philber wrote:
And, finally, what on earth is this rogue American? Who can be surprised that the company that made this went bust?
Oh come on Philber - you don't see the Renault influence in that! But seriously you have to drive a Chevy to really appreciate them - I've had to rent them on business travel and the driving performance I have dubbed - "the pillow".
Bobu wrote:
Same object (viking ship sculpture in Reykjavik), identical processing parameters, different lenses and slightly different light. Do you see any differences in the rendering style (besides the obvious different perspective)?
You used a polarizing filter, right? I've given up on that as after trying out a couple of high end ones - Heliopan, Scheider, B&W and Hoya - I came to the conclusion that they obliterate the fine detail in the rendering of the 21/2.8. The effect was similar in effect to degradation in detail due to diffraction when shooting above f/16.
I'm not sure if it's due to the filter or PP, but I'm lacking the 'bite' of the textures in the 21 shot. It should have a 3D structure and look almost as if you could feel it:
(These have been slightly oversharpened to exaggerate the effect)
As for the rest well, they are similar. The 50 MP also shows a bit of lack of micro contrast and the 35/2 is about what I'd expect. In terms of color they are similar, but that goes to a large extent for the whole Z* line in general.
Philippe: Great car shots - I especially like the two on the previous page. Great demonstration of Zeiss 3D 'pop'
Samuli, I like the boat shot - I think you succeeded quite well in illuminating it
Hugo, awesome shot as always. I'm as green as that landscape with envy of the types of vistas you have access to
denoir wrote:
You used a polarizing filter, right? I've given up on that as after trying out a couple of high end ones - Heliopan, Scheider, B&W and Hoya - I came to the conclusion that they obliterate the fine detail in the rendering of the 21/2.8. The effect was similar in effect to degradation in detail due to diffraction when shooting above f/16.
I'm not sure if it's due to the filter or PP, but I'm lacking the 'bite' of the textures in the 21 shot.
I have a B+W Kaesemann polarizer for the 21 in my bag, but I don't think, that I used it in this situation. But I'm not sure. Maybe it's the result of my PP.
Bobu wrote:
I have a B+W Kaesemann polarizer for the 21 in my bag, but I don't think, that I used it in this situation. But I'm not sure. Maybe it's the result of my PP.
Boris
My guess about the filter is based the dark blue blob on top of the 21/2.8 image (also somewhat visible on the 35/2 shot). That's pretty typical when you use a polarizier on an UWA lens - you get an uneven rendering of the sky. Example - Heliopan I think:
Also observe the loss of micro contrast and the flatness of the texture in the foreground. It looks as if had been shot at f/22.
philber wrote:
Another splendid shot, Boris! At what time of the year did you go to Iceland?
I was there a few weeks ago (2nd half of august). At the moment I'm beginning to process the images. I will show you some more pictures from my trip to Iceland in the next days/weeks.
Another brilliant set, Luka! Like the one before, for which I didn't congratulate you. How dare you shoot and process faster than I can post?
Your first shot looks very much like the one with which Donat (donuss) won the Zeissimages competition. Very, very nice!
But seriously you have to drive a Chevy to really appreciate them - I've had to rent them on business travel and the driving performance I have dubbed - "the pillow". 
Excellent work, I love this thread
