ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
p.321 #1ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Very nice! (Although the chopped off letters and the string bother me slightly.)
Apr 17, 2011 at 04:11 PM
p.321 #2ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Thanks, the string is probably about 7-8 meters long. So if I included all of it, the Buddha statue would be very small 
Apr 17, 2011 at 04:23 PM
p.321 #3ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
akul, akanphel, Lars Johnsson, johnahill, vallejo, philber, uzay : Thank you very much
Lars Johnsson : very beautiful Lotus shots.
nickson : really nice BW, especially the bridge photo
Lars Johnsson : very beautiful Lotus shots.
nickson : really nice BW, especially the bridge photo
Apr 17, 2011 at 05:19 PM
p.321 #4ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
interesting comparison and analysis, Carsten. The similarity of the MP 50 with the 100 can be seen in the color rendition. The Planar has this "airiness" to it. They both give a very nice result, just different. When flipping through them the plane really pops for the 50 P, whereas for the 50 MP goes flat again. Why it should have those bad corners being planar, I don't figure.
I just love the rendering of the 50 MP close up. Pure cream.
ZF 50 MP f2
I just love the rendering of the 50 MP close up. Pure cream.
ZF 50 MP f2
 |
||
 |
||
|
Apr 17, 2011 at 05:29 PM
p.321 #5ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
nice comparison, carstenw! the 50M shot does seem to be more saturated and with greater DOF. However, if I look at the bark, the planar seems a bit sharper. Will chack again later.
Apr 17, 2011 at 06:59 PM
p.321 #6ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Cropped fairly heavily from my ZE 21. Had a great sunset. Haven't processed any pictures besides this one 'cause of the wedding I shot that afternoon.....too much driving this weekend!!!
Apr 17, 2011 at 09:10 PM
p.321 #7ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Carsten, thanks for your excellent demonstration on the DOF difference. Quite enlightening!
OTOH I am surprised by your comment that you had to lower exposure on the f:1.4, because my ZE f:1.4 is a just bit darker than my other ZEs. You could ask Luka how he feels about this, because he shoots a 50MP and borrowed my f:1.4 for a few shots in the Lofoten. And, unfortunately, Samuli seems to have dropped off the radar screen.
OTOH I am surprised by your comment that you had to lower exposure on the f:1.4, because my ZE f:1.4 is a just bit darker than my other ZEs. You could ask Luka how he feels about this, because he shoots a 50MP and borrowed my f:1.4 for a few shots in the Lofoten. And, unfortunately, Samuli seems to have dropped off the radar screen.
Apr 18, 2011 at 12:19 AM
p.321 #8ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
I hope Samuli will be back when he caught up with his processing backlog a bit, but I would guess that he is just out shooting, since it must be just starting to get nice in Finland about now.
I am shooting a Nikon D3, so perhaps that is the reason? Note that when I shot at f/1.4, it was bang on, the same as my 50 MP. Only at f/2 did I get the overexposure. I can try other apertures as well.
I am shooting a Nikon D3, so perhaps that is the reason? Note that when I shot at f/1.4, it was bang on, the same as my 50 MP. Only at f/2 did I get the overexposure. I can try other apertures as well.
Apr 18, 2011 at 01:18 AM
p.321 #9ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Hello Diana, and welcome here.
Your two shots are nice, but I would say that in the first one, the background is weak, and in the second one, the foreground is weak (and the lighthouse could stand to be closer). Clearly you have the idea that in a wide angle photo, there needs to be both foreground and background interest, so I think all that is really missing is to combine the two. A little more patience and perseverance, and scouting for location. You already seem to be experimenting with location for a dramatic perspective. Shooting a 21mm lens is technically tricky, since it includes so much. Perhaps it would be easier to shoot with a 35mm to start? Which lenses did you buy, btw? My guess from the chat around here: 21, 35, 50 MP 100 MP, or if you prefer gentler rendering: 21, 28, 50P, 85P.
There are of course rules which can be broken, but I would say learn how to do it the traditional way first, and once you are strong, start breaking rules until you find your personal style.
I would also recommend that you spend a little time learning more about processing, possibly just sharpening and colour tweaking to start with. Finally, adding a subtle black or white frame gives a photo a lot more presence.
Good luck with the learning.
Edited on Apr 18, 2011 at 01:35 AM · View previous versions
Your two shots are nice, but I would say that in the first one, the background is weak, and in the second one, the foreground is weak (and the lighthouse could stand to be closer). Clearly you have the idea that in a wide angle photo, there needs to be both foreground and background interest, so I think all that is really missing is to combine the two. A little more patience and perseverance, and scouting for location. You already seem to be experimenting with location for a dramatic perspective. Shooting a 21mm lens is technically tricky, since it includes so much. Perhaps it would be easier to shoot with a 35mm to start? Which lenses did you buy, btw? My guess from the chat around here: 21, 35, 50 MP 100 MP, or if you prefer gentler rendering: 21, 28, 50P, 85P.
There are of course rules which can be broken, but I would say learn how to do it the traditional way first, and once you are strong, start breaking rules until you find your personal style.
I would also recommend that you spend a little time learning more about processing, possibly just sharpening and colour tweaking to start with. Finally, adding a subtle black or white frame gives a photo a lot more presence.
Good luck with the learning.
Edited on Apr 18, 2011 at 01:35 AM · View previous versions
Apr 18, 2011 at 01:23 AM
p.321 #10ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
nice comparison, carstenw! the 50M shot does seem to be more saturated and with greater DOF. However, if I look at the bark, the planar seems a bit sharper. Will chack again later.
That's my misfocus. I focused the Planar slightly in front of the MP. At f/2, the Makro-Planar is always sharper, in my experience so far. I expect they would start to pull even around f/4-f/5.6, but I haven't tested that.
nice comparison, carstenw! the 50M shot does seem to be more saturated and with greater DOF. However, if I look at the bark, the planar seems a bit sharper. Will chack again later.
That's my misfocus. I focused the Planar slightly in front of the MP. At f/2, the Makro-Planar is always sharper, in my experience so far. I expect they would start to pull even around f/4-f/5.6, but I haven't tested that.
Apr 18, 2011 at 01:24 AM
|
p.321 #11ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Diana, congrats on new gar!! I second Carsten's advice, except to say that your early Zeiss shots are much better than mince were when I got started; so I wish you well!
Apr 18, 2011 at 01:40 AM
p.321 #12ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Lars, stunning shot! Though I agree with Carsten that just a very slight crop of the bottom to avoid the cut-out letters might be a good idea. Whereas the string does not bother me at all. If anything, I think it prevents the picture from a too polished, too perfect look which might make it less interesting and appealing. Overall, definitely one of my favorites from all those you posted.
Apr 18, 2011 at 01:44 AM
p.321 #13ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Thanks for comments gents !
Lars - beautiful lotus shots. Superb color and composition. Color texture contrast of the last statue shot is just amazing. Interesting to hear that you find 35 distagon's vignetting to be excessive. In my experience, of the four zeiss lenses I uses regularly ( ZF21, CY28, ZF35, ZF100 ) 35 is no that worse, although it may be a little. Or in other words, they all have strong vignetting wide open, and I love that about Zeiss lens. Nikon lenses are really well corrected and sometimes a bit boring. Using zeiss, I am constantly looking for the opportunity to enhance the drama. One such scene I posted a while back.
nickson - Great B/W shots. Beautiful grain too.
johnahill - Geat color from 25. My favorites are #2 #3 #4 from the second set.
Carsten - Thanks for a great comparison. I am amazed to see how different these two perform. I like the tonality / higher contrast of 50MP, but I see it is impossible to get more bokeh from this lens in mid distance shot. I really like to 50P shot for its lovely oof rendition in this set. ( subjective ) I am reminded that MP is a macro lens. It seems the bad name 50 P got from the earlier days was always from short distance bokeh wide open, ( including Bjorn's review ) may be that was also not fair as that was where 50 MP was supposed to take care of. Also interesting was to see the slight distortion difference between the two.
cyra - beautiful shot with 50 MP. Like I said in response to carsten's experiment, one needs to get really close to the subject to get that creamy bokeh from this lens.
