Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A900 test images  (Read 13644 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« on: December 13, 2008, 01:56:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi everyone.

I have a page on PBase with test images from my new Sony Alpha 900 DSLR. I try to produce these images with some care (pronounce as tripod and mirror lock up). The pictures are converted with LR 2.1 and posted as full resolution JPEG (95%). I'm just posting the results that I find interesting but feel free to ask for any specific information and I'll try to oblige if I can.

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test

Findings this far (subject to revision):

1) Camera is OK, but I miss an L plate. RRS has now an L-plate, I have it on preorder (2008-12-14)
2) A2 prints from A900 are in the same league as from A700. On screen sharpness from A900 is significantly better than A700, but A700 seems good enough for A2. There is a visible advantage to A900 on A2 prints, but not a lot.

Preliminary lens evaluations:

Updated 2008-12-21 with some observations on SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA, Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO, KM 28-75/2.8 and Minolta 50/1.4.

SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA
I start to understand while Michael Reichmann likes this lens!

The bad news is that the lens is not really sharp in the extreme corners at 24 and 70 mm below f/11. The good news is that what is not in the extreme corners is spectacularly good.

Test images: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/2470za_test1

Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO

The lens I have is the original black version. Observations:
At 200 mm there is a lot of lateral chromatic aberration. It can be eliminated by and large with a chromatic aberration preset in lightroom. Once properly processed the image is very sharp. At 90 mm I didn't see any sign of lateral CA.

KM 28-75/2.8
A series of test images will be posted later today on PBase. No other comments right now.

Minolta 50/1.4
Not overly impressed by this lens. More useful as a portrait lens on the A700 (APS-C) than on full format, because of very soft corners.
A series of test images will be posted later today on PBase.


I have a few test shots with KM 28-75/2.8 and Minolta 20/2.8 this far, i don't have a complete evaluation yet. Primary findings are:

27-75/2.8

Very sharp across the field at 50 and 75 mm at f/2.8. Possibly some softness along the extreme edges (to be invistigated) at 75 mm.

I have an Sony SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA on order, scheduled delivery is end of Feb. 2008 (ouch). The 28-75/2.8 is a fine lens but will probably replaced by the 24-70/2.8.

20/2.8

Very sharp across the field at f/8.0. Quite soft and serious vignetting at f/2.8.
I would say that this lens is a great positive surprise! My past experience with the same lens in the "film days" was not so overhelming, and I also think that the original Photodo tests were not that impressive (Grade 3.5).

I checked back on the Photodo site for the MTFs ( http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html ) and they are quite interesting. At aperture f/8 sagittal MTF is very high except extreme corners. Tangential MTF is less impressive.

Minolta 100/2.8 Macro (original version with metal focusing ring)


Sharp at center from f/5.6 to f/11, nominal. Not tested beyond f/11. Possible issues with not entirely flat test target possibly not perpendicular to camera.

Images uploaded to:
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/km_10028_macro




For latter evaluation:

50/1.4 (Minolta)
80-200/2.8 APO (Minolta black)
100/2.8 Macro
400/4.5 APO (Minolta)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2008, 10:36:24 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2008, 02:43:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks!

I do not normally work with high ISO, the high ISO stuff is mostly intended as a service for those who may be doing high ISO work. I see your point, however and I might to try Aperture.

I feel that the noise issue is more related to sensor and signal processing then to ACR, I have tested a couple of other raw converters. namely DCRAW, RawTherapee, DPP and Iridient Raw Developer and I still think that the noise charateristics of Sony cameras are less than suitable for high ISO work.

That said, I'm very much satisfied with my Alpha 900 experience. It's and excellent camera for low ISO work!

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: EPd
For your RAW conversions, especially the high ISO ones, may I suggest you use Aperture as I find it considerably better with my own A900 files. Even without the use of noise reduction. The Adobe decoding algorithm for the A900 seems to suck.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2008, 02:45:49 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2008, 04:10:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
I just did a simple test to compare Aperture with ACR when converting A900 RAW files. I shot an image at ISO 3200 with everything well out of focus as to create nice and nasty noise. I made sure the typical RGB range was included. Then I developed the file in both Adobe Camera Raw and Apple Aperture. All noise reduction was turned off and histograms in both converters matched very closely. No shadows or highlights were lost. All sharpening was turned off as well. Here are two samples at 100% pixel size. Export to JPEG was done from Photoshop at highest quality.

