Horrible but exactly what i have been talking about for awhile. Its a cost production issue and folks go for basic kit light. its very typical as they run powerpoint so everything is low light.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This lens works so well for these events Guy!
It really really does. It’s like it was designed for them. It just don’t miss. Sure it may not be the bokeh king but what it is a top performing lens with sharpness as priority one at wide open. I have the Rokinon 85 if I want a little softer look. It’s also doing a nice job on this stuff.
I know these are not hot models to lick your chops over but more importantly your looking at lens performance not subject.
GMPhotography wrote:
It really really does. It’s like it was designed for them. It just don’t miss. Sure it may not be the bokeh king but what it is a top performing lens with sharpness as priority one at wide open. I have the Rokinon 85 if I want a little softer look. It’s also doing a nice job on this stuff.
I know these are not hot models to lick your chops over but more importantly your looking at lens performance not subject.
Guy, those look good to me. As far as not wanting to push the ISO, is it more because it would require an extra step (and time) in post - or do you just not like the results of the various denoise solutions? I'm using Topaz Denoise AI and it handles higher ISOs well, but it does take some serious time to work its magic - no way a working photographer is going to be able to spend so much time using it to process in a high volume situation.
That’s the bigger problem is post. Sometimes it’s 400 and sometimes 4 thousand. So anything added to C1 adds time. So I can do some noise reduction but not as much like a separate program.
Plus I’m a little sensitive to noise . Just not a big fan
GMPhotography wrote:
That’s the bigger problem is post. Sometimes it’s 400 and sometimes 4 thousand. So anything added to C1 adds time. So I can do some noise reduction but not as much like a separate program.
Plus I’m a little sensitive to noise . Just not a big fan
Hi Guy,
And you shot film for so long in low light conditions (with so much grain).
saxguy wrote:
Guy, those look good to me. As far as not wanting to push the ISO, is it more because it would require an extra step (and time) in post - or do you just not like the results of the various denoise solutions? I'm using Topaz Denoise AI and it handles higher ISOs well, but it does take some serious time to work its magic - no way a working photographer is going to be able to spend so much time using it to process in a high volume situation.
Also going up ISO denigrates color, dynamic range and resolution but it's still better than getting slight motion blur. I wish Topaz Denoise AI worked faster. Perhaps there is a way to batch it?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Also going up ISO also denigrates color, dynamic range and resolution but it's still better than getting slight motion blur. I wish Topaz Denoise AI worked faster. Perhaps there is a way to batch it?
It's good isn't it; but having said then I'm tending to not really bother any more. I think I prefer the look of only extremely light noise reduction (eg the LR default) over more. Even when more NR works really well at high ISO, something about the reduced noise combined with the colour and resolution loss of high ISO looks worse than if it's a bit noiser, which just looks a bit griainy (issuing we aren't talking nose bleed ISO). Maybe it's just film heritage that makes me prefer it...
DavidBM wrote:
It's good isn't it; but having said then I'm tending to not really bother any more. I think I prefer the look of only extremely light noise reduction (eg the LR default) over more. Even when more NR works really well at high ISO, something about the reduced noise combined with the colour and resolution loss of high ISO looks worse than if it's a bit noiser, which just looks a bit griainy (issuing we aren't talking nose bleed ISO). Maybe it's just film heritage that makes me prefer it...
Yes over doing it gets you that plastic look...not my taste.
For prints there are times I actually add a bit of grain as I like the printed results better.
DavidBM wrote:
It's good isn't it; but having said then I'm tending to not really bother any more. I think I prefer the look of only extremely light noise reduction (eg the LR default) over more. Even when more NR works really well at high ISO, something about the reduced noise combined with the colour and resolution loss of high ISO looks worse than if it's a bit noiser, which just looks a bit griainy (issuing we aren't talking nose bleed ISO). Maybe it's just film heritage that makes me prefer it...
Yes, it's an amazing (and slow) tool to have for images that benefit from it. I think it's great for low light nature photography. With today's sensors, I also prefer leaving the 'grain' alone for most of my shooting.
Final verdict over 3 grueling days of shooting. Maybe the best lens I have in my kit . It never missed because of itself or even me for that matter. If it missed it was all subject movement and granted I was on the edge of the earth with light. But it was a small amount. If it was shot at 2.8 I would have missed a lot. The lens is simply brilliant. Between this and my Profoto A1x it was fun to shoot. My 24 GM was right behind it and as well as my Batis 18. Surprised was my Samyang 85 1.4 did exceptional. I was really surprised it handled low light well. Even the 35 1.4 did really well but I think I need the Batis 40 more so it’s up for sale. Really nice not running into real problems even with horrible light.
GMPhotography wrote:
Final verdict over 3 grueling days of shooting. Maybe the best lens I have in my kit . It never missed because of itself or even me for that matter. If it missed it was all subject movement and granted I was on the edge of the earth with light. But it was a small amount. If it was shot at 2.8 I would have missed a lot. The lens is simply brilliant. Between this and my Profoto A1x it was fun to shoot. My 24 GM was right behind it and as well as my Batis 18. Surprised was my Samyang 85 1.4 did exceptional. I was really surprised it handled low light well. Even the 35 1.4 did really well but I think I need the Batis 40 more so it’s up for sale. Really nice not running into real problems even with horrible light. ...Show more →
Aside from IQ, the 135/1.8 GM is unique for its AF performance. I wish we had a 40-50mm f/1.4 that was just as fast and accurate. I can't complain about the 50/1.4 ZA's IQ and rendering but AF is not in the same level as the 135 GM's.
Gee I don’t know Sony, all those active Sony forums on the web keep talking about a 40 1.4 GM with the new AF systems. Maybe you should make one? It might just print money.
It wouldn’t make the 35 1.4 obsolete.
It wouldn’t cannabilize the 50 1.4.
The clock has run on the Batis 40 for just about long enough.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Aside from IQ, the 135/1.8 GM is unique for its AF performance. I wish we had a 40-50mm f/1.4 that was just as fast and accurate. I can't complain about the 50/1.4 ZA's IQ and rendering but AF is not in the same level as the 135 GM's.
