I actually forgot to write out A99II, but yeah since the A mount seems to be dead I'm shocked they even specced it out and made it. For some odd reason when I think of CES I think of new TV's. I do not pay attention to Leica, since I'll never be able to afford one I just do not pay attention to them. I'm looking at a vid with the Nikon 1.4 105mm and that thing it fucking HUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE!!!! It's about the height of the 105mm Macro and fatter.
What even is Leica's retail demographic?
Yes, I agree. Fuji is killing it. Much better than what Olympus or Sony is offering in that particular niche.
People with too much money, I guess.
So rich people? I might have seen an event photographer with one. I checked their site and everything is about the price of a D4S and up. Their 90-280 2.8-4 looks like a damn stove pipe. I guess I'm going to just wind up being a Nikon and Fuji shooter. Fuji actually seems pretty cool and accessible.
I'd probably love IBIS, but I guess I have no problem living without it. I don't really take long exposures or anything, I could use it during night shots or event shooting, but if a dude's moving the shot would be blurry regardless.
I guess you just pay extra for that German engineering, which is the best engineering in the world.
What do these mean? It's like looking at a JRPG stat sheet.Of course a lot of it is expensive because they can (and the used prices for ancient lenses is ridiculous), but Leica still puts out some great glass. Especially when you consider how small their lenses are.
Kinda the same with most photography equipment. An 1.4 certainly isn't 3-10x better than a 1.8, but we sure want it
MTF50 with line pairs per picture height.
Photography science is serious business, jesus christ.Kinda the same with most photography equipment. An 1.4 certainly isn't 3-10x better than a 1.8, but we sure want it
MTF50 with line pairs per picture height.
MTF50 means you have white and black lines and meassure when contrast between the two is 50% or higher. So a result of 1500 means you can put 1500 alternating black and white lines going from top to bottom of the image sensor and the contrast between the two would be 50% (so plenty to distinguish the lines). It's line pairs so in total it would mean 3000 lines.
The astigmatism is how different the lens performs with lines that go outward from the center (tangential) or circle around it (sagittal). This can affect bokeh (the Petzval bokeh is caused by astigmatism from the tangential and sagittal plane being focused differently hence why the balls are "squeezed" instead of circular) and smear the edges.
Edit: Don't worry if you don't quite understand that, I don't really either. I tried to read Rudolf Kingslake's "Fundamental's of Optics" and didn't understand a thing. The book also hilariously started showing a double gauss design (what most 50mm lenses use, perhaps the most simple design still in use) and stated that it was much more complicated than what the book would cover...
It really helps with visual aids to see how a lens works and how aberrations affect the image.
Is very similar to the old one:
Which wasn't that different to the much, much older 28-70mm f2.8 from 1999:
That's also why the Nikon doesn't extend linearly when zooming while the Canon does. 18-55 lenses typically have a negative lead design as well and also move in that weird way when zooming.
They're too expensive for me and the fans can be obnoxious in thinking that everything it does is magical, but I like that they're putting some of that money to develop really good optics, make bodies that have great build quality and make something completely different from other cameras on the market. If I were a millionaire I'd love to own knowing it wasn't just to show how rich I was, but also gave me a unique shooting experience. Heck, I think most normal people don't quite know what it is and are more impressed by a Canon 1DXmII/Nikon D5.
Just check ebay. It's not hard to find a decent enough 600 or 610 on there. DRTV became too much about boring jokes to me. I can still tolerate their older stuff, but the newer stuff just doesn't really work for me.
Considering how I tend to contrast the shit out of my stuff any way I'm not too bothered by the coldness of nikon stuff. Yeah I'll probably under expose a little bit now. With how I seem to have a lot more leeway with that now. After I did the lost and turned them into jpeg the pics look damn good.
What exactly is wrong with Jared Polin? I like him way more than the Angry Photographer for example.
Is this analogy to show that most modern crop sensors have a greater pixel density than their full frame sensor counterparts? Yeah, but what does that have to do with the nature of the lens?
I think this is the part that Tony lost me in the video because I don't think of lenses in terms of how many megapixels they resolve. All I know is that my full frame lenses work just fine on crop bodies. Arguably, they look even better (sharper) because the crop sensor crops out the corner unsharpness and vignetting on the edges.
Just as sensors have resolution, lenses have resolving power, often just referred to as "sharpness". APSC lenses have, you could say, better "sharpness density". Really it's just that they are sharper, period, but that sharpness advantage is equalled out by the pixel density increase on the sensor.
It's not so much that your FF lens will look like shit on an APSC body, it's more that an APSC lens of equivalent quality will look a bit better, and be much cheaper, so unless you have a FF upgrade that's imminent, it's not a budget wise smart choice to buy FF lenses for crop bodies.
Cheaper, yeah, but I dunno about "better". A crop sensor on a full frame lens is using the best parts of the image circle of the FF lens.
Funny enough I put a crop on my FF camera and god damn it's weird. A zoom is essentially a prime and it doesn't even resolve color the same way. It's like the camera was just telling me, "take this god damn thing off me already."
