• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Most Liked Content


#29773 Sounds crazy but I am getting 5D, do I need new lenses ?

Posted by Rainer on 11 March 2015 - 02:44 PM

Toni did not start the discussion if (or not) the 5DMk1 is (or is not)

a camera he should buy. Instead, he mentioned as a fact, that he

is getting one. His question was regarding lenses.

 

The fact, that some forum users do, and others don't understand his

choice of camera is not really helpful in this context. Also, the relevance

that some put on a certain sensorformat, and the irrelevance this has

for others, will also not answer the original question.


  • toni-a, goran h, dave9t5 and 3 others like this


#7409 Do-it-yourself centering sanity check

Posted by Klaus on 05 April 2011 - 08:27 PM

Hi all,

we're frequently asked how to check the centering quality of a lens. There's, of course, no simple check which covers the whole scope. However, here at PZ we've a quick and dirty "sanity" check for new lenses that you could also use.

This sanity check covers only ONE KIND of centering - "shifted" elements.

Now what is that ? Let's have a look at the following 100% sample crop from an IMAGE CENTER:

Posted Image


You may notice that there are two soft edges and two "fairly" sharp ones. This is a centering defect "classic" which covers about half of the centering defects out there.
Such kind of decentering occurs mostly at the tele end of a zoom lens. This one was taken from a Sony 28-75/2.8 @ 75mm @ f/2.8. That said every once in a while this does also happen with prime lenses.

How to check ? Now take the following template:

Posted Image



It's best to download the image and show it full screen at 100% - no more, no less.

This is, obviously, the "perfect shot" (artificially generated, of course).

Dirty approach:

1. take your lens, attach it to your camera, SELECT MAX APERTURE and switch to LiveView mode
2. go to the max. tele setting (if applicable)
3. move back from the screen (depends on the lens, say roughly e.g. 3m for a 50mm lens. You should NOT be able to spot any screen pixels anymore in magnified LiveView mode)
4. enlarge the LiveView mode to maximum magnification (e.g. 10x, 15x whatever your camera offers here)
5. DEFOCUS the lens
6. point the center of the lens straight to the center of the test image. MAINTAIN the 5 degree tilt of the edges!

Now the important part:
7. FOCUS SLOWLY towards the focus and OBSERVE how the 4 edges GET SLOWLY SHARPER

A well-centered lens should have a strictly symmetrical focus blur as well as a strictly symmetrical sharpness once you reached focus. If you got a decentered lens you will already notice that there's no strict symmetry anymore once you approach the focus. It's actually slightly easier to observe in slighly defocused images.

This does not work on the Pentax K-5 and, I suspect, other Pentax DSLRs.

If you want it correctly - do it with a tripod and take a picture with LiveView AF and check the result (this does, of course, work with Pentax DSLRs).

Just give it a try .... Posted Image

You can simply upload it to you laptop, take it to the shop and do it on location when buying a new lens.

PS: No, this is no late April's fool joke.







  • ThomasD, cmore, BG_Home and 2 others like this


#6666 Nikkor 85mm f1.4 G

Posted by Klaus on 11 March 2011 - 07:46 AM

It's up to you who you believe... a place with an ad supported website, some numbers with no evidence and a partially reasoned methodology sounds much more credible than an independent reviewer with a strong scientific background who does it only for the kicks I suppose.

GTW


So the question of the day is ... why are you here anyway assuming that our reviews are really so bad as you suggested. :-)

Regarding your "ad" argument - if we wanted to make more money our verdicts must be generally higher. Our number of "highly recommended" lenses is very low which isn't exactly driving readers into buying many lenses. Sometimes I'm a little wondering about our masochism here - lots of testing efforts but only a marginal business case. :-)
Other than that we are not running any manufacturer ads (possibly once in a while they may come in via Google Adsense but not directly). And unlike other sites we've only marginal contacts with the manufacturers regarding the supply of test lenses. Consequently I'd say that your related argument is simply ... invalid.

It's also interesting to read that you ... as a scientific reviewer as you describe yourself ... can't come up with numbers nor with a formal rather than just informal testing methodology. Maybe something to think about ... ? Competition is good so why aren't you starting an own website where you post our results ? Maybe you could even make some money. ;-)
Any if not - we are always open to suggestions how to improve our testing procedure.


cheerio

Klaus
  • Claus, BG_Home, Lomskij and 2 others like this


#6625 Suggestion for best all around lens for D7000???

