Quote:
"However, during the mid 1980s, a compact design called the Contax T was released that would start a period of resurgence for the brand in an entirely different sector of premium point-and-shoot cameras.
While there has been much affiliation to Porsche design without confirmation, we have been able to confirm with the Porsche Design Group, that this was in fact a Porsche design and would go on to form the design language of the entire Contax T and G series cameras."
From my memory, and from a Google search today, only the first Contax RTS and T are identified to have direct Porsche Design involvement. Of course, the chunky RTS III could hardly be more Teutonic (and less Japanese), so who can really be sure?
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah, challenge of being at an air show with the a7R V. I was a little sloppy switching between full mechanical vs EFCS vs ES. When I was switching between my "stuff moving fast" mode to other modes, it reverted back to EFCS. So all on me.
I'm used to GFX where the shutter changes automatically from EFCS to MS at speeds faster than 1/640, presumably to not get wonky bokeh. So I never really have to remember to change it. Would hope that Sony has something similar...
RustyBug wrote:
As I've mentioned the rate of transitions influencing human physiological response cues ... I'm beginning to consider the role of the APO / near-APO in where the starting point in the focal plane is regarding the amount of aberrations present ... as it then transitions into more aberrations territory (kinda your point about element count, as part of the design choices). I don't have it fully vetted, but I think this also falls in line with Karbe's aspect of f/2 design for the SL APO's ... i.e. aberration reduction / transitions ... rate of change variance.
I would say, most of the time: Less aberrations and cleaner bokeh = higher probability for "3D" rendering. Or simply, the better the lens, the more "life-like" the photo, without clues about a camera involved at all.
jojib wrote:
I agree. Do you have that lens? I started with Minolta then to Konica-Minolta and got into portraiture. I was debating between that lens and the Minolta 85G that I ended up with the latter as I wanted to shoot some action. The Minolta 135 STF has an amazing bokeh but so does the 85G.
Sorry for the late reply - I'm not on FM as much as I used to be. Yes, I do have the 135 STF! It's such a niche lens that it doesn't get used much, but it's a lens that I used to lust after when it first came out. While very sharp, it does have noticeable purple fringing, easily fixed in Lightroom. The thing about the STF is that you get greater DoF with it being a f2.8 but with that creamy bokeh. For head & shoulder portraits, I can get the tip of the nose to a person's ears in focus and then the background just melts away. Can't get that with the 85mm f1.4.
senna4ever wrote:
Sorry for the late reply - I'm not on FM as much as I used to be. Yes, I do have the 135 STF! It's such a niche lens that it doesn't get used much, but it's a lens that I used to lust after when it first came out. While very sharp, it does have noticeable purple fringing, easily fixed in Lightroom. The thing about the STF is that you get greater DoF with it being a f2.8 but with that creamy bokeh. For head & shoulder portraits, I can get the tip of the nose to a person's ears in focus and then the background just melts away. Can't get that with the 85mm f1.4....Show more →
No worries. The 135 STF is a legend alright. But then again I haven’t seen a 135mm that I didn’t like :-) I still shoot with the EF 135/2 L and the Sony 135 GM. Great for subject isolation of course but awesome for headshots too.
old-gregg wrote:
After 15 years and 139 pages of searching, I declare the end of your all's agony. The search is over. This lens has the most 3D pop. No contest.
Sometimes I see dimensionality in shots, which I guess isn't 3D pop, but it still makes me pause when I come across the effect. (Although I don't know whether we all see these types of things consistently from person to person.)
Here, people continue to confuse the 3D rendering of the lenses with the isolation of the subject from the background. These are different aspects of photography. This certainly does nothing to promote photographic culture.
Ripolini wrote:
Here, people continue to confuse the 3D rendering of the lenses with the isolation of the subject from the background. These are different aspects of photography. This certainly does nothing to promote photographic culture.
Don't worry, that’s perfectly fine. Confusing all sorts of things and completely talking past one another is the defining characteristic of this absurd thread.😄
Ripolini wrote:
Here, people continue to confuse the 3D rendering of the lenses with the isolation of the subject from the background. These are different aspects of photography. This certainly does nothing to promote photographic culture.
That's the trouble with a thread subject that defies description.
'I know it when I see it' Lol
I once looked through most of it, almost every lens ever made has been listed, including some I wouldn't use (from actual experience) for anything else than a paperweight.
gyoung143 wrote:
I once looked through most of it, almost every lens ever made has been listed, including some I wouldn't use (from actual experience) for anything else than a paperweight.
Gerry
Is there were a contest for the longest, most ridiculous FM thread, this one would be a strong contender.
