Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Rest in peace V  (Read 6942 times)
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #60 on: May 03, 2013, 03:28:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Did you focus here?

Best,
Johannes

 Grin

No, focused on the face, but there is some retouching on the face so not a realistic crop to show resolution.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 04:54:46 PM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2013, 03:30:07 PM »
ReplyReply

TMAX 100

Excellent processing and a rock steady hand!
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 03, 2013, 04:39:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I like the Zeiss lenses, but there was a time I really did not like them.  At all.  They have too much contrast, I thought at the time.  I liked the RZ lenses better.  I guess my tastes changed.






I agree with T.

I never like the Zeiss Contax lenses with film, especially transparency film, way too contrasty and crisp.

With digital it's a different game, just sliding the luminance noise function on c1 and you have a sharp lens with a different character and the benefit of less noise, though I also am getting to where I kind of like the oversharp, contrasty look.

I guess everything changes.

______________________________

Not to go off topic, but handled a h5d40 yesterday, for a few minutes.  Hasselblad has done wonders with this camera as it's now tight and solid.  It has minimum mirror slap and the focus is quick, really amazed me how quick.

The only that that kind of disappointed me was I thought the silver finish would be bright but it's more of a matte pewter.  Still pretty.

Nice camera.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 04:55:09 PM by bcooter » Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #63 on: May 03, 2013, 05:29:25 PM »
ReplyReply



Not to go off topic, but handled a h5d40 yesterday, for a few minutes.  Hasselblad has done wonders with this camera as it's now tight and solid.  It has minimum mirror slap and the focus is quick, really amazed me how quick.

The only that that kind of disappointed me was I thought the silver finish would be bright but it's more of a matte pewter.  Still pretty.

Nice camera.

IMO

BC

After few minutes you can tell that it is tight and solid...  Grin


Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 03, 2013, 05:35:02 PM »
ReplyReply

After few minutes you can tell that it is tight and solid...  Grin





After few minutes you can tell that it is tight and solid...  Grin


Yea, of course it was new, but there was a new H4 and H3 and I shot a few frames with all three and there is a noticeable difference.

None of us know how a camera will perform long term, though the H series have been around a long time.

That should mean something.

IMO

BC
Logged

Josef Isayo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #65 on: May 03, 2013, 07:42:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I was at Samy's a few days ago and got to play with their demo H5D-40. The AF was noticeably faster than my H4D-40. The camera feels more solid and the LCD and menu system has been improved. It's nicer looking too though the stainless is prettier.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 04, 2013, 01:56:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

In my view the task of the lens is to give a correct rendition of the subject on the imager (sensor or film). The lens cannot really enhance contrast or sharpness. So a lens should be sharp/crisp and have high contrast, and a well made lens will have those properties.

Lenses may add artificial detail, like coma and double contours, that is a bad thing.

Just my view...

Best regards
Erik


I agree with T.

I never like the Zeiss Contax lenses with film, especially transparency film, way too contrasty and crisp.

With digital it's a different game, just sliding the luminance noise function on c1 and you have a sharp lens with a different character and the benefit of less noise, though I also am getting to where I kind of like the oversharp, contrasty look.

I guess everything changes.

______________________________

Not to go off topic, but handled a h5d40 yesterday, for a few minutes.  Hasselblad has done wonders with this camera as it's now tight and solid.  It has minimum mirror slap and the focus is quick, really amazed me how quick.

The only that that kind of disappointed me was I thought the silver finish would be bright but it's more of a matte pewter.  Still pretty.

Nice camera.

IMO

BC
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #67 on: May 04, 2013, 09:28:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

In my view the task of the lens is to give a correct rendition of the subject on the imager (sensor or film). The lens cannot really enhance contrast or sharpness. So a lens should be sharp/crisp and have high contrast, and a well made lens will have those properties.

Lenses may add artificial detail, like coma and double contours, that is a bad thing.

Just my view...

Best regards
Erik

In as much as gear influences the creative process, it is the flaws and limitations that drive you forward.  Perfection is the realm of CGI.  In my view a photograph needs to create an emotional response.  Perfection does not create an emotional response, but is merely a curiosity.  This is why I don't like all these perfect lenses, at least not for digital where things get too sharp.  For example, I am not a fan of Leica asph lenses.  Aside from the size, the 28 Asph-m is too sharp, same with the Zeiss zm 28 biogon.  I much prefer the version IV Mandler designed 28 with the 49mm filter.  Same with the 35 asph.  I loath the asph version.  Too sharp, too perfect.  I like the version III, also a Mandler design.  I also like Paolo Roversi's 8x10 work more than most beauty work I see in magazines.  I also like the M9 versus the M8, as the M8 was too sharp, certainly sharper than the M9.  The Zeiss ZF 50 Planar I like better than the Macro Planar.  The Canon 85 1.2 is in many ways a horrible lens, but one of my favorites.  I could go on.

