p.5 #1 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
andrewd01 wrote:
No I didn't miss your point. Room acoustics etc are all valid points. Yes there are limitations on the original recordings. Get off your high horse!
I am not talking about my interpretation of "claims" read from third parties. I am talking about the differences I observed with my own ears on my own system. The differences were massive and more than enough to justify the cost.
Of course one needs to consider the context of the system when choosing cables, the rest of the system needs to be good enough.
Believe me I am tight and would not spend this sort of money if it didn't make much difference. Have you personally tried the particular cables I mention in a high end system ?
I am not going to argue any more about whether you believe I can hear a difference or not. Its my ears and my money. Nuff said on the matter.
I actually Validated your experience and offered explanation about why interconnects in Your rig didn't do for you what you had hoped and the speaker cables actually did In a different rig it could easily have been interconnects which were the weak link and where the best investment might be made. And I never ever doubted your anecdotal experience of hearing your rig sound markedly better once you brought your weaker link up to snuff
J
Sep 01, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #2 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Jammy Straub wrote:
I prefer the smooth focusing helicoid and Italian leather in the Lambo.
That's fine, but you pay the price for that. Leather is leather in my book, whether US or Italian does not matter to me.
And why manual focus when I can auto focus? The only time I go manual is with macro work and only because I have to.
p.5 #4 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Andre Labonte wrote: That's fine, but you pay the price for that. Leather is leather in my book, whether US or Italian does not matter to me.
And why manual focus when I can auto focus? The only time I go manual is with macro work and only because I have to.
Leather is leather until you feel italian leather It's like I say when people are vegetarians...they have just never had a really good Ruth's Chris prime ribeye...that will change your belief
Why manual focus....a couple reasons. One, accuracy. If you can see well and use live view the accuracy of manual focus is far better than relying on AF. I have seen several tests showing superior sharpness using MF vs AF even on AF lenses. Another reason for me (which I may be the minority b/c I am certainly no pro), but I feel I get better shots when using MF as I actually take the time to think about the shot and use the optimal settings. With AF, I go around like a tourist with a P&S. With MF, I actually take the time to think about how I want the shot to look in the end and use the right settings for it. Like I said, I am just an average amateur, so this may not apply to all, but it certainly does me.
That being said, it is not always possible to MF due to different reasons such as tracking (chasing a 3 yr old) or you just don't have the time for composing/using live view/etc. In those instances you go with the fastest focus possible.
p.5 #8 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I'm not a true corksniffer, but I think I've got better eyes than the average bear (though this particular forest admittedly has some rather sophisticated bears).
I've looked at these pics on three different monitors, and I can't see any meaningful differences that I can attribute to the lenses used. As photographs, I think the closer versions of both work better (particularly in the second pair) -- but that has more to do with lighting, exposure, framing, and expression than any particular optical qualities.
The 35-y/o optics and coatings of the 135/2 have held up remarkably well. It would be interesting to see how the same Nikkor design would do with modern glass and coatings.
Sep 01, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
rsolti13 wrote:
Leather is leather until you feel italian leather It's like I say when people are vegetarians...they have just never had a really good Ruth's Chris prime ribeye...that will change your belief
Why manual focus....a couple reasons. One, accuracy. If you can see well and use live view the accuracy of manual focus is far better than relying on AF. I have seen several tests showing superior sharpness using MF vs AF even on AF lenses. Another reason for me (which I may be the minority b/c I am certainly no pro), but I feel I get better shots when using MF as I actually take the time to think about the shot and use the optimal settings. With AF, I go around like a tourist with a P&S. With MF, I actually take the time to think about how I want the shot to look in the end and use the right settings for it. Like I said, I am just an average amateur, so this may not apply to all, but it certainly does me.
That being said, it is not always possible to MF due to different reasons such as tracking (chasing a 3 yr old) or you just don't have the time for composing/using live view/etc. In those instances you go with the fastest focus possible....Show more →
Forgive me if I'm still skeptical on the leather ... but then again I hate leather seats.
Good points on the AF part. I guess my opinion comes from my uses, kids and sports. I do manual focus for landscape and macro though.
p.5 #10 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
'corksniffer'
All this talk of speaker cables I could never justify buying has me wanting to build speakers again. I made this budget home theater system and it hits well above it's price point. http://www.parts-express.com/projectshowcase/dht/index.cfm
I've often desired to build my own tube amp and speakers.
I can braid you a custom speaker cable for $1200.00 foot. My power cords are $600/foot +$500 for the ends. Don't settle for plenum grade ethernet cables, I only use aerospace spec cables. Rhodium plated contacts are an extra $5000 per end.
I assure you it will sound better than any amateur nonsense on that website.
p.5 #12 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
rsolti13 wrote:
Why manual focus....a couple reasons. One, accuracy. If you can see well and use live view the accuracy of manual focus is far better than relying on AF. I have seen several tests showing superior sharpness using MF vs AF even on AF lenses. Another reason for me (which I may be the minority b/c I am certainly no pro), but I feel I get better shots when using MF as I actually take the time to think about the shot and use the optimal settings. With AF, I go around like a tourist with a P&S. With MF, I actually take the time to think about how I want the shot to look in the end and use the right settings for it. Like I said, I am just an average amateur, so this may not apply to all, but it certainly does me. ...Show more →
Bout sums it up. MF does tend to make you frame a shot differently I do find.
Also is a cost or performance issue. With alot of the Nikkor AI(S) glass, it opens some very nice glass options that are cheaper. And some AI(S) out there....makes you wish nikkor would bring these engineers out of retirement cause they made glass of equal or even better quality based on 1970's and 1980's technology.
Case of zeiss and voigtlander....a different knd of perfomance and cost issue. They rip out AF leaving the inner lens body more open to do other things. Zeiss optical builds give you the 3d effect and the better colors they are known for. Looking at voigtlander you get very nice glass in a very small package. 40mm been catching some people's eyes in another thread. Nikkor took pancakes off the menu a few years back, for those who like them, MF gives them options. The 40 is interesting tbh...also the 20mm. If I come across them on my trip next week, I'll find the time to try them out.
p.5 #13 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Zebrabot wrote:
I can braid you a custom speaker cable for $1200.00 foot. My power cords are $600/foot +$500 for the ends. Don't settle for plenum grade ethernet cables, I only use aerospace spec cables. Rhodium plated contacts are an extra $5000 per end.
I assure you it will sound better than any amateur nonsense on that website.
I was just wondering... do you have anything useful to contribute?
p.5 #18 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Nice shots, DJ, especially the first. Are you liking the 100 MP? Any issues? Still getting good green dot confirmation?
I'm near giving up on mine. Too much inconsistency, especially if the subject is over 5 feet away. Sending it into Zeiss USA tomorrow; they've agreed to test it on their Nikon bodies and advise. If they tell me the lens is fine, I'm going to concede the lens is "too good for me" and sell it.
p.5 #19 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I'm actually loving it. I really like the handling on this lens, and my focus seems to be as good or better than any of my MF Nikkors, both by VF "feel" and by the green dot confirmation. Hopefully Zeiss can get yours sorted out!
In a different rig it could easily have been interconnects which were the weak link and where the best investment might be made. And I never ever doubted your anecdotal experience of hearing your rig sound markedly better once you brought your weaker link up to snuff 
That's fine, but you pay the price for that. Leather is leather in my book, whether US or Italian does not matter to me.
