Lack of 'character' from Sony/CZ lenses

[Vayl]

Hey folks,

Looking to invest into a mirrorless system for fashion photography and some cinematography work as well. Sony A7x series seems the best suited for my needs, on paper.

However whenever I look at pictures from A7x photographers I find them unpleasing (a subjective matter for sure, but I just don't like them). Sure they're sharp across the frame but that's really not the most important thing in the world for me. And I don't care about slight vignetting as this is easily solvable in post.

But all the Sony lenses and even the Zeiss ones (Batis & co.) really seem to lack any kind of character whatsoever. No tonality, no smooth light falloff-- just a sharp, digital, raw block of an image.

This is my dilemma: Sony offers everything I want on paper in terms of specs, but I can't seem to find any photographer that creates work that appeals to me. And although I understand that this is entirely subjective and that there are more elements that go into a beautiful image (lighting, posing etc.), I'm hoping someone can point at fashion photographers creating work with the a7 series that doesn't fit the description I gave above.

Thanks, and apologies for the weird post.

 

[Lan]

If you think that older lenses have (more) character, use those older lenses. Sony mirrorless is one of the best platforms for using adapted lenses.

If you come up some examples of what you're looking for, I'm sure the folks here could recommend something.

No one is forcing you to buy these lenses, if they don't suit your aesthetic, simply buy the lenses that do

 

[No account anymore]

This is my dilemma: Sony offers everything I want on paper in terms of specs, but I can't seem to find any photographer that creates work that appeals to me.

What other lenses and brands offer what you are looking for?

Might adapted lenses offer the aesthetic you are looking for?

And although I understand that this is entirely subjective and that there are more elements that go into a beautiful image (lighting, posing etc.), I'm hoping someone can point at fashion photographers creating work with the a7 series that doesn't fit the description I gave above.

Sometimes immaterial values are most important to us!

 

[Zefah]

Hey folks,

Looking to invest into a mirrorless system for fashion photography and some cinematography work as well. Sony A7x series seems the best suited for my needs, on paper.

However whenever I look at pictures from A7x photographers I find them unpleasing (a subjective matter for sure, but I just don't like them). Sure they're sharp across the frame but that's really not the most important thing in the world for me. And I don't care about slight vignetting as this is easily solvable in post.

But all the Sony lenses and even the Zeiss ones (Batis & co.) really seem to lack any kind of character whatsoever. No tonality, no smooth light falloff-- just a sharp, digital, raw block of an image.

This is my dilemma: Sony offers everything I want on paper in terms of specs, but I can't seem to find any photographer that creates work that appeals to me. And although I understand that this is entirely subjective and that there are more elements that go into a beautiful image (lighting, posing etc.), I'm hoping someone can point at fashion photographers creating work with the a7 series that doesn't fit the description I gave above.

Thanks, and apologies for the weird post.

Well, it's kind of impossible to argue with your feelings, but do you at least have any examples of

a: images that you thing exhibit "character" entirely thanks to the lens

and

b: an example of a Sony camera-shot image that is just "a sharp, digital, raw block of an image."



I really don't know what you're describing.

 

[JRP64]

It might be that I learn how to post process pictures (Photoshop) before I learn the art of photography, but I personally will take a camera that takes sharp clean pictures any day of the week. I found that in Photoshop or even Lightroom that I can give that picture(s) the personal touch in post. I can give pictures the extra punch that I feel that it needs without ruining the picture itself. I just got back into photography after taking about a 7 to 8 year hiatus. I can remember taking pictures that I thought were good only to fight to bring back the picture before I could add my own style. I find with Sony Alpha cameras with good lenses that they take the sharp pictures that I want from the get go and I can add my own style in post without much trouble.

With that said if you don't like Sony then try other brand of cameras that might fit your shooting style better. Don't go by what the Trolls say on the internet, for it's not the camera but the person behind the camera that matters.

--
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results

 

[noggin2k1]

I understand where you're going here.

I think quite honestly, this is a reflection of the way in which lens designs are going, and not necessarily towards Sony - it just happens to be that Sony have some of the most modern lenses out there, which is why it's aimed towards them. Lenses are seemingly now deigned towards technical excellence over character.

You only have to look at the Canon 50L 1.2 & 85L 1.2 of old - technically they are duds in the scientific tests, but posses these characters you are looking for.

I find the Batis series of lenses to have the most "character" of all FE lenses - which is why I'd still pay the extra money for the Batis 85 over the FE 85mm 1.8, even though on paper there is negligible difference between the two.

I personally think you either need to adapt glass, or look at another ecosystem.

 

[Zefah]

I understand where you're going here.

I think quite honestly, this is a reflection of the way in which lens designs are going, and not necessarily towards Sony - it just happens to be that Sony have some of the most modern lenses out there, which is why it's aimed towards them. Lenses are seemingly now deigned towards technical excellence over character.

You only have to look at the Canon 50L 1.2 & 85L 1.2 of old - technically they are duds in the scientific tests, but posses these characters you are looking for.

I find the Batis series of lenses to have the most "character" of all FE lenses - which is why I'd still pay the extra money for the Batis 85 over the FE 85mm 1.8, even though on paper there is negligible difference between the two.

I personally think you either need to adapt glass, or look at another ecosystem.

Do you have an example images that you feel exhibit the "character" you're talking about? I feel like this is such an impossible topic to discuss since everyone's definition of "character" is different and often just ends up meaning "I like how this picture looks."

 

[DVT80111]

Just install Nik. There are countless characters in there.

 

[Stflbn]

I agree with the people suggesting you provide examples of what you personally consider "character" in shots. That varies greatly person to person.

Other than that... "buy what you prefer", however, the system does not make the photographer.

 

[Lightshow]

Hey folks,

Looking to invest into a mirrorless system for fashion photography and some cinematography work as well. Sony A7x series seems the best suited for my needs, on paper.

However whenever I look at pictures from A7x photographers I find them unpleasing (a subjective matter for sure, but I just don't like them). Sure they're sharp across the frame but that's really not the most important thing in the world for me. And I don't care about slight vignetting as this is easily solvable in post.

This is the side effect of the market's fetish with sharpness into the corners... Which results in clinical feel to the pictures, I feel much the same as you, which is why the newest lens I own is the Voigtlander 15 version III, and my favorite lenses are from 50's through 70's, back when spherical aberrations (SA) was not corrected out of existence.

But all the Sony lenses and even the Zeiss ones (Batis & co.) really seem to lack any kind of character whatsoever. No tonality, no smooth light falloff-- just a sharp, digital, raw block of an image.

This is my dilemma: Sony offers everything I want on paper in terms of specs, but I can't seem to find any photographer that creates work that appeals to me. And although I understand that this is entirely subjective and that there are more elements that go into a beautiful image (lighting, posing etc.), I'm hoping someone can point at fashion photographers creating work with the a7 series that doesn't fit the description I gave above.

Thanks, and apologies for the weird post.

First off,no need to apologize, rendering is definitely a personal taste kind of thing, one persons boring clinical rendering is another's technical perfection, neither is wrong, just different. Weird? You must be new to the internet.

Do you need AF? If you can live with manual focus there is a plethora of options available for you.

For portraits, shooting with new lenses almost eliminates any option of character other than the fastest lenses, you may find some older lenses out there that fit the bill, EF 85/1.2LII as an example, it's focus by wire is not great, it's not even good IMO, I much prefer my FD SSC 85/1.2 Aspherical.

If you can find manual lenses that are not too heavy or long that you like the rendering from, the Techart Pro AF adapter might be the best of both worlds. You just need the right adapter to M mount. https://www.ebay.com/itm/6-0-Techar...-A9-A72-A7R2-A7m3-A7RIII-Adapter/292629562265

--
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/
[My Lens list](http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=LightShow)
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????
Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram

https://flic.kr/p/wQd7zp

-An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.

 

[Beatsy]

Doesn't "lack of character" just mean "less aberrations"?

As others suggested, you can attach almost any lens with suitable adapters - it's not the camera or sensor causing the issue for you. I suspect you're seeking a subjective "look" that only you can recognise and it will be almost impossible to describe to others.

Can you post examples (or links) to the kind of images you do and don't like? The former can be from any camera/lens but the latter should be from a Sony setup similar to what you're considering.

 

[BBQue]

"Character" is made by the photographer, not by the camera or lens. When it comes to "lens character", that is largely an abbreviation for "lens flaw", wich some photographers of course can put to good use.

Want slightly swirly bokeh, or cat's eyes? Look no further than Zeiss Batis

 

[Fotozone]

Well said....my sentiments also!! Tom

 

[BBQue]

I understand where you're going here.

I think quite honestly, this is a reflection of the way in which lens designs are going, and not necessarily towards Sony - it just happens to be that Sony have some of the most modern lenses out there, which is why it's aimed towards them. Lenses are seemingly now deigned towards technical excellence over character.

Shoot raw and switch off all in-camera and software lens corrections. Maybe you will be pleasantly surprised by the flaws - ahem "character". If that is not enough, try forcing a wrong lens lens profile. Can create some serious aberrations.

I am not kidding !!!

