adamdewilde wrote:
.....
ANYWAY, regardless of that, set your camera like this and you should be fine no matter what lens you are using.
Live View/Movie func. set.
-LV func. setting
-Stills + movie
-Movie display
Then set your camera to M mode, and you should be all set. You control the aperture and shutter independently of the camera, and the live view shows you exactly what you need.
.....
Hope this helps, Adam
Adam, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! You just made 85ZE 100000000000000000x better to use handhold with live view & LCDVF/Zacuto, since with these settings one doesn't anymore need "3rd hand" to focus with the DOF button pressed down to mitigate focus shift. I usually use M-mode anyways so this is no problem for me. I have not used the movie display due to the annoying bars in top and bottom, but this feature reverses this drawback very clearly. I almost "dropped" 85ZE from my "main set of lenses" due to difficulty of using it, but now it's back on the game! I really love 85Z* rendering style, 100Z* is very flat and "clinical" compared to 85Z*, thou "mathematically" better on lens tests.
I made small study how 5DmkII (firmware 1.1.0) and 85ZE works:
1. Stills only -> Still display
- Aperture erratic* - when DOF pressed = set aperture
- Shutterspeed & ISO: 30s-1/8000s & 50-H2
2. Stills only -> Exposure simulation
- Aperture erratic2*, when DOF pressed = set aperture
- Shutterspeed & ISO: 30s-1/8000s & 50-H2
3. Stills + movie -> Still display
- Aperture erratic* - when DOF pressed = set aperture
- Shutterspeed & ISO: 30s-1/8000s & 50-H2
4. Stills + movie -> Exposure simulation
- Aperture erratic2*, when DOF pressed = set aperture
- Shutterspeed & ISO: 30s-1/8000s & 50-H2
5. Stills + movie -> Movie display
- Aperture = set aperture (also with DOF pressed)
- Shutterspeed & ISO: 1/30s-1/4000s & 100-H1 (50 and H2 missing)
- annoying bars on top and bottom of screen (helpful sometimes since I also take stills which are in 16:9 ratio, but with wide angles almost always then using "extra space" to "emulate" shift lens)
* erratic aperture - changes depending on lightning, at normal room lightning f/1.4, 10cm from 5000K professional 35w energy saving bulb ~ f/5.6-11
* erratic2 = shutter speed changes aperture used to create live view picture (at f/1.4 set to camera: 1/8000s ~ f/16, 1/3200s ~ f/11, 1/800s ~ f/8, 1/250s ~ f/5.6, 1/125s ~ f/2.8)
Setting 5 is of course useless if you need long shutter speeds or very fast shutter speeds, but for majority of situations it's extreme useful with lenses having focus shift and electronic aperture, in my case Canon EF50 and Zeiss Planars 50 and 85.
Only slight concern I have is that it limits ISO from 100 to H1, which is similar limitation as when using Highlight Tone Priority which limits ISO to 200-6400. (Highlight Tone Priority according to some sources decreases image quality - personally I have zero experience of this feature)
Once more Adam, THANKS! Can't wait next time I can get to shoot something in daylight and try this "new setting" in practice.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
Can somebody post images showing how their 100MP handles chromatic aberration?
Some time ago I posted somewhere this image and crop of it. My ZE100 behaves exactly similar as the ZF100 I had earlier, pretty good on focal plane but bokeh can have horrible bokeh CA sometimes. The image linked above also proves that sometimes it's not visible in the end product even looks horrible on 100%, on 2560x1600 or A3 print that CA is not visible/bothering in this image. If you are worried about CA then maybe Leica APO 100 or Voigtlander 3.5/90 is better for you.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Some time ago I posted somewhere this image and crop of it. My ZE100 behaves exactly similar as the ZF100 I had earlier, pretty good on focal plane but bokeh can have horrible bokeh CA sometimes. The image linked above also proves that sometimes it's not visible in the end product even looks horrible on 100%, on 2560x1600 or A3 print that CA is not visible/bothering in this image. If you are worried about CA then maybe Leica APO 100 or Voigtlander 3.5/90 is better for you.
