>>you can't go past 3200 ISO on a 1dsmkIII so it can't be 25600.
>probably underexposed 3 stops and brought up in post? same thing the camera does internally to get to 25600 on the models that do offer it
That's exactly right. I just can't explain how dark this was, but nothing was visible through the viewfinder so I just held my finger on the trigger, aimed by instinct, and twisted the focus ring back and forth. I must have taken 30 or more pictures as I recall, while running backwards through a crowd in the dark, just to get one. There wasn't much visible in the file, but my 1Ds3 was incredible for pushing. This is not a situation where AF, or anything but high iso, wide aperture, and good technique is going to prevail. In the end, memories count for a lot more than exquisite image quality.
carstenw wrote:
Oh boy, Richard, no one could ever accuse you of writing neutral prose Every other sentence has a dramatic indictment of lenses whose rendering you don't personally like.
Well, I think most Zeiss lenses mess up a lot of things too. All lenses are a long way from perfect, let's be honest. It's just a question of deciding which imperfections you can afford to live with. In the end I just look at the results and ask "does this take me there?" That's the best measure in the end, and it is subjective, so I make no apologies for speaking from the heart...
brainiac wrote:
Thanks! It would be a lot more brilliant without the banding. That's why I get excited as each new sensor generation gives me an extra stop...
Honestly, banding is the last thing I see when I look at this image -- didn't notice until you pointed it out! Though I know the syndrome; each of us can be our own worst/best critic.
BTW, I appreciate your description of the process you used to get this pic; it encourages me to 'shoot dirty' when the situation demands it. I'm too hung up on technical 'perfection'.
carstenw wrote:
Richard, I have been looking at the dark jaw delineation you keep pointing out, and if anything, in that photo it makes the guy stand out from the background more, and drops the gradual transition, so for me, in that area, he looks more like a flat cutout and less 3D than in areas where this dark line isn't there, whatever it is. In other words, if you don't agree, I guess we have another individual perception factor on our hands
OK - but I am curious whether these edge effects, on a smaller scale than you see on that jawline, are the reason that some lenses seem to be able to cut out a subject against a focussed background, i.e. produce 3D where there is no focus differential. Altogether, on the very small scale, that edge information could be the reason why objects and spaces appear to have depth in themselves. That's my point earlier in the thread: the quest for smoothness in boke might have interfered with the superposition of (more polarised) light coming off surfaces, thus robbing the image of subtle data that our brains normally interpret to build a 3D picture. I agree that stereo is probably not the only way that we compose 3D, and the way light reflects off surfaces is also an important cue. But those diffraction effects happen all over everything that isn't flat, and so I think it's possible that those correctly handled edge diffraction and polarisation effects are part of the brew that ensures convincing 3D in 2D images.
It's pretty hard at this size, and with such varying exposure, but to avoid cowardice I'll guess 1b and 2a are the CY 80-200. I really have no idea with the 35's, as exposure is way off, but I'll guess Contax is 3a and 4b. I'll guess that the last is your Vivitar 100-400 because you're a tease. I expect to be wrong on all counts. ;-)
Actually, you're dead on (as I figured you would be) except for the Mamiya 150mm 2.8 A is the last one.
As for the exposures being way off & varying so much ... it was a surprise to me. I didn't expect to see so much difference between lenses & difference from the meter reading (which concided with sunny 16)
As for replicating in post, Try using a healthy dose of midtone contrast adjustment. Not saying it is an exact thing, but it will def add a lot of 3d pop if used correctly.
Brainiac. Wow! Been toying with the idea of picking one of these up but I think you've just help me make up my mind (once I save up some more money ). Quick 2 questions though. 1 Does it go to 1:1 without any adapters and 2 how is it at portrait and infinity as compared to upclose ( I guess what I'm asking is how is it as a non-macro lens)? Thanks for your help and thanks for sharing!
I'm always amazed at how small M lenses are after developing my eye for size based on SLR lenses.
Every other sentence has a dramatic indictment of lenses whose rendering you don't personally like.
