Jump to content

The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.


Knuckledragger
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been using my X100 again after months with the OMD and while, yes, the autofocus does suck by comparison (although mine is the original one, which sucks worst) it really is such fun to use. Hope that you get much enjoyment from yours :)

As an aside. I keep mine in manual focus mode the entire time and use the AEL button as the autofocus button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I might be going to Ireland for 10ish days this summer. I am thinking of dumping the Sigma 50 as I get closer and either picking up a zeiss 15/2.8 or the nikon 14-24. The zeiss 15mm is easily (expensively) filterable. The nikon 14-24 can be filtered as well but holy crap those things are expensive. An entirely different avenue would be to rent an A7II (probably out by then) and a canon ts-e 17mm. This combo has resulted in some fantastic landscape images but I have never used a tilt shit lens before so will likely not know what to do when I do get it. Another option is the fuji xt1 with a 14mm but this combo doesn't inspire as much confidence in me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a lens as wide as I am considering, I don't care about AF. Rather, I will not be using it at all. I am planning this to be a lazy road trip up the Irish coast with no scheduled stops along the way. I have an itinerary in mind but want this to be a "oh that looks pretty, lets stop and take a walk/take pictures/climb that hill" kind of trip. I've had quite a few Sony cameras but I don't think any of them really made me happy like the Nex 5 did with the zeiss 35/2.8. Maybe it was because it was my first real camera. But even now when I look back at the pictures I took with it, the colors look better than anything I have gotten since (even with the D800 and Fuji XT1). I am considering grabbing that combo again for general walk about shooting and renting the A7II + lens or a lens for the d800 for landscapes exclusively. No need to switch out lenses that way either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went to the Zoo today but there were very few animals outside so a lot of indoor pictures with a 300 f4, not the best lens for that type of environment.

 

Zoo6-X2.jpg

 

Bao Bao hiding behind his lunch

 

Zoo8-X2.jpg

 

Bao Bao at ISO 10000 through dirty glass

 

Zoo7-X2.jpg

 

Bug eyed rodent of some sort

 

Zoo2-X2.jpg

 

Zoo5-X2.jpg

 

Zoo4-X2.jpg

 

Zoo3-X2.jpg

 

Cardinal eating off of the frozen pond.

 

Zoo1-X2.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I don't think any of them really made me happy like the Nex 5 did with the zeiss 35/2.8. Maybe it was because it was my first real camera. But even now when I look back at the pictures I took with it, the colors look better than anything I have gotten since (even with the D800 and Fuji XT1). 

 

That's interesting.  Are we talking colors straight out of camera JPEG, RAWS, processed RAWS (how?).  I've been playing more with X-Rite Colorchecker to shoot the grey card on scene, custom WB, shoot the color patches, generate profile for WB in post-processing.  Also using X-Rite iDisplay Pro to calibrate my LCD screens better  

 

The results are nice, but it does take extra time and attention, something often not available for "spontaneous" shots, in which case it can be very tricky to get WB right in post-processing, sometimes never,  especially under mixed lighting.  

Edited by Jon L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting. Are we talking colors straight out of camera JPEG, RAWS, processed RAWS (how?). I've been playing more with X-Rite Colorchecker to shoot the grey card on scene, custom WB, shoot the color patches, generate profile for WB in post-processing. Also using X-Rite iDisplay Pro to calibrate my LCD screens better

The results are nice, but it does take extra time and attention, something often not available for "spontaneous" shots, in which case it can be very tricky to get WB right in post-processing, sometimes never, especially under mixed lighting.

I meant to say that I was shooting raw but the colors were something I never had to touch. They had the perfect vibrance and saturation. I had to play around with sharpening and what not but rarely colors. It was long before I knew about custom white balance but I have the same LCD calibrator now. Works great. My Screen looks extremely yellow compared to before but the prints come out looking exactly like I see them on my screen which makes up for the overly warm tone. I can get the colors to where I want them to be sometimes but never straight from the camera. More often than not I take the cowards way out and convert to black and white but I seem to prefer the medium anyways.

I have a sneaky feeling it was a matter of the ever elusive synergy between the lens and the body. I really wish I could afford a proper m mount digital. Leica glass is great and all but I prefer Zeiss lenses in that mount. At least to the few Leica lenses I've tried. The Zeiss 35/2.8 zm remains the best lens I have ever used. The Zeiss 135 apo takes the cake for the sharpest and technically the best but the 35 just gave me exactly what I wanted.

Edited by crappyjones123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...