[attachment=10282:Aperture...CR_crop1.jpg]   [attachment=10283:Aperture...CR_crop2.jpg]

Quite telling differences, don't you think?



The Aperture results are similar to what I'm getting with Capture One.
Bill
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2008, 04:33:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The results of those side-by-sides are very interesting.  I suppose the question then begs, how does it compare 100, 200, 400, 800, etc - ie at which point in the ISO range do you see substantial differences?
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2008, 04:50:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
I just did a simple test to compare Aperture with ACR when converting A900 RAW files
Is that a compressed raw (about 25 MB) or the full size?
Logged

Gabor
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2008, 05:27:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi everyone.

I have a page on PBase with test images from my new Sony Alpha 900 DSLR. I try to produce these images with some care (pronounce as tripod and mirror lock up). The pictures are converted with LR 2.1 and posted as full resolution JPEG (95%). I'm just posting the results that I find interesting but feel free to ask for any specific information and I'll try to oblige if I can.

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test

Findings this far (subject to revision):

1) Camera is OK, but I miss an L plate. RRS, make an L-plate for the Alpha 900 ASAP, please!
2) A2 prints from A900 are in the same league as from A700. On screen sharpness from A900 is significantly better than A700, but A700 seems good enough for A2. There is a visible advantage to A900 on A2 prints, but not a lot.


Very sharp across the field at 50 and 75 mm at f/2.8. Possibly some softness along the extreme edges (to be invistigated) at 75 mm.

I have an Sony SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA on order, scheduled delivery is end of Feb. 2008 (ouch). The 28-75/2.8 is a fine lens but will probably replaced by the 24-70/2.8.

20/2.8

Very sharp across the field at f/8.0. Quite soft and serious vignetting at f/2.8.
I would say that this lens is a great positive surprise!

For latter evaluation:

50/1.4 (Minolta)
80-200/2.8 APO (Minolta black)
100/2.8 Macro
400/4.5 APO (Minolta)
Honestly I can see a substantial difference between a700 and a900 files, when shot with high grade lenses like the CZ, even at less than a3 size. At letter size I can still see the difference in crispiness from both cameras, it is quite tangible.
the better the lens used the more the difference will be.
Paradoxically , i think that at A2 you may note less difference than at smaller size.

I saw you mentioned Raw Developer on another post, and I agree that it is the best one for extracting the most of acuity from digital files. it is even superior to c1.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2008, 05:43:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
From my experience up untill now I start to see differences from the point where you go higher than native ISO (160 IMO). Differences grow with the height of the ISO value.

Thanks - that is interesting.  Do you have an opinion on the native ISO for the A700?  Both cameras are usually touted as being 200 but if it can be a little further refined then it's worth knowing.
Logged

aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2008, 08:00:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
1) Camera is OK, but I miss an L plate. RRS, make an L-plate for the Alpha 900 ASAP, please!

RRS has developed an L-plate for the A900 and are now taking pre-orders for it.  

I do use my prior A700's L-plate on the A900, even though the fitment is not perfect, since the A900's sides are more rounded when compared to the A700.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2008, 11:34:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I found out the L-plate yesterday and I have it on pre-order.

Thanks

Quote from: aaykay
RRS has developed an L-plate for the A900 and are now taking pre-orders for it.  

I do use my prior A700's L-plate on the A900, even though the fitment is not perfect, since the A900's sides are more rounded when compared to the A700.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2008, 11:37:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks!

Quite telling as you say. That's the beauty of shooting RAW, you have a choice in tools.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: EPd
I just did a simple test to compare Aperture with ACR when converting A900 RAW files. I shot an image at ISO 3200 with everything well out of focus as to create nice and nasty noise. I made sure the typical RGB range was included. Then I developed the file in both Adobe Camera Raw and Apple Aperture. All noise reduction was turned off and histograms in both converters matched very closely. No shadows or highlights were lost. All sharpening was turned off as well. Here are two samples at 100% pixel size. Export to JPEG was done from Photoshop at highest quality.