Posted by Martin_MM on 09 March 2011 - 11:54 AM

Take a look:
http://www.google.co...R D7000 problem


GTW



OMG, what is this? Linking own Google search with terms "D7000" and "problem" to answer the question what is D7000 like... You are a real Canon brand fundamentalist, indeed.

Yes, your replies stink more and more, true point.
  • BG_Home, Lomskij, Martin_MM and 2 others like this


#37442 Fuji GFX 50 S medium format

Posted by Klaus on 26 September 2016 - 10:20 PM

I'm waiting for you to show me a FF system that offers the same DOF control to what the Fuji X system (APS-C) offers in a similar form factor (body + lenses).

Please pay attention to the bold statement above.

 

Bonus question: assuming one is perfectly happy with the DOF of the following lenses: MFT 45 f1.8, 20 f1.7 and 14 f2.5. Where can I find a similar package for FF?

 

I think Brightcolors hasn't inhaled the concept that each format has its pros and cons and that FF is no longer the center of the universe.


  • you2, goran h, thxbb12 and 2 others like this


#29149 My New Pentax Kit

Posted by carpents on 29 January 2015 - 03:33 PM

I'm coming back (never fully left) to the Pentax camp. On my Fujis they make a surprisingly small & light kit - I could easily take a camera and three lenses on pretty much any trip.

 

hd-da-limiteds_DSCF3430.jpg


  • goran h, dave9t5 and dave's clichés like this


#6648 Suggestion for best all around lens for D7000???

Posted by mst on 10 March 2011 - 09:53 AM

The OP asked how the D7000 is and I suggested that he used the great search engine technologies we have today.


No. He asked about how the D7000 is an you gave a biased answer by pointing to problems only. That's not how the D7000 is, you can search and find problems for any other camera (or any product in general) this way.

-- Markus
  • BG_Home, Lomskij, Martin_MM and 1 other like this


#33036 Laowa (Venus) 105mm f2 STF

Posted by Studor13 on 22 January 2016 - 09:25 AM

In a former life I trained to fly a tandem paraglider (on the fondue side of where Joju lives) and when I was buying the glider I asked the guy how fast it flew. He said "Look, I don't bother anymore with whether they fly 23, 24, 25, 26km/h anymore. I just say that they are not particularly fast, fast or quite fast. When you are actually flying, there are a whole lot of factors involved. The absolute top speed has very little to do with whether or not you are going to land the thing safely with your passenger".

 

I think the same thing can be said about lenses. Somewhat sharp, sharp, and seriously sharp. What else do you need to know?

 

As for them105mm f2 DC, I find that it is not as sharp wide open as the 105mm f2.5 AIS wide open. However, at f3.2 to f8 the 105mm DC is seriously sharp. And great bokeh to boot!


  • mst, dave9t5, dave's clichés and 1 other like this


#33020 Laowa (Venus) 105mm f2 STF

Posted by Klaus on 21 January 2016 - 01:04 PM

And soon in this theater ... ;-)


  • youpii, popo, Brightcolours and 1 other like this


#29978 next PZ lens test report: Carl Zeiss E 16-70mm f/4 OSS

Posted by Klaus on 01 April 2015 - 10:55 PM

PS: I'm not sending mine to you. I already have my lens, and I like it no matter what the photozone score. Maybe you could get another one from sSony because this is going to cost them some sales.

 

I suggest to read the review about the situation here - we BOUGHT the lens. We let them check it TWICE. We mentioned to the Sony service that we are a magazine and that there'll be a review. Thus where exactly is the flaw in the way we handled this ?

 

Now it's THEIR turn. We won't do anything further - we have done our part. If THEY contact us and replace the lens - fine. I may review it then once more. However, Photozone is not the marketing arm of the industry (as some other sites) thus we won't make them look good if they don't deserve it. The very last thing we care about is their sales. This is a site for customers. Customers receive such lenses from Sony. Customers send such lenses to the Sony service. And Customers have to live with such an outcome as you can see. So a website dared to put the finger into the wound - whether it relates to a poor design or abysmal service quality doesn't matter. THIS is the mission statement. Now what exactly is the problem again ?


