This topic is in the 2006 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2006Alternative Image Thread
p.12 #3Alternative Image Thread
photoArne wrote:
Olympus C 8080. Carcasonne, France.
Arne, when i read the word Olympusin your post - and remembering your very nice and impressive Norway pictures - i was reminded of my trip through Norway in 2003 - i had my first camera with me, a tiny and very basic Olympus C 40 and knew next to nothing about photography: but how much fun it was just to snap away, without the need to care for f-stops, shutter speed or lens-choosing
(very nice firework picture by the way!)
so i am posting some memories, and i guess the C 40 fits the alternative badge...
http://www.hutten.de/Norwegen/images/1_JPG.jpg
http://www.hutten.de/Norwegen/images/b5_JPG.jpg
http://www.hutten.de/Norwegen/images/P8030049_JPG.jpg
Olympus C 8080. Carcasonne, France.
Arne, when i read the word Olympusin your post - and remembering your very nice and impressive Norway pictures - i was reminded of my trip through Norway in 2003 - i had my first camera with me, a tiny and very basic Olympus C 40 and knew next to nothing about photography: but how much fun it was just to snap away, without the need to care for f-stops, shutter speed or lens-choosing
(very nice firework picture by the way!)so i am posting some memories, and i guess the C 40 fits the alternative badge...
http://www.hutten.de/Norwegen/images/1_JPG.jpg
http://www.hutten.de/Norwegen/images/b5_JPG.jpg
http://www.hutten.de/Norwegen/images/P8030049_JPG.jpg
May 15, 2006 at 03:25 PM
p.12 #5Alternative Image Thread
I just reaquired a 180/2 summicron. I don't understand why I pulled a Mancuso and sold it to buy it again....but all is well that ends well. 
This is the 180 at f2 and available light on the DMR.
This is the 180 at f2 and available light on the DMR.
May 17, 2006 at 03:17 PM
p.12 #6Alternative Image Thread
Here's another of a few energetic goslings with the DMR and the 560mm apo telyt at f6.8.
May 17, 2006 at 03:20 PM
p.12 #7Alternative Image Thread
Kurt,
I really like the lighting on that first one - very nice. hang onto that lens this time
Gero
I really like the lighting on that first one - very nice. hang onto that lens this time
Gero
May 17, 2006 at 03:31 PM
p.12 #8Alternative Image Thread
Zuiko 24/2:
Edited by pdmphoto on May 20, 2006 at 10:24 AM GMT
Edited by pdmphoto on May 20, 2006 at 10:24 AM GMT
May 18, 2006 at 10:52 AM
p.12 #9Alternative Image Thread
Leica Summilux-R 80mm f/1.4. Sometimes this lens has fabulous bokeh, sometimes it seems a bit strained, like in this picture. I don't yet know when it switches between the two.
http://www.realityblur.com/photography/5d/_MG_4623.jpg
http://www.realityblur.com/photography/5d/_MG_4623.jpg
May 20, 2006 at 11:19 AM
p.12 #10Alternative Image Thread
Carsten, I've observed the same with the 80 and the 35 lux's. I've found that the closer you are to the subject you are focusing on, the better the bokeh.
Kurt
Kurt
May 20, 2006 at 11:41 AM
p.12 #11Alternative Image Thread
Looking through my images from today, I think you have a point there, but it is not the whole story. In this picture, I was at about twice the minimum focusing distance, yet the bokeh is not particularly creamy. Granted, ferns are hard to get good bokeh of, but still.
http://www.realityblur.com/photography/fm/_MG_4608.jpg
http://www.realityblur.com/photography/fm/_MG_4608.jpg
May 20, 2006 at 11:54 AM
p.12 #12Alternative Image Thread
carstenw wrote:
Looking through my images from today, I think you have a point there, but it is not the whole story. In this picture, I was at about twice the minimum focusing distance, yet the bokeh is not particularly creamy. Granted, ferns are hard to get good bokeh of, but still.
Hi Carsten,
I found in another thread that you were getting rid of your other Leica portrait lenses - the 90/2 and the 90/2.8. After seeing the performance of the 80/1.4, do you still like it better than the other two?
Looking through my images from today, I think you have a point there, but it is not the whole story. In this picture, I was at about twice the minimum focusing distance, yet the bokeh is not particularly creamy. Granted, ferns are hard to get good bokeh of, but still.
Hi Carsten,
I found in another thread that you were getting rid of your other Leica portrait lenses - the 90/2 and the 90/2.8. After seeing the performance of the 80/1.4, do you still like it better than the other two?
May 20, 2006 at 10:25 PM
p.12 #13Alternative Image Thread
It must be almost one year ago, I bought adapters (Hasselblad, Leica & Zeiss), and 5 Zeiss lenses for my Canon DSLR, after reading all the exciting posts of using lenses other than Canon on the Canon DSLR. It was fun but I have only been using one lens for real world shooting. The other lenses were only used for 'testing' .
