I\'m seeing more contrast and pop in the Mark II but maybe thats due to exposure differences, subtle change in lighting or the straight up better optics? In comparison, th MK I looks a bit muddy. I\'m not seeing too much difference in the actual drawing of the objects though, the MKI actually looks a bit more diffused but this is probably due to the lack of pop.
I\'m seeing more contrast and pop in the Mark II but maybe thats due to exposure differences, subtle change in lighting or the straight up better optics? In comparison, th MK I looks a bit muddy. I\'m not seeing too much difference in the actual drawing of the objects though.
I\'m seeing more contrast and pop in the Mark II but maybe thats due to exposure differences, subtle change in lighting or the straight up better optics? In comparison, th MK I looks a bit muddy. I\'m not seeing too much difference in the physical drawing of the objects though.
I\'m seeing more contrast and pop in the Mark II but maybe thats due to exposure differences or subtle change in lighting? In comparison, th MK I looks a bit muddy.