Diana - Congrats on the zeiss acquisition. I like the #2 more. The walkway (?) on the left looks very interesting.
plasticmotif - nice sunset!
Lars - beautiful lotus shots. Superb color and composition. Color texture contrast of the last statue shot is just amazing. Interesting to hear that you find 35 distagon's vignetting to be excessive. In my experience, of the four zeiss lenses I uses regularly ( ZF21, CY28, ZF35, ZF100 ) 35 is no that worse, although it may be a little. Or in other words, they all have strong vignetting wide open, and I love that about Zeiss lens. Nikon lenses are really well corrected and sometimes a bit boring. Using zeiss, I am constantly looking for the opportunity to enhance the drama. One such scene I posted a while back.
nickson - Great B/W shots. Beautiful grain too.
johnahill - Geat color from 25. My favorites are #2 #3 #4 from the second set.
Carsten - Thanks for a great comparison. I am amazed to see how different these two perform. I like the tonality / higher contrast of 50MP, but I see it is impossible to get more bokeh from this lens in mid distance shot. I really like to 50P shot for its lovely oof rendition in this set. ( subjective ) I am reminded that MP is a macro lens. It seems the bad name 50 P got from the earlier days was always from short distance bokeh wide open, ( including Bjorn's review ) may be that was also not fair as that was where 50 MP was supposed to take care of. Also interesting was to see the slight distortion difference between the two.
cyra - beautiful shot with 50 MP. Like I said in response to carsten's experiment, one needs to get really close to the subject to get that creamy bokeh from this lens.
Diana - Congrats on the zeiss acquisition. I like the #2 more. The walkway (?) on the left looks very interesting.
plasticmotif - nice sunset!
Apr 18, 2011 at 04:33 AM
p.321 #14ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
philber wrote:
Brilliant prison shot, nickson!!! I also like the "bridge-and snow" shot
+1 .
I like the B&W conversion ... which software/ method did you use?
Lars, wonderful shot!
Brilliant prison shot, nickson!!! I also like the "bridge-and snow" shot
+1 .
I like the B&W conversion ... which software/ method did you use?
Lars, wonderful shot!
Apr 18, 2011 at 06:54 AM
p.321 #15ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Here is another comparison between 50P and 50MP, this time with less difference, and IMO the 50MP shot looks better. The main difference between this and the previous shot is that there is no middle layer (statues, last time) this time, just foreground and background. Additionally, the foreground is somewhat further away. The larger DoF of the 50MP allows it to render most of the tree sharp. Its better micro-contrast separates the leaves better, although the more ethereal glowy leaves of the 50P (stretching the differences here) is also attractive.
I have also included an f/1.4 shot this time. Surprisingly, there is almost no difference in depth of field, just a touch extra sharpness and less vignetting, the latter of which is the most visible. This immediately suggests that at least for scenes like this, treating the 50P as an f/2 lens might not be a bad strategy.
I am not sure why the background isn't more blurred with the 50P, especially with f/1.4. Perhaps the focus cannot be too far away before this is lost a bit?
This is the shot. I apologize for the low art content. I tried, but not really successfully. I should really also use a tripod next time. No matter how still I try to stand, there always seems to be some movement, making slight cropping necessary, and making it harder to see the barrel distortion of the 50P (I presume that is what it is).
As before, the 50MP shot is almost unprocessed, the 50P f/2 shot was brought down in exposure a bit, and both 50P shots were given a click of contrast and a click of Vibrance (Saturation with fixed end-points, I believe). Aperture 3. I could of course also do identical processing, but then we would be comparing rendering in general, and not just DoF and sharpness.