I'm not saying I want to see CA and odd fringing, but a lens has to offer something aside from corner to corner sharpness.  Otherwise, a CGI will do just fine.


Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 04, 2013, 10:32:11 AM »
ReplyReply

What is considered bad in this age of 14 stop dr and ultra sharp edge to edge lenses has added a commonality to photography that you can see 100 mies away.

Obviously Paolo Roversi's talent drives his work, but it's the look of his old lights, that semi soft 8x10, the processing none of which would clear the pixel peeping world is what adds to his work.

If there is one thing that keeps me from buying an H5d today is the fact that the lens line is all Hasselblad/Fuji.  Very nice, very sharp lenses, but they lack variety of look.

With my contax or any focal plane shutter camera I use Hartblei, hasselblad, contax, pentax lenses and all have a different look . . . way different and though a lot can be mimicked in post, it's still post and not on the day of the shoot.

Getting a different look in digital becomes more difficult every day as it is becoming a one format one or two brand world.

IMO

BC


In as much as gear influences the creative process, it is the flaws and limitations that drive you forward.  Perfection is the realm of CGI.  In my view a photograph needs to create an emotional response.  Perfection does not create an emotional response, but is merely a curiosity.  This is why I don't like all these perfect lenses, at least not for digital where things get too sharp.  For example, I am not a fan of Leica asph lenses.  Aside from the size, the 28 Asph-m is too sharp, same with the Zeiss zm 28 biogon.  I much prefer the version IV Mandler designed 28 with the 49mm filter.  Same with the 35 asph.  I loath the asph version.  Too sharp, too perfect.  I like the version III, also a Mandler design.  I also like Paolo Roversi's 8x10 work more than most beauty work I see in magazines.  I also like the M9 versus the M8, as the M8 was too sharp, certainly sharper than the M9.  The Zeiss ZF 50 Planar I like better than the Macro Planar.  The Canon 85 1.2 is in many ways a horrible lens, but one of my favorites.  I could go on.

I'm not saying I want to see CA and odd fringing, but a lens has to offer something aside from corner to corner sharpness.  Otherwise, a CGI will do just fine.



Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 04, 2013, 10:33:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My point is that a lens should reproduce what is in front of it, but as said, it just a view I happen to have.

Another point is that much of the effort goes into making lenses acceptable/good/perfect at large apertures. Most lenses are pretty good at medium apertures.

Best regards
Erik


In as much as gear influences the creative process, it is the flaws and limitations that drive you forward.  Perfection is the realm of CGI.  In my view a photograph needs to create an emotional response.  Perfection does not create an emotional response, but is merely a curiosity.  This is why I don't like all these perfect lenses, at least not for digital where things get too sharp.  For example, I am not a fan of Leica asph lenses.  Aside from the size, the 28 Asph-m is too sharp, same with the Zeiss zm 28 biogon.  I much prefer the version IV Mandler designed 28 with the 49mm filter.  Same with the 35 asph.  I loath the asph version.  Too sharp, too perfect.  I like the version III, also a Mandler design.  I also like Paolo Roversi's 8x10 work more than most beauty work I see in magazines.  I also like the M9 versus the M8, as the M8 was too sharp, certainly sharper than the M9.  The Zeiss ZF 50 Planar I like better than the Macro Planar.  The Canon 85 1.2 is in many ways a horrible lens, but one of my favorites.  I could go on.

I'm not saying I want to see CA and odd fringing, but a lens has to offer something aside from corner to corner sharpness.  Otherwise, a CGI will do just fine.



Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #70 on: May 04, 2013, 01:04:00 PM »
ReplyReply



Getting a different look in digital becomes more difficult every day as it is becoming a one format one or two brand world.

IMO

BC



?

There has never been such diversity in photography as there is today from both the creative point of view
and the equipment point of view.

There are more companies making cameras today then there were in the 80s.

There are all sorts of lenses available on more digital cameras then there were in the past.

You have everything from ultra high end Ziess all the way down to specialized bokeh dirven designs and toy lenses like
lens baby.

Film and large format are still available though there are some limitations.

Yes I miss 8x10 polaroid and panatomic-X but it's not the end of the world.

It's never been better.

What has really changed is that large investments are not required to satisfy the vast majority of the
publishing formats. This has lead to a democratization of the field with kids and carreer changers comming from no where and
taking increadible pictures.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad