This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
p.31 #1Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Not surprising as a "Retina" resolution screen hides detail at 100% view as compared to a traditional resolution screen at that same % view. In essence, what you see at 100% on the Retina screen is like viewing at 50% on a traditional screen. This works out perfect when printing (as 50% view at 240ppi is about what you see in a print*) but when critically editing an image, viewing between 150%-200% is required to simulate what non Retina users see at 100%. Yes, confusing but one aspect of using higher resolution screens...
*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.OT (sorry) I don't know what you're talking about... I'd love for you to explain it in a way I can understand.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native resolution of the Retina mac. You can do the same test with a web browser as well (same image, side by side. One opened in web browser and the other in say Photoshop/ Lightroom at 100%).
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.Adobe LR and Photo shop are the only programs that work fine, but annoying to use when editing on the Retina.. The web and preview and other apps don't work right. I don't have any of my settings away from default. No enlarged text, etc.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.
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
Chad Wadsworth wrote
As far as the 100% vs 200% goes, I think something odd is happening, maybe with wordpress. There is no stair stepping or edge artifacts visible in Light Room 1:1 view on my Retina screen.*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.
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.
May 31, 2015 at 09:07 AM
p.31 #2Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.OT (sorry) I don't know what you're talking about... I'd love for you to explain it in a way I can understand.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native resolution of the Retina mac. You can do the same test with a web browser as well (same image, side by side. One opened in web browser and the other in say Photoshop/ Lightroom at 100%).
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.Adobe LR and Photo shop are the only programs that work fine, but annoying to use when editing on the Retina.. The web and preview and other apps don't work right. I don't have any of my settings away from default. No enlarged text, etc.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.
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.
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
Not surprising as a "Retina" resolution screen hides detail at 100% view as compared to a traditional resolution screen at that same % view. In essence, what you see at 100% on the Retina screen is like viewing at 50% on a traditional screen. This works out perfect when printing (as 50% view at 240ppi is about what you see in a print*) but when critically editing an image, viewing between 150%-200% is required to simulate what non Retina users see at 100%. Yes, confusing but one aspect of using higher resolution screens...*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.
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.
May 31, 2015 at 10:06 AM
p.31 #3Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native resolution of the Retina mac. You can do the same test with a web browser as well (same image, side by side. One opened in web browser and the other in say Photoshop/ Lightroom at 100%).
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.Adobe LR and Photo shop are the only programs that work fine, but annoying to use when editing on the Retina.. The web and preview and other apps don't work right. I don't have any of my settings away from default. No enlarged text, etc.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.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.
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
OT (sorry) I don't know what you're talking about... I'd love for you to explain it in a way I can understand.Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.
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.
May 31, 2015 at 01:08 PM
p.31 #4Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
I don't know if these shots posted before or not, full size Batis 85mm shots w/ A7 II:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/sets/72157653621961436
PS: thanks, corrected.
Edited on May 31, 2015 at 11:37 PM · View previous versions
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/sets/72157653621961436
PS: thanks, corrected.
Edited on May 31, 2015 at 11:37 PM · View previous versions
May 31, 2015 at 11:16 PM
p.31 #5Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Serhan, your link says "Flick'r", but connects to a FM page....
May 31, 2015 at 11:20 PM
p.31 #6Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Serhans link should be:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/sets/72157653621961436
Thanks!!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/sets/72157653621961436
Thanks!!
May 31, 2015 at 11:27 PM
p.31 #7Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native resolution of the Retina mac. You can do the same test with a web browser as well (same image, side by side. One opened in web browser and the other in say Photoshop/ Lightroom at 100%).By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.
"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...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.
Jun 01, 2015 at 12:11 AM
p.31 #8Zeiss "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,...
Jun 01, 2015 at 03:25 AM
p.31 #9Zeiss "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.
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.
Jun 01, 2015 at 03:31 AM
p.31 #10Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Matt Grum wrote:
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.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%.
Jun 01, 2015 at 03:35 AM
p.31 #11Zeiss "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.
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.
Jun 01, 2015 at 04:35 AM
p.31 #12Zeiss "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.
Samuli
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.
Samuli
Jun 01, 2015 at 05:05 AM
p.31 #13Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
All you need to do is zoom in to 200% to judge sharpness instead, problem solved.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).
Matt Grum wrote
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.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).Jun 01, 2015 at 05:11 AM
p.31 #14Zeiss "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.
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,...I use the words "flat" or "dull" rendering when I'm talking about what you consider to be sterile.
Jun 01, 2015 at 05:28 AM
p.31 #15Zeiss "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.
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.
Jun 01, 2015 at 06:36 AM
p.31 #16Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Lenses seem pretty large compared to Loxia even though similar in weight.
Batis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on Flickr
Batis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on FlickrJun 01, 2015 at 06:47 AM
p.31 #17Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
It's becoming harder and harder to separate the advertising copy from the "reviews"...
Jun 01, 2015 at 06:49 AM
p.31 #18Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
davewolfs wrote:
Lenses seem pretty large compared to Loxia even though similar in weight.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/18252597691_d91b4a0264_c.jpgBatis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on Flickr
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.
Lenses seem pretty large compared to Loxia even though similar in weight.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/18252597691_d91b4a0264_c.jpgBatis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on Flickr
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.
Jun 01, 2015 at 06:52 AM
p.31 #19Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/18252597691_d91b4a0264_c.jpgBatis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on FlickrWow, 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.
davewolfs wrote
Lenses seem pretty large compared to Loxia even though similar in weight.https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/18252597691_d91b4a0264_c.jpgBatis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on Flickr
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.
Jun 01, 2015 at 07:00 AM
p.31 #20Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
davewolfs wrote:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/18252597691_d91b4a0264_c.jpgBatis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on FlickrWow, 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.
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.
Tariq Gibran wrote
davewolfs wrote
Lenses seem pretty large compared to Loxia even though similar in weight.https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/18252597691_d91b4a0264_c.jpgBatis/Loxia/A7M2 by Christian Dandyk, on Flickr
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.
Jun 01, 2015 at 07:35 AM