  • thxbb12, popo, DavidBM and 1 other like this


#28156 Photokina 2014 mini report

Posted by Sylvain on 18 September 2014 - 09:31 PM

Hey guys,

 

Long time no see, sadly, I don't feel like writing a huge reports like I did two years ago but just a few thoughts just back from Kln.

 

Overall, I feel there was some cool down on the innovation front. Maybe my interest is shifting to some other things : film photography, less pixel peeping, ...

 

Anyway.

 

Canon

Just wanted to taste a 6D +40mm f/2.8 as a possible "cheapest" replacement for my E-m5 + 20mm f/1.7. I love 40mm focal length

Didn't work. That 6D is utter trash, no joystick to select AF point quickly, shutter speed limited to 1/4000 and AF speed not so impressive. I know 6D is old news.

The quest for a nice "small FF reflex" is still on. And no, I just don't like Nikon :-/

Canon G 7X, I was very impatient to see it. Its user interface & touch screen would in principle win me over a RX100 MIII but I found it was kinda slow (especially the motorized zoom) and the lack of that cool popup viewfinder from Sony showed. That thing in the RX100 MIII is very nice. Yes I'm looking for a super excellent compact. Good transition to Panasonic

 

Panasonic

A good excellent compact in the LX100 ? insanely fast and zippy to focus. Like very very good, insane (I think it's the GH4 thingy working there?). Overall good ergonomics. Nice EVF. Lens seems nice. Pretty solid product ! But, for me, totally let down by a slow motorized zoom. Too slow. really. The lack of touch screen is slightly less irritating than expected. I'll have to think about this thing replacing quite a bit of my kit.

GM5 : the EVF sucks so much it defeats its purpose. Overall, the GM5 is just too small for my tastes and kinda doesn't work as well as "real compacts".

Nothing else to see IMHO. Oh no, the Cellphone with the 28mm was pretty damn convincing. But it looks too much like a lumix than a phone. Somehow it's troubling.

 

Fuji, VERY strong

X100T hybrid EVF is terrific. That Optical + tiny digital corner embed is nothing short of amazing. That thing is coming to the X-Pro 2, you can be sure. Very nice camera. You can see they're improving on the UI too, over the years.

X-T1, superb but still puzzled by the little glitch every time you focus. Frustrated by the locked switches (seriously, who thought it was so useful?).

EVF superb, lenses are superb, zippy etc... That focus glitch & switches still is a big showstopper for me but I can't deny they're the ones to follow.

 

Sony

Overall, nothing impressed me really. I liked the rx100 miii but I find its UI impossibly stupid. Same for A7x's.

For A7x's; I just don't trust them, I feel the vibrations issues reported on the web got to me and I can't look at them as viable solutions. Sad because they are very effective.

Oh their 4K TV are absolutely stunning.

The big cool thing came from Zeiss for me this year, to save the Sony Alpha... the Loxias !

 

Zeiss

Loxia lenses are very very well made. The focus path lengteh is totally ideal and the focus peaking of the A7 mate very well with them. Superb package. As I said, I'll wait for "issue free" A7.

Otus Pocus are just too big and the focus ring is just too wide to balance well for me. It's a benchmark horse and I can imagine it's possible to get used to but It's a less than optimal configuration.

Again, Loxia impressed me in terms of handling. Hope the results will adequately follow.

 

Leica

Too much ado about nothing. Really. They've been excellent at building anticipation but in the end. They really have nothing for very little people. The S kinda works for me, remotely.

 

Nikon

Didn't even visit them, they haven't had anything for me in a long while.

 

Olympus

40-150 is everything they say about. 12-40 also.

Silver E-M1 has to be seen to be believed. Damn ugly piece.

Nothing really interesting this time :-/. Momentum fading?

 

Sigma

Quattros are un-usa-ble. Totally.

 

Samsung

NX1 is one hell of an impressive piece of gear. I didn't really configure it so well so results were mixed but the feeling of potential is immense. Extremely Zippy thing. Curious to see how it will be assessed. Disappointed by the "mirrorless as big as reflex" story though. Looks like Samsung really absolutely means business with this thing. I see it as a last call. If they fail with this, I can imagine them slowly preparing their exit.

