pdmphoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
philber wrote:
Following on Samuli\'s brilliant posts and Wayne\'s question, I would say this: the typical composition in one of my pictures is that of a large \"main object\", already at infinity or close to it, and background which is not that important, nor needs to be blurred. This composition puts great importance on the transition between the main object and the background, both in shape or volume, and in colour. This is where there is IMHO a substantial (relativeley speaking) difference between the f:1.4s and the MPs. This difference, is on the whole small, all four lenses belonging IMHO to the same \"family\", but enough to divide them into two sub-families. This transition, although less visible, also matters between various elements of the main object.
The transition with the MP is more marked, more delineated, it is more gradual, smoother with the F:1.4s.
It follows naturally from there that, for close-ups, macro and wide open, marked separation between a \"main object\" and background looks better, and in all cases, it looks more spectacular.
Hereafter two shots, taken within minutes of each other, one with the 85 and one with the 100. On one, to my eyes, the main object is more \"etched\" against the background than with the other. Now, before I get flamed, I know that the two shots are not strictly identical, and I have had to crop to approximate the framing, and, of course, PP is exactly identical. There is also a large part of the difference which is lost to to loss of resolution for Internet. That however, I not how I look at my pictures when I have an option...:-)
Hope this helps more than it aggrieves...:-)
Overexpose an image on a Canon CMOS sensor and forget about IQ. As your 100mm shot shows.
Canon sensors suck foir highlights - especially at base ISO 
|
