Irakly Shanidze

Irakly Shanidze

Lives in United States Grosse Pointe, United States
Works as a creative
Has a website at www.shanidze.com/en
Joined on May 21, 2004
About me:

I am a founder of International Academy of Photographic Arts that provides
online classes and live workshops in fine art photography ith an emphasis on creative approach and lateral thinking in the US, Canada, Western Europe and Russia.

Comments

Total: 204, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: fascinating... it is like buying a race car and fitting it with bicycle wheels :D
there is a reason why medium format exists, and it is not to make it possible to use 35mm lenses on it.

I know this because I know fundamental principles behind the idea of medium format. Would you like an explanation, or google will help you?

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: fascinating... it is like buying a race car and fitting it with bicycle wheels :D
there is a reason why medium format exists, and it is not to make it possible to use 35mm lenses on it.

In terms of coverage, yes of course, this is unbelievably wide. Resolution will be insane. In terms of image aesthetics... not so much. It will look flat with no depth to the picture. If you do not believe me, try it and maybe send me a thank you note :)

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 03:41 UTC

fascinating... it is like buying a race car and fitting it with bicycle wheels :D
there is a reason why medium format exists, and it is not to make it possible to use 35mm lenses on it.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 03:16 UTC as 26th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

Micro-contrast is a lens ability to differentiate between very close tonal values. You can find the explanation here, for instance: https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/
To resolve the same amount of detail on a smaller frame, you need a lens of a... well... higher resolving power. Higher resolving power equals higher edge sharpness equals higher overall contrast. That reduces the lens ability to render two very close tones as separate values. The reason why you are having a hard time embracing the concept is because the resolution is a measurable value, while micro-contrast is perceptive.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

Hi Barbie :)

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 04:51 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

Medium format gives the best of both worlds: lower resolution allows high micro-contrast, yet due to the size of the frame, an image looks sharper than the identical one, but shot with a 35mm "full-frame".

The problem of this particular camera and also Hasselblad X1D is that Fuji lenses have never been famous for their micro-contrast. Maybe this is the reason why the reviewer missed the point :)

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 03:59 UTC

What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 03:54 UTC as 96th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: The things are going now, there is no need for faster lenses anymore, although I understand the desire. 2.8/135 is plenty fast when ISO3200 looks better than Fuji Provia 400F back in a day :)

@Dan_168 I shoot with 1/50 on a daily basis for work. Would you like me to tell you what it takes? As to ISO100 vs 3200, I would love you to tell the difference looking at two Leica M10 files. At this point there is absolutely no reason to shoot at ISO100, unless you have too much light for what you are trying to accomplish

@AngularJS - do not forget about convenience. I have Zeiss 1.8/135, and it is humongous. Now, with Leica SL, or Sony a99-II the difference between 1250 and 3200 is nominal effectively making this monstrosity unnecessary

@John C Tharp - yes sir, Captain Obvious sir! Theory is a wonderful thing until you start implementing it in real life. As to AF accuracy, do not forget about a trade-of: faster lenses = shallower DOF = higher tolerance. If you do AF at 1.8 for 2.8, your precision is excessive, as the greater DOF of 2.8 will swallow an error. On the other hand, faster glass = more glass to move = slower, unless it is an internal focusing lens

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 02:58 UTC

The things are going now, there is no need for faster lenses anymore, although I understand the desire. 2.8/135 is plenty fast when ISO3200 looks better than Fuji Provia 400F back in a day :)

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 17:09 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: This is crazy. At this price point, Carl Zeiss 1.8/135 ZA seems much more attractive.

Not only A mountbalivw and well, but Sony made a successor to a99 that kills competitors in pro sector hands down.
Zeiss lenses are not rebadged Minolta. Before making claims this preposterous, you might want to try them out to see the difference.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 09:32 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: This is crazy. At this price point, Carl Zeiss 1.8/135 ZA seems much more attractive.

when a99-II is out, who needs canikon? :)
this is a portrait lens, lots of glass to move. not sure if sigma's AF any faster.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 23:19 UTC

This is crazy. At this price point, Carl Zeiss 1.8/135 ZA seems much more attractive.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:38 UTC as 39th comment | 5 replies
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (764 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: I remember testing X100 when it just came out. Within 5 minutes I found conditions that made the lens look like it was born to produce chromatic aberrations. I wonder how this lens that has not changed since the X100 handles even a higher resolution sensor.