Samuli
Or maybe a C/Y 100/2 Planar for non-macro shooting. I haven't see this kind of LoCA behavior in my C/Y 100/2. Has anyone else here seen LoCA like that in the C/Y version?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Or maybe a C/Y 100/2 Planar for non-macro shooting. I haven't see this kind of LoCA behavior in my C/Y 100/2. Has anyone else here seen LoCA like that in the C/Y version?
Forgot to mention that this is the worst case example and 99% of 100ZE photos do not have anything like this. Sorry about that.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Some time ago I posted somewhere this image and crop of it. My ZE100 behaves exactly similar as the ZF100 I had earlier, pretty good on focal plane but bokeh can have horrible bokeh CA sometimes. The image linked above also proves that sometimes it's not visible in the end product even looks horrible on 100%, on 2560x1600 or A3 print that CA is not visible/bothering in this image. If you are worried about CA then maybe Leica APO 100 or Voigtlander 3.5/90 is better for you.
Samuli
This "bokeh CA" is only apparent with backgrounds or foregrounds that are a little out of focus. Moreover, the anomalous behavior disappears quickly as the lens is stopped down, so one should not resort to a slower lens without checking the Z* 2/100 behavior as a function of aperture first.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Forgot to mention that this is the worst case example and 99% of 100ZE photos do not have anything like this. Sorry about that.
I assume that the LoCA only happens when shooting wide open and goes away when stopping down, right?
I also just wanted to confirm that this doesn't happen with C/Y 100/2.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I assume that the LoCA only happens when shooting wide open and goes away when stopping down, right?
I also just wanted to confirm that this doesn't happen with C/Y 100/2.
I don't know yet - I have only shoot 2 years with Z* 2/100. This was worst case example and I have to really hard browse through thousands of my Z* 2/100 images to find samples of this behaviour even I shoot regularly in snowy conditions during winters. If I have about 5 pictures with this kind of thing of the few thousand images, there just isn't enough number of images to draw any big conclusions, but if I would have to quess then I would say that problem disappears when stopping down. Maybe in 5-10 years I know it better...
wayne seltzer wrote:
Or maybe a C/Y 100/2 Planar for non-macro shooting. I haven't see this kind of LoCA behavior in my C/Y 100/2. Has anyone else here seen LoCA like that in the C/Y version?
Sure. In fact, it is difficult to tell the difference. Just look at the OOF benches at the bottom of this post.
But there is no reason to panic. In the great majority of shots with both lenses bokeh CA does not show at all.
It's shown up in 50% of my shots so far, but honestly, it is easily corrected.. I was surprised as nobody mentioned this anywhere I was looking.. But it's a great lens, I have no regrets.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
Thanks Samuli. I see the same thing in the few images I shot so far with my copy. This particular thing is much better corrected in 100L, by the way.
Also it's better corrected in Leica APO. Both Leica APO and Canon 100IS give very flat 2D rendering, which to me looks like so boring, while I do understand that lens testers get their pants wet from this kind of "mathematically" perfect rendering. I have done some comparisons between 100ZE and Canon 100IS, and the scenes I have shoot both have not shown major differences in this regard (for example this).
Hmmm more thinking of this, is this coincidence? Specially considering that 85ZE is 100x worse on this matter (bokeh CA and has even real focal plane CA as well, wide open only thou) and I start to like it's rendering more due to it having more 3D and more lifelike rendering than in 100ZE in actual pictures, for 100% pixel peeping 100ZE is of course preferred. But on other hand bokeh CA doesn't make sure that you get 3D and life like rendering (e.g. 85L and pile of other Canon lenses).
adamdewilde wrote:
It's shown up in 50% of my shots so far, but honestly, it is easily corrected.. I was surprised as nobody mentioned this anywhere I was looking.. But it's a great lens, I have no regrets.
CA can be corrected quite easily with modern software and large megapixel cameras (scaling of color layers of low megapixel cameras had visible aliasing effect on end product, while it enhanced e.g. black branches against bright sky it blurred green "veins" in green leaves due to extra aliasing caused by scaling). Can you share light how you correct bokeh CA? Only way how I could do this is to desaturate magenta and green completly, but that will have negative effects on image quality, specially if your subject contains those colors.
