Jump to content

isleofgough

Members
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by isleofgough

  1. I use a elgato cam link and firmware 3 and have no problem streaming with autofocus for an hour on my Mac Pro.
  2. I would return a lens with that noise. My 50mm sl is almost silent.
  3. That looks seriously broken. It is hard to believe it is a card issue. I would replace the camera.
  4. Thank you for your answers. I was primarily interested in the contrast of the zoom in the wide angle range, as I understand its overall versatility as a one lens solution. For portraits, I probably wouldn't use it much anyway, as the maximum f stop is much worse than a prime. What I was hoping for was not so much MTF charts as actual comparative images where I could examine them to see if the differences were sufficient to warrant purchasing a series of prime lenses instead. I am actually pretty happy with the Summicron 50mm SL, 55mm Otus and 100 mm Zeiss Macro lenses; though I've considered purchasing the 90 mm SL for portraits. It sounds likely that the 35 mm prime would be more pleasing to me than the Zoom for moderate wide angle shots, even if the difference stopped down is not great.
  5. Thank you to those who have answered. What I have not found is some forum post or article that has pictures of the same scene with same f stop shot at 35mm between the zoom and prime lens that have not been post processed. It sounds like this has not been done and I would need to rent the two lenses to get the answer.
  6. You will probably need to add something as the lux is a more expensive lens.
  7. I am trying to decide between purchasing a 35 mm prime or 24-90 mm zoom for the SL2. Specifically, is there any substantial difference in microcontrast at f2.8 for 35 mm? I have a 50 mm summicron a 55 mm otus with adapter and a 100 mm Zeiss macro with adapter. I don't mind limiting range if the quality of images is actually visible. I have sold many lenses in the past that weren't quite sharp enough or lacked micro contrast. Unfortunately, I don't have the funds for both. Mostly I am interested in the 24-50 mm range but it wouldn't be bad to have autofocus for the telephoto range as well. Any opinions from people who have tried or owned both would be especially valuable. Thanks.
  8. LaTeX can create a beautiful book, but you definitely need to know what you are doing. (I have a book on Amazon done in LaTeX, with the Kindle version created in Flare) It is very unintuitive coming from any of the other DTP programs, but rock stable once you have set up all the parameters. It is really for longer books or math intensive projects where you want to use a set of rules to define placement of text and images (like Framemaker and MadCap Flare) or have complicated cross references and bibliographies. LaTeX is not good for color management, unlike InDesign or Quark. InDesign, like Quark or Pagemaker, is a paste up DTP - where you can put images anywhere you want, but it doesn't really use rule based positioning. I've published books with most of the major DTP programs over the years and would recommend InDesign in general for graphic intensive books and Affinity Publisher as a cheaper alternative (assuming you don't need Photoshop, Illustrator, etc and have not bought the Affinity alternatives). One thing to consider is multisourcing. You might want to create a Kindle or ePub version as well as a print version. LaTex is bad for that. InDesign is fair and Flare is better.
  9. Option for smaller DMG files would be good.
  10. I would love to see an adapter that automatically allowed IBIS as well as transferred lens and aperture data, but I doubt that is likely. Meanwhile, putting in lens data manually does improve the speed that I can shoot quite a bit.
  11. I stand corrected. Thank you. Zeiss 100mm Makkro Planar 1/60 sec trying to shake a bit. Will the lens revert to actual lens if you change it back to a Leica SL lens or do you need to put this lens data in each time?
  12. Donzo98: How are you assigning a lens profile? I don't get any option to do so. Stabilization is based on focal length of the lens. Maybe you are adding some setting that I am not, but I don't see any ability to shoot less than 1/focal length in seconds and get an ultra sharp image.
  13. It would be great if this were possible. From some of the photos I've taken, I don't think it does any stabilization.
  14. One other thing to know: as far as I can determine, you won't have IBIS with a Nikon lens and the adapter.
  15. Video work is a lot more complicated than stills: changing lighting, audio, usually multiple cameras being used at one time - some with dollies, color match between lenses, altering focus, etc. not to mention codecs, color spaces, bit depths etc. It is hard to do this as a one person job. The editing is less expensive and easier that the other aspects. But even in editing, there is color grading, audio enhancement, audio noise reduction, etc. in addition to b-roll, layers, keeping clips organized, and so on. If you are just compiling a wedding video, this might work well, but for more complex work, a real video camera would be preferable.
  16. Editing in LAB color space does have some benefits but is less intuitive to me when adjusting a specific color or hue without altering others. That might be just me. You can get some of the benefits of LAB color space without the complexity by changing some of the adjustment layer modes, like changing a curve adjustment to luminosity. Editing in LAB colorspace used to be pretty popular but I don't see much on that these days. Some of the benefits related to old fashion printing press as an intermediary to cmyk. LAB color space is also fairly inefficient, as many of its values are outside human vision and even editing in 16 bit can result in come clipping.
