"Voigtlander" 25/.95 Real or Not?

"Voigtlander" 25/.95 Real or Not?

  • Yes, a new innovative lens from Mr. K!

    Votes: 86 81.9%

  • NO WAY! A photoshop fake!

    Votes: 19 18.1%
  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Capri Sun Spritzers on the House!

And- the pouch can be filled with water using the Hot Tub jets, and you can get a 30ft range when stomping them!
 
It is intuitive to the most casual of observers that the 25mm F0.95 gathers more light than a 50mm F1.9 lens. The 25mm F0.95 has more mass than the 50/1.9, causing the space around it to warp, and for more photons to get sucked into it. As soon as someone fires up a DEC Vax with H-format floating point we'll be able to compute the increased light gathering power with mass of the lens factored into the equation.

Close to the edge, round by the corner.

Guessing problems only to deceive the mention,
Passing paths that climb halfway into the void.
As we cross from side to side, we hear the total mass retain.
 
Last edited:
every forum and every thread on this lens has spiralled down to these 'arguments'.. all of which are pointless

the only truths are

1) If you use micro4/3 the new lens is the fastest available ( and the only one that is supported by the camera manufacturers)

2) DOF and image quality is different with micro 4/3 compared to other formats.... learn to live with it! choose your platform and take pictures

4/3 and micro4/3 works for me

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157622730407793/

everything else is irrelevant
 
Brian's Pool Is An Insult!

Brian's Pool Is An Insult!

Brian Sweeney said:
The Mods prefer pool party at my house for dealing with threads like these.
Click to expand...
1. Brian's pool is not real, it is a photoshopped hodge-podge of three different bird baths. Look at the clumsy transitions at the depth markings!

2. Even if Brian's pool was real (which it isn't), I wouldn't dream of swimming in it unless it had hot peppermint schnapps shooting out of the jacuzzi jets. Surely a pool at this price point should have a hot peppermint schnapps jacuzzi. What was Brian thinking? Does he take us for fools?

3. Meh. Feh. Why swim in a pool when a vintage beach is available? With no sand in my swim trunks or worries about jellyfish and sharks, it is not swimming.

4. Does Brian's pool have swirly waves? My swimming will be neither athletic nor enjoyable without swirly waves. I know Brian's pool isn't open yet, and nobody's actually seen it, but does anybody know if it has swirly waves?

5. Brian's pool is 10 x 5 meters, but I want to swim in an 8 x 3 meter pool. Why didn't he make it 8 x 3 meters, like I want? Doesn't he know that nobody who really knows about swimming wants to swim in a 10 x 5 meter pool? I don't want to wait any more for an 8 x 3 meter pool from Brian, so I'm going to Stephen's pool.

5. Will the pressure from Brian's jacuzzi jets at 10 x 5 meters be the same as Stephen's jacuzzi jets at 8 x 3 meters if I'm 3 meters away from the jets and wearing black swim trunks? Does anyone know the formula?

6. Last I heard, Brian does NOT validate parking. End of story.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The Mods prefer pool party at my house for dealing with threads like these.
Click to expand...

You may want to reconsider...
http://www.livescience.com/health/090514-pool-hygiene.html

I wonder if it is the same people doing it in RFF threads.


BTW, I skimmed the article Makten linked to (the one by the guy who also has a "DPReview re-enactment" page upon which he defends himself by "proving" what he said about such topics and how others responded :bang:http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/dprban/jmonft.htm )

I believe the point Makten is trying to make, but is having trouble articulating, is described in the article. If you keep the same framing on the large and small sensor the the total amount of light hitting the sensor (or, in effect, the "scene" ) will be proportionally greater on the larger sensor.

As you said earlier, the light falling per area is equivalent, but when you add the same framing criteria and consider total light reaching the sensor the larger system "collects" more. So I guess what he says makes sense in that respect. But I have never seen any real difference between many camera formats in practice. I just don't see it as anything to worry about.

If that is not Makten's point then I will stand corrected !
 
Free parking for the Mods.

SPLASH2.jpg


frozone2.jpg


Hot and cold running water. Nikkor 5cm F1.4 on the EP2.
 
