Photoclubalpha

This last week I have had the job of selecting and preparing for 1m x 2m 150dpi blow-ups several merit entries from my professional association's annual awards. I've got used to seeing the results of Genuine Fractals which these photographers seem to want to use all the time (I don't like the effect) and accepting a certain standard of over-enlarged detail in these 12000 pixel high files.

After finishing the job, I just thought I would check out my own regular A900 files to see how they look at 2 metres high. Now I am seriously concerned. I can take any of my A900 shots up by 200% to reach this size, and it looks sharper than some of the original small files these photographers started out with.

Sometimes I feel I am bashing against a brick wall showing these professionals what cameras like the A900 or D3X can do, and how important it is to shoot all digital images for an uncropped file.

Also, today I heard from Tom Ang the well-known photo writer/critic - Tom is using Alpha 900 as his own choice now.

David

ha!
I was reviewing some prints I did about 5 years ago from a trip to West Africa -all 30x40 cm / 12x16 inches from the Dimage 7Hi, shoot in RAW. I didn't like any of the prints. I know I have better files somewhere and anyway, I will reprocess the keepers with Lightroom and it's promising noise reduction engine (plus DAM work...) I wish I had at least the Maxxum 7D for that trip...

BTW, I'm going to Buenos Aires next April, a small week visiting old friends. I'm taking the NEX5 and Minolta MD lenses only: is APS 14MP big enough?

With the right lens and no other technical problems, NEX ISO 200 can almost match a native Alpha 900 file even at that kind of size. A lot depends on the lens and how it's used.

I have been doing some shots using my Minolta/Sony lenses and an old Russian 80mm. The Russian lens is terrible for contrast - black point has to be lifted to around 15 in ACR to avoid grey blacks - but simply amazing for sharpness.

David

I thought about those M39 Russian lenses, but even if they are cheap on eBay, I didn't want to take the risk of getting a lemon(s) and I decided to stick with my Rokkors until more NEX lenses (Sony or not) hit the shelves.

Not a Russian M39. Most are rubbish. A Russian Kiev 66 lens in my case. I have two Russian lenses 50mm f/2 M39 and 58mmf/2 M42. Would not rush to use either for serious work.

David

Ah!
but Kiev lenses are, lets say, a little too big for the NEX5

David Kilpatrick wrote:Not a Russian M39. Most are rubbish. A Russian Kiev 66 lens in my case. I have two Russian lenses 50mm f/2 M39 and 58mmf/2 M42. Would not rush to use either for serious work.

David

How would a Kiev 66 lens compare with a Zeiss MC 80mm for Pentacon Six?

Old lenses like the 58mm 1.2 at F8.0 can give impressive level of detail on the 24mp A900 and also the NEX5 14mp (and now don't need to modified it for the NEX mount).

Macro lenses like the 50mm 3.5 or the 2.8 and the 100mm 2.8 are good lens for maximum detail. I'm usually taking picture of big test station with the 35mm 2.0 at F/8.0, where you can see clearly if there is dust on the button of the equipment. But my dream is to have a 35mm tilt-shift able to deliver the same amount of detail.

By looking at your title I was thinking that this post was talking about the Size of the equipment ... , that for me has a matter too ... . For a maximum of image quality, I think the Minolta lens line up win in this section for prime lens. On a small little bag I can bring 16mm Fish eye, 28, 50 and 100mm that will cover most of my shoot and making me sure that the maximum detail will be there. Where in the same small bag, my friend with its Canon 5D II will only be able to place the 35mm 1.4 (not stabilized ...) and half the size other big prime lens.

Regards,

Frank

Wes Gibbon wrote:

David Kilpatrick wrote:Not a Russian M39. Most are rubbish. A Russian Kiev 66 lens in my case. I have two Russian lenses 50mm f/2 M39 and 58mmf/2 M42. Would not rush to use either for serious work.

David

How would a Kiev 66 lens compare with a Zeiss MC 80mm for Pentacon Six?

They are basically the same lens. Kiev lenses were and are direct copies, using production developed from Jena, of Zeiss Biometar (or Biometer - both spellings have been used).

I get very angry with the current trend to consider former CZ Jena glass as 'Zeiss' and price it accordingly. It was at the best only Zeiss in heritage and original design, and many parts of the Jena and Dresden heritage became mixed with other sources like Meyer, Schacht. Ihagee and in due course with both Russian (Ukrainian) counterparts and in the 1980s with imported Japanese zooms rebranded with the Zeiss name.

However, the simple standard lenses remained very true to their origins and Tessar lenses were often as good from Jena as from Oberkochen (but in the 1990s, were also made by others such as Docter Optik Wetzlar). Biometar lenses are more or less Sonnar (name not permitted to be used by the East) and the Arsat 80mm f/2.8 is optically a twin of the Pentacon 80mm f/2.8. With improved coatings it also can be found as a 1990s Exaktar, used on the Exakta 66 (aka Pentacon Six) before it was replaced by a Schneider Xenar.

German lenses to avoid include Domiplan, Primoplan, Triotar, Novar, Plasmat (unless you want soft focus!), Primotar, Cassar, Cassarit - actually almost any lens by Steinheil, Isco, or Schacht is likely to be rubbish. Sadly, as they were often British made, lenses from Corfield made for the Periflex, or AGI for the Agiflex, are generally very poor.

German lenses to seek out include almost any Schneider pre-Samsung. any Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, anything branded by Rollei (wherever assembled, they never produced any bad lenses), and anything branded by Contax (ditto). And of course anything with Leica or Leitz origin.

Other lens names worth buying including anything from Angenieux, Kilfitt, Kern, Alpa, S.O.M. Berthiot, and from Britain most lenses with Ross, Dallmeyer, Cooke, Taylor Taylor Hobson (TTH) names of them. And of course - Ektar, Kodak's brand name. Most Ektar lenses are good.

David

Re David Kilpatrick contribution above. Amazing knowledge. There ought to be an easily accessible place for these kinds of informative contributions. If one wanted to consult it is so difficult to remember just what thread it appeared in.