LeicaHermesBP Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
RustyBug wrote:
If the ISO was the same (640), the shutter speed was the same (1/60) and the aperture was the same (although reported as different in exif) f/1.4 ... then, there's nothing to really be "tricked" that I can think of.
This kind of behavior in falloff is the exact thing I was referencing in my post above (p.8 #7), wrt to Voigtlander's signature characteristic vignetting being more pronounced (i.e. the smaller size of the lens than the Lux), such that the rated f/1.4 is limited to a very small, central portion of the scene. Therein lies some of the difference that seems (would like to see the blank wall, more shots, etc. to confirm transmission variance) to be a greater margin of difference than many of the other attributes in the Nokton vs. Lux comps....Show more →
Thanks for reply. The reported aperture for CV was 2.0 as I used the 28 Summicron profile in LR, although that application did not play any role in the darker image.
If this less light transmission is inherent in this lens, the consequence is that a CV 28mm Nokton user needs to increase the brightness or shadow significantly more than a Leica 28mm Lux counterpart. As for my above examples, both images were already adjusted '+0.85' for brightness. And still, in order to match the Lux, I've to up the brightness of the CV to '+1.60', which introduced more noise as a consequence.
I understand this may affect cameras with lesser ISO capabilities (think M8, M9, or even M240 to some extent), while M10 and above users may not find this an issue.
However, pound for pound, the CV is like 1/8th of the 28 Lux price, which, to many, is a no-brainer. Think about this, how many times will we shoot in poor backlit situations (as above)? And if we understand the limitations of the CV, the user can simply increase the exposure during shooting in order to avoid pushing the brightness and shadows in post-processing.
|