On 1/14/2018 8:38 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Excellently organized roll overs so can keep track of the effects. (yes, like
the turtles) I see your very very cool Minolta 85/2.8 varisoft did not make the
cut for the analysis.
I wanted to keep down the variables so I didn't lose track of what I was finding or lose my mind trying. :-) I also
wanted a simple test of DoF blur vs. the soft filters. Introduce a significantly different FL and things get harder
fast. I had hoped to get away without resizing anything, but found even the modest different in image mag distracted
from just seeing the focal blur differences. Same with color; it shouldn't make a difference, but for me it did. So I
corrected for both as well as wasn't madness. And that worked for me; I could see "through" or "past" those other
differences to the subject of the test.
You mentioned the image size changed when the aberration was adjusted.
See? I don't even remember that. Too many variables at once in a monster set of test shots. Those were all shots of flat
resolution targets. Might be interesting to do a series similar to this one. The Minolta by itself presents at least a
4x5 matrix of images, with four full "stops" of the Soft Ring and five apertures from 2.8-11. The Soft Ring allows
intermediate settings, that do make a difference, and there are half stop aperture detents, so the whole thing could
easily become unmanageable.
I suppose I could do the 4x5 matrix, then zero in on the most interesting
area(s) in a second round.
Then, what do I use as a normal lens for comparison? Perhaps the OMZ 85/2, with and without a Soft filter - in/as a
second round?
Then again, I still want to do an outdoor test with the same lenses with greater subject and background distances.
"Normal" FL lenses can do terrible things in those circumstances.
I think the early nikkor worked like that too. There are the newer Nikkor DC
lenses though am not sure how they work.
A decent description here.
<https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7044/how-do-soft-focus-or-defocus-control-rings-work>
I've not looked into them, in part because of cost, but also because they are so long FL. I assume they chose those FLs
to make the design process easier. At least the Minolta is a classic portrait FL
There are adapters to provide AF and exif now for Sonnie.
That is a point in their favor, but the Sony GM has more, and nothing to adjust.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/222-nikkor-af-105mm-f2-d-dc-review--test-report.
I am not sure they will get you any closer to what you want any easier.
The STF lens in native mount has the problem of being a tad slow and the APD
element effectively increases dof at any given aperture so in many
circumstances subject isolation ironically becomes an issue.
Well, shoot. I just looked at a bunch of sample images and reviews. I hadn't known that the Sony STF has lens IS. That
means it is, in effect, much cheaper than any other native FE mount lens for my A7. And it sure has my kind of bokeh. I
should probably just buy one and dump a few of my longer FL soft lenses. Well, maybe not, as they do overall glow. Maybe
I can be a "100 mm guy". :-)
If I got one, I could avoid all the testing of the Minolta, no? That's worth a couple of $$ in itself. I do these tests
to find out what my stuff will do, but I'd rather be off taking pictures of "stuff".
Can't you just see me toting around two OM-Ds with short and long zooms - and - A7 with 100/2.8 GM? Yikes! Where's Dorji
when I need him? Then I could carry an GM5 with 7-14 and E-PL7 with Fisheye. Like a surgeon, I'd just order "Fishy", and
hold out my hand. Oh my . . .
When used to their full advantage at closer focusing distances with a far
background the results are impressive. Perhaps we can see exactly the effect
you like in a merged image.
Not quite sharp enough to discern the exact effect Softly, Softly Moose is
going for, Mike
Probably because I'm interested in at least two things, but looking for all in
the same places, sorta.
I'm looking for the kind of OoF point source highlights in the PetaPixel initial announcement of the Sony STF.
<https://petapixel.com/2017/02/21/sonys-new-smooth-trans-focus-lens-captures-creamier-bokeh/>
I'm looking for the kind of detail without edginess that I've seen in some LF images. In film terms it might be called
low accutance, in digital, the opposite of LCE, although those are just stabs in the dark looking for useful terms.
I've started to come close with static subjects with this series of test shots. I've tried using masks derived from the
Find Edges function in PS to limit the effect of the soft filters to higher contrast edges. Interesting effect, but I
need more practice/testing to find the right mask details. I've tried this approach before with Gaussian blur without
notable success.
Hmmm, the 100/2.8 GM is tack sharp in the FP. I wonder what it would look like with a Nikon Soft Filter, as yet another
sort of 'look'. I happen to have a Nikon NewSoft in my bag that fits.
Yowza Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|