 

Ha-Hasselblad

 

Voigtlander

minuscule booth. Seriously, it's really sad. It's a good brand.

 

Hmm rest was accessories, papers & the likes. Some nice things.

 

Not the best Kina but Fuji is attracting me more and more. IMHO, my eyes will be watching Sony & Fuji. Fuji is this close to convince me I will not need a FF ever again (that xtrans is black magic) and Sony is this close to convince me, thanks to Zeiss, that a very small FF punching hard is indeed possible.

 

A kina opening to 2015 rather than advertising for 2014 products would be my conclusion.

 

Greetings;

S.


  • joachim, carpents, dave9t5 and 1 other like this


#250 selecting a camera with Autofocus priority

Posted by wim on 05 June 2010 - 06:01 PM

Regardless of it's AF performance, any comments on the rumours that the 7D requires high quality lenses because of it's high pixel density?... When it comes to %100 views I suppose...

Serkan

Hi Serkan,

I think you have to look at it in another way: 100 % view is a view you can use to spot the smallest defects in a lens. That is useful in order to know what you can and can't do with your equipment, but serves no other purpose than that.

Essentially, in my view, digital shooters need to get over two trends which are common, namely the one where you always have to look at 100 % from a close distance to apparently view a photograph at its best, and the other where we apparently have to expect nothing but perfection from lens and camera manufacturers, at any price point.

When it comes to the first point: 100 % was ok up to about 12, maybe 17 MP in FF (60 - 70 lp / mm), and about 6 MP to 10 MP in APS-C (translated to FF that is 40 - 55 lp / mm, at 1.6X enlargement of course). Why is this you may ask? Simply because as very good amateurs using colour negative film we would get 20 - 40 lp / mm from our colour negative films in print. Professionals would get 60 lp / mm, maybe a little more. We had film like sharpness then, so it didn't matter all that much. There was a nice transition from sharp to unsharp when going out of DoF, and there was quite a bit of fall-off from centre to extreme border too. And we were all quite happy with that.

This changed with digital when the first newness wore off. MTFs looked flat, from centre to extreme corner, unlike with most pictures taken on film. This was due IMO because of the different characteristics of the sensor vs film, for one caused by the difference in thickness of the medium (0 of the sensor vs 0.2 mm of the film), the even distribution of "particles" on a sensor, the direct integration of sensor with camera and enlarging equipment (computer and printer), and the sensor assembly, which cut off high frequency resolution drastically. We also saw sharpness come in very rapidly close to the DoF zone, stya more or less th esame, and then disappear quite fast again.

It is much easier to see any defects now then we ever could see with film as a result, although I can assure you that with film it also has been visible all the time, if you cared enough to look. This also gets me to the second point, namely that in t e past we would do occasional 20 x 30's, sometimes a 40 x 50, and often that was it. Most stuff, even today, was printed and viewed on 10 X 15 or 13 X 18 (all cm of course). With 100 % viewing, at 72 dpi, or even at 90 dpi if that is the definition of ones display, you are looking at an image of more than 1 by 1.5 m with most modern cameras, including a 7D, and preferably from 30 or 40 cm away.

The latter is not proper viewing distance. The diagonal X 2 is. If you look from that distance, a proper viewing distance, I can assure you that many of the defects become totally irrelevant.

Coming back to high pixel density: because the combination of high pixel density and AA-filters which cut off only frequencies that are much higher than before, we start seeing the response with sensors we used to see with film, namely a clear or clearer transition from centre to extreme corner, even with the best of lenses, and especially the wider the AoV of a lens is. This is optical laws at play here, we are back again at the normal interaction of optics and medium, no longer screened off as it were from an artifical cut off, which made us believe things looked better than they actually were.

However, things are actually becoming much better than they were, basically because optics still get better, be it at a price. Modern optics from a specific class are better than most stuff produced in the past, and that is not only true for professional lenses, but also for consumer or advanced consumer lenses. Examples are the new 15-85 IS vs the 17-85 IS, the range of 20-35 -> 17-35 -> 16-35 -> 16-35 II, etc , and a bunch of others too, inclusing lenses of other brands.

