Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.65 #6 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
wayne seltzer wrote:
About the sharpness which I know you don't care about, you have wrong what I and other people were saying about the 50MP. I said the sharpness in the middle of the frame was only slightly sharper with the 50MP BUT it remains sharper acrros the frame better than the 50/1.4 except by f8 they are simialar in the corners. When I said this I was referring to infinity distance test I did earlier using a wall of a church at infinity distance to test sharpness. Here is the link to my sharpnes test:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864916/1
Wayne, my comment was not directed to you. Based on what I have read on this forum over last few years I have got impression from people comments and Lloyd review that 50MP sweeps the floor with planar starting at f/2. I'm sorry but I don't see it happening. To me outside image center both of them just suck, planar may start to suck sooner thou... We have to remember here that I'm not claiming planar being better lens on general usage, that would be just sick, why Zeiss would charge 3x price for 50MP if it would not be better?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Also, the very extreme corner lack of sharpness anomaly of the 50MP does not show at f5.6 and smaller apertures. In typical large DOF landscape shooting at f8 you would not see this anomaly and the sharpness of the 50MP being more consistent across the frame would make it better for pano's. This is why there was an article in Outdoor Photography last year where the guy was using the ZF 35 and ZF 50 MP for his landscape pano work. Also, tale a llook at Andi Dietrich's 50MP and 50/1.4 comparison distant landscape shots and you will see the better sharpness at that distance....Show more →
Well, I don't always do things traditional way - I really don't see why landscape needs to be f/8-16 (specially if you want to maximize sharpness and microcontrast - with current sensor anything over f/5.6 is diffraction limited by good lenses). Neither in panoramas I rarely aim for perfect front to back sharpness, and more often than not I use critically places DOF plane to highlight the subject or generate separation in panoramas. Any lens this far, except 100MP, Sonnar 100 and Canon 300/2.8, I have shoot panoramas has benefitted by not using the extreme corners when building panoramas.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I look forward to seeing shots which show this better volume.shape, 3-d thing you so desparately seek.
Me too, hope we have some suitable light in Finland at same time when I have possibility to go shooting suitable subjects, on shoots I do this time of year (forest) there are rarely as good test scenes than in urban environment. At same time I try to get understanding of other 50MP rendering characteristics as well, this is only one lens drawing characteristics, and I need to understand how the lens works under various conditions in order to use it as efficient as possible in future.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I think you need to take some comparison shots at more stopped down apertures like f8.
I have for the first comparison image - I don't see much difference between the 3 lenses. At f/8 all 3 lenses are diffraction limited and microcontrast is already reduced in all of them, if pixel peeping the f/8.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Also, if you take pictures with some troublesome bokeh like backlit leaves, the 50/1.4 will render worse more nervous/uglier bokeh than the 50MP.
I have been only once now shooting with 50MP (so this may not be my final opinion) and I disagree with this comment. Seems that planars (I have shoot years with C/Y 1.7/50, only real difference to 1.4ZE is that 1.4ZE has more aperture blades making it's bokeh at f/4-16 better) have more nervous bokeh as bokeh characteristics, the highlights seem to be pretty problematic with 50MP even stopped down, but more so on aperture I shoot a lot (f/2.5-4). I have not earlier been concerned of bokeh highlights since I have not had issues, but on 50MP photos, which show clouded sky between trees I had a lot of issues, which don't even seem to go away when closing down the aperture, only by increasing blur disc size (adjusting ratio between target, background and camera so that bokeh is more blurry) the issue is fixed or by decreasing blur disc to size in which background appears to be in DOF. Real photos coming soon about this.
wayne seltzer wrote:
BTW, I am not sensitive about 3-d definition. As an engineer with a Masters degree I get frustrated when people can not analyze better in technical lens drawing terms what their forming their opinions and feelings when viewing a picture instead of using vague higher-level subjective descriptions. I got frustrated trying to figure out what you and Philippe are talking about in terms of real lens characteristics. To me its similar to trying to find out why my girlfriend is upset but she herself doesn't know exactly why. 
I am more sensitive to cliqueishness that goes on here in this forum thread and the forum in general but I will just try to ignore it....Show more →
Wayne, in addition to that there are differences in opinion what is 3D, the thing what I call 3D, we haven't found a real explanation why it happens. Majority of the people agree it's more likely to happen with Zeiss lenses (+few other like Leica R90APO). In the discussions we have had one theory has been the different rendering in edges due to polarization and/or diffraction caused by light bending on the edge. However this would only explain (if plausible) edge effects, but not why the surfaces of objects appear more 3 dimensional. So if I would know I would happily tell you the optical phenomenons behind all this.
Like you, having similar background from education I'm really frustrated that there is clear reason why things happen this way. Since I don't know or understand the creation of this effect I can only enjoy the results. I have not yet ever seen this (Makten's f/7.1 shot) kind of results from 50MP sample pictures, but it happens often with any of the planars C/Y (1.7&1.4) and Z*, and can be quite often seen in sample photos when conditions allow it to be shown. I'll try to investigate this now when I have both lenses, can I get it visible with 50MP.
One approach for this is of course just to not talk, or even complete ignore the effect since one doesn't understand it so it cannot exists. Photography is supposed to be art form, I'm pretty sure there are more than this 3D topics which subjective and "not easily translated to engineering language"-topics... If this bothers there is "HIDE ME" button since I'm more likely than not mention something like this again.
I checked the cliqueishness from dictionary since it was a new word to me. I have hard time understanding what you mean by this (most probably issue with my English - most of the dictionaries didn't even have this word and the ones had were having quite strange description for the word).
Samuli
PS. No pictures but I compensate posting many on next...
|
