p.31 #1 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
If you view the same image in Photoshop at 200% (on the Retina Mac), does it appear the exact same size as it does in Preview and in a web browser (pixilated or with issues) on the Retina Mac? When using a Retina display at the default settings, this is exactly the point I was making. At 200% in Photoshop on the Retina, that image would also roughly be the same magnification as when viewing at 100% on a non retina monitor. This is entirely due to the higher pixel density/ resolution of the Retina display.
Yes 200% in Photoshop looks about the same size as 100% on Preview... BUT the files don't look the same. Preview gives a jagged pixelation whereas photoshop renders the 200% differently.
p.31 #2 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
Yes 200% in Photoshop looks about the same size as 100% on Preview... BUT the files don't look the same. Preview gives a jagged pixelation whereas photoshop renders the 200% differently.
That's odd. I don't see a difference on my 15" Retina Macbook Pro. Is it possible you are using an older version of Preview? Preview shows version 8 in Yosemite on my Mac. Also make sure in Preview that there is a check mark by "Actual Size" in the view menu. If not, select "Actual Size". Other than that, I have no idea what might be going on.
p.31 #3 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's odd. I don't see a difference on my 15" Retina Macbook Pro. Is it possible you are using an older version of Preview? Preview shows version 8 in Yosemite on my Mac. Also make sure in Preview that there is a check mark by "Actual Size" in the view menu. If not, select "Actual Size". Other than that, I have no idea what might be going on.
Preview 8.0
"1 image pixel equals 1 screen pixel". If I do it "size on screen equals size on printout" then it's really tiny tiny.
And when I check "actual size" in the view menu it does what I mentioned, which is pixelate. I've also talked to apple about this, and it's not just my computer, my wife's does it. And I was at my friends and his laptop does it.
Apple took me through "steps" but nothing helped, and the guy on the phone said he didn't know what I was talking about.. I've looked it up. Other people are complaining as well. So I was just wondering if I was doing something wrong, since you guys seem to be doing ok with your retina displays.
p.31 #7 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
Preview 8.0
"1 image pixel equals 1 screen pixel". If I do it "size on screen equals size on printout" then it's really tiny tiny.
And when I check "actual size" in the view menu it does what I mentioned, which is pixelate. I've also talked to apple about this, and it's not just my computer, my wife's does it. And I was at my friends and his laptop does it.
Apple took me through "steps" but nothing helped, and the guy on the phone said he didn't know what I was talking about.. I've looked it up. Other people are complaining as well. So I was just wondering if I was doing something wrong, since you guys seem to be doing ok with your retina displays. ...Show more →
In my opinion the best displays are the old 72 ppi ones. The higher the pixel density the worse it gets in terms of viewing photos at 100% to judge sharpness. Granted the retina screens look gorgeous to display images but I'm not so sure about their usefulness to us photographers.
p.31 #8 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
These early examples of the 85 Batis remind me a bit of the rendering of the FE55/1.8. It seems to have the same kind of more sterile rendering, cat's eye bokeh wide open, fairly high contrast bokeh,...
p.31 #9 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
In my opinion the best displays are the old 72 ppi ones. The higher the pixel density the worse it gets in terms of viewing photos at 100% to judge sharpness. Granted the retina screens look gorgeous to display images but I'm not so sure about their usefulness to us photographers.
All you need to do is zoom in to 200% to judge sharpness instead, problem solved.
p.31 #11 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Jochenb wrote:
These early examples of the 85 Batis remind me a bit of the rendering of the FE55/1.8. It seems to have the same kind of more sterile rendering, cat's eye bokeh wide open, fairly high contrast bokeh,...
If you consider the renderings of those to be sterile, then I guess I love sterility. I think the drawing style of the FE 55/1.8 is fantastic, and the 85 looks great to my eye too. Of course, what I consider sterile is not this look at all. I consider a more moderate contrast with high sharpness but average color saturation and microcontrast to look sterile to my eye, as there's no obvious defects optically, but nothing really pops or sings.
p.31 #12 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Matt Grum wrote:
All you need to do is zoom in to 200% to judge sharpness instead, problem solved.
200% in 144ppi looks very similar to 100% in 72ppi monitor. However in this scenario each "pixel" if formed from 12 led lights (on RGB panels - on 4 color panels it's naturally 16) instead of 4. This can make difference - think for example ClearType (and other similar techniques) use the subpixel leds to make text smoother.
Other issue is that image viewing software (or operating system...) may not use similar method as PhotoShop's "Nearest neighbour" (=method which doesn't resample but just makes 1 pixel to 2x2 pixels block) => in which case you definitely aren't able to judge image sharpness etc. from the image.