I love the Zeiss 35-70 zoom for its sharpness, saturation and small size. This little zoom becomes part of my permanent travel package. Here are a few shots with that little zoom on my 1DMk2:
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/image/49801499/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/image/58957260/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/image/58442695/original.jpg
.I love the Zeiss 35-70 zoom for its sharpness, saturation and small size. This little zoom becomes part of my permanent travel package. Here are a few shots with that little zoom on my 1DMk2:
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/image/49801499/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/image/58957260/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/image/58442695/original.jpg
May 20, 2006 at 10:37 PM
p.12 #14Alternative Image Thread
open81 wrote:
I found in another thread that you were getting rid of your other Leica portrait lenses - the 90/2 and the 90/2.8. After seeing the performance of the 80/1.4, do you still like it better than the other two?
I am only selling one of the 90s, not both. I just don't need three lenses in that space, four if you count the Canon 100 USM Macro.
I have had the 80/1.4 only one day, but I did take rather a large number of different shots with it yesterday, and I still have more testing to do. First of all, I couldn't say why, but I find it much easier to focus than the 90/2, which is in turn easier to focus than the 90/2.8 (for me). This might change when I get my Proscreen (where is that @£$%ing thing?). The Lux just kinda snaps into focus in a very narrow space. Having said that, I did manage to get some improperly focused shots with it, so it is clearly no fix-all.
Secondly, stopped down, the Lux is very sharp everywhere. I need to test it directly against the other two lenses at f/2.0 and f/2.8 respectively, as well as lower, to see if it catches up. I suspect it doesn't catch up completely, but it might be sharp enough that I only need to carry one lens in some situations.
At the moment I am leaning towards selling the 90/2, which kinda splits the advantages and disadvantages of the two others. The Lux is really special, and has an odd kind of glow at f/1.4 around high-contrast areas. It is not a softness as such... Perhaps one could compare the look a little to the Canon F/1.0 lens, if you have ever seen results from that, although that lens does get a little unsharp wide-open. The narrow depth of field is gorgeous, although in some pictures it started to look a little strained. I need to learn how to use this lens the best, that's for sure. It is not just a question of putting it on and snapping away. There are parameters.
I found in another thread that you were getting rid of your other Leica portrait lenses - the 90/2 and the 90/2.8. After seeing the performance of the 80/1.4, do you still like it better than the other two?
I am only selling one of the 90s, not both. I just don't need three lenses in that space, four if you count the Canon 100 USM Macro.
I have had the 80/1.4 only one day, but I did take rather a large number of different shots with it yesterday, and I still have more testing to do. First of all, I couldn't say why, but I find it much easier to focus than the 90/2, which is in turn easier to focus than the 90/2.8 (for me). This might change when I get my Proscreen (where is that @£$%ing thing?). The Lux just kinda snaps into focus in a very narrow space. Having said that, I did manage to get some improperly focused shots with it, so it is clearly no fix-all.
Secondly, stopped down, the Lux is very sharp everywhere. I need to test it directly against the other two lenses at f/2.0 and f/2.8 respectively, as well as lower, to see if it catches up. I suspect it doesn't catch up completely, but it might be sharp enough that I only need to carry one lens in some situations.
At the moment I am leaning towards selling the 90/2, which kinda splits the advantages and disadvantages of the two others. The Lux is really special, and has an odd kind of glow at f/1.4 around high-contrast areas. It is not a softness as such... Perhaps one could compare the look a little to the Canon F/1.0 lens, if you have ever seen results from that, although that lens does get a little unsharp wide-open. The narrow depth of field is gorgeous, although in some pictures it started to look a little strained. I need to learn how to use this lens the best, that's for sure. It is not just a question of putting it on and snapping away. There are parameters.
May 21, 2006 at 01:53 AM
p.12 #15Alternative Image Thread
carstenw wrote:
I am only selling one of the 90s, not both. I just don't need three lenses in that space, four if you count the Canon 100 USM Macro.
I have had the 80/1.4 only one day, but I did take rather a large number of different shots with it yesterday, and I still have more testing to do. First of all, I couldn't say why, but I find it much easier to focus than the 90/2, which is in turn easier to focus than the 90/2.8 (for me). This might change when I get my Proscreen (where is that @£$%ing thing?)....Show more →
Right, I meant to say that you were keeping one of the 90s but it didn't come out that way. Anyway, it sounds like the lux takes some getting used to. I imagine at F1.4 it must be a pain to get the focus perfectly right without unintentionally leaning back and forth a little. Have you tried shooting a person with that lens wide open? I look forward to reading your tests results for the lux and the 90mms.
I am only selling one of the 90s, not both. I just don't need three lenses in that space, four if you count the Canon 100 USM Macro.
I have had the 80/1.4 only one day, but I did take rather a large number of different shots with it yesterday, and I still have more testing to do. First of all, I couldn't say why, but I find it much easier to focus than the 90/2, which is in turn easier to focus than the 90/2.8 (for me). This might change when I get my Proscreen (where is that @£$%ing thing?)....Show more →
Right, I meant to say that you were keeping one of the 90s but it didn't come out that way. Anyway, it sounds like the lux takes some getting used to. I imagine at F1.4 it must be a pain to get the focus perfectly right without unintentionally leaning back and forth a little. Have you tried shooting a person with that lens wide open?