The things we used to do in the past, and that is IMO where we are right back now with 15 MP+ APS-C cameras and 20 MP+ FF cameras, is to learn to use the camera-lens combinations we own to their best advantage, and/or make use of their weak points to our advantage. Do note that although some lenses may get to "only" 1200 or 1400 lines per image height in their extreme corners when used wide open, this is stil a lot more than we ever got out of film.

And a camera like the 7D is one that ups the level quite significantly again in APS-C land, especially considering all its other characteristics (with the exception of my own pet hate, caused by my eye problems, the frame in the VF which I can't see in one go :)).

Finally, although the 7D has upped the ante with regard to resolution another step, as it has the staggering resolution of ~120 lp/mm in APS-C format, it still doesn't come close to what the best lenses are capable of, yet. 400-450 lp/mm is what a really good lens can do at F/4 (and theoreticall better at larger openings, although only specialist lenses, designed for monochromatic light, manage that , generally speaking). And according to the lens formula that means that combined resolution is about 90 - 100 lp / mm. And this is what we seem to be achieving.

I do expect, however, that by the time we get to similar resolutions as we get from the lenses by themselves, we will have sensor sites that are photon counters, however, no longer traditional well sites. When you get to sites that are the same as or relatively close to the dimensions of the wavelenght of light, it is likely we need to have a different type of sensor to capture anything at all without capturing just noise from the electronics.

Kind regards, Wim
  • mst, Sylvain, Symple and 1 other like this


#20336 My photokina 2012 report

Posted by Sylvain on 22 September 2012 - 11:23 PM

Ladies & Gentleman,

Time has come for my humble report on Photokina 2012 ! The general feeling was that of a rather serious Photokina. I remember the 2006 edition : a loud Kina with lots of choregraphies, models, shows & extravagance. The 2008 was seriously quieter. I skipped the 2010 one but this year was all business. Still a few silly stage & set up scenes with girls looking dead bored but overall, it was more about the products than girls.
I'll write down my impressions in no definite order with absolutely no restraint nor impartiality whatsoever. Take it as it comes ! To give you a clue :
Regular readers know I have departed from heavy APS-C DSLR (Canon 30D,40D, a bunch of L & high grade EF-S lenses) to Olympus E-P1 & my current OM-D. I'm partial to mirrorless & mirrorless camera makers, not specially to Olympus, eventhough you'll read praises about them.

Sony :
A bunch of silly activities, a lot of products. Quite a popular stand with many people trying out the A99. The RX100 "formidable" had little attention but I guess it's too old already for the Kina. Still very nice. I turned around the different samples of the RX1 which, of course, was not to try, a big disappointment proportional to how amazing it looks. It's every bit as exciting as it looked on your monitor. The EVF isn't looking bad at all after all.
The NEX-6 does appear to be a well sorted out camera and the 16-50 lens was quite pleasing to use. The motor is extremely quick and is controlled by a typical control ring rather than the plain annoying W-T jog of the Pana X 14-42. I don't suppose it's going to be a particularly good lens but it's quite nicely made. The NEX cameras are looking very strong.
I never tried focus peaking and it works extremely well, I can understand the lobbying of the MFT boys although one of my personal conclusions of the kina is that I'm definitely getting too impatient for anything involving manual focusing. AF zones are small, AF is quick, AF zones are easy to move about (direct arrows or touch screen). Case sorted.
I really get the impression SONY is the big boss right now and that apart from the D4 & 1Dx, Canon & Nikon look a bit pathetic.

Samsung :
Well. I tried their telephone. I mean the telephone without the phone functionality. Its screen is fading dark on angles, is annoying to use, is too large. And I keep calling it a telephone. Confusing product but when you go on, you kinda see the point. It just feels like a good phone camera or a bad camera. The GUI wasn't terrible but needs sorting out. The rest I didn't care much about. Still not giving any love to their NX system, perhaps to my loss.

Sigma :
Let's start with the good stuff. I tried the 19 & 30mm lenses for MFT. I'm not sure about the focal length but they're nice little lenses. Hope sigma will go on with MFT.
Then, ouch. I tried the DP1M & DP2M. It's really disappointing :-/ and I really really really wanted to like them. But as I'm cooling down, I guess the DP1M has to be put back within its territory : a landscape camera, quiet, slow action. Perhaps there, anticipating beautiful files, you can get over it. I really can't see how the DP2M can work though. With its focal length, I'd expect the % of social pictures take a little more room than the DP1M and I can imagine a lot of missed pictures. They are too blocky & heavy too.