And here are the 1800x1200 links:
50P f/1.4
50P f/2.0
50MP f/2.0
I have also included an f/1.4 shot this time. Surprisingly, there is almost no difference in depth of field, just a touch extra sharpness and less vignetting, the latter of which is the most visible. This immediately suggests that at least for scenes like this, treating the 50P as an f/2 lens might not be a bad strategy.
I am not sure why the background isn't more blurred with the 50P, especially with f/1.4. Perhaps the focus cannot be too far away before this is lost a bit?
This is the shot. I apologize for the low art content. I tried, but not really successfully. I should really also use a tripod next time. No matter how still I try to stand, there always seems to be some movement, making slight cropping necessary, and making it harder to see the barrel distortion of the 50P (I presume that is what it is).
As before, the 50MP shot is almost unprocessed, the 50P f/2 shot was brought down in exposure a bit, and both 50P shots were given a click of contrast and a click of Vibrance (Saturation with fixed end-points, I believe). Aperture 3. I could of course also do identical processing, but then we would be comparing rendering in general, and not just DoF and sharpness.
And here are the 1800x1200 links:
50P f/1.4
50P f/2.0
50MP f/2.0
Apr 18, 2011 at 08:04 AM
p.321 #16ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Carsten is it just me, or is there some vignetting on the 50P f:2.0 shot, which gives the sides a slightly darker look that those of the 50MP?
Apr 18, 2011 at 08:12 AM
p.321 #17ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Thanks for the comparison Carsten.
I also think the 50 planar does the '3D effect' more easily. I've been saying this before, but many people seemed to disagree.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Actually I was a bit disappointed when shooting with my ZE 35/2 today. I bought it a couple of weeks ago and it was my first real shooting with it. The vignetting wide open is just too much. All my other Zeiss also has a lot of vignetting but this one beats them all. Normally I don't mind it, especially on portraits it can be very nice. But this was just too much.
I agree Lars. The vignetting of the 35/2 is insane wide open. It annoys me too.
50MP at f2:
I also think the 50 planar does the '3D effect' more easily. I've been saying this before, but many people seemed to disagree.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Actually I was a bit disappointed when shooting with my ZE 35/2 today. I bought it a couple of weeks ago and it was my first real shooting with it. The vignetting wide open is just too much. All my other Zeiss also has a lot of vignetting but this one beats them all. Normally I don't mind it, especially on portraits it can be very nice. But this was just too much.
I agree Lars. The vignetting of the 35/2 is insane wide open. It annoys me too.
50MP at f2:
Apr 18, 2011 at 08:30 AM
p.321 #18ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Here is a test image to show the ZE 35/2 vignetting wide open. Look at the really dark corners
Apr 18, 2011 at 08:51 AM
p.321 #19ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
philber wrote:
Carsten is it just me, or is there some vignetting on the 50P f:2.0 shot, which gives the sides a slightly darker look that those of the 50MP?
Are you asking me if *you* are vignetting, or the lens? The 50 MP vignettes a fair amount wide open. I am less familiar with the 50P so I couldn't say off-hand if it vignettes more. This shot is not a good comparison, since I had to crop the two shots from opposite corners (bottom-left vs. top-right) to make them overlap better. I wouldn't look at the vignetting in these shots, since I am cropping. Just look at sharpness and mostly, depth of field.
Carsten is it just me, or is there some vignetting on the 50P f:2.0 shot, which gives the sides a slightly darker look that those of the 50MP?
Are you asking me if *you* are vignetting, or the lens?
The 50 MP vignettes a fair amount wide open. I am less familiar with the 50P so I couldn't say off-hand if it vignettes more. This shot is not a good comparison, since I had to crop the two shots from opposite corners (bottom-left vs. top-right) to make them overlap better. I wouldn't look at the vignetting in these shots, since I am cropping. Just look at sharpness and mostly, depth of field.Apr 18, 2011 at 08:57 AM
p.321 #20ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
No doubt, Carsten, there is a substantial difference in DOF, and in bokeh as well. Much more than I would have thought. Are you trying to interest me in buying a 50MP, you naughty, naughty Carsten?.
Apr 18, 2011 at 09:01 AM