Lee Saxon wrote:
That's a heavily redneck-accented pronunciation of American. It's sarcastic American Exceptionalism. It's a self-effacing way of acknowledging that I'm asking a dumb question because Americans are stereotypically self-important and unaware of customs of neighbors and trade partners. Like if someone gave a distance in kilometers [which I don't understand], I might ask for it in miles by saying "What's that in 'Murikan?" or another similar one is 'What's that in Freedom Units?'
, I randomly clicked this thread, then randomly read your post, and converting to 'Freedom Units" is probably the greatest thing I've read all week. Hahahah (I knew 'bout the 'Murika, though....'Murika!"
Well, it is well known that for rangefinder cameras the design of wide-angles is far easier, thus allowing to better control optical aberrations. Have a look at the Voigtlander 12/5.6 and 15/4.5 for Leica M (or Sony) (here and here): both those lenses don't need a large bulbous front element, despite of their huge angle of view.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Lance, I like your sharpening on these, curious what settings you use? I can never seem to get it right for FM uploads.
Thank you very much for your kind comment.
I use Power Retouche plug in for Photoshop for my sharpening. It is a little different in it's operation compared to Photoshop so, I can't really advise how much it actually is as far as % etc other than I use 0.1 pixel width. However, in Capture One Pro RAW converter, it does do a RAW sharpening pass before I save it to 16 bit TIFF for my last bit of work I do to it in Photoshop, but it is also quite a small amount.
, I randomly clicked this thread, then randomly read your post, and converting to 'Freedom Units" is probably the greatest thing I've read all week. Hahahah (I knew 'bout the 'Murika, though....'Murika!"
