I borrowed a Zeiss lens for a shoot and couldn't see any improvement in the images on screen or in an A3 print.
Perhaps pixel peeping would reveal subtle differences but not signficant enough to spend 10x the price.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Zion Road food center Loong-Kang pic GPGT test hand phone zoom lens Huawei is #1
- Thread starter TemaseX
- Start date
I borrowed a Zeiss lens for a shoot and couldn't see any improvement in the images on screen or in an A3 print.
Perhaps pixel peeping would reveal subtle differences but not signficant enough to spend 10x the price.
maybe your CMOS sensor was the limiting factor?
This Nazi business really Huat big big betting on Huawei.
German-designed lenses are not all about sharpness, it is also about micro-contrast. This is much more apparent in B&W photos, an area where Leica and Zeiss rule.
Last edited:
Zeiss also makes spectacle lenses.
Nokia phones come with Zeiss lenses, although HMD Global, the parent company in charge of making Nokia smartphones, is more concerned with making cheap midrange phones. The photography is mediocre, and Zeiss lens doesn't help.
Zeiss also makes spectacle lenses.
Nokia phones come with Zeiss lenses, although HMD Global, the parent company in charge of making Nokia smartphones, is more concerned with making cheap midrange phones. The photography is mediocre, and Zeiss lens doesn't help.
Nokia up lorry because of sucker OS MicroSHIT which now own Nokia's ass. Together they are up lorry with FAILED & FADED & OUSTED Ang Moh brands - hundreds of them!
Nowadays the RAW converter pretty much makes these sorts of gains irrelevant. An extra USD100 for a good raw converter is much more cost effective.
http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison/10
Not talking about raw. I am referring to the characteristics of the optics itself.
https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/micro-contrast-and-the-zeiss-pop-by-lloyd-chambers
Show me a sample image that illustrates your point.
Here's the enlightenment you need : https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world
The majority of my lenses are professional grade Nikkor which are rated highly by the author in the Micro contrast department so I guess I'm used to seeing it without being conscious of the inferior micro contrast of other lenses.
I've spent years shooting and taking part in photo competitions and no judge has ever gone into the technicalities when judging an image.
It's all about what the image conveys. Images need to tell a story. Micro contrast alone says nothing to the viewer although it may be appreciated by a lens connoisseur.
My favorite image and one that has won in competitions was taken with an Olympus OMD micro four thirds camera with a Panasonic kit lens. I guess its micro contrast sucks but the image has the wow factor and that is all that matters.
Like I said, it is only more apparent in B&W photos, especially large prints, where you're not distracted by the presence of colors.
What matters to you in a photo may not matter to others. We all have different priorities when assessing photos. I hate modern lenses as they lack character, and I don't give a fucking shit about sharpness because no lens will be sharp wide-open no matter how expensive or how good they are.
Similar threads
