Breitling65 wrote:
Exactly, AF and Photoshop - two things making good shots this days
Cause Zeiss neglected to install an AF motor and you bought the lens for the Zeiss optics not AF.
And some of us like to take a different workflow that isn't dominated by Photoshop. I believe a lot of us took up the hobby or profession because of the camera work rather than sitting and Photoshoping.
Paolo Dolina wrote:
And some of us like to take a different workflow that isn't dominated by Photoshop. I believe a lot of us took up the hobby or profession because of the camera work rather than sitting and Photoshoping.
Now define "dominated". It seems like people are trying to find some excuse to spend a little time as possible in Photoshop. I've even heard of comments like "I'm a photographer, not a graphic artist" and I wonder why... back in film days, didn't people need to spend quite a lot of time in the dark room burning, dodging etc. when developing their films? Why should it be any different now?
IMHO, what you get from your shooting is just, excuse the pun, RAW material to work with. Softwares like Photoshop is then needed to refine it, and in the right hand, even a great photo can become better.
Besides, optical quality like colour rendition and saturation is purely subjective. I know a few people who like their colour super saturated and at the same time, I know some other people also like B&W and digitally, PS channel mixer gives you the best result with maximum control.
n0b0 wrote:
Wouldn't those MF focusing screen be dark or look frosted with only a circle area in the middle to help you focus? If that's the case, wouldn't you still have to focus and recompose?
No experience with third party screens, but the Ec-S and Eg-S are both a tiny bit darker than their C counterparts. It's not a hinderance, though. When I test drove the ZE 85, my keeper rate was improved dramatically with the Ec-S over using the C.
Thanks mate. I would really like to see what it's like to look through the viewfinder with these screens but so far, Google image search only shows a technical drawing of them. The closest thing I have is the old Canon TLb film DSLR.
n0b0 wrote:
Now define "dominated". It seems like people are trying to find some excuse to spend a little time as possible in Photoshop. I've even heard of comments like "I'm a photographer, not a graphic artist" and I wonder why... back in film days, didn't people need to spend quite a lot of time in the dark room burning, dodging etc. when developing their films? Why should it be any different now?
Not a film developer either. During the film days like a lot of other people we just send it to photo shop in a mall and have it developed.
IMHO, what you get from your shooting is just, excuse the pun, RAW material to work with. Softwares like Photoshop is then needed to refine it, and in the right hand, even a great photo can become better.
I prefer to work with apps like Aperture as opposed to PS. PS is just too much software for what I want to do. Did I also mention how much cheaper Aperture is? I rather put money into optics that will slowly depreciate over decades. Have I also mentioned how much faster I dish out work vs PS?
Paolo Dolina wrote:
I think a focusing screen replacement would be an ideal upgrade if you were to get the ZE 50.
Which screen would you recommend? I am thinking about putting one on my 5D to use with the ZE 50 - was considering the Ee-S (but notice that's not one of those you mention).
Actually I didn't mention any focusing screen. Per manual the Ee-S seems to be the winner. I only have two lenses that would be too slow for the screen so it is a worthwhile upgrade.
I think Zeiss lenses gives a "period" preprocessed look to photos that I personally find pleasing.
For the Zeiss look: micro-contrast and color. I photographed a green leaf with my Canon EF28 f2.8 and saw basically one color of green. When I photographed the same leaf with my Contax Zeiss 28 f2.8, I could seen the green shading from one green to another to another. The Zeiss could show the subtle colors that were there. The Canon was like a painting, with one color chip for all greens.
Here is my typical tourist picture in Eqypt, using handheld 5D I, Contax Zeiss 28 f2.8, overall view:
And here's the center crop on the blanket under the saddle. Note that you can see the weave in the fabric, a microscopic part of an overall picture, that includes one entire pyramid. I can only dream of the detail if the 5D II was available then.
I only have two lenses that would be too slow for the screen so it is a worthwhile upgrade.
The Ee-s screen is recommended for f2.8 lenses or faster, but I also use it with my Oly Zuiko 21mm f3.5. This lens is quite useable with this screen, and is razor sharp all the way to the edges of full frame. Quite like Zeiss 21, but at much lower cost. My Oly is one of the 3 top Zuiko 21mm f3.5 lenses that Mike Hatam tested, out of 12 Zuiko 21mm f3.5 lenses.
Paolo Dolina wrote:
Actually I didn't mention any focusing screen. Per manual the Ee-S seems to be the winner. I only have two lenses that would be too slow for the screen so it is a worthwhile upgrade.
Sorry, I was melding your post & freaklikeme's - & actually I think the confusion arose b/c he was referring to the focus screen for the 5D II (the Eg-S) & I was thinking about that for the 5D (the Ee-S).
No problem. I was wondering if sleep deprivation was playing tricks on my mind and I was recommending hardware that I have no experience with. AFAIK there are no 3rd party focusing screens. Makes sense seeming it is just 35 bucks bnew.
Don Clary wrote:
The Ee-s screen is recommended for f2.8 lenses or faster, but I also use it with my Oly Zuiko 21mm f3.5. This lens is quite useable with this screen, and is razor sharp all the way to the edges of full frame. Quite like Zeiss 21, but at much lower cost. My Oly is one of the 3 top Zuiko 21mm f3.5 lenses that Mike Hatam tested, out of 12 Zuiko 21mm f3.5 lenses.
My concern stems from my f/4 and f/5.6 lenses.
I guess i'll test with 5D and if it all goes well I'll apply it to the other bodies.
That was my thinking too. If it's too dark w/- f/4 & f/5.6 maybe I'll just dedicate the 5D to manual focus (gives me another excuse not to sell it too!).
I also tried the Ee-s screen with a Canon 400mm f5.6. It was quite dark, and I didn't like it, but it was useable. Also, if you just have to use it with f5.6, Maxwell can do his treatment on the Ee-s screen and make it more than one stop brighter, for, if I recall correctly, about $180.
Paolo Dolina wrote:
Cause Zeiss neglected to install an AF motor and you bought the lens for the Zeiss optics not AF.
And some of us like to take a different workflow that isn't dominated by Photoshop. I believe a lot of us took up the hobby or profession because of the camera work rather than sitting and Photoshoping.
What I believe - you can't make finally good looking digital photos without PP. Manual focus having very minimal use and need very good eyes.
Definitely research the Alternative forum here at FM. Endless discussions of
Zeiss glass. I like Zeiss lenses, and their 85/2.8 Sonnar for the Contax system
is especially fine, and a great value.
However, before you go for the ZE 50/1.4 you should at least try a Sigma 50/1.4
since the Sigma will give better performance wide open. As for stopped down
performance, such as landscape shots, the Zeiss will likely be superior. But for
wide open work, the Sigma is stunning, and I highly doubt the Zeiss will match it.
The Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 I owned didn't even come close when wide open.
Stopped down, it was very good. Not great bokeh, but great sharpness and color.
I wanted to add that if you don't really need an f/1.4 lens, the 85/2.8
is stunning from f/2.8 right on down. This lens is easily as sharp as the
Canon 135/2L and has fine bokeh. My good used copy was $240 shipped,
including focus confirmation adapter. The best "alt glass" I've used yet.
No-one has mentioned this yet, so I will. For those considering the Contax Zeiss lenses there are issues with some lenses & the 5D - Mk I & II's. Basically the mirror clearance on these cameras means that some CZ lenses are incompatible & for others the choice of adapter is crucial. I've found this site to be an invaluable resource: http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db_Specific_Lenses.html
I rather put money into optics that will slowly depreciate over decades. Have I also mentioned how much faster I dish out work vs PS?