Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.62 #9 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
wayne seltzer wrote:
Samuli,
You have misunderstood me.
First, this discussion is not me saying that the 50MP is better than the 50/1.4.
We are discussing the differences between the two lenses.
I have been trying to understand what you and few others say the differences are and try to relate it more to which drawing characteristics are what you are keying off of.
Basically, trying to map terms like "understated", "traditional Zeiss look", etc. to actual lens characteristics which are causing these reactions.
Wayne, this discussion is far too long to remember from what we started, but for me the only thing concerning me in 50MP is the flatness of images (based on available samples; this forum, LLoyd's ZF-lenses, places like Flickr and pbase), there is very little "traditional Zeiss look" (described for you on earlier post) since it's missing the lens drawing of depth, shape and volume information, everything else it seems to do well. When we talk about this all the time we get back to bokeh quality and sharpness which are completely irrrelevant to this one feature in drawing of Zeiss lenses.
wayne seltzer wrote:
From you last post I am understanding that you are mostly talking about differences in 3-d pop and what I would call isolating the subject from the background. I think this is mainly caused by the two differences which I have mentioned before, the bokeh, and the transition from in focus to out-of-focus which is quicker in the 50/1.4 than the 50 MP. Also, I have noticed and said before that the 50 MP's level of sharpness through the whole DOF is more consistent, whereas I think the 50/1.4 peaks slightly at the exact focus pt. and then rolls off a little after that....Show more →
Wayne, I'm not talking about what you call as "3D-pop", the subject isolation. But you are very correct on that, it's part of my style and I like shallow DOF (thou not as shallow as in the last photos posted with 85ZE, got carried away due to bokeh creaminess of 85ZE...).
Seems that you have misunderstood me as well:
The 3D what I miss from samples of 50MP is visible for example Charles' old man sitting in front of house or Makten's old car in forest and tens of thousands of Zeiss images all over internet (and naturally in my own shots at my computer). Both of those photos could have been shot at f/11 and the subject of the photo would still have depth, shape and volume.
Using shallow DOF to isolate the subject is just a method of drawing viewers eye to the subject, so it just enhances it but doesn't create it (you can use also perspective, color (warm color in front, cool color in back) and various other techniques they teach in art school's drawing/painting "theory" classes). This has been lengthly discussed in current 3D thread, so I will not spend more time explaining this in this thread.
This is a drawing feature available all over in most of the Contax C/Y lenses. Zeiss was successful implementing this drawing feature to some of the lenses in Z* family. However based on available samples of 50MP, only Boris Norway shoots did actually show this, but they were presented much larger size than photos usually in this forum and were heavily processed (in some thread he described how he used the RAW software controls affecting contrast etc. and to me the adjustments sounded really heavy - I don't mean that photos would have been hours and hours processed in Photoshop, just that the amount of adjustments was quite extensive). This is the reason why I call 50MP flat until shown with photos otherwise.
Even lens captures this 3D there are still millions of ways to screw up it; resizing, sharpening, jpg-packing, improper usage of color profiles (e.g. use ProPhoto RGB and don't embed the profile) etc. This is one of the reasons why I lost my nerves and just ordered the damn lens since, I can't be sure are all the owners of 50MP just sucking in posting photos to web properly, or is the lens really missing this drawing feature.
wayne seltzer wrote:
So I would describe the differences as. if you are trying to isolate a subject from the background and looking for maximum 3-d pop then the 50/1.4 is your lens and just watch out for those few times when it can generate busy/nervous bokeh.
For flower closeups I prefer the 50 MP as you can see in your earlier 50/1.4 flower post, the 50/1.4 can have a more nervous/swirly/distracting kind of bokeh, where as the 50MP will have a more smooth bokeh.
Since you do a lot of narrower DOF type landscape shooting the 50/1.4 fits that style better, but since I usally shoot more larger DOF landscape shooting I will use the 50MP. For landscape abstracts with narrow DOF I will use the 50/1.4.
And for portraits and shallower DOF shooting where I want to isolate the subject I can use the 50/1.4 or if I am more concerned about potential trouble bokeh, then use 50MP. Better yet for portraits just use my N 85 or ZA 135/1.8.  ...Show more →
I agree all of this, except like described earlier the bokeh and DOF has nothing to do with 3D-rendering of Zeiss lenses. The nervous bokeh close up with 1.4 planars, is mostly distracting, but I use it as a tool as well in some cases, like some guys here use the bokeh of Rokkor 58/1.2. In real life I very rarely shoot close-ups with 1.4 planars, I prefer to do that with Zeiss Jena 2.4/35, Contax 2.8/28 with Contax 7.5mm extension tube, 35-70 macro mode, 60MP C/Y, Sonnar 3.4/100 with tubes or 100ZE, they all are just much more suitable for close-ups.
wayne seltzer wrote:
If you are shooting a landscape shot stopped down going for maximum sharpness from front to back and across the frame then the 50MP is your lens.
Yes (based on your criteria) and no (based on my criteria):
- Yes: assuming one just wants sharpness like you say above, based on samples 50MP definitely delivers this the best, with Zeiss colors and typical Zeiss contrast, no arguing about this (thou some threads have shown that 35-70 would be better choice for extreme corner sharpness, in which 50MP sucks, which also can be seen from Zeiss MTF-charts)
- No: since I want lens to draw the landscape with depth, shape and volume - this far only Boris 50MP show something like this, all another samples do not show much 3D-rendering
I'm always willing to sacrifie a little bit sharpness to Zeiss 3D. Some other people are not, so this is just a matter of priorities.
Samuli
|
