coasttocoastphoto

Joined on Feb 28, 2018

Comments

Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5

Creative and interesting. Well done.
www.coasttocoastphoto.com

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2019 at 09:49 UTC as 11th comment
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm GFX 100 (580 comments in total)
In reply to:

realmadeira: If I sell ALL my photo gear I might raise enough to buy the body and the cheapest lens. This might be be worth it

You are on a potential good track, realmadeira. I shoot Leica MF and FF. The MF format images have vastly more data to work with and I can crop down to a small portion of the image and still print big. Maybe get this camera and two or three lenses and something like a Leica Q. You also want a huge monitor and a few terabytes of disk space. You need to find a printer that accepts Tiffs. You need wall space and gallery lighting. www.coasttocoastphoto.com

Link | Posted on May 25, 2019 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

coasttocoastphoto: I've been taking pictures for 48 years and am a Leica, Hasselblad and Zeiss Otus shooter. I've had Minolta, Nikon and Canon. If I shoot a picture with a Canon camera and a sharp Canon lens, and then put the 55 Otus on the camera and shoot the same scene, the Otus is the better of the two. If I take a cross-country trip and take 10,000 pictures, then put them in Lightroom, then look at the photos, the Otus will be the stand out over the Canon pics. You will just be searching for the images you glanced over and suddenly stop. That's the Otus. When I sold the Canon gear to buy more Leica, I kept the Otus to use via a Novoflex adaptor on my Leica SL. The Leica glass and Otus are on equal footing. It's hard to tell them apart without looking at what the data says. There's a saying in the photography world: it's the lens, stupid. It cost more because it's higher quality and it renders better. It has more contrast, and it's sharper from corner-to-corner. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

The Canon lenses I've had are: 17mm TSE, 24mm 1.4 II, 35mm 1.4, 24-70mm 2.8 II, 85mm 1.2 II, 100mm macro 2.8 II, 135mm 2.0, 70-200mm 2.8 II, 300mm 2.8 II. The best of these are the 17mm TSE and the 300mm 2.8. The 300 is sharp as a tack and makes killer pictures, but it's big and heavy. The OTUS is a lens that truly is a stand out. It just renders better. The 50mm 1.2 is too soft, which is why I never bought it. I sold all my Canon gear including two 5DSR's and a 5D4 for a used Leica SL, a used 24-90mm 2.8-4.0, and a used 90-280mm. OK, I lost some resolution by going from the 5DSR to the SL, but the Leica glass is way better. I am a 58 year old guy who wears glasses. Guess what, the viewfinder is much easier to see through, the focus peaking works great, and the menu system is exponentially easier to use allowing quick adjustments. My hit rate went up, and my pictures are significantly improved. Oh yea, I eliminated a carry on sized bag and now have two bags versus three.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2019 at 03:56 UTC
In reply to:

Bubu93: Holy sh*t how good is that Leica 90mm APO Summicron in the corners,

I mean, it's a 5000$ lens so it gotta be worth something, but still I'm impressed

I'm a Leica S and SL shooter. I also have a Leica adaptor allowing me to use Hasselblad HC lenses on my Leica S. The Leica lenses are sharper and have more contrast than the Hasselblad lenses. However, I like using both as the Hasselblad lenses produce a very pleasing and sharp enough image. They also make some very nice out-of-focus circles in the background during night scenes, similar to the look of a cine lens. It's like seeing two planes of focus with how the subject is separated from the background. I haven't used a Phase camera or Schneider lenses, but the results with the sharpness test appear to be similar to the Leica and Hasselblad comparison. I suggest trying both. and if you are a Lumix shooter, your best results will be with Leica SL lenses, and in particular, a Summicron.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2019 at 09:36 UTC

I've been taking pictures for 48 years and am a Leica, Hasselblad and Zeiss Otus shooter. I've had Minolta, Nikon and Canon. If I shoot a picture with a Canon camera and a sharp Canon lens, and then put the 55 Otus on the camera and shoot the same scene, the Otus is the better of the two. If I take a cross-country trip and take 10,000 pictures, then put them in Lightroom, then look at the photos, the Otus will be the stand out over the Canon pics. You will just be searching for the images you glanced over and suddenly stop. That's the Otus. When I sold the Canon gear to buy more Leica, I kept the Otus to use via a Novoflex adaptor on my Leica SL. The Leica glass and Otus are on equal footing. It's hard to tell them apart without looking at what the data says. There's a saying in the photography world: it's the lens, stupid. It cost more because it's higher quality and it renders better. It has more contrast, and it's sharper from corner-to-corner. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2019 at 16:00 UTC as 24th comment | 5 replies
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5