[attachment=10282:Aperture...CR_crop1.jpg]   [attachment=10283:Aperture...CR_crop2.jpg]

Quite telling differences, don't you think?
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2008, 03:02:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

In my view both prints are very sharp. Some comments I have are:

1) I was shooting with a 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA on the Alpha 700 and a 28-75/2.8 KM-lens on the A900, both at f:8.0
2) Processing may have effects. I used LR 2.1 sharpening "Landscape preset" and medium sharpening for glossy paper on output at 480 PPI.

What is a substantial difference is open to interpretation and it may also be related to eyesight.

The observation you make on A2 being less critical than A3 and smaller is an interesting one, saving both paper and ink. One explanation may be that it is difficult to get a good viewing distance and viewing light for big prints like A2, especially when trying to view both simultaneously.

Best regards
Erik
Quote from: ziocan
Honestly I can see a substantial difference between a700 and a900 files, when shot with high grade lenses like the CZ, even at less than a3 size. At letter size I can still see the difference in crispiness from both cameras, it is quite tangible.
the better the lens used the more the difference will be.
Paradoxically , i think that at A2 you may note less difference than at smaller size.

I saw you mentioned Raw Developer on another post, and I agree that it is the best one for extracting the most of acuity from digital files. it is even superior to c1.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 04:23:45 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2008, 03:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Updated 2008-12-19 with Minolta 100/2.8 Macro at 1:1
Erik
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi everyone.

Update! By misstake I put an f/2.8 image on PBase instead of f/8.0. I added an f/8 image. I'm expecting a Sony SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA Wednesday and can hopefully post some "pixel peeping stuff" after the weekend.

I have a page on PBase with test images from my new Sony Alpha 900 DSLR. I try to produce these images with some care (pronounce as tripod and mirror lock up). The pictures are converted with LR 2.1 and posted as full resolution JPEG (95%). I'm just posting the results that I find interesting but feel free to ask for any specific information and I'll try to oblige if I can.

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test

Findings this far (subject to revision):

1) Camera is OK, but I miss an L plate. RRS has now an L-plate, I have it on preorder (2008-12-14)
2) A2 prints from A900 are in the same league as from A700. On screen sharpness from A900 is significantly better than A700, but A700 seems good enough for A2. There is a visible advantage to A900 on A2 prints, but not a lot.

Preliminary lens evaluations:

I have a few test shots with KM 28-75/2.8 and Minolta 20/2.8 this far, i don't have a complete evaluation yet. Primary findings are:

27-75/2.8

Very sharp across the field at 50 and 75 mm at f/2.8. Possibly some softness along the extreme edges (to be invistigated) at 75 mm.

I have an Sony SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA on order, scheduled delivery is end of Feb. 2008 (ouch). The 28-75/2.8 is a fine lens but will probably replaced by the 24-70/2.8.

20/2.8

Very sharp across the field at f/8.0. Quite soft and serious vignetting at f/2.8.
I would say that this lens is a great positive surprise! My past experience with the same lens in the "film days" was not so overhelming, and I also think that the original Photodo tests were not that impressive (Grade 3.5).

I checked back on the Photodo site for the MTFs ( http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html ) and they are quite interesting. At aperture f/8 sagittal MTF is very high except extreme corners. Tangential MTF is less impressive.

Minolta 100/2.8 Macro (original version with metal focusing ring)


Sharp at center from f/5.6 to f/11, nominal. Not tested beyond f/11. Possible issues with not entirely flat test target possibly not perpendicular to camera.

