mike rosenlof
Insufficient information
hmmm, I have been eyeing the Sigma FP for a while, except have been turned off by the lack of a viewfinder. I wasn't aware of that Sony. I'll have to take a closer look...
And yes, often a smaller lens is my choice. I have the Voigtlander 75mm both the f/1.5 and f/2.5 versions. the 2.5 is very nice when I don't need the extra 1.5 stops.
And yes, often a smaller lens is my choice. I have the Voigtlander 75mm both the f/1.5 and f/2.5 versions. the 2.5 is very nice when I don't need the extra 1.5 stops.
JeffS7444
Well-known
For most of what I do, f/2.8 is already pretty fast, and given the good high ISO performance of most modern cameras, large aperture doesn't seem so important for low-light shooting as it once was, versus simply allowing for shallower DOF. Earlier this year I became fixated on using the Sony SEL50M28 macro as my general-purpose lens, and f/6.3 seemed particularly to my liking, so that's what I used almost exclusively. It's not especially small, but weight is a modest 236 g, and deeply recessed front lens element makes the use of an additional lens hood optional.
willie_901
Veteran
What is "the digital look"?
What is "the digital look"?
A raw file has no specific look. The ability to render an image with essentially unlimited different looks depends on the raw file's information content. The analog signal-to-noise ratio for the data, the lens modulation transfer function (perceived sharpness) and first order lens defects [1] are responsible for the information content.
One can intentionally render image aesthetics to resemble a one rendered form data with a low information content due to low SNR and MTF. The opposite in not possible. Some optical defects can be reduced or enhanced during rendering. Some can not.
1. Lens optical defects are dominated by five basic Seidel aberrations, spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism (focus shift), curvature of field and distortions.
What is "the digital look"?
A raw file has no specific look. The ability to render an image with essentially unlimited different looks depends on the raw file's information content. The analog signal-to-noise ratio for the data, the lens modulation transfer function (perceived sharpness) and first order lens defects [1] are responsible for the information content.
One can intentionally render image aesthetics to resemble a one rendered form data with a low information content due to low SNR and MTF. The opposite in not possible. Some optical defects can be reduced or enhanced during rendering. Some can not.
1. Lens optical defects are dominated by five basic Seidel aberrations, spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism (focus shift), curvature of field and distortions.
agentlossing
Well-known
Lenses 100% produce RAW files with a different "look" and it's silly that I even need to say that. A RAW file has the "specific look" of the glass you put in front of it.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Not delusional, just presented with too many choices, all of them good in their own ways:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stretching-theory/201810/too-much-choice
I'm running into the same problem with streaming video services like Netflix and thought I'd see what happens if I put my subscription on hold, and try another service (Mubi) which offers a much smaller selection.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stretching-theory/201810/too-much-choice
I'm running into the same problem with streaming video services like Netflix and thought I'd see what happens if I put my subscription on hold, and try another service (Mubi) which offers a much smaller selection.