Took a few shots today to test locations for a Bridal shoot I'm doing next week.
Here's one from the 85 ZE @ 1.4, thought I'd post it, as I usually don't shoot at 1.4 and I liked the results.
Early evening still a bit to sunny, natural light, no reflector (couldn't be bothered), as again these were just tests for a bridal shoot next week. Oh don't mind the fact that I can't save for web to save my life.
Denoir - That video was pretty fantastic, and yes those images are great, although not zeiss (tisk). Anyway, I guess thats what it is then, I need to get to a desert, I think the Gobi desert is the closest to me?! The fiance will never wanna go though. Which sucks, because afterwards we could go to some more populated areas of mongolia and shoot horses and yaks. Which I think would look fantastic with my ZE glass....... I'm gonna go try to convince her take the trip!
denoir wrote:
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?
Luka, if I suggest that the 50 f:1.4 is more subtle than the 50 MP; I worry that Wayne is going to put hired killers on my case. So let's say that the MP prioritizes detail, whereas the f:1.4 prioritizes integration. In that sense it goes some way towards the Leica rendition. But some way only. The two Zeiss are still closer to each other than to any other brand.
And, musically, you are right as well. Listen to the third movement, molto adagio, of Beethoven's Quartet N°15, Op 132, and you will hear some of my desert island music...
Oh, and your star shots are mind-blowing. What else is new?
Philber - I just shot with the 50 1.4 and 50 MP today, same shot, both at f.2 the ONLY difference at portrait distances I seen was that the 50 MP was slightly more saturated and sharper at the focus point. Both lenses aside from that seemed to my eyes almost identical (50MP had slight advantage at making my fiance look 3d).. UMMM well the bokeh was simple water and hills in the background and they were far away, but I might say the 50 1.4 didn't keep the edges of the hill, whereas the 50MP kept the edges of the hill slightly so bokeh goes to 50 1.4 in that sense... I REALLY wanted to post the photos, but the fiance denied me uploading rights because she didn't like the way she was smiling in 3 out of the 4 photos. I BTW took shots with my 100MP at f.2 and 85 at f.2 just to see what I liked best. The 100MP was the most spectacular IMHO for portraits and the bokeh was the best at that distance to subject. Though the above post from the same day was the 85 1.4, and at 1.4 it's pretty neat. The 50 at 1.4 isn't as nice as the 85 at 1.4 IMHO... I also shot some of the 50 1.4 at 1.4 and probably won't even keep the files.
Though again, you shoot buildings, I don't... So this may not apply to you. I just thought I would share with the rest of the community. I might shoot a friends portrait, so if I do, I'll again use both lenses, this time though, nobody to stop me from uploading!
AhamB wrote:
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.
Thanks Benjamin. I'll have to think through that logo. I wanted some form of design element so that it's not just plain text surrounding a white frame.
adamdewilde wrote:
Denoir - That video was pretty fantastic, and yes those images are great, although not zeiss (tisk).
Thanks Adam, and great portrait!
philber wrote:
Luka, if I suggest that the 50 f:1.4 is more subtle than the 50 MP; I worry that Wayne is going to put hired killers on my case. So let's say that the MP prioritizes detail, whereas the f:1.4 prioritizes integration. In that sense it goes some way towards the Leica rendition. But some way only. The two Zeiss are still closer to each other than to any other brand.
And, musically, you are right as well. Listen to the third movement, molto adagio, of Beethoven's Quartet N°15, Op 132, and you will hear some of my desert island music...
Oh, and your star shots are mind-blowing. What else is new? ...Show more →
Thanks Philippe! I suspect that the two planars may be next on my list. I avoided them because their limited performance wide open & close up but I think I am slowly starting to get the hang of my existing Z* glass so sooner or later I'll be ready to explore the two planars. That Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH is very tempting as well though...
As for the music, I'm much more of a Bach than Beethoven fan, but there is no denying that the late quartets are sublime.
AhamB wrote:
Judging from Makten's shots in this thread, the Planar 50/1.4 can also display very high micro-contrast. It doesn't remind me of Leica very much.
That's true. Hmm.. I suppose Leica lenses are the way to go to go down in micro contrast. I find that Zeiss glass rendering is most of the time in-your-face spectacular (to use Philippe's term) - strong colors, high micro contrast etc It makes for striking images but on occasion I want something more subtle - more nuanced and less dramatic. So far I've seen the type of rendering I want in those cases from two Leica lenses - the 50 & 24 Summilux. I was however hoping for some other alternative that doesn't need adaptation.
adamdewilde wrote:
Took a few shots today to test locations for a Bridal shoot I'm doing next week.
Here's one from the 85 ZE @ 1.4, thought I'd post it, as I usually don't shoot at 1.4 and I liked the results.
Early evening still a bit to sunny, natural light, no reflector (couldn't be bothered), as again these were just tests for a bridal shoot next week. Oh don't mind the fact that I can't save for web to save my life.