Last edited:
P. Lynn Miller said:
Fred,

I was not trying to start a digital vs. film war. I shoot plenty of digital but the smallest sensor that I find will deliver an image that is comparable to 35mm film is the DX sized sensor. I only use smaller sensors for family and holiday snaps. No film vs. digital debate here. I would be happy to use an M9 if I could justify the investment.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with you. I shoot a Nikon D3 and D300 (FX and DX), a Leica M8 (the sensor's a bit larger than the Nikon DX) and two Panasonics, the GF1 and the GH1, which use the m4/3 sensor, and occasionally a couple of small P&S's. I find that the small sensors in point-and-shoots do not match 35mm film in overall quality, but that all of the other formats, including m4/3, do match film in overall quality (I do not say match the feel of film.) In other words, I think the break comes between the very small P&S cameras, and the larger formats. M4/3 is smaller than DX, but not by much. In ordinary sized prints, I do not see much difference between full frame and m4/3 shot in normal light. The differences are most visible when you are pushing the light -- when you start shooting as ISO 3200 or 6400. If, however, you are like many forum members, and only look at prints under exquisitely balanced light, using a loupe, while listening to Bartok, then you may see some differences at lower ISOs as well.

JC
 
John Camp said:
I sort of agree with you. I shoot a Nikon D3 and D300 (FX and DX), a Leica M8 (the sensor's a bit larger than the Nikon DX) and two Panasonics, the GF1 and the GH1, which use the m4/3 sensor, and occasionally a couple of small P&S's. I find that the small sensors in point-and-shoots do not match 35mm film in overall quality, but that all of the other formats, including m4/3, do match film in overall quality (I do not say match the feel of film.) In other words, I think the break comes between the very small P&S cameras, and the larger formats. M4/3 is smaller than DX, but not by much. In ordinary sized prints, I do not see much difference between full frame and m4/3 shot in normal light. The differences are most visible when you are pushing the light -- when you start shooting as ISO 3200 or 6400. If, however, you are like many forum members, and only look at prints under exquisitely balanced light, using a loupe, while listening to Bartok, then you may see some differences at lower ISOs as well.

JC
Click to expand...

That's a very reasonable point.

I would certainly concede that my GF1 photos lose out in detail compared to my friend's latest full frame Canon. At night time, his simply killed mine. At other times my photo quality was equal, or better, as I could simply snatch it out more quickly.

But that is a different (and old) debate. TO argue a x/.95 lens is not REALLY an x/.95 lens, because of the sensor size/type is silly, and irrelevant.

It's not too far from arguing a lens slows down if you use inferior film.
 
gdi said:
If that is not Makten's point then I will stand corrected !
Click to expand...
That was exactly my point, but obviously it's not good enough for "some people" here. Knowledge is offensive. It would be a pity if someone learned something new, right?

Oh, and medium format is for fools. An Ixus can do just as good. Goodbye! :)
 
gdi said:
You may want to reconsider...
http://www.livescience.com/health/090514-pool-hygiene.html

I wonder if it is the same people doing it in RFF threads.
Click to expand...

That makes me think about the infamous southpark episode.
Althought most of you might not know it - maybe it's even banned in the US :) might be just too obscene for pool owners / pool goers!

PS: i hate swimming pools.

PS2: Brian, interesting to see how big your daughter grew.

PS3: A joke: Old szekler dude is fishing in a small lake. American tourist family comes by. The teenager kids wanna make fun of the old fart.
"And, do the fish drink a lot of water?"
The old man coughs, spins his moustache:
"I don't know whether they do. But the could if they wanted!"
 
Oh and something more. Have you seen the sex & the city episode when the girls go to the playboy pool party?
At some points M says "Look at that... Tit soup!"
:D
 
Sorry, my subculture came up to the top of the water, here above. But it's weekend. I refuse to comment on silly optics arguments in the weekend.
In general, i refuse to comment on silly optics arguments.
Anyway. Nay-sayers are just the ones that won't admit it, that they can never afford and/or use this lens to its best!
I admit it :D
 
I can't help wondering where the discussion over the significance of this lens is.

Does this lens signal, in a tiny (ok, half-sized) way, that mr k believes m43 will fill the niche in the digital arena, that rangefinders occupy in the film world?
 
Paul T. said:
I can't help wondering where the discussion over the significance of this lens is.

Does this lens signal, in a tiny (ok, half-sized) way, that mr k believes m43 will fill the niche in the digital arena, that rangefinders occupy in the film world?
Click to expand...

I am thinking yes. I myself, anyway, get a similar kind of satisfaction out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom