I ordered the 5 n kit and will have to wait for the rest. In the meantime I found some step-up rings 49-55, and wonder if I attached an Orly teleconverter TCON 17 for a holiday would it be too heavy for the kit lens and ruin the zoom lens. any advice would be appreciated.
philber wrote:
Nice set, Mike! I really like 1 & 2, and your last. 3 & 4 look like results I would get if I pushed saturation and vibrance too far, but of course maybe your subjects were like that. I would be interested to hear what PP you do on the NEX C3 shots.
Thanks. For 3 I did push the vibrance a little far on purpose as it seemed the dew covered pods needed it. In 4 I had tp push the wood too far to get what I wanted out of the rust. If I were printing it I'd selectiely back off the wood.
I've found that the C3 needs less vibrance than my usual PP (for 1ds3). In general terms (LR3) I reduce contrast and bump clarity, reduce saturation and bump vibrance. I usually back off exposure and push brightness then adjust highs and lows with curves or fill. I don't like the recovery slider as it flattens highlights.
Mike
Sorry for the late reply, just got internet back after Irene
Great shots all! I have a question for you Sony 16mm lens users...how is it? I have heard such conflicting reports on this lens. I am thinking of getting the NEX-5N and am curious if I should go with the Sony 16 or something else like the Voigtlander 15
Ryan, on my previous NEX 5, the 16mm Sony prime was just miserable. There was no way to get any semblance of corner sharpness, even at f:8.0. But the new generation seems to be much better in this respect. With my C3, I bought a prime, not because I wanted it, but because it made sense, considering I already had the kit zoom. Thanks to the newer camera, performance of the prime is now decent. That is, not if you think "alt prime", which isn't fair, but if you think 150$ kit lens. Then, it is OK. Colours are actually quite nice indeed, flare resistance is good, which matters on a wide lens. Sharpness is very reasonable in the centre, and weaker in the corners, but not to the point that it ruins shots.
The problem with alternatives is that very wide rangefinder lenses performed horribly on the first generation NEX, causing massive colour shift and corner mush. The newer ones are much improved, with colour shift almost gone, and corner sharpness much improved. Denoir reports using his ZM 18 without any trouble, but my Contax G 21 remains useless, and my 28 marginal. OTOH, going wide with DSLR lenses never persented any problems, so you could use compact ones, such as the zuikos. But I would try a 15mm Voigtländer before buying it if I were you.
Sony have indicated that the forthcoming NEX 7 will have angled, tilted or offset microlenses, a does the Leica M9, in an obvious effort to improve matters in this area, but no pictures can validate this -or not- just yet.
Hope this helps.
philber wrote:
The G 28 is marginal, sebboh. You can still generate some colour shift at times, and corner sharpness is still an issue. So problems with the 21 are obvious. I will take a pic or two just for you this week-end, as I deleted the useless samples made earlier. This doesn't stop the 28 from generating gorgeous colour, detail and 3D on the c3, so I have high hopes for the 7 with offset microlenses, even for the 21...
A sample of the 28 colour shift in extreme conditions, SOOC. THe NEX 5 would have been much worse.
thanks, i don't think that amount of color shift would bother me at all. nice shot of the hagia sofia too.
How much bothers you is strictly your choice, but I have to report it as I see it, hence my feed-back that the 28 is "marginal" inasmuch as weaknesses can be seen. I'd rather point out problems that might not bother people than mislead and induce a sense of false bliss.