I look forward to reading your tests results for the lux and the 90mms. May 21, 2006 at 03:56 AM
p.12 #16Alternative Image Thread
The two people shots I did were among the unsharp results I have had :) They were on the street though, and one of them I shot at too low a shutterspeed, so more testing is needed.
May 21, 2006 at 04:00 AM
p.12 #17Alternative Image Thread
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Shooting at 1.4 is a very hard task the DOF is razor thin and really you almost have to focus bracket in this area because people move or you do and a 1/4 of a inch is easily missed.
Auomatic Focus Bracketing. One of the nice features of the Contax N1 and N Digital. Great alternatives that deserve a new lease on life. ;-)
Shooting at 1.4 is a very hard task the DOF is razor thin and really you almost have to focus bracket in this area because people move or you do and a 1/4 of a inch is easily missed.
Auomatic Focus Bracketing. One of the nice features of the Contax N1 and N Digital. Great alternatives that deserve a new lease on life. ;-)
May 21, 2006 at 09:13 AM
p.12 #18Alternative Image Thread
I created a spreadsheet for DOP using a circle of confusion of .023 mm and the absolute DOP, front to back, is incredibly small when you are close in.
Depth of field is shown in inches...
f1.4 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6
Focus
Length(ft)
2 0.15 0.21 0.29 0.42 0.59
3 0.33 0.47 0.66 0.95 1.33
4 0.59 0.84 1.18 1.68 2.36
5 0.92 1.31 1.84 2.63 3.68
6 1.33 1.89 2.65 3.79 5.31
8 2.36 3.37 4.71 6.74 9.44
10 3.68 5.26 7.37 10.54 14.78
12.5 5.75 8.22 11.52 16.48 23.14
15 8.29 11.84 16.60 23.76 33.41
20 14.74 21.07 29.55 42.39 59.79
25 23.04 32.96 46.28 66.52 94.23
This is not the amount of space that is totally sharp, but rather the total area of what is called "acceptable focus." I am not totally satisfied that with these digital backs that what is acceptable should not use an even smaller circle of confusion.
If you use .015 as acceptable circle of confusion the chart looks like this...
f1.4 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6
Focus
Length (ft)
2 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.38
3 0.22 0.31 0.43 0.62 0.86
4 0.38 0.55 0.77 1.10 1.54
5 0.60 0.86 1.20 1.71 2.40
6 0.86 1.23 1.73 2.47 3.46
8 1.54 2.19 3.07 4.39 6.15
10 2.40 3.43 4.80 6.86 9.62
12.5 3.75 5.36 7.51 10.73 15.04
15 5.40 7.72 10.81 15.46 21.68
20 9.61 13.73 19.23 27.52 38.65
25 15.01 21.46 30.08 43.08 60.61
Part of our focus problems are probably related to this extremely shallow DOP
Depth of field is shown in inches...
f1.4 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6
Focus
Length(ft)
2 0.15 0.21 0.29 0.42 0.59
3 0.33 0.47 0.66 0.95 1.33
4 0.59 0.84 1.18 1.68 2.36
5 0.92 1.31 1.84 2.63 3.68
6 1.33 1.89 2.65 3.79 5.31
8 2.36 3.37 4.71 6.74 9.44
10 3.68 5.26 7.37 10.54 14.78
12.5 5.75 8.22 11.52 16.48 23.14
15 8.29 11.84 16.60 23.76 33.41
20 14.74 21.07 29.55 42.39 59.79
25 23.04 32.96 46.28 66.52 94.23
This is not the amount of space that is totally sharp, but rather the total area of what is called "acceptable focus." I am not totally satisfied that with these digital backs that what is acceptable should not use an even smaller circle of confusion.
If you use .015 as acceptable circle of confusion the chart looks like this...
f1.4 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6
Focus
Length (ft)
2 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.38
3 0.22 0.31 0.43 0.62 0.86
4 0.38 0.55 0.77 1.10 1.54
5 0.60 0.86 1.20 1.71 2.40
6 0.86 1.23 1.73 2.47 3.46
8 1.54 2.19 3.07 4.39 6.15
10 2.40 3.43 4.80 6.86 9.62
12.5 3.75 5.36 7.51 10.73 15.04
15 5.40 7.72 10.81 15.46 21.68
20 9.61 13.73 19.23 27.52 38.65
25 15.01 21.46 30.08 43.08 60.61
Part of our focus problems are probably related to this extremely shallow DOP
May 21, 2006 at 10:19 AM
p.12 #19Alternative Image Thread
Well I see spreadsheets don't do well here. Sorry.
The first column is the focus length (2, 3, 4,5, 6, etc. in feet). The next columns are the DOP in inches starting at f1.4 and going to f5.6.
The first column is the focus length (2, 3, 4,5, 6, etc. in feet). The next columns are the DOP in inches starting at f1.4 and going to f5.6.
May 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM
p.12 #20Alternative Image Thread
What happened to the "Image" part of this thread?
Paul
Paul
May 21, 2006 at 11:20 AM