+ the new superb Zeiss FE Planar T* 1.8/55 that is not contained in the collection shown above.
Thanks for these examples. Some of the first samples I have seen from an FM shooter with the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8. That lens has great wide open sharpness and the bokeh has very smooth transitions, but the out of focus highlights in the bar shot suggest that such highlights might be the achilles heel of that lens. They have very strong onion ring pattern and pretty strong green highlights at the edges. If you compare them to the 50 lux ASPH, the lux ASPH seems to do a lot better (as it should for a lens that cost over 3 times as much).
Finally a couple hours of decent weather today. A quick trip to the local temple, taken with the a7r and the CV 50/1.5 Nokton wide open processed in LR 5.3.
No. There are no landscapes worth shooting around here. But if you want ”landscape IQ evaluation shots”, there is no difference between landscapes and shots of urban stuff.
I do not want to sound mean, and I do appreciate all the pictures in this thread, but the "urban shots" you have posted are about equal to what you think of the landscape in your area. That is why I asked, because your pictures don't look better than what most M4/3 or APS'C produce. Thanks though.
Few more with Canon FD 85 L. These as well earlier ones would have benefit from post processing, but as I'm just evaluating performance of "new" lens I prefer SOORS (Straight Out Of Raw Software). Also usage of Zeiss ZE lenses had spoiled me; due to large contrast I rarely do anything else than small adjustments to white balance and exposure.
ebrandon wrote:
Could you share that profile? Is it for CV15 on A7 or A7R?
Thanks!
Honestly I don't think it's very good, or at least it's not working that great for me. I just created it by holding the lens up to a white screen on my computer - first I adjusted the WB using another lens (50mm), then used that WB with the CV15 on and took a shot at infinity and f/8, with the exposure cranked up to fill the middle of the histogram without clipping.
savingspaces wrote:
I do not want to sound mean, and I do appreciate all the pictures in this thread, but the "urban shots" you have posted are about equal to what you think of the landscape in your area. That is why I asked, because your pictures don't look better than what most M4/3 or APS'C produce. Thanks though.
I think his urban pictures are in fact very good and well processed, and I'd venture to guess that the quality is much better than what most m4/3's or APS-C's can produce.
ukkisavosta wrote:
I think his urban pictures are in fact very good and well processed, and I'd venture to guess that the quality is much better than what most m4/3's or APS-C's can produce.
Jaakko
There was a time here that people were far more critical about the quality of pictures. In this thread every average point and shoot picture gets dozens of likes however.
wiseguy010 wrote:
There was a time here that people were far more critical about the quality of pictures. In this thread every average point and shoot picture gets dozens of likes however.
I was specifically referring to Makten's images, so I take it that you think his shots are "average point and shoot" quality.
Have you actually checked out his shots and Flickr stream? I would rate them as far above average point and shoot images.
savingspaces wrote:
I do not want to sound mean, and I do appreciate all the pictures in this thread, but the "urban shots" you have posted are about equal to what you think of the landscape in your area. That is why I asked, because your pictures don't look better than what most M4/3 or APS'C produce. Thanks though.
Good, then you have no reason to upgrade from MFT to FF, since it doesn't matter for your type of photography (good light, well stopped down lenses, spectacular scenery that looks good with whatever camera).
But if you want ”landscape IQ evaluation shots”, there is no difference between landscapes and shots of urban stuff. 
- a7r+ c/y 35 ~f2