Lee (as in Lee Filter holders systems manufacturer) :
Very small presence with a nice english rep. I was interested in trying out the RF75 filter holder for range finders and got introduced to a newer model called the Seven5 re-designed for mirrorless cams that would be much cheaper. Good news as Lee don't come cheap. It should be available from next month for 50-60 if I understood correctly. It's basically build cheaper on less important parts (plastic moldings instead of metal).
It's called the seven5 micro filter system. It's good news as the price always put me off. Remains the glass price though. Of note, Cokin also introduced a system Snap-Kit but didn't get a chance to see them.

Schneider :
Lots of big cine lenses & the three new MFT in boxes. Keep moving.

Fuji :
A mixed bag. I tried in that order : X-Pro1, X-E1 & XF1. Terrible mistake to go down the foodchain. Don't do that. I swear it was unintended. The X-Pro1 is actually much nicer than I thought. The hybrid viewfinder is a joy. You use the optical viewfinder and you get the instant digital viewfinder review after each shot. Seeing the bigger lenses (like the new 18-55) stick inside the view isn't really distracting. The models on display already had the dynamic framing lines. Simple but works well. The 18-55 is nice but could be a little better build.
Solid, serious, hefty camera. I liked it very much despite it being a little too big for my habits. Then came the XE-1. Feels considerably lighter. Maybe too much but after the X-Pro1, that's not a fair judgment. The viewfinder is good but perhaps due to the lighting, was a bit weird at times. Didn't feel as quick as on sony's ? On both X's cams, the LCD screen looked rather disappointing, or sticking out too much. Something not rightly placed. The optical finder is sorely missed when you tried them next to each other. I recommend not trying them together.
The XF1 was terribly disappointing. The build quality just isn't there. The lens unfolding was a bit annoying to me. Clever but too many steps and there was just too much play. On the good side, it's quite fast & the fact that it's a compact with a manual zoom really is brilliant. In use, it was a bit jittery and it felt quite cheap Overall, every fuji I tried lacked this speed I got used to with the MFT system. I hope it's not the final model?
Amusing little "polaroid" like plastic cameras. Instax Mini.

Pentax/Ricoh :
Ricoh GXR interesting but not very attractive. Pentax Q10, too toyish.

Voigltnder :
Tried 17.5mm & 25mm. Beautiful lenses. Smooth & tight. Huge focus path on the 25mm lens, perhaps too much actually? I through trying them would win me over but it just confirmed I like AF too much. Perhaps when my interest starts shifting towards film making.

Leica :
I'm tired just thinking about their products. Trying the S camera is more like weightlifting. The balance with the battery grip & some lenses in portrait is just terrible. The staff worryingly stares at anybody trying them. Their face reads "it's gonna fall, it's gonna fall, have to catch it". Strange concept, this portable medium format camera. Beautiful prints though. Tried the X2, poor, uninteresting camera :-/. I didn't collect enough patience for the funky M.
Then you visit their huge hall gallery and you worry less about how these "primitive" tools bring so many brilliant pictures. "It's the photographer, idiot".

Hasselblad :
I really went there thinking I had to be respectful and keep in mind people have worked on that. I tried hard but no, it's bordering ridicule I'm afraid or perhaps I haven't found my matching combination. Blarg. It's visually eye catching though, just like the ferrari they squeezed just outside the "Lunar" room.

Olympus :
Tried lenses on my omd. They're really up to speed now. All very convincing !
The 12mm was very nice to use, very quick, lightweight but I now understand why it looks so weird on the pictures. Its finish is actually pearly. A thick pearly grain. It's ugly and doesn't match any PEN camera nor the OMD finish. Stupid, really.
The 75mm is exactly what it's said to be. Bitingly sharp, superbly quick & beautiful. The finish of the lens is much smoother and finely grained. A perfect match for the OMD. I really hope the 17mm isn't going to end up like the 12mm.
The 60mm macro lens is very cool. Extremely quick again. Well made. Seemed very sharp.
The body cap is very funny but very difficult to assess in an indoor event. It's an ISO 6400 little bug at its f/8 aperture. It looked like it bled a little like plastic lenses. Funny.
I tried the FT 35-100 f/2 with adapter. Super sharp wide open, corner to corner but slow and heavy. I'm not going to waste any more time on adapters I think. See my notes about AF.
Both the PEN EPL5 & EPM2 (pardon the missing -) are convincing updates thanks to their sensor & touch screen. Very nice & simple operation. Nothing super new but solid cameras. Highly recommendable.