  17. Generally, increasing saturation beyond the single digits destroys the look of skin tones and looks artificial for landscapes. Have you tried increasing vibrance instead, which increases saturation in only desaturated areas? As far as contrast is concerned, that - like brightness - can help one area and hurt others. It is better to adjust black and white points individually if you want to improve contrast. The one exception for saturation is changing individual colors lightness/hue/or saturation if you don't have a good ICC profile and the image has too much saturation in just one color range. This was frequently true with older Nikon images that boosted red saturation by default.
  18. Thank you, Frame-it, for attaching a picture. That is a good illustration of its nonstandard terms (the sharpening menu is a good example) and strange way of handling things (black level in contrast but no white level). It might work well for some but that is why I don't use it. For all the features, there are several core features missing. I'm surprised you found it fast, as that was not my experience.
  19. Silkypix tends to use lay terms for adjustments and lacks some of the common features on the other programs, plus it is slow. In contrast, most programs have curves and levels, shadow and black details and highlights and white details, white point and black point, standard white balance controls and eyedroppers, sharpening controls, clarity, vibrance and saturation, ICC profiles, lens corrections, etc. It is easy to go between Lightroom and capture one, for instance, as they have similar controls. I don't currently have silkypix on my computer (I used it and then deleted it), so I can't give specifics.
  20. I find it slower and less powerful than Capture One Pro or Lightroom. It seems made for people who don't understand photo editing.
  21. One thing to remember about the novoflex adapter: There is a dial on the adapter itself that adjusts f-stops. It has no precision and basically spins from wide open to minimal aperture. The way to set a precise f stop is to use the setting on the lens itself as a minimum aperture limiter and then turn the dial on the adapter all the way to minimal setting. By the way, Photo Exifer not only writes your DMG edited file to another directory, but it corrupts it such that it will not open in Capture One Pro. With MetaImage, all the metadata that has been edited comes over fine in C1P. I haven't tried it on Lightroom though.
  22. That is what I use as well. The only issue is that the image will have no lens exif information. If you are on a Mac, you can easily add that with the app MetaImage. There are other apps, but they are either hard to use or corrupt the DMG files.
  23. I don't doubt your experience with the two cameras, Agencal, but I would think that the missing 3D effect with the SL2 should be fixable. I don't have the SL to compare with the SL2, but I have pictures that show (and don't show) 3D effect from prior cameras (Nikon 800e, Nikon D1x) with the same lenses (mostly Zeiss but occasionally other brands). In my experience, the lens itself has the greatest importance in this effect. But the lighting, color, processing, exposure, and certainly f stop are also important. The number of megapixels is of minimal importance. I do a lot of work in various 3D programs and there is discussion of what creates a 3D effect to a 2D render and obviously there is no real lens involved. Lighting, materials, depth of field, focus point, etc. are all considerations. The photo I used above was shot at f8, by the way. Looking at the picture of the boy from a few posts above that shows excellent 3D effect, the focus on the iris of the eyes and eyelashes is razor sharp, but the ears and back of the hair and neck are pleasantly out of focus. The lighting is not harsh and the color itself contributes to the effect. The lens provides great micro contrast. A shallow depth of field is helpful in this picture, as it separates the sections of the photo. If the parts of the photo were more physically separated, one could use a smaller f stop and still get a good 3D effect. So my guesses on what might be going on for you with the SL2, when you are using the same lenses you use on the SL: Focus can shift slightly on the SL2. Diglloyd has several images where he criticizes the focus shift on Leica cameras. Even a subtle shift in the focus point can ruin the 3D effect. The SL2 also tends to significantly overexpose in high contrast situations (but is pretty good in low contrast settings), and this can blow out the highlights. I find the sensor itself tends to stretch out the luminosity curve somewhat. In Capture one pro, I generally have to increase the black slider (which is not a black point but separation of the darkest parts of the image) and the shadow slider much less so. Sometimes both the white and highlight sliders have to be reduced and then a slight s curve applied.With these tweaks, one can get a much better transition from razor sharp focus to pleasing out of focus areas. If your issue is focus shift, you could try setting your camera up on a tripod and using highly magnified focus (with the new firmware update for the lenses) and photographing some stationary scene with the SL1 and SL2 to compare. I would guess they would be equivalent.
  24. I would think the 3D effect of any lens really depends on the lens itself and the processing of the image, rather than the particular sensor. I don't have the 35mm APO SL but have the 50mm APO SL and it has good 3D effect with the SL2.
×
×
  • Create New...