Tuesday
Jan172012
Below Zero
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 17:27 ;)
Morning Frost │ NEX-7 + Carl Zeiss Biogon T* 35mm F2.0 ZM │ 35mm F5.6 1/250s ISO100I would have preferred a real blast of winter. Extreme conditions inspire me to pick up the camera, whether to capture the phenomenon itself or how people cope with it. But that was not to be. At least not yet.
;)
Frozen Cabbage │ NEX-7 + Carl Zeiss Biogon T* 35mm F2.0 ZM │ 35mm F5.6 1/400s ISO100
tagged Biogon 35mm F2.0, Carl Zeiss, Sony NEX-7, frost
Biogon 35mm F2.0, Carl Zeiss, Sony NEX-7, frost
Reader Comments (8)
These black and whites have a nice, organic feel to it. I'm just curious if there's any cooking to achieve that result or if that's just how it comes out of the camera with minor adjustments?
Hi Bjorn
Still very cold where you are...Less so here.
It looks like you took this early in the morning.
I know I would rather stay in bed until it warmed up a bit more!
BTW - Very interesting new adapter...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/17/Metabones_Conurus
Rishio,
I'm not really clear on what you mean by organic, but I'll try to answer anyway. I shoot RAW only, so I do my B&W conversions in Lightroom. Sometimes, as was the case here, I'll do the conversion with NIK Software's Silver Efex. Whichever method I use, I'll adjust the channels individually and perhaps do some minimal burning and dodging to make the subject stand out. But I don't like to overcook the files, as I usually prefer a more natural look. I also think the lens has something to do with the look. B&W images from the kit lenses often continue to look flat no matter what I do, whereas the the Zeiss lenses seem to produce B&W images with more character.
Hi Barry,
As you're probably well aware of, only the early bird catches the proverbial worm ;-)
I saw that adapter, but I think it only makes sense for photographers who already have Canon EF Lenses. Why would I buy expensive lenses for a mount which I didn't have to then pay that much money for an adapter so I could use them on my NEX? I'd be much better off buying cheap, old Canon primes that have an aperture ring. I can use those on my NEX cameras with a cheap adapter, much like I use my old Nikkor 50mm F1.4 Ai.
But if you still have Canon lenses for your 5D, then it's worth thinking about. You just have to balance the cost of selling the lenses and acquiring much lighter E-mount alternatives against the cost of the adapter and the ergonomics of using what are presumably large and heavy lenses on a small NEX body. Not to mention that the adapter doesn't support autofocus.
Hi Bjorn
I am definitely no early bird!...Apart from not liking squid, I am not to keen on proverbial worms either, especially raw!
I agree it allows Canon users to jump ship without a vast outlay of changing lenses etc...(although the adapter is not cheap at $399).
I would of thought that if you already owned a lens like Canons L 24-105mm F4 (Nex 1.5x equivalent of 36-158mm) it would be a great walkabout companion for a Nex camera (without being to much of a heavyweight at 670g - considering all the focal lengths that it covers) especially with its image stabilisation still working and exif data for apertures being supported!...I have owned this lens with my old Canon 5D outfit and it's only poor side to it was the slight vignetting on full frame (Vignetting would not be a problem with the smaller Nex sensor)...IMHO it is probably optically better than any current Sony E mount lens with the exception of the 24mm lens (not that I have compared them)...I can definitely see the appeal for somebody who is less bothered about the lack of AF...Just my 2 pence worth.
(I must admit my idea of heavyweight might be completely different from yours...Lugging a 14"x11" camera with a heavy tripod + camera bag a couple of D/D slides, 5x4 reducing back, polaroid back, lightmeter, lenses and filters, loupes and a dark cloth weighing close to 60Kg...You definitely need a wife/assistant or very understanding girlfriend to help you carry it all).
Cheers Barry
I also keep my files with minimal post processing. The way i look at it, if someone can tell it's been post processed, then I failed.
I do like the subtly you put into these however. Organic is a loose term but there is a nice grain/texture to them. It doesn't look too clinically perfect.
I've been thinking about getting Silver Efex for a while.. It's just a bit pricey.
That's a good way of thinking about post processing, Rishio. If it's obvious, you've failed. Most of the time that is what I aim for. But there are times, especially when I'm working with abstract color images, that I'll use a more heavy handed approach. Those kind of photos have little to do with reality anyway so you might as well make the elements of the composition pop.
Thanks for your definition. I do my B&W conversions by feel and hadn't really thought consciously about the process. But what you describe sounds like the criteria I aim for. That and using the conversion to enhance the subject matter.
Barry,
I don't want to horrify you any further, but we actually ate worms at a restaurant in Northeastern Brazil. Let's describe the sensation as not at all as unpleasant as the idea may seem at first.
It seems like we do indeed have a different concept of what each of us considers heavy gear. My motivation is that I want a kit that is so unobtrusive and light that I can carry it all day while travelling. I'm not always taking pictures and I don't want my photography gear to make its presence felt in an overly negative way when I'm doing something else. We'll also venture off the beaten path now and again and that usually means carrying everything yourself - into a canoe or mini bus or hiking the last bit of the journey. I used to do that with a Nikon D300 and a set of lenses, but that kit made up too much of the total weight of my backpack. So I switched to using a compact camera, which while light didn't quite satisfy me in terms of image quality. So when the first mirrorless camera was announced in 2008 (the Lumix G1), I jumped at the opportunity of having a camera that is both relatively light while offering good image quality. So I can't help but cringe a little at the idea of mounting an 800g lens (24-105 + adapter) on my nice, compact, 350g NEX-7. Your 14x11 camera and supporting equipment seems like it needed not only an understanding girlfriend but a whole harem to cart it around!
As to the optical quality, I have no doubt that the L 24-105 is better than anything other than the Zeiss 24/1.8 that's available for NEX. I certainly wouldn't be bothered by the lack of AF. And while I couldn't see myself travelling with the L 24-105, I could imagine using it for paid assignments or locally. But only if I already had one as it will only be a matter of time before there are some better native lenses for us to spend our money on.
Cheers, Bjorn