Samuli Vahonen wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Samuli, I think that shot in specific having what you call Zeiss Magic is a product of good or "lucky" (since you can't really control the sun and weather) lighting, a keen eye from the photographer, and the lens being of a good quality.. That's how I see it anyway, and I believe that all the zeiss lenses I have, could have produced similar results. I've shot similar things with my 50 MP ZE. You'll see it when the weather gets better, and you have more time with the lens.
BTW, picture #6 is awesome!
Oh, and here's a 100 MP ZE shot (so I've paid in full). Sorta has this fashion lighting feel to it, something different.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
I think that this overzeisitivity in Forum Board 55 is partly a trend that has reached its peak and starting to implode. Could be, of course, that we have found the holy grail!
Indeed! Now we just have to spread the word. By the way, I'm "almost" an engineer. I did about half of the education before quitting. But I work as a lab engineer anyway.
Edit: About the differences in rendering between the MP 50 and the Planar, I think the answer is that they have a quite different correction of spherical aberration. The MP seems overcorrected, which also explains the smaller (but brighter) blur discs at large distances. The closer you focus, the more "neutral" the correction gets, because it's optimized for closeups. The Planar is the other way around; undercorrected. It gives a smoother bokeh at large distances, but very much spherical aberration close up, which we see as "low sharpness" and low local contrast.
Omigod, am I the only one who am not an engineer? No wonder I can't take a decent picture or explain anything understandably! How you guys can even tolerate me is beyond me....
theology is my field as far as studies are concerned - must be the reason why I am drawn to Leica to some degree (lack of engeneering background that does).
Mast3rChie3f, bokeh on the first bird photo look nice.
Charles, I liked your gallery, very bold usage of shallow DOF. My favorite is still the old guy photo...
Makten, last one is great, only wish that the burned out highlights would not be pink/gray, look really weird.
-------------------
Today I was shooting on location called "Murder ditch" (direct translation from Finnish, Murhaoja) it had small creek and a lot of wet mud and moss. Naturally it was raining again... but then it cleared up. However there was not much to shoot with 50mm, mostly shoot with 28ZE.
Murder ditch 01 - Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 @ f/2, 1/20s, ISO 100 (still no swirly bokeh...I will find it some day if it's there...)
Murder ditch 02 - Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 @ f/11, 0.6s, ISO 100 (after standing 20 minutes in the stream sun finally positioned itself so that light hits to rock on right and small pool on left, and then waited for cloud pass by so I was able to utilize the cloud's edge to smoothen the sunlight)
Murder ditch 04 - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/28 @ f/11, 1.6s, ISO 100
-------------------
For last image I would have preferred to use f/3.2 but field curvature/vignetting causes edges to be sharp ruining the effect nice and smooth bokeh otherwise is able to generate. (there is one branch on right top corner, which is supposed to be sharp since it's on the focal plane, but the forest behind that is much sharper than other bokeh in center of image).
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Makten, last one is great, only wish that the burned out highlights would not be pink/gray, look really weird.
Ooops! Must be because of the added vignetting. I didn't see it at all. By the way there was some motion blur in that picture, so it could be sharper with proper technique.
Nice pictures of yours! The MP seems to be able to give nice 3D too (second image). Did you use a polarizer?
Edit: Anyone using the 25/2.8? Even if it might be less good than the other Zeiss lenses, I'm interested because of its fairly low price and the AOV.
Makten wrote:
Ooops! Must be because of the added vignetting. I didn't see it at all.
I did first think it's bird sh#t, but then it was on so weird places that realized is processing error.
Makten wrote:
Nice pictures of yours! The MP seems to be able to give nice 3D too (second image). Did you use a polarizer?
Thanks. At this websize thumbnail I don't see 3D, but on the screen (=2400px by 1600px) I see something like 3D, I'm not sure it's so weak. Yes polarizer used all Murder ditch pictures, except first one.
#2 of the ditch with the ferns is breathtaking. The "light after the rain" and the brilliance of the lense come together here to create an extraordinarily clean image with no "hazy" look whatsoever. This is really as close to looking at the real scene as I can imagine, altough there are none of the "3D" properties associated with selective DOF. I think that one way to achieve the perception of looking at the real scene is close to perfect reproduction, creating the impression of looking at a piece of reality that hasn't somehow been "processed" by technical means.
I do think though that the picture would have been OK with a little less aggressive sharpening. There are quite strong stepping artifacts in the diagonal dead fern stems.
adamdewilde wrote:
Samuli, I think that shot in specific having what you call Zeiss Magic is a product of good or "lucky" (since you can't really control the sun and weather) lighting, a keen eye from the photographer, and the lens being of a good quality.. That's how I see it anyway, and I believe that all the zeiss lenses I have, could have produced similar results. I've shot similar things with my 50 MP ZE. You'll see it when the weather gets better, and you have more time with the lens.
(almost didn't see this since there is so much activity in thread) Adam, you are right, it's not easily controllable due to factors you mention. I once listed to 3D thread list of things, what I do to maximise change of getting the effect. Trying years to get the effect I have realized it's not possible for every photo, more or less if I don't see the light being able to do it, then I don't even try to produce the effect. Majority of Zeiss lenses are able to produce it. I have some, which I have seen samples of it done but I have not been able to do it (e.g. C/Y MP 60).
adamdewilde wrote:
BTW, picture #6 is awesome!
