The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterproductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for \'plasticity / 3D\' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass that can give you a gentler transition to work with (& more control in post ) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their \'look\' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square froot of 2) ... up to the extreme end points of \'contact sheets\' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today\'s P&S\'s are as \'good\' as they are ... to a point.)
NOTE: Which body (i.e. sensor, AA filter, jpg programming, jpg user settings, etc.) you use has a significant impact on sooc images also ... which often times, people overlook when evaluating images from a given lens.
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterproductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for \'plasticity / 3D\' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass that can give you a gentler transition to work with (& more control in post ) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their \'look\' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square froot of 2) ... up to the extreme end points of \'contact sheets\' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today\'s P&S\'s are as \'good\' as they are ... to a point.)
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterproductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for \'plasticity / 3D\' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass that can give you a gentler transition to work with (& more control in post ) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their \'look\' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square froot of 2) ... up to the extreme end points of \'contact sheets\' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today\'s P&S\'s are as \'good\' as they are ... to a point.)
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterporductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for \'plasticity / 3D\' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass that can give you a gentler transition to work with (& more control in post ) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their \'look\' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square froot of 2) ... up to the extreme end points of \'contact sheets\' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today\'s P&S\'s are as \'good\' as they are ... to a point.)
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterporductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for \'plasticity / 3D\' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass that can give you a gentler transition to work with (& more control in post ) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their \'look\' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square froot of 2) ... up to the point of \'contact sheets\' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today\'s P&S\'s are as \'good\' as they are ... to a point.)
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterporductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for \'plasticity / 3D\' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass than can give you a gentler transition to work with ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their \'look\' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square froot of 2) ... up to the point of \'contact sheets\' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today\'s P&S\'s are as \'good\' as they are ... to a point.)
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterporductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it\'s almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr\'s camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off rate is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterporductive to the issue of \'plasticity/3D\' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM\'s jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you\'ll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it \'looking flat\' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn\'t need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
Mar 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #8298088 « Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread »
) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).