- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
The Noctilux is never yours... because you don't own the Noctilux, the Noctilux owns you.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
The Noctilux is never yours... because you don't own the Noctilux, the Noctilux owns you.
For 0.95 fans, photozone has 2 reviews w/ m9:
Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH - Review / Test Report
SLR Magic Hyperprime LM 50mm T/0.95 - Review / Test Report
Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH - Review / Test Report
SLR Magic Hyperprime LM 50mm T/0.95 - Review / Test Report
Armanius
Bring Jack back!
- Location
- Houston, Texas
- Name
- Jack
Nothing tastes like a good slimy escargot.
Zeiss FE35/2.8 ISO 5000 f/4 1/60
A cameo appearance by Fuji XF1 in a brown leather half case.
Zeiss FE35/2.8 ISO 5000 f/4 1/60
A cameo appearance by Fuji XF1 in a brown leather half case.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Took the A7 out to photograph a band in difficult lighting conditions. There was a wide range of bright and low light levels spread across the four band members who were squeezed in a tight spot in a packed restaurant. They were lit by a strong warm tungsten light directly above their heads creating shadows on their faces. There were big windows to one side of the restaurant which was letting in very cool evening light. These conditions played havoc on the WB and colour saturation in the raw files of both cameras.
I brought along my Leica M8.2 and shot with both cameras. I shot in full manual mode with both cameras, there was no way any automation was going to handle the circumstances.
Much to my surprise the M8.2 handled the lighting, WB, and colours better than the A7 (via SOOC raw files as viewed in Lightroom). I have had a lot more experience with the raw files from the M8.2 though. To be a fair, it was my first proper outing with the A7 and I am still learning where its 'sweet spot' is, whereas I know how to manually set aperture, shutter and ISO on the M8.2 to get the best out of the raw files in post.
Still, where the M8.2 produced reasonable flat colours in its raw file, the A7 was heading towards oversaturation, its raw files in some parts didn't seem as reasonably flat and PP-ready as the M8.2 files. Where I had to bring colours up in the M8.2 files, I had to bring the colours down in the A7 files and then colour grade. I had to spend a bit more time in post with the A7 files.
There were too many variables and subjective post-processing from me to give it any real scientific value. Here are the B&W photos, mix of A7 and M8.2, just for fun.
View attachment 82709
Here is a mix of the colours:
View attachment 82714
I brought along my Leica M8.2 and shot with both cameras. I shot in full manual mode with both cameras, there was no way any automation was going to handle the circumstances.
Much to my surprise the M8.2 handled the lighting, WB, and colours better than the A7 (via SOOC raw files as viewed in Lightroom). I have had a lot more experience with the raw files from the M8.2 though. To be a fair, it was my first proper outing with the A7 and I am still learning where its 'sweet spot' is, whereas I know how to manually set aperture, shutter and ISO on the M8.2 to get the best out of the raw files in post.
Still, where the M8.2 produced reasonable flat colours in its raw file, the A7 was heading towards oversaturation, its raw files in some parts didn't seem as reasonably flat and PP-ready as the M8.2 files. Where I had to bring colours up in the M8.2 files, I had to bring the colours down in the A7 files and then colour grade. I had to spend a bit more time in post with the A7 files.
There were too many variables and subjective post-processing from me to give it any real scientific value. Here are the B&W photos, mix of A7 and M8.2, just for fun.
View attachment 82709
Here is a mix of the colours:
View attachment 82714
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I had the Nokton 50mm f/1.1 and 90mm elmarit f/2.8 on the M8.2, and the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4 on the A7. All photos wide open of course.
Nice shots. I am not good at pp, as I was struggling w/ the cat shots when I balance the light & dark color of the face, then the saturation changes, etc. There is differences between cameras and also the lenses. I have 50 1.1 and wide open it is soft, less contrasty and maybe even muted colors which should be good for low light/B&W shooting. In comparison Zeiss ze/zf lenses has more contrasty. punchy colors. So there should be some differences just using these lenses w/ same camera. Enjoy the new camera...
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Wide open the Zeiss is also less contrasty too isn't it?
I am finding my f/1.1 quite adequately sharp wide open BUT only as long as I nail focus precisely. Of course it gets a lot sharper when stopped down. But I wouldn't say it was soft when wide open.