Thanks!
adamdewilde wrote:
Oh, and here's a 100 MP ZE shot (so I've paid in full). Sorta has this fashion lighting feel to it, something different.
Your 100MP must be broken, really low contrast
dcjs wrote:
#2 of the ditch with the ferns is breathtaking.........
I do think though that the picture would have been OK with a little less aggressive sharpening. There are quite strong stepping artifacts in the diagonal dead fern stems.
David, thanks for compliments!
I have years developed sharpening methods, and I have ended up to conclusion that you have to choose for web publishing (so this is based on my personal opinion):
1. blurry not sharp enough picture (most of pictures in most of forums and photosites, specially ones loaded to websites and some automatic program reducing the size to websize)
2. blockiness (typically caused by methods, which rely on sharpening as last step)
3. stepping artifacts (typically caused by too big % on USM dialog or too small detail to be presented by step sharpening/FM Landscape forum "advanced sharpening" and sharpening/resizing method tries to keep the detail since it has high contrast to background)
4. spend hours doing selective sharpen masks and end up weird looking images if there is even smallest error in the masks
I'll try tomorrow (It's damn late) if I can reduce the stepping artifacts by adjusting step sharpening script's size of the steps/number of steps. However I'm afraid I can't then keep overall sharpness of image if I get rid off the artefacts, I have not seen these except this kind of "single high contrast narrow object agains high contrast background", but on other hand I have not looked that much either, I'm much more "allergic" to soft photos. It's kind of difficult to show something, which is smaller than 1 pixel.
Makten wrote:
Edit: Anyone using the 25/2.8? Even if it might be less good than the other Zeiss lenses, I'm interested because of its fairly low price and the AOV.
Makten,
the 2.8/25 ZF is my "normal" lens on the Fuji S5 (being a student, I'm still on a "crop budget" ). It is not going to give you even sharpness throughout the image from wide open, not even on a crop body. Stepping down to at least f/5.6 is necessary to really make the corners catch up, but center sharpness is great from wide open, and the overall look of the lens is very characteristic and I like it very much. At f/2.8, it has quite strong vignetting and the corners are rather soft, but that does often help to keep the focus of the beholder on the main subject. It is one of those instances where "imperfections" of a lens can actually help to create an attractive drawing style. I've seen it many times that the exact same scene looks far less interesting stopped down to f/4 compard to f/2.8, although it is displayed technically better without a question. Bokeh is very nice for a wide angle.
Thank you everyone Do really appreciate the comments!
Just arrived back in Australia this morning, so I will try to respond soon.
Bobu: shots 10 and 19 were with the ZE 85/1.4. The details of all the shots are visible if you click on the photo, and on the right top corner is all the info.
Makten: Do like the rendering of the 50/1.4 It is different to the 50MP.
Samuli: I like #1 and especially #2. The latter does indeed have some spatial qualities. Regardless of that, it's a great shot.
Now, we may have an excess of engineers in this forum, but we definitely suffer a shortage of ducks. It has been a tradition to 'christen' a new lens or camera by photographing a duck since Henri Cartier-Bresson. People here are getting new lenses all the time, but where are the ducks?
To counter this appalling shortcoming, here is a duck
Yes, another engineer here too ! Love the duck denoir
Samuli: Your photos are excellent, and it is wonderful to see the subtle effects and differences between the lenses. There a lot of activity, and interesting discussions.
dcjs wrote:
Samuli, what brand of polarizer do you use?
I'm currently using the Hoya polarizers for 58, 67, 72 and 82 inherited from Canon-days, no longer matching quality of used lenses. Plan is to upgrade those B+W or some other quality brand. For 55 I use B+W and Leica (only suitable for 50mm and longer lenses, filter is about 10mm thick).
Partly why I haven't yet upgraded is that with Zeiss Z* lenses colors will easily turn too saturated with polarizer, for example if I'm shooting towards south and sun is shining just above horizon from east and I adjust polarizer to remove sky glare from wet grass etc. the sky may become unreal blue. This has lead me to use polarizer mostly only on creek / shore photos.
Samuli, I find your murder ditch series disturbing and challenging. You are now presenting me with an awesome result, which I cannot hope to duplicate, because you are putting in massive talent, experience, and time, and I do not have that available to me. This is beginning to impact the pleasure (or lack of) that I get for my own pictures. My camera is seeing less work theses days.
By the way, I'm "almost" an engineer. I did about half of the education before quitting. But I work as a lab engineer anyway. 
theology is my field as far as studies are concerned - must be the reason why I am drawn to Leica to some degree (lack of engeneering background that does).
). It is not going to give you even sharpness throughout the image from wide open, not even on a crop body. Stepping down to at least f/5.6 is necessary to really make the corners catch up, but center sharpness is great from wide open, and the overall look of the lens is very characteristic and I like it very much. At f/2.8, it has quite strong vignetting and the corners are rather soft, but that does often help to keep the focus of the beholder on the main subject. It is one of those instances where "imperfections" of a lens can actually help to create an attractive drawing style. I've seen it many times that the exact same scene looks far less interesting stopped down to f/4 compard to f/2.8, although it is displayed technically better without a question. Bokeh is very nice for a wide angle. 
