Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.115 #13 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
adamdewilde wrote:
Anyway, Samuli, I wanted the flipside 400, but opted for the 300 because it was a smaller bag, but now I'm wondering if my stuff is to cramped.. Do you find the 400 has a lot of breathing room with your ZE glass (we both have 6+ lenses right?). The 21 is so awkward that it's hard to get it into a comfortable position in the flipside300, but it does all fit!
I think Flipside 400 AW is my 14th camerabag... I have travelled many years 200+ days/year and tried desperately to find good bag for work stuff (laptop, charger, pen, small notepad) and camera + 4-6 lenses (C/Y / Leica R / Canon L mostly at the time - this was before I went to Zeiss Z*) plus some travel accessories (toothbrush+paste, 1 pair of socks and underwear). For that kind of usage I found the best suitable for me the LowePro CompuDaypack.
However now I don't regularly travel with work and photo gear I have desperately searched back bag for photo only, which is not too big for airtravel regulations (considerably more difficult in EU than inside USA), is good to carry even long distances, has a little space for small amount of food etc. and can carry 1.5-2 liters of water as well. After searching for a while I found Flipside 400 and it fulfills all my requirements, and due to sliplock system I can attach 2 lens cases (or something else) to the bag and 2 to the waistbelt - carrying everything possible is too difficult task for the harness system in the bag (it just gets way too heavy) but due to options it can be used for many purposes - I like to use external lens cases for example in dusty environment, in order to not let the dust into the bag. In emergency situations I can also use it for work travel since I have pretty small work laptop (Lenovo X61). This bag is the only bag, which I can recommend to most people for most uses without any hesitation.
Enough talk, few snapshots without focusing handhold at ISO 800 with 28ZE. First one is 21ZE, 35ZE, P50ZE, MP50ZE, 85ZE, 100ZE and 80-200C/Y. Second one is Contax 80-200 replaced by Nodal Ninja 5. In both photos there is also extra lens&body cap, microfiber cloth, blower and 5 extra batteries. In front pocket I have remote trigger, headlight, mosquito spray, some food and in the sidepockets typically 2x 0,75L waterbottles.
In practice I don't like to carry this many lenses, bag is too heavy for long walks etc. However it's rarely when I need all of them e.g. in city I don't need 100ZE and MP50ZE. Typically in place of one lens I carry 55mm,58mm and 67mm polarizers and 67mm IR filter + 58->67 step-up ring and extra batteries for GPS.
----------
Toothwalker wrote:
Good question. Samuli considers a linear scale in object space, which is inversely proportional to the focal length: 2/(1/100+1/21) = 34.7
I consider the logarithmic mean of the *angles* of view (91.7° and 24.4° diagonal on full format), which yields 47.3° or a corresponding focal length of 49.4 mm.
This is more of an academic question, people make these limitations "what 3 lenses for travel" - I'm always size or weight limited not number of lenses. Most probably if would go somewhere with 21, 35 and 100 I would put 50C/Y to somewhere (it's so small that it can always fit somewhere). My personal preference for lens selection is typically more the character of lens than focal length if shoot close or medium range. For landscapes I like all lenses to draw similarly so I can pick based on field of view whatever lens and all photos from same place/trip have same look and feeling..
Regarding Toothwalker questions what comes after 21, 35 and 100 answer is: whatever Zeiss will make to Z* series in tele department. I start to be so frustrated waiting and getting all existing "good Zeiss teles" while waiting Zeiss to bring some magnificient new tele - I could not care that much will it be 180, 200, 250 or 300 as long as it has 100ZE kind of character. While waiting I try to get along with 200mm Tele-Tessar, 80-200mm Vario-Sonnar and if this waiting continues for long maybe also with 180mm Sonnar and 100-300 Vario-Sonnar, and I don't seem to be 100% happy with any of them...
----------
rsolti13, thanks for the crop - I really like the rendering of 35ZE, even such long distance it rendered the boat so lifelike. For the sunrise shots the last one was best.
----------
philber wrote:
ZE 100 is a very frustrating lens, too me at least. It is so easy to shoot something and it will look "decently interesting", like these two flower shots: no tripod, no lighting, almost no brains invloved.
On the other hand, despite trying hard, this is my first shot with it that looks even remotely moody/atmospheric.
Unless you guys can tell tell me why and what to do, it is right back to my planar 85 for me...
Philippe, 100ZE in same sentence or even paragraph with moody/atmospheric doesn't sound right. For this kind of look I have got best results when shooting as Luka describes, wide open (or f/2.8, improves bokeh quality, considerably). I have had best luck with subjects quite far away 5-20 meters. In order to get moody/atmospheric it's necessary to shoot very close to sunset or sunrise, and it don't harm to have haze/fog/dust in the air either to smoothen things more. Well as you see from above quite lot of effort, while with 85ZE you can do same almost in any light and it works very well also f/5.6-10 range as well. At least personally I don't know why to see all the extra effort if you have 85ZE, which can deliver what you need.
Horses for courses - the way how I see it, 100Z* is high performance optics, probably best in Z* range at the moment, but maybe not the best "brush" to paint all the scenes. In urban environment I tend to look for rotten/rusty/rough/old stuff to shoot with 100ZE (well, 50MP as well) and have really hard time to shoot anything beautiful and be happy to the results. For landscape and nature photography I have difficulties to name subject, which would not be suitable for 100Z*.
----------
teh_rebel, I specially liked #2 - most other lenses would have rendered girls as cardboards standing against bokeh but it's enjoyable to see girls having shape and volume. Bokeh however is truly ugly on some spots.
PS. Sorry about posting this off-topic stuff, for tomorrow I'll try to process some photos as well.
Samuli
|
That must be the best compliment one can get. 