 

[Rudix]

Get a Sony FE 24-240 lens, you might just love it's "character" :-D

 

[raminm]

Other ways to create unique and alternative 'characters' out of the Sony/Zeiss lenses: buy some old cheap filters (blur filter, low contrast, high contrast, diffuser, etc.) or, buy some used old pieces of glass that aren't perfectly clean and transparent and put them in front of the lens. Explore various pieces to find the ones that produce the 'character' that pleases you.

 

[Lan]

Other ways to create unique and alternative 'characters' out of the Sony/Zeiss lenses: buy some old cheap filters (blur filter, low contrast, high contrast, diffuser, etc.) or, buy some used old pieces of glass that aren't perfectly clean and transparent and put them in front of the lens. Explore various pieces to find the ones that produce the 'character' that pleases you.

Indeed; dropping lenses can add a lot of character to them too. You get none of that (oft derided) edge to edge sharpness. Just buy a random selection of "Mint-" lenses on eBay and I'm sure you'll find lots of character there too

 

[Vayl]

Thanks everyone for engaging in the conversation. You all make good points and at the end of the day, it's true that there are certain "looks" I favor-- perhaps what I'm asking is how can I create these looks, and is Sony the best ecosystem for me to get there?

As requested I've put together two batches of images, simply titled "Liked" and "Disliked", hopefully this will make my issue clearer.

"LIKE" BATCH BELOW


Like: colors, skintone, texture


Like: skintone/texture, especially for backlist subjects.


Like: this image is the best reference in terms of what I like in terms of color, tonality, contrast, falloff, blur etc. I often find this kind of look in Medium Format systems.


Like: thought I'd give an example of harsh lighting. Not a big fan of the grading though, texture is on point though.


Like: lighting, falloff, blur, tone


Like: lighting, falloff, blur, tone


Like: Flatter image example.


Like: color, tones, contrast, light falloff (especially in shadow areas)

"DISLIKE" BATCH BELOW


Dislike: texture, red hand


Dislike: texture


Dislike: overall texture/tone of image.

[ATTACH alt="Dislike: the whole thing feels like a "plastic" image to me, is it just the grading?"]media_3832083[/ATTACH]
Dislike: the whole thing feels like a "plastic" image to me, is it just the grading?


Dislike: extreme example of what I dislike in an image.


Dislike: bokeh, texture, tones, light falloff, contrast


Dislike: texture, tones, harsh skin


Dislike: plastic feel


Dislike: harsh skintone, reds everywhere.


Dislike: bokeh, texture, harsh skin

I wish there was an easier way for me to relay what I'm trying to say but it's difficult for me to pinpoint exactly what it is to begin with. It's frustrating to say the least but I'd like to get to the bottom of it.

I understand the importance of post-production and retouching; the importance of lighting and framing-- but I'm not convinced that it's just that. Is it a stretch to assume that these sensors leave their own marks imprinted within the DNA our images? We can change them, sure, but I suppose some sensors lend themselves better to a certain type of imagery? (even though most of them are provided by Sony).

Now that you've taken a look at what I like and dislike, would you say there's a better ecosystem for me out there? Maybe Sony is the best system and I'm just looking at it the wrong way. I'm not sure, now that I've written what I like/dislike about each of them I feel that perhaps it is a question of lighting and post... but I'm just not certain. I hope you can help me answer these questions.

To be honest if any other FF system had a working Eye AF (a big deal for me) I wouldn't even be bothering you with all this-- I'd take the ergonomics of Canikon over the Sony any day, even the upcoming 100MP by Fuji; but I can't afford a 10k camera OR the setup needed to handle those files anyway.

Again, this is a tricky matter and I didn't clearly state my issues to begin with-- so thanks again for your patience.


NOTE: I've allowed myself to use these pictures from the web. Whether I tag a picture as liked or disliked is entirely a subjective matter and the photographers behind these images are talented in their own right regardless of my opinion.

 

[Tristimulus]

My first impression is that you dislike:

- hard light

- less depth of field

- underexposed bluish images

- akward posing

Seems like a lot of the character wanted lie in the use of light and control of depth of field. This is up to the photographer, and akward posing is about communication between the photographer and the model.

Guess (might be wrong) that the lack of character (at least partially) boils down to using lights in a favourable way...

In the film days we added diffusers in front of the lens to add character to the lens. Wether this was a good or bad strategy is very much up to the one looking at the final image...

What can not be discussed is that character of a lens is subjective. We are different. So this thread might become very interesting but we will never agree!

 

[earlyadapter]

Thank you for these beautiful photographs, which I think make your point very well. As a complete amateur, I'm unable to help, but I too think that some of the best-rated lenses actually give poor bokeh results, and we are generally less critical of these issues.

I think the high resolutions actually show up some of the design weaknesses of traditional lens design. But they also provide opportunity. I don't have the experience to offer anything useful - but I thought your examples well chosen.