The 85mm gets such a bad rap but I see this and just love the way the photo was rendered, there's a delicateness to the DoF and the way it drops off (very pleasing). It definitely isn't bitingly sharp but the dreamy look thin DoF works there.
rsolti13 - Your boat picture is very similar to "base example of 3D with everything sharp" photo, the "castle shot" by cogitech (link to post showing it). Any change of seeing center crop of the boat or larger version?
rsolti13 wrote:
able to get a few min of shooting in today.....
Some comment starting from page 95, sorry if I skipped someone.
Philippe, regards the 21mm being "too wide"; I think your photos show also the issue many of have with such wide lens; due to wideness composition gets compromised, so easy to include too much (typically ground / floor) or too exclude something which "belongs to photo" (eg. in your photo the arch should really be included or excluded more) - however when it works results are definetly worth it. I liked the 1st vertical image.
Luka, if frames why white? Darker background gives nice boost to images, one reason why photos on this forum look better than for example when viewed other forums or flickr.
Peire, Philippe, rsolti13, Luka nice 100Z* macros - watching these now and planning to go to shoot flowers/butterflies tomorrow combination with my luck will guarantee a lots of rain tomorrow...
Writer_head, great ideas on frame photo and statue photo.
Luka, regards your off-topic Leica photo and related questions; The planars are not that much different on distance than MPs, the contrast on MPs is larger, due to which colors appear also more saturated. On this photos I don't see much planar like - thou the rendering style of the big building on smaller version (don't see on rest of the photo, neither on fullsize version) excluding overall contrast and colors is little similar to planars; the edge contrast makes the big building look slightly 3Dish - something hard to achieve with MP50, at least I have had little success this far making distant scenes 3Dish, while with planars it happens slightly easier. However if all aspects considered planar and mikro-planar are very close to each other if considering the whole spectre of lenses offered from all manufacturers.
Adam, nice 85ZE portrait, really nice bokeh, not too smooth, not too rough.
Paul, the rendering of Biogon 35 is pretty interesting - nice separation between target and background, similar to 50mm ZE/ZF/ZS; bokeh contrast is small compared to focal plane contrast.
Paul Yi wrote:
Samuli said,
bokeh contrast is small compared to focal plane contrast.
Isn't that a good thing?
Paul, yes it's good thing (of things in this nature are personal preferences to some extend). One of the main reasons why I prefer ZE planars over to makro-planars on many kind of photography.
One of the benefits of smaller bokeh contrast is that Zeiss "edge-effects" are slightly more visible ("edge effects"/polarization discussed in depth on past 3D threads, search for Brainiacs picture and 100% crop of portrait) compared to other zeiss lenses allowing "easier" 3Dish rendering (again subjective).
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 →
The picture had little PP. The real factors are the elevation, no moon, and minimal light pollution. Of course, the stars happened to be in a nice position
denoir wrote:
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 scene would look identical if taken with a decent P&S camera.
Absolutely no character, nothing. A boring rendering, boring colors, boring contrast.
Please somebody prove me wrong, show me an exceptional Leica image, please.
pdmphoto wrote:
The picture had little PP. The real factors are the elevation, no moon, and minimal light pollution. Of course, the stars happened to be in a nice position
philber wrote:
Luka, if I suggest that the 50 f:1.4 is more subtle than the 50 MP; I worry that Wayne is going to put hired killers on my case. So let's say that the MP prioritizes detail, whereas the f:1.4 prioritizes integration. In that sense it goes some way towards the Leica rendition. But some way only. The two Zeiss are still closer to each other than to any other brand.
And, musically, you are right as well. Listen to the third movement, molto adagio, of Beethoven's Quartet N°15, Op 132, and you will hear some of my desert island music...
Oh, and your star shots are mind-blowing. What else is new? ...Show more →
+1
Amazing star shots. Love the time lapse sequence Luka.
Thanks Charles. As always, nice horse images. I particularly like that second one.
Andrew: If you think an P&S could give you that image, good for you. You'll save some money. There are plenty of people that can't tell an image taken with a Zeiss prime from a consumer kit lens, so I'm sure there are just as many people that can't tell the difference between Leica glass and a P&S. And then of course just like there are Zeiss haters that resent everything Zeiss there are also Leica haters that simply can't stand the brand - not that I'm implying that you fall into that group!
Samuli: I don't know to be honest. I tried black, dark gray and white and decided on the white one. It's not an entirely uncommon arrangement though and I suppose that there is some reason behind it. Of course, how well it works depends largely on the subject but I thought it would be a bit too distracting switching frame style every few shots
Anyway, here are a couple general street snaps from Zagreb taken two weeks ago:
Today I tried my new 21 ZE first time.What a lens!Many of you know that already.Sharp wide open even in the corners.Has more of Zeiss look than 28/2 ZE and 35/2 ZF and is so well corrected that it's suitable for architectural shots.
The best in it's class for 35mm format IMHO and comparable to some finest medium and large format lenses.
I'll have to think through that logo. I wanted some form of design element so that it's not just plain text surrounding a white frame.