Most 1.1/1.2 lenses are sharper when they stopped down as you say, but mostly not wide open. Again you don't need sharp lens for portraits. It is more important to hit the focus.
I don't have ze 50mm. Most probably it becomes more contrasty/sharper stopped down also like all lenses. I have c/y 50mm 1.4 version and don't know how close it is to ze/zf, but c/y felt more contrasty/punchy then 50 1.1. Then again I haven't compared them in the same conditions. I have zf 100mm makro and that is contrasty and sharp wide open vs C/Y 85mm 1.4 is very dreamy, soft looking lens when it is wide open but very sharp stopped down... Some of the c/y lenses have improved by the years eg some MM versions are better and mine are older German versions. Currently all of the CV and most of the Zeiss lenses are manufactured by Cosina in Japan, but usually CV lenses doesn't have the microcontrast of the Zeiss lenses.
I don't have ze 50mm. Most probably it becomes more contrasty/sharper stopped down also like all lenses. I have c/y 50mm 1.4 version and don't know how close it is to ze/zf, but c/y felt more contrasty/punchy then 50 1.1. Then again I haven't compared them in the same conditions. I have zf 100mm makro and that is contrasty and sharp wide open vs C/Y 85mm 1.4 is very dreamy, soft looking lens when it is wide open but very sharp stopped down... Some of the c/y lenses have improved by the years eg some MM versions are better and mine are older German versions. Currently all of the CV and most of the Zeiss lenses are manufactured by Cosina in Japan, but usually CV lenses doesn't have the microcontrast of the Zeiss lenses.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
What is this c/y lens that people keep talking about?
What is MM?
What is MM?
Amin
Hall of Famer
The Zeiss 55/1.8 seems like a wonderful lens. The rendering is gorgeous.
Here's the A7R w/ 50mm Summilux M ASPH at f/1.4, another lens that seems very well suited to this camera
DSC00137 by Amin Sabet, on Flickr
Here's the A7R w/ 50mm Summilux M ASPH at f/1.4, another lens that seems very well suited to this camera
DSC00137 by Amin Sabet, on Flickr
christilou
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
That look is going to twist your heartstrings for ever more 
Chrisnmn
Veteran
- Location
- Auckland, New Zealand
- Name
- Chris Leskovsek
View attachment 82814
. by Chris Leskovsek, on Flickr
View attachment 82815
. by Chris Leskovsek, on Flickr
. by Chris Leskovsek, on Flickr
View attachment 82815
. by Chris Leskovsek, on Flickr
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
1/90 shutter, ISO 6400, f/1.4.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Still learning how the A7 raw files react to post-processing.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Sorry, I just saw your question. c/y is the contax yashica slr mount. More on Contax - Wikipedia:
"C/Y lens mount, short for "Contax/Yashica": Yashica being the lower-end consumer brand SLR system made by Yashica/Kyocera that shared its lens mount with Contax SLRs. Zeiss lenses in the C/Y mount came in either AE or MM varieties. MM lenses were more recent, with a setting that allowed the camera to select the aperture as part of its autoexposure system, while the older AE lenses did not. There was often no difference between an older AE and a newer MM lens apart from this feature. Sometimes, the older AE lens may be worth more on the used market because it may be a German-made example, while the newer lens may be Japanese-made, despite their optical formula and build quality being identical."
Some of the MM lenses were improved from AE versions by newer designs and/or newer coatings. You have to search lens by lens. Also AE versions have the "ninja" bokeh...
"C/Y lens mount, short for "Contax/Yashica": Yashica being the lower-end consumer brand SLR system made by Yashica/Kyocera that shared its lens mount with Contax SLRs. Zeiss lenses in the C/Y mount came in either AE or MM varieties. MM lenses were more recent, with a setting that allowed the camera to select the aperture as part of its autoexposure system, while the older AE lenses did not. There was often no difference between an older AE and a newer MM lens apart from this feature. Sometimes, the older AE lens may be worth more on the used market because it may be a German-made example, while the newer lens may be Japanese-made, despite their optical formula and build quality being identical."
Some of the MM lenses were improved from AE versions by newer designs and/or newer coatings. You have to search lens by lens. Also AE versions have the "ninja" bokeh...