Like Guy said I also would not use these Retina displays for professional work (or professional quality work, even not professional in sense on making money). I'm going to get 4K screen one day, but it's going to be larger than the current 2560x1600 screen and will be used from same distance or slightly closer as current one = no need for Retina or other GUI scaling techniques.
Jochenb wrote:
These early examples of the 85 Batis remind me a bit of the rendering of the FE55/1.8. It seems to have the same kind of more sterile rendering, cat's eye bokeh wide open, fairly high contrast bokeh,...
+1 - boke shows same ugly symptoms as FE55, and boke also similarly has largish contrast (specially considering this is real Zeiss designed lens) and DOF is larger on corners compared to center (all lenses do this, but on these samples it poked to my eye little more than in other lenses). I think I'll skip the 85mm Batis, thou it would be really good landscape lens.
I hope that the Batis 25 has at least as usable boke as ZE/ZF 2/25 - I already preordered mine to get from 1st batch arriving to Finland.
p.31 #13 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
In my experience the best viewing is at screen native resolution. Viewing at 200% is not the same thing as a 72 ppi screen at 100%.
This is way OT by now but even the monitors we used (imaging professionals) over a decade ago were at least 100ppi. I don't believe I have used a 72ppi screen since maybe the mid/late 90's! That said, I have not made my mind up yet on these extreme resolution screens for editing and for so many other reasons (gamut, matte screen and cost/ hardware requirements) I have yet to move to the 200ppi+ screens for serious editing. The big deal about the Retina Macbooks imo when they arrived was not the resolution but that they were IPS screens (something which Apple had previously fell behind in offering in a laptop compared to PC offerings).
p.31 #14 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Jman13 wrote:
If you consider the renderings of those to be sterile, then I guess I love sterility. I think the drawing style of the FE 55/1.8 is fantastic, and the 85 looks great to my eye too. Of course, what I consider sterile is not this look at all. I consider a more moderate contrast with high sharpness but average color saturation and microcontrast to look sterile to my eye, as there's no obvious defects optically, but nothing really pops or sings.
I use the words "flat" or "dull" rendering when I'm talking about what you consider to be sterile.
p.31 #15 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
The Batis 85 was perhaps influenced by the acclaim granted by the market to the stunning FE55, which saw many buy into the system on the strength of that lens alone. Not only is it without peer on key metrics in the DSLR competition, it established the viability of a mainstream $1000 normal lens and in so doing placed the 'nifty fifties' C/N have been pushing at impecunious users for decades in proper perspective.
Tastes of course vary widely as users place value on different aspects (some rather esoteric), but the value of a flat field lens with well received bokeh qualities and high levels of performance across the frame was not lost on sophisticated photographers looking for excellent behaviour and versatility. In the 3D Kraft comparison it made several multi thousand dollar lenses look quite ordinary.
'Sterile' is certainly not a description most would associate with it, nor will you encounter such in reviews. 'Modern clarity' may work better for most. If the B85 behaves like a longer FL FE55, its success is close to guaranteed. Especially for portraiture, which is a key use case of the 55. We appear to be seeing Sony and Zeiss moving closer together in contemporaneous designs - an excellent portent for the future of the FE system.
Zeiss lenses of course vary widely in OOF character, within and across ranges and eras - it seems of dubious value to refer to a Zeiss house style on this score.
Wow, I didn't realize how big these new Batis lenses are. Having used the Loxia 35, at least the size felt about right on that one relative to the A7r.
p.31 #19 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Wow, I didn't realize how big these new Batis lenses are. Having used the Loxia 35, at least the size felt about right on that one relative to the A7r.
How do you like the 35? I've seen some people complain about it's Bokeh although not sure why. I own the 50 and really like it. Still not sure if I should go with 28/50 or 35/85.
p.31 #20 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
davewolfs wrote:
How do you like the 35? I've seen some people complain about it's Bokeh although not sure why. I own the 50 and really like it. Still not sure if I should go with 28/50 or 35/85.
I returned it for two reasons. 1) the front section of the barrel had slight mechanical play/ looseness (enough to make a clunking sound when the camera was held vertically) and 2) It was not sharp corner to corner at distance by F5.6/8 which I need for landscape use. Other - and cheaper - lenses are better for that use imo.
That said, I have not made my mind up yet on these extreme resolution screens for editing and for so many other reasons (gamut, matte screen and cost/ hardware requirements) I have yet to move to the 200ppi+ screens for serious editing. The big deal about the Retina Macbooks imo when they arrived was not the resolution but that they were IPS screens (something which Apple had previously fell behind in offering in a laptop compared to PC offerings).