it was pretty bad

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:25 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (764 comments in total)

I remember testing X100 when it just came out. Within 5 minutes I found conditions that made the lens look like it was born to produce chromatic aberrations. I wonder how this lens that has not changed since the X100 handles even a higher resolution sensor.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 04:14 UTC as 102nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a bizarre crime... it is either sheer stupidity, revenge is done kind, or a calculated inside job. Hopefully not insurance fraud :)

misgruntled :)

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 20:45 UTC

What a bizarre crime... it is either sheer stupidity, revenge is done kind, or a calculated inside job. Hopefully not insurance fraud :)

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 19:40 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sirandar: You have to wonder what this article has to do with photography.
There is some implication that a photographer did this.

It is incredibly unlikely that this van was left there by anybody who would call themselves a photographer.

If we had real news instead of fake news we would know if the van even had plates (probably not) and if the VIN number was traced, or even if the van was reported stolen. In Canada, out of province people routinely buy old junker vans to travel the west coast to save $$. When they no longer work they are abandoned.

Because being an actual reporter is no longer a viable occupation, there is nobody to "report" these little details.

Lol no, who needs pictures of the stupid salt deposits, he just came there to reflect on existence.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
On article Video: Leica M10 First Look (23 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The best things in life are free, it gets progressively worse as you up costs. Doubt me? consider your labours finance all tragedy-arms for your wars, your futile space explorations, your large hadron collider, chernobyls everywhere, and on a personal note ferraris, bugatti veyrons, Leicas, Hasselblads, hi-end hifis and computets and iPhones and Macs etc. And then there's jewellery cosmetics and high fashion-none of which are necessary and which consume vast earthly and spiritual resources, and all of which enslave mankind in general. and us gearheads in particular.
If A Leica 10 and a 50mm, 35mm 21mm and 24mm and visoflex cost me 10 per cent of my annual income I would certainly be tempted- though sensor reliability is a problem with Leitz.
But is not and right now I can listen to Angela Hewitt playing Bach French Suites on the radio and it costs NOTHING, not a year's salary AND my peers respect and favour. Why photography indeed!! Even her piano costs less than an M10!

That's why the most perspicacious people buy Leica M and carry a very small and light shoulder bag :D

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 04:16 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: It is just too bad that nobody explained to the author that focusing with a rangefinder is faster and more reliable than AF when done right. All you have to do is to set the lens to infinity after each shot. That way, there is only one direction the focusing ring can go.

When it comes to guessing and zone focusing, the simplest and most reliable technique is positioning a standing person between horizontal frame lines and focusing on it. After that, any person of approximately the same height will be at approximately the same distance. No need to recompose.

patrocal, the focusing scale is logarithmic: it is much wider at the short end and gets progressively narrower towards the infinity. that is why turning the focusing ring from the infinity to 10 feet on a 1.4/50 lens will require only a 15-degree turn, while from 2.5 feet (minimum focusing distance on most modern leica lenses) to 10 feet it would take at least 50 degrees. Some exotic lenses like 1.4/75, or 1/50 have a very long through, and it may take 100 degrees to go from 1m to 3m

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 04:14 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: It is just too bad that nobody explained to the author that focusing with a rangefinder is faster and more reliable than AF when done right. All you have to do is to set the lens to infinity after each shot. That way, there is only one direction the focusing ring can go.

When it comes to guessing and zone focusing, the simplest and most reliable technique is positioning a standing person between horizontal frame lines and focusing on it. After that, any person of approximately the same height will be at approximately the same distance. No need to recompose.

Simon, yes, it is faster and, what is even more important, more reliable in low light. What you probably do not know (just judging from your comment) is that when focusing with an optical rangefinder, there is no guesswork whatsoever whether the object is in focus, or not. When focusing through the lens with modern SLR that has a matte focusing screen, you spend time on figuring out whether you are in focus or not by defocusing slightly and then going back. It works reasonably well with fast lenses, but not as much with slower ones that make a viewfinder darker. With the rangefinder, it is always bright, regardless of the lens used, and there us no guesswork: if you see two images, it is out of focus, if only one, you are in business.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 04:08 UTC
Total: 204, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »