forpetessake: Every company (modulo Olympus) is going to release FF cameras. The falling prices of the sensors and electronic parts are pushing the market in that direction. We'll eventually see all sorts of FF cameras -- compact and large, cheap and expensive, with fixed and interchangeable mount. Despite what the uneducated people believe, the size-weight characteristics of the lenses aren't significantly affected by the bigger sensor.
@forpetessake I just can´t believe that your statements are anything but a joke...
ealvarez: Is this manual focus lens? $599? I can get 135mm f2L canon for about $600 used and Nikon 180 f2.8D even cheaper used.. I don't share much of the enthusiasm. Maybe I would if I was Sony E-mount shooter.
@e_alain:I guess you maybe confounded which row belongs to which lens?The Canon is always in the same row where the f-number is placed....
@le_alain:What makes you think so? I don´t see any contradictions here?
Another thing is that the Canon 135 L looks so weak at the center at 2.0. I used to own one and it never showed results that bad...Maybe one should ask the cui bono question - who did the test, why and for whom?
@tkbslcYou wrote:" It clearly shows Canon winning across the board, especially at the edges." You might want to see an ophtalmologist before it´s too late?The Samyang clearly won in EVERY respect except light fall-off at infinity!
Here comes the link again:https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ko&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Flcap.tistory.com%2Fentry%2FSamyang-135mm-f2-vs-Canon-EF-135mm-2-L
Nikon goes Hasselblad?
Smeggypants: All the people criticising this fun exercise must be "really fun at parties" - NOT!!
Oh I don´t want to really come to talk at a party with a nerd who for no reason but stupid tinkering modified his camera setup. This isn´t fun - this is wasted time lacking any spirit and esprit - which are the indredients of parties that at least I love to join...
what for?If it had tilt/shift abilities, ok. But in this case: what for??
bawbaw: Also... to follow up my last comment.... is this guy a bit stupid? He used 2 flash units with X and Y etc .. whereas he could have used continuous light sources instead of expensive broncolour heads and packs. Although... it's a crappy article and badly executed.. so it stands to reason it's over engineered for no reason.
1.) At about f18, required for sufficcient DOF, and a suffifient shutter speed, you NEED flash, unless you want to roast your subject using two 6000 Watts movie flooders.
2.) A ring light is bound to be moving with the camera/lens. And since camera/lens DOES move here you will get very weird and inconsistent lighting/shadows with a rig like that!
3.) Epileptic issues at a flash frequency of about 1-2 Hz?? You must be kidding!
Ken Johnes: to all those who `Gets it´ , good for ya,, enjoy the details of human face hair, but to me , i dont get it, cos the results are worth dismissing with terms like crap and junk.and this has nothing to do with history or understandin of photography or anything ,,, it´s just a machine snapping up 600 photos as programmed, and the person who is operating it failed in providing the most important aspects of a good photo,to me The SUBJECT & LIGHTING ,they are.
i do admire the effort though, no question about it.kudos to all who spent their time and energy ,it´s the result ,which as a photographer myself, which lets my enthusiasn down.it´s just that, i dont think you can create something interesting when you are neither talented nor skilled to do it.
that´s all i am saying, i dont give a damn whether couple of elitists get´s it or not.sorry,i dont live in that bubble,i live in a world of reality...where results should speak louder than the effort itself in order to get some recognition.
They did not deliver resolutions THAT high but the difference is only by quantity, not quality, thus no substantial innovation here. Flogging a dead horse - no matter if the creator was aware of Thomas Ruff´s work or not.
BUT:There (if intended) is a remarkable suspense and ambiguity in the notion that a ROBOT acts upon the absurdly exact DEFINITION of a human being. This (to me) feels new and exciting. There is resonance (of what ever).So the message may not be found in the picture as a result but in the PROCESS of it`s formation AND the result as a whole.
IF it WAS intended as such - Which I seriously doubt - considering the profession and core competences of that guy: doing repro business and maybe just working out a marketing gimmick to gain publicity...
Marcel Duchamp´s ready mades are not willingly designed by himself but are still entitled to be considered art because HE, not the pissoir, has something to say. The pissoir is a symbol of a message, loaded by the author´s concept, not the message itself. Beauty here (or illumination, if so) lies in the message created by AN ASSIGNER, not in the pissoir. To close the circle: The "lighting" (pissoir) may not be "beautiful", but the concept may be enlightening.
ad b.) Sustantial art is bound to push the envelope.You are in hard luck if you happen to invent a thing that existed for decades. In this case you nevertheless are not an epigonic but a true inventor. But are you a genius? Maybe not! Because, at least in art, relevant inventions correspond to the TIME they react upon. Coming back to the portraits in discussion: Thomas Ruff et al. have eaten the topic (descriptive approach&lighting, hyperrealism, seriality) up about 20 years ago!
ctd. in Pt. 3
Dedicated to craw, CraigArnold , Ken Johnes: My 50 cents (Do they say so? My English isn´t native either)
Is it art? I might know if at least I had information about the following:a.) Is it INTENDED to be art at all?b.) If intended: is the creator aware of and reflecting contemporary discourses or is he just a silly tech-nerd?
ad a.) My definition is based on the assumption that nothing can be art that is not intended to be art. Let me explain my view:
A necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for art is a converging dialog between the creator`s intention and the recipient´s perception. Even if an artist`s concept is to NOT let you know what is intended ((exactly)), and as a result you then DO NOT know IN THE WAY THE ARTIST WANTED you to NOT know - you may call this a converging dialog.
ctd. in Pt. 2
PeterLHughes: There is a much easier and cheaper way. Shoot transparency film with a 5"x4" bellows camera. Scan that single shot at 4,000 ppi and it will give you a 320 MP image. Your shutter speed of 1/125th sec with studio flash means that your model can have expression rather than having to hold a death like pose for half an hour. Also if you look closely at the samples in the review above you can see stitching errors which are unacceptable for professional work. If 320 MP doesn't impress you, then get hold of a 10"x8" film camera. That will give you 1,280 MP images. In other words a 300 dpi print would be 11ft high. I've just checked on ebay and you can pick up all the camera kit you need for under £1,000.
it`s just that the lenses on a 8x10 won`t deliver 300ppi - by far not.And focus stacking would be necessary anyway (too shallow DOF even at f 45, where diffraction already knocks at the door...)
zsedcft: If he wanted a technical, super high resolution photo - why didn't he focus stack? What good is a 900MP photo if 600MP of it is blurred. It is not like the shallow depth of field has helped much artistically. At least he got some good press from it.
Oh he DID focus stack! At least for the pictures I examined - where nosetips are perfectly in focus too. Maybe a little too few steps though...
sfnikon: Face porn - you get to see every hair follicle, eye vessels up close in geographic detail. My D800E paired with the Zeiss 100/2 makro already does this too well in 1/500th of a second so this 30 min sitting is not practical it's an extreme art form.
who ever maintained that this method was "practical"?
yabokkie: people should not try to capture the same with one shot which is very difficult if possible, which has physical limitation, medium format or large format or whatever.
the right way to have high quality still is video, the way that our God designed us.
REPLY B, Pt. 4
There may also well be an increase of 8k 3D video in the future, since it also adds another level of information to the depiction (time). But it will not, because it CANNOT, replace 2D photography. Probably (but some cineasts will say no) it can replace 2D video (8k no doubt is a good thing, be it 2D or 3D, and WILL be the future - for video that is).
8k video might also be THE way to extract a lot of 2D photography stills in the future since it will allow to choose the "right moment" afterwards (sports, weddings, portrait, events...)So (8k, 3D) video will surely establish a common way and a powerful method to get your desired STILLS - not necessarily to only get your VIDEO. It will be a means to the end of getting stills - as a quality of it`s own.
The final, absolute, ultimate way to resemble "live" human visual experience is not 8k 3D video - it`s the HOLODECK from Star Trek!!
