Just as a note:
That software "correction" effectively corrects distortion, but you lose resolution/detail in the process. Same with chromatic aberration correction.
The 28mm lens on the Leica Q is very sharp but has massive distortion that is corrected by software.
The 35mm Zeiss lens on the Sony RX1 is the same.
The 24-120 VR f4 Nikon lens has lots of distortion when shot on my Nikon F6, but none when shot on digital as the software's lens profile removes it. That doesn't work with film as there is no data to tell the software what focal length/aperture/focusing distance was used.
So in my experience the same lens can work very differently when used on film or digital. And it seems that newer lenses are allowed to have 'defects' which will show up on film because the mfg knows they will almost always be used on digital cameras, where software will correct for them.
Really!!! How were they modified may I ask???I love Leica lenses-they give more "weight" to a scene (for instance, the metal in a car body looks like heavier metal than w/other glass). The problem for me is that M lenses are designed for what is, for me, a relatively useless & uncomfortable camera, and I don't think R lenses ever reached their full potential re sharpness (I know of some R lenses that were modified to give significantly greater sharpness).
When your digitizing color print film you can in fact adjust white balance. It's your photo however. It is a nice sharp image.This is patently false, you don't white balance Ektar 100 and it was the mixed light that drew me to take the photo (of my wife), this is something I teach in the class I have at the school I listed below, learn then rules them break them when the shot calls for it. Furthermore, saying anything is dead does no one any good, not even you because it is a damaging blanket statement. I took a survey among those I know, took me about a year and only 5 out of 144 said they never printed photos that they felt strongly about. This goes from family photos, landscapes, art photos, etc.
Some of the Ilfochromes I had printed from Kodachromes shot as late as 1/10/11 are surreal in how the light bursts out of the material it is printed on.
NEXT!
Great! How are they at convincing viewers of photographs that a polished brass object is actually gold? Be careful how you answer this. My question and your response may get us both indicted for fraud but at least in my case it would need extraditionI love Leica lenses-they give more "weight" to a scene (for instance, the metal in a car body looks like heavier metal than w/other glass).
There were 2 things done-the shape of the aperture blades were modified, and one other thing that my friend in NYC, a long-time Pro who told me the story, can't remember. It was done for a husband & wife team of commercial photographers in NYC.Really!!! How were they modified may I ask???
Just as a note:
That software "correction" effectively corrects distortion, but you lose resolution/detail in the process. Same with chromatic aberration correction.
Don't know if common sense is your forte but that phrase has been used in multiple contexts for quite some time. And it was spelled correctly....the English laungauge thing.
I'm out, too many unkind people on here who seem to care less about photography and more about being king of the internet.
I sure would like to know more about this, so called, modification. Aperture modification should have little or no effect on sharpness. I can't think of anything else that might be done to an existing "R" lens to make it sharper? Was this done by Leitz or by Marty Forshner?There were 2 things done-the shape of the aperture blades were modified, and one other thing that my friend in NYC, a long-time Pro who told me the story, can't remember. It was done for a husband & wife team of commercial photographers in NYC.
I couldn't agree more! While I think 35mm cameras and lenses by Zeiss and Leitz are first rate they simply can't holdup to a good medium format or 4x5 camera when it comes to making enlargements 11X14 or more. 5X7 and maybe 8X10, but no way when you go larger. My last and best 35mm outfit is two Contax G bodies and three lenses. These lenses are as good as it gets and I have no problem with getting a good 16X20 print. I said good! If I want a great 16X20 print I'll use my Hasselblad or Pentax 6X7. I'm sorry, as the ladies often say or think, "bigger is better".Look at everyone arguing over a low-fi small format.
135 is and always will be a small, low fidelity format. Get the best microscopic, hand turned, CAD designed, clean room, hand assembled lens and it still will have nothing on a larger format with an even mediocre lens.
Yeah!
I can't put a large format camera in my pocket or even carry it around all day while walking in the city or countryside.
Plenty of very good photos have been made with 35mm - resolution and other optical characteristics are only part of the value of a photo.
For what it's worth, I have some Minox 8x11mm portraits that are among the best I've made - and they are sharp!
It was done long ago by an unnamed independent repairman. BTW, my Mighty Durst 35mm Micromat will give a swelling-muscle Micaelangelo-type look to my prints--MAYBE a large-format enlarger of some kind might, but it would have to have a modified semi-point-light source (I can also get this quality in 6x6 w/my Durst 606)! Lens quality is pretty much all-important in 35mm-that's why the best cost so much. BTW, when I'm inspired my auto-winder can't keep up, all while standing in the the same spot! I"d rather have lots of great pics rather than just a few.I sure would like to know more about this, so called, modification. Aperture modification should have little or no effect on sharpness. I can't think of anything else that might be done to an existing "R" lens to make it sharper? Was this done by Leitz or by Marty Forshner?
I couldn't agree more! While I think 35mm cameras and lenses by Zeiss and Leitz are first rate they simply can't holdup to a good medium format or 4x5 camera when it comes to making enlargements 11X14 or more. 5X7 and maybe 8X10, but no way when you go larger. My last and best 35mm outfit is two Contax G bodies and three lenses. These lenses are as good as it gets and I have no problem with getting a good 16X20 print. I said good! If I want a great 16X20 print I'll use my Hasselblad or Pentax 6X7. I'm sorry, as the ladies often say or think, "bigger is better".
sorry
i have seen plenty of large format enlargements that don't hold their own to even a minox enlarged to 11x14 or 16x20. and seen 32x40 enlargements made with 35mm that are mind blowing/\
film and format have nothing to do with anything, if the person behind the camera is just pushing the button ... its the same old tired argument that bigger is better when size has nothing to do with anything
Why all this talk? Modern leica lenses aren't even made for film.
I agree, but arguing over the minute optical qualities of one manufacturer over another is a bit silly for this format.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?