MF glass b/c I think it could expand my creative ability - in particular to slow down more - but that's just me (and only part of me - similar to your excellent example of Branford Marsalis) and I'd never extrapolate that thought to anyone else let alone everyone else.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Douglas, I think the debate is that with these lenses Zeiss has decided to not cater to AF users and instead cater to MF users. Some as you noted in the criticism you mentioned seem to be upset by Zeiss' decision. I for one and happy that Zeiss went this way as I shoot pretty much exclusively MF. I too know I am in the minority, but I am happy that Zeiss often caters to me.
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought Ahem and Bluffer were essentially saying that the camera companies weren't too concerned about sensor toppings and old manual lenses, because AF lenses are what the large majority of the users buy, which I'd agree with.
In terms of Loxia, the fact that they're manual focus is certainly what draws me to them.
I have to say that I am in the manual focus camp. Somehow I am not able to use AF efficiently, and even when it works for me, I don't enjoy it. I understand that I'm in the minority, just like Steve and Derek, but I'm also glad that there are companies like Zeiss and Leica still around to cater for us Dinosaurs.
This said, the biggest surprise for me, and I pray it's true, is the ZM 35/1.4. This piece of news made my day, much more than the Loxia stuff everyone is so worked out about
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have to say that I am in the manual focus camp. Somehow I am not able to use AF efficiently, and even when it works for me, I don't enjoy it. I understand that I'm in the minority, just like Steve and Derek, but I'm also glad that there are companies like Zeiss and Leica still around to cater for us Dinosaurs.
This said, the biggest surprise for me, and I pray it's true, is the ZM 35/1.4. This piece of news made my day, much more than the Loxia stuff everyone is so worked out about
Yeah, the ZM 35/1.4 rumor is really interesting. It's rumored to be a Distagon, too, so it might even be ok for A7 users.
Sep 04, 2014 at 12:15 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have to say that I am in the manual focus camp. Somehow I am not able to use AF efficiently, and even when it works for me, I don't enjoy it. I understand that I'm in the minority, just like Steve and Derek, but I'm also glad that there are companies like Zeiss and Leica still around to cater for us Dinosaurs.
This said, the biggest surprise for me, and I pray it's true, is the ZM 35/1.4. This piece of news made my day, much more than the Loxia stuff everyone is so worked out about
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm not really understanding what the debate about AF vs MF is. Sure, some of us prefer MF, and MF is certainly capable of great results, but MF users are in the minority, and the big camera companies are going to cater to AF users. It's been that way for decades. Even with these Loxia lenses, much of the criticism that I've seen across the web has been in regard to their lack of AF. I like manual focus lenses, but I know I'm in the minority.
Ah, I thought I was in the 'it's not the gear' thread when I posted a reply to Carsten
Note to self - pay attention in future ...
FWIW I do wonder how many times Zeiss's Dr Nasse has wept with grief when considering fast aperture compact lens designs to satisfy the FE mount and sensor stack
In case it has not been posted here, Lloyd Chamber just posted a quick comparison between the Loxia 35 and the ZM 35 (most likely in the corner). It's on his very front page (free-content): http://diglloyd.com/
Quite a step up there.
Based on those two images it appears to be much improved over the M mount version
hiepphotog wrote:
In case it has not been posted here, Lloyd Chamber just posted a quick comparison between the Loxia 35 and the ZM 35 (most likely in the corner). It's on his very front page (free-content): http://diglloyd.com/
Quite a step up there.
Jon Tainton wrote:
FWIW I do wonder how many times Zeiss's Dr Nasse has wept with grief when considering fast aperture compact lens designs to satisfy the FE mount and sensor stack
ecarlino wrote:
to be clear about my perspective and to clarify my comments:
a) I'm not biased one way or another (MF vs AF) rather only opposed to people who try to suggest there is only one way
b) wrt to Joe McNally - his photographs are certainly amazing primarily because of his composition skills and his lighting effects - and while many are not 'action' shots, many are and do require AF but more to my point: he ONLY uses AF lenses (and when I was with him for 5 days, he didn't manually focus a single time nor did he mention that he ever manually focused - but this is not to suggest that he never uses MF, but that he certainly relies on AF).
in both points, I do not mention particulars to suggest "this is the only way" but simply to oppose the view put forth by another that there is only one way by pointing one or two obvious examples (from which there are too many to mention).
I actually have been interested in sony mirrorless (b/c of the EVF and magnification) as a way to get into Zeiss MF glass b/c I think it could expand my creative ability - in particular to slow down more - but that's just me (and only part of me - similar to your excellent example of Branford Marsalis) and I'd never extrapolate that thought to anyone else let alone everyone else....Show more →
I think you missed Carsten's point. As I understand it, his assertion is that placing constraints on yourself can force you to explore your approach more deeply. This doesn't mean you have to leave those constraints in place indefinitely or that you can only produce great work while under those constraints. It also doesn't mean that everyone needs to use that approach to improve their creative output or that it's the only path to doing so. But I have seen it work for me and for others, so I agree with the point as I interpret it.
ecarlino wrote:
ask Michael Stipe or Mozart about how many tight constraints they forced upon themselves. but then again, you probably would not see the equivalence given you hardly approach photography as an art form.
Pardon? I never said that anyone should force constraints on themselves, simply that when people have constraints, in whatever form, the art that comes out is often extraordinary. Convenience, in the form of AF or whatever, often yields an overflow of mediocrity.
[Joe McNally:] Not a single MF - and perish the thought - quite a few zooms!
So? He is not incapable of making good shots with MF lenses, as his earlier career proves. All the same, I doubt that much of his work, if any, *requires* AF. My point was that many claim that AF is *required*, when really it is not.
carstenw wrote:
So? He is not incapable of making good shots with MF lenses, as his earlier career proves. All the same, I doubt that much of his work, if any, *requires* AF
