RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.87 #17 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
jeffersoncasey wrote:
You know what's funny, I'm reluctant to say more how I feel about Leica lenses at this point as it's been a debated topic for decades. But the part about the starting point and PP amplifying the differences totally resonating with my experiences. I shot some side by side between the lux and Thypoch when I was testing it at the shop, those set were pretty identical in LR and I can't lie to myself saying there were differences (apart from sharpness across the frame!). But when I start shooting in real world scenario it was almost night and day. You can't convince everyone certain brand of butter taste better or better for cooking, but I can safely say that the images coming out from the lux put a big smile on my face everytime I shoot with it. 😁
...Show more →
Yes, minute differences ... amplified = not so minute. We see this readily in things like jpgs look great out of camera, but when you start pushing 8 bit files, the differences that a 12 bit / 14 bit / 16 bit file provide reveal themselves in ways that it makes folks become die-hard raw shooters. And, then there are the folks that are insistent that their camera (brand X) provides amazing jpgs and they don't need to shoot raw. Case in point, when I got my M 28 Elmarit (still shooting X-Pro3), I was blown away by how cleanly I could crop into 300% (examples shared in archives) with Leica glass, whereas with my former glass 200% was about as much as I felt comfortable with. I don't live in 300% crop territory, but ... yeah, eye opener. At that point, I figured if the diff was noticeable on a system it was not designed for, I should see what life is like if I use Leica on Leica. And, so the journey begins. 
Case by case. Same goes for distortion. Some folks are insistent on very low distortion, natively from their optic. Others are fine with computational correction for their work. The list of attributes in our beloved optically based craft ... the degree of refinement that exists ... and the quid pro quo of optical engineering to achieve them is exhaustive in complexity of infinite possible approaches / combinations. I think that's part of why Hasselblad's colors are such as they are with their HNCS and the calibration efforts they put into each camera before shipping. Also, (iiuc) they calibrate against 6500K (full spectrum), while others may not. Again, small differences + amplification = bigger differences.
Since the subject of Leica has been mentioned ... I was reading about their ethos (have before, just a re-read) regarding how they design the Summilux intentionally different from the Summicron and again from the Elmarit and the APO. By design, the transition rate of the Summilux is different from the Summicron and the others. This is inherently part of why a Summilux can have a different look to it regarding transition into the BG, even if shot at similar aperture. The aperture is the size of the hole (i.e. amount) ... the optical path angles are an additional part of the transition rates, and where things land in terms of the axis vs. the field for Zones A, B, C. I think the writer of the article suggested that the Lux "melts" into the BG.
Imo, Leica and Zeiss (Zony) approach this with two different styles. Zeiss often times approaches it more aggressively, and we see that in how many of their lenses generate that "pop" that folks like (and some dismiss). Leica (imo) presents a transition rate that in their ethos is a bit more gentle, yet enough to emulate more of a natural look. Sometimes, if the transition is too rapid, you get the funky "cutout" look (different from gently "melting") and while it can be impressive, it's not as natural to some eyes. Leica tends to stay closer to the natural side of things, Zeiss steps up their rate of transition game a bit more strongly. I think that for those folks who like the Thypoch, it lands a bit differently for either Leica or Zeiss. To me, the Thypoch is a "flat Leica", in that it tries to transition natural-ish (rather than aggressive Zeiss), but it seems to have lower levels of micro-contrast or maybe it's the color tonality that remains a bit reduced, etc. Your transition from Thypoch to Lux offers you better insight into this, than us with the armchair view. But, it comes as little surprise to me that you would note the differences in your use.
I think Nikon (thinking back to AIS) took a page from Zeiss and some of their glass can be similar. Voigtlander also tends to lean into more Zeiss-like approach. Which brings up the point that Voigtlander, then began to design their "Vingtage" line and pulled it back. Version 1 of the Vintage line, and then V. 2 saw some tweaking / refining to where to land it and "split the diff". Going back to when I shot Canon EF glass, I appreciated it's evenness of coverage across the frame (flat). Once I started using alternate glass mounted on EF (the game of the day before Sony), I began to discover the nuance of differences. It took a few years of shooting with a lot of different glass (Canon, C/Y, Oly, Leica, M645, Nikon) on the EF platform till I began to develop my understanding of the diff's being designed. I'm certain that a hop over into the Sony Forums and you'll find tremendous amount of raving about the Zony glass (vs. the Canon glass of the era) regarding how much more "pop" that glass had. So much, in fact, that Sony got its own board, because folks were constantly bombarding the Canon board about it.
That's not to suggest I'm "all that" in my knowledge of it ... but, I can certainly say I understand it better now than I did 20 years ago. Which, btw ... you'll find in the archives somewhere here ... I was a "pseudo-basher" of Leica back then, lacking the appreciation for their glass (without having shot it much). When I got my M28 Elmarit and started shooting it, my view on Leica began to change. That's not to say that Leica is everything to everyone, but yeah, they approach things "their way".
The salient point here is that If I pick up the Vintage line Voigtlander, I'm looking for one level of transition rate, and if I pick up the APO Lanthar version I'm going to be looking at a different optic. Personally, I can have an appreciation for all of them for the fact that they are essentially like "craft beer", rather they are "craft lenses". Some folks have little to no appreciation for the craft beer differences. Some think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Optics are similar, in that folks who do have such an appreciation for them, do so with a degree of passion. Others, who are more interested in the pragmatic approach to well designed "all-rounder" lenses, often have little interest or desire to delve into the realm of optical nuance. Dare I suggest we've seen plenty of that here. 
I can shoot with just about anything ... the difference of what I choose to shoot may include something similar, regarding whether or not I like the output.
but I can safely say that the images coming out from the lux put a big smile on my face everytime I shoot with it. 😁
For others, it's more of a pragmatic "get the job done". So, yeah ... there'll always be those who appreciate nuance vs. those who dissent its existence / significance.
I mean, some folks will only drink a 1985 Bordeaux and refuse to drink that 1986 swill. Others, just chug along with some MD 20/20. 
Lots of room in between, never gonna get consensus.
|
). Kinda like asking me to taste the difference between a 1985 Bordeaux and a 1986 Bordeaux ... my sensory palette may not be developed to that level, whereas for those who are so inclined they would have no problems detecting the differences.