Panasonic :
Strangely, Panasonic wasn't so crowded..
The GH3 looks like it went a bit far in its muscle growing phase. It copied a bit too much on competition too. It looks like a Canikon. The controls fall well into hands but are very stiff. In the end, I just thought it was too big. The new EVF seemed alright.
But fun came from the lenses !
The 35-100 is a gem ! Super fast, small, it focuses with no hesitation and is super sharp from corner to corner from 2.8 at every focal length I tried. Much much more convincing than the 12-35X. It's so sharp that I'm hoping it would take a tc x1.4 well. My highlight of the show.
The 12-35 is quite nice for sure. It's still quite small & feels nicely balanced too. I tried it only @f/2.8 over its range and while it was quite sharp, it was nowhere near as impressive as the 35-100mm. It's a very consistent "sharp enough considering it's wide open @f/2.8, something you could never dream of from MFT just 6 months ago"... but just not sharp enough for its price tag, right now. I liked it but I'll wait. The 35-100 I will probably have to get.
For fun I tried the 25mm f/1.4. Very quick, pleasantly sharp wide open. Cool lens.

EPSON :
The printer part interested me but I soon came across a trio of Epson peeps. They were displaying in their little corner the new EPSON micro lcd used in Olympus viewfinders. Namely their newly announced UltiMicron XGA display, that is 1027*768 pixels or in marketing slang "2.3M dots" we're used to see nowadays on OLED screens. You can peek through an OM-D, then through an eyepiece aiming at that tiny panel displaying a computer running windows to give you a known reference point then at a conventional photographer situation. It was very clean and detailed withouth the OLED super contrast style. The Epson guy liked to stress that it's using the well known and proven long lasting, colour accurate LCD+LED technology (referring to their large projectors technology) rather than the ever-diminishing performance of OLED cells. We'll see about but when asked when we'd see them in future products, hinting at their OM-D, they said they were still developing it and that it shouldn't take too long to see them.

Canson :
Elegant stand, beautiful papers. I've been trying a bunch of papers but never tried Canson infinity. The prints were stunning.

Nikon :
Skipped about everything just to press a long high speed burst on the D4. Cool.


aaaaaaaaand that's it for the show !



Canon :
aaaaaaaaaah Canon. I used to love you ! Ah 40D, how hard it was to part from you. And you, Lilly aka "Little White" (70-200 f/4 L IS), I'll never forget you. Oh and Walther aka "Wally" (EF-S 10-22mm), I still long for you... But I have moved on, I have grown up.
EOS M urgently needs some work on its AF. On the tiny 22 lens, it's horribly slow. It's SLOWER than the E-P1 with its m.Zuiko 14-42 mk I dog lens. It really is bad. It's not only slow, it tries back and forth so many times. It was not dark. The 18-55 is noticeably faster but still in the 14-42mkI league. Well, at least it's silent. That being said, the lenses & the camera body looks neat. A very clean design. Probably one of the cutest mirrorless. It's been written that Canon is still working on improving their hybrid AF system but I'd find it a little odd they'd show such slow things in a fair with so many visitors. Anyway, people will still buy them and they really should look elsewhere : Sony, Fuji, Panasonic or Olympus deserve their attention.
On the good side, the 1D & huge lenses are still as impressive as ever. Also, it always makes me feel a little nostalgic when I peek through a real viewfinder and when I remember how phase detection AF just locks right away. No dancing. It was cool.
Canon 6D. Good anecdote on that one. Canon has made a little dark gallery with a dark room lit by a light source of -3EV. Claimed to be moonlight equivalent.It is *very* dark. The guy tells you, it's the only camera in the world able to focus this slow. The camera has the 50mm f/1.4. Set on central AF point. I tried pointing at the brightest bit of the scene and it made a lock. Second brightest bit, a bit of hunting but locked. Third spot fails. A bit cheeky, I take my OM-D with the 20mm f/1.7 on, thinking I probably won't do as well as world's best. I'm cautious to block the AF assist lamp completely so that there's no obvious cheating involved. First spot : instant lock. Second spot : instant lock. Third spot : a slight hunt then lock. Easily repeatable. Perhaps the OM-D is aided by its larger AF zones, I don't really know, but it really didn't struggle at all. The picture was just grabbed no problem and is properly focused. Cool.

