snowboarder wrote:
I don't think it's the sharpness. It's the way this lens renders the space.
Not sure how to explain it. The colors are ridiculous, the separation,
the contrast, everything. Phil, you need to take only this lens
and go au bord de la Seine. Des bateaux, des bouquinistes.
Un bout de fromage, une baguettes sur le terre. Un couple. La pluie.
You know what I mean
I agree with you, Andrew, it is the rendition. My "issue", though, is that all my ZE 100 shots seem to drift towards the spectacular, because the lens is so good at impregnating every shot with it, and so that obviously influences me as a shooter. I wrote to another member, when discussing 50MP and 50 f:1.4, that the MP look is more Beethoven than Mozart, more Van Gogh than Vermeer. As it happens, I love Vermeer and Mozart just a bit more...
As you rightly say, so much of the great photography that has taken place in Paris is romantic, wistful, atmospheric.... I have found the way to get this out of my f:1.4s but not (yet?) out of the 100 MP. Are you saying that it is there, and I shouldn't give up? If that is true, then I can go straight on and buy another copy of ZE 35 without waiting for the f:1.4, because it is not the extra stop I am looking for....
snowboarder wrote:
Really? Maybe you will show me some good M9 photos, I haven't seen any.. yet
I have seen of this forum some amazing pictures from Thrice, who uses a M9 with some Zeiss glass (biogon, I believe). Now, of course, some photographers are so good that they could amaze me with a pinhole cam, but still....
Pdmphoto great shot, Q: how far from civilization were you for this shot?
I ask because I had never seen the galaxy look like that till I went to Costa Rica's east coast, it was a very humbling experience.
Thanks, it was taken at Yosemite NP, above 10,000ft, in the backcountry (many miles away from the busy valley floor), on a moonless night. A beautiful sight for the eyes
pdmphoto wrote:
Night shot with ZE21 f/2.8, 30sec, ISO3200, 5DII:
Thats funny, I have the same lens, I've shot at the same exposure settings and yet I get nothing close to what I seen in your photo...
How much cleanup or editing do you have to do to a shot like this?
And how big you suppose you could print it before I looks bad?
Any help would be appreciated, I've been dying to get shots like this. Maybe it's where I live in the world? It's weird though, but for all that I can do, and all that I can figure out, somethings I just don't seem to get right... Astrophotography is one of them.
philber wrote:
My "issue", though, is that all my ZE 100 shots seem to drift towards the spectacular, because the lens is so good at impregnating every shot with it, and so that obviously influences me as a shooter. I wrote to another member, when discussing 50MP and 50 f:1.4, that the MP look is more Beethoven than Mozart, more Van Gogh than Vermeer. As it happens, I love Vermeer and Mozart just a bit more...
Very interesting that you should say that. I made a very similar comparison the other day while talking to a photographer friend - but it was Zeiss vs Leica glass. What I said was that Zeiss was much more impressive (spectacular as you put it) while Leica had a more subtle rendering. I said that Zeiss was like a Beethoven symphony while Leica was more like his late string quartets. When I said Zeiss, I was of course talking of the Makro Planars and Distagons. My follow up question is if perhaps Leica glass similar to the Zeiss Planars?
Here is a M9 shot with a 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH. The photo is from a review of the M9 camera and shot by Thomas Lövgren:
This is nothing like the rendering style of the 21,35, 50 MP & 100 MP. It is a much more subtle rendering. With the Zeiss glass I mentioned, the micro contrast would be far stronger and the shot would have a far more dramatic look. My question is if this: Is this type of rendering something the Zeiss Planars could produce?
adamdewilde wrote:
Thats funny, I have the same lens, I've shot at the same exposure settings and yet I get nothing close to what I seen in your photo...
How much cleanup or editing do you have to do to a shot like this?
And how big you suppose you could print it before I looks bad?
Any help would be appreciated, I've been dying to get shots like this. Maybe it's where I live in the world? It's weird though, but for all that I can do, and all that I can figure out, somethings I just don't seem to get right... Astrophotography is one of them....Show more →
You have to have basically zero light pollution which is impossible near any inhabited places. So yes, it's probably where you live. The only place where I've been able to do such exposures was in the middle of the Karoo desert in South Africa with 200-300 km to the nearest village (not with Zeiss but with Canon 16-35):
I also made a time lapse video:
Alright, I have now managed not to post a single ZE image and one Leica image (which wasn't even mine) and two Canon shots. I should get some form of offtopic award I'll see if I can dig up some more ZE images later to compensate for this.
Wow, Luka, incridible star fields and nebulae. Too bad about the coma and fringing on the stas in the corners though.
Btw I agree with Snowborder that the rectangle in the upper left interferes with the viewing experience - it cuts up the white frame, which is disturbing. The text is alright.
Doh!