REPLY B, Pt. 3
Paintings did not become obsolete after photography was invented, just like photography did not become obsolete by film or video - and this is not because video resolution used to lag behind - it`s because these are DIFFERENT things!
The unique quality of a 2D photograph isa.) that it represents ONE moment in time (depicted by an instant automatic process, called exposure - long time exposures aside).b.) that it is FLAT. Thus allowing the artist to establish a DEFINED composition. It´s about the art of dividing a plane into areas to create harmony or tensions -just like in paintings.
There may well be an increase of stereoscopic photography in the future, since it adds another level of information to the depiction (resembling presence of depth). But it will not, because it CANNOT, replace 2D photography.
ctd. in Pt. 4
REPLY B, Pt. 2
2.)The robot arm moving around here is NOT intended to resemble the dynamic process of human visual perception - it is just a means to an end - to get a STILL image. If he had a 900Mpx sensor plus a corresponding lens, he surely wouldn´t want to do it that cumbersome way (intended show effects aside). Hence his intention is NOT to show the "future of photography" as based on dynamic video-like perception to resemble eye-like scanning (as you constantly claim in your numerous "replies" on posts that don`t even roughly deal with "your" topic).(By the way this claim is erroneous anyway, as I showed in my other reply A)
The future of photography is NOT video. Not even 8k video, and not even 8k stereoscopic video.The future of photography is photography. Since it is an art form in it`s own right. Like painting is.
REPLY B, Pt. 1
You sound like a stuck record to me. I wouldn`t bother if your eleven (!) almost identical replies (see below) were on topic at least.But they are not, and beyond that they are even wrong.
Not on topic because:1.)Definitely not the "future of photography" is intended to be shown here, as you claim in your eleven off topic replies.The portraits are just a byproduct of his special technique of producing mainly hi res still images from paintings etc. I guess he makes a living from that. The intention behind the portraits is pure marketing. He wouldn´t have made it to DPR with hi res reproductions of paintings of course.Thus this isn´t even art. In art hi res things like that have been done decades ago (Thomas Ruff, etc.).Going to extremes doesn´t increase or alter the message of Ruff´s pictures, so if it is intended to be art at all, it is epigonic and therefore, in terms of (real) art, unimportant.
(ctd. in Pt. 2)
"the right way to have high quality still is video,the way that our God designed us."
This is wrong. Our eyes permanently move across parts of objects and scenes, "scanning" them - this is true. But to conclude that video would mimic that behavior better than a still image is wrong.Because the eye also scans a still image (the bigger and more detailed the better) just like it does with any other "real" surroundings. And this at it`s own "will" (like with real objects) and not limited and forced by given frames a video would represent! Think about it...
MikeFairbanks: I noticed the lighting is poor as well (someone else mentioned it). The flash is being shot straight at them, when it would be better to shoot using two strobes from the sides (to avoid the reflection into the camera, such as the image of the umbrella and strobe in the eye of the lady in the first example). I think it limited detail.
Lighting is so difficult and easy, both at the same time. It's a funny element, but it's the key ingredient in photography (hence the name: photos graphos).
Like I mentioned earlier, it might be that my monitor (new) can't pick up the detail intended, but from my limited experience in photography (just a few years) I don't see these photos as being that much sharper than what someone else could have done with far less work.
Maybe he left the IS on. ;)
What did you experience in these "few years" of photgraphic experience? Seems not too much...1.) "The flash is being shot straight at them, when it would be better to shoot using two strobes from the sides (to avoid the reflection into the camera, such as the image of the umbrella and strobe in the eye of the lady in the first example). I think it limited detail."The flash is NOT being shot straight at them - it is indeed shot using two strobes from the sides. You will almost never get the reflection off the eye, since it is a ball and not a plane - thus reflecting everything even on the very sides of it.This kind of lighting limited detail? Are you kidding??2.) photos graphé (drawing) or photos graphein (to draw) but not graphos...3.) Your monitor can`t pick up the detail?? Are it`s pixels too blurry or what would that mean????