Thanks for hanging on,

Greetings,
S.

PS.: a 100mm @ f/2.8 shot, no PP, just resized to 1280 & low sharpening export from LR. The full size raw is sharp. Just a center example, of course. Corners are super too.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Kina-001.jpg

  • Sammy, ThomasD, arv and 1 other like this


#39778 MFT catalog

Posted by Brightcolours on 26 February 2017 - 12:51 PM

http://www.four-thir...alog2017_en.pdf


  • dave9t5, Rover and Njom like this


#38157 Autumn colors posts

Posted by Brightcolours on 03 November 2016 - 08:07 AM

Something different: An old Volvo which itself has an autumn colour covered in autumn leafs. Nikkor 55mm f1.2.

 

7BEC44B89EF2418ABB31B284B19BA9B7.jpg


  • Klaus, mst and dave9t5 like this


#37751 Interesting features to be added to lens reviews

Posted by obican on 16 October 2016 - 08:47 PM

I might be the only one but please: I want nothing to hear about anything video.


  • nuke12, JoJu and southerncross like this


#36789 Next PZ lens test report: Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 ZF.2

Posted by mst on 10 September 2016 - 10:45 AM

Well, yes, the 14-24 is a marvel, too. And I would prefer it over the Zeiss, simply because it's a zoom. Reviewing the Distagon, I had quite some trouble finding subjects suitable for such a wide lens. It's just not my thing.

On the other hand: the flare on the Nikkor always drove me nuts. If I really wanted to have a fast wide angle lens, I might end up with either the Tokina or (more likely) the Tamron 15-30 VC.

Oh, yeah, the Tamron: yes, real soon now :)

-- Markus
  • Brightcolours, Rover and JoJu like this


#35089 Kerlee 35mm f1.2 FF DSLR lens

Posted by Klaus on 16 June 2016 - 12:46 PM

More on the 12mm in early July I reckon.


  • toni-a, Brightcolours and like this


#33273 next PZ lens test report: Fujinon XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR

Posted by Klaus on 04 February 2016 - 10:26 AM

I think the main problem with equivalence is that people think this makes their equipment inferior.

No, no, f/2.8 just can't be "f/5.6" - it's f/2.8!

Of course, it's f/2.8 in the specific scope of the system and it will remain so regardless of equivalence discussion.

Equivalence is about equalizing the scope.

 

I like my Fuji lenses and my MFT lenses regardless of these discussions. And my Fuji 56mm f/1.2 APD is a great lens for shallow DoF as well. So ... stay cool ... and be happy  :D

 

Just don't ignore reality.  :P


  • popo, Brightcolours and JoJu like this


#32689 Are modern lenses getting worse?

Posted by AiryDiscus on 30 December 2015 - 05:19 AM

Glass alters color both by absorption, which is not constant w.r.t. wavelength (color) but also by dispersion, where it spreads the colors out. 

 

Dispersion is to fault for both axial color and lateral color. 

 

Marching up to the 80s there were more and more and more glasses available to designers - peaking at about 450 glasses.  At that point the EPA went on a bit of a "rampage" trying to eliminate lead and arsenic and the number of glasses available fell to just 20-40.  It has rebounded to around 140 total but is still a far cry from what it used to be.

 

The new glasses are mildly different w.r.t. their absorption profiles, but I am extremely doubtful that he knew this. 

 

The idea of "color-matching" lenses is all done with the coatings.  The glass choices are not restricted for that beyond basic checks to ensure the high transmission bandwidth covers all of the visible range.

 

The higher contrast the lens, the more "pure" the colors.  The less axial and lateral, but especially axial, color the lens has the more "pure" the colors.  Older lenses had less contrast because they were not as well corrected and assembled, the result would be "softer" and more "pastel" like colors.

 

However the color fidelity of consumer lenses has never been higher than it is today.


  • popo, dave's clichés and Rover like this




© by photozone.de