Images uploaded to:
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/km_10028_macro




For latter evaluation:

50/1.4 (Minolta)
80-200/2.8 APO (Minolta black)
100/2.8 Macro
400/4.5 APO (Minolta)
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2008, 02:23:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Here are links to my latest samples:

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/2470za_test1
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/km_28_75_test

And some more photographics samples from the A900:
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_samples

Summary if my perceptions:

20/2.8: surprisingly good
24-70/2.8: Some weakness in extreme corners but an excellent picture taker.
100/2.8 macro: The jury is still out
28-75/2.8: Very good for the prize.
50/1.4: Not really useful on full frame. Good portrait lens on APS-C?
80-200/2.8: Issues with lateral CA at 200 mm, but it is correctable. Impressive otherwise.

Regarding the A900 I'd say that at low ISO the per pixel image quality with the lenses I have tested is amazing.

Best regards
Erik




Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi everyone.

I have a page on PBase with test images from my new Sony Alpha 900 DSLR. I try to produce these images with some care (pronounce as tripod and mirror lock up). The pictures are converted with LR 2.1 and posted as full resolution JPEG (95%). I'm just posting the results that I find interesting but feel free to ask for any specific information and I'll try to oblige if I can.

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test

Findings this far (subject to revision):

1) Camera is OK, but I miss an L plate. RRS has now an L-plate, I have it on preorder (2008-12-14)
2) A2 prints from A900 are in the same league as from A700. On screen sharpness from A900 is significantly better than A700, but A700 seems good enough for A2. There is a visible advantage to A900 on A2 prints, but not a lot.

Preliminary lens evaluations:

Updated 2008-12-21 with some observations on SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA, Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO, KM 28-75/2.8 and Minolta 50/1.4.

SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA
I start to understand while Michael Reichmann likes this lens!

The bad news is that the lens is not really sharp in the extreme corners at 24 and 70 mm below f/11. The good news is that what is not in the extreme corners is spectacularly good.

Test images: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/2470za_test1

Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO

The lens I have is the original black version. Observations:
At 200 mm there is a lot of lateral chromatic aberration. It can be eliminated by and large with a chromatic aberration preset in lightroom. Once properly processed the image is very sharp. At 90 mm I didn't see any sign of lateral CA.

KM 28-75/2.8
A series of test images will be posted later today on PBase. No other comments right now.

Minolta 50/1.4
Not overly impressed by this lens. More useful as a portrait lens on the A700 (APS-C) than on full format, because of very soft corners.
A series of test images will be posted later today on PBase.


I have a few test shots with KM 28-75/2.8 and Minolta 20/2.8 this far, i don't have a complete evaluation yet. Primary findings are:

27-75/2.8

Very sharp across the field at 50 and 75 mm at f/2.8. Possibly some softness along the extreme edges (to be invistigated) at 75 mm.

I have an Sony SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA on order, scheduled delivery is end of Feb. 2008 (ouch). The 28-75/2.8 is a fine lens but will probably replaced by the 24-70/2.8.

20/2.8

Very sharp across the field at f/8.0. Quite soft and serious vignetting at f/2.8.
I would say that this lens is a great positive surprise! My past experience with the same lens in the "film days" was not so overhelming, and I also think that the original Photodo tests were not that impressive (Grade 3.5).

I checked back on the Photodo site for the MTFs ( http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html ) and they are quite interesting. At aperture f/8 sagittal MTF is very high except extreme corners. Tangential MTF is less impressive.

Minolta 100/2.8 Macro (original version with metal focusing ring)


Sharp at center from f/5.6 to f/11, nominal. Not tested beyond f/11. Possible issues with not entirely flat test target possibly not perpendicular to camera.

Images uploaded to:
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/km_10028_macro




For latter evaluation:

50/1.4 (Minolta)
80-200/2.8 APO (Minolta black)
100/2.8 Macro
400/4.5 APO (Minolta)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2008, 02:31:43 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2008, 02:43:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The A900 is taking over the world.  Its certainly taking me over.  I now have the A900, grip, and 24-70mm  SSM f2.8 Zeiss, 85mm F1.4 Zeiss, 70-300mm SSM G and 100 F2.8mm Macro.

I'm skeptical of tests because so much depends on the raw converter, lens sample and focus accuracy, yada yada yada.  I use Silkypix because of its excellent in built lens correction and good colour.