This far I have NEVER seen CA on focal plane, it's always on bokeh if there is any. The CA on focal plane is "easy" to correct by software since software just scales R, G and B layers differently so that all colors project to same point. On bokeh CA I don't understand how software could correct it. This was one of the reasons for me to get rid off 85/1.2LmkII since it's was useless on any scenes having anything with large contrast in bokeh due to uncorrectable bokeh CA.
But on other hand bokeh CA doesn't make sure that you get 3D and life like rendering (e.g. 85L and pile of other Canon lenses).
I think most of these discussed lenses are as good as it gets. I can get better loCA correction in APO-Lanthar or even the Canon, but they will miss something else. I think it is important to know both strong and weak sides of our lenses so that we can capitalize on the good and suppress the bad.
The Z*s are not the best lenses I've seen regarding CA, but they are darn good and consistent line.
I´m speechless. Do you feel that the 100 MP has the same qualities to the image rendering as the 21 or are they both very good, but substantially different? (This kind of questions get a lot of bashing, but if one is interested in the subject, how could we get an answer other than by asking?)
Mirek Elsner wrote:
I think it is important to know both strong and weak sides of our lenses so that we can capitalize on the good and suppress the bad.
Mirek, could not agree more! For example I find bokeh highlights to be quite distracting with 85ZE wide open, but this shot required f/1.4. So I went and searched for some time for suitable piece of forest to be the background of this image. Of course for all situations you cannot prepare like this and then it's better to have lens with less weaknesses even the rendering is boring.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Also it's better corrected in Leica APO. Both Leica APO and Canon 100IS give very flat 2D rendering, which to me looks like so boring, while I do understand that lens testers get their pants wet from this kind of "mathematically" perfect rendering. I have done some comparisons between 100ZE and Canon 100IS, and the scenes I have shoot both have not shown major differences in this regard (for example this).
Hmmm more thinking of this, is this coincidence? Specially considering that 85ZE is 100x worse on this matter (bokeh CA and has even real focal plane CA as well, wide open only thou) and I start to like it's rendering more due to it having more 3D and more lifelike rendering than in 100ZE in actual pictures, for 100% pixel peeping 100ZE is of course preferred. But on other hand bokeh CA doesn't make sure that you get 3D and life like rendering (e.g. 85L and pile of other Canon lenses).
CA can be corrected quite easily with modern software and large megapixel cameras (scaling of color layers of low megapixel cameras had visible aliasing effect on end product, while it enhanced e.g. black branches against bright sky it blurred green "veins" in green leaves due to extra aliasing caused by scaling). Can you share light how you correct bokeh CA? Only way how I could do this is to desaturate magenta and green completly, but that will have negative effects on image quality, specially if your subject contains those colors.
This far I have NEVER seen CA on focal plane, it's always on bokeh if there is any. The CA on focal plane is "easy" to correct by software since software just scales R, G and B layers differently so that all colors project to same point. On bokeh CA I don't understand how software could correct it. This was one of the reasons for me to get rid off 85/1.2LmkII since it's was useless on any scenes having anything with large contrast in bokeh due to uncorrectable bokeh CA.
I think in my shot you can see some on the focal plane no?
Anyway about removal. In the OOF areas I do a selective color brush and replace colors manually, or desaturate manually with a brush again, depending on the shot. In the OOF areas it's not critical as the eye doesn't really focus on those areas, so you don't have to be precise. Honestly though, I've had to do that with a lot of my images in the past. And it's a lot easier to get rid of color issues then it is to make a dull image pop. I mean unsharp mask just doesn't do it you know.
I do however wish the 100/2 ZE was a bit better at controlling the color fringing or whatever you all are calling it. I'm no expert in identifying it, just in removing it from my photos.
rick,
why is it noisy at iso200? I noticed it in my 500D too (of course no comparison with FF). however 5D classic was so good at higher iso. I already miss it.
Just curious and I will have to keep an eye out for it when doing outdoor wide-open shooting.