I have however noticed one odd problem that I think is confined to older design lenses.  At very wide apertures, CA runs out of control even in out of focus areas, but vanishes at smaller apertures.  I see this with the 100mm macro and even the 85mm Zeiss to some extent.  Its absent however with the newer designs like the 24-70mm Zeiss.

All I want now is C1 to support tethered shooting with the A900.  Or Sony to produce a more complete tethered shooting package (which I am sure they will).

Quentin
« Last Edit: December 21, 2008, 02:46:16 PM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2008, 03:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Quentin,

Your response is much appreciated. I publish my pictures essentially because there is very little really relevant information about image quality on the net. I would actually prefer to upload RAW/DNG images but I had no success doing that on PBase.

The issue you mention with older designs reminds me of what "Photozone" calls LoCA, longitudinal chromatic aberration. Check this: http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-l...a_85_14?start=1

 

Quote from: Quentin
The A900 is taking over the world.  Its certainly taking me over.  I now have the A900, grip, and 24-70mm  SSM f2.8 Zeiss, 85mm F1.4 Zeiss, 70-300mm SSM G and 100 F2.8mm Macro.

I'm skeptical of tests because so much depends on the raw converter, lens sample and focus accuracy, yada yada yada.  I use Silkypix because of its excellent in built lens correction and good colour.

I have however noticed one odd problem that I think is confined to older design lenses.  At very wide apertures, CA runs out of control even in out of focus areas, but vanishes at smaller apertures.  I see this with the 100mm macro and even the 85mm Zeiss to some extent.  Its absent however with the newer designs like the 24-70mm Zeiss.

All I want now is C1 to support tethered shooting with the A900.  Or Sony to produce a more complete tethered shooting package (which I am sure they will).

Quentin
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2008, 04:07:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi Quentin,

Your response is much appreciated. I publish my pictures essentially because there is very little really relevant information about image quality on the net. I would actually prefer to upload RAW/DNG images but I had no success doing that on PBase.

The issue you mention with older designs reminds me of what "Photozone" calls LoCA, longitudinal chromatic aberration. Check this: http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-l...a_85_14?start=1

Erik,

You are right.  I am seeing Longitudinal (Axial) Chromatic Aberrations (using the article definition).  Not always a problem, but when it is, then the shot may be unusable or require a lot of post processing.  I don't recall noticing it quite so much with the Nikkor 85 f1.4, but perhaps I was not looking that closely.  Is there a solution or is it just inevitable?

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2008, 05:26:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quentin,

Photozone has found LoCA on most high aperture lenses they tested, including the the 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 lenses for Sony Alpha. According to Photozone the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 also suffers from this, but there may be different versions of that lens.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-report?start=1

Most high aperture lenses have that problem. I'm not aware of any solution. You may try to post a question on the Photozone forums if someone knows a good short high aperture telephoto with no LoCA.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Quentin
Erik,

You are right.  I am seeing Longitudinal (Axial) Chromatic Aberrations (using the article definition).  Not always a problem, but when it is, then the shot may be unusable or require a lot of post processing.  I don't recall noticing it quite so much with the Nikkor 85 f1.4, but perhaps I was not looking that closely.  Is there a solution or is it just inevitable?

Quentin
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2008, 07:46:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quentin,

I posted a message on the Photozone forum. The responses till now are not promising.

http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/ShowMessage?ID=1106245A

Erik

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Quentin,

Photozone has found LoCA on most high aperture lenses they tested, including the the 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 lenses for Sony Alpha. According to Photozone the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 also suffers from this, but there may be different versions of that lens.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-report?start=1

Most high aperture lenses have that problem. I'm not aware of any solution. You may try to post a question on the Photozone forums if someone knows a good short high aperture telephoto with no LoCA.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2008, 10:15:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Quentin,

I posted a message on the Photozone forum. The responses till now are not promising.

http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/ShowMessage?ID=1106245A

Erik


Hi Erik,

Thanks for your time on this.  I guess I'll just have to suck it down     Its not that much of an issue, given how minimal standard issue CA is in most cases and stopping down just a little largely resolves the problem when it does appear (i.e. not much of an issue at f2 on the 85mm).

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad