Comparison of films/cameras/technologies in single scene

[markjwyatt]

I have a location near my home that has become a standard test shot as I experiment. I thought it would be fun to show some of the results.

This is the only color one. I took it last week:
Contax iia; Sonnar 50mm f2; Ektar 100

Yet Another Image of Oaks Lanscape by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Pentax Spotmatic with Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron + Zeiss yellow filter (maybe G2); Fuji Acros 100; taken in July timeframe

Oaks Landscape by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Fujifilm XT-2; 18-55mm zoom- close to 30mm; Acros+Y simulation; taken a few weeks ago

Oaks landscape by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Mamiya C330f; 80mm f2.8; Bergger Pancro 400 + Hoya X0 (yellow-green); taken late last month

hilly landscape by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Let me know your thoughts.

 

[smarty62]

I like the spotmatic the most because of the sky and the good contrast... just my 2 cents.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk

 

[Zaphod2319]

Another vote for the Spotmatic. The blanket of clouds add depth to the shot.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I think it would be a better comparison if you took the shots all at the same time.

But regardless, still interesting.

 

[markjwyatt]

I think it would be a better comparison if you took the shots all at the same time.

But regardless, still interesting.

It would have been. On the other hand all were shot late in the afternoon between late July and mid-October. In So. Cal that is called summer (mid-October is beginning to feel like Autumn). All the black and white shots stopped in September- still summer for sure. The biggest issue is the Acros shot had the best clouds, so it biases opinions (rightfully) to that shot.

The Hoya X0(yellow-green) filter (Mamiya C330f) was not as effective as the Zeiss yellow ("Spotmatic" shot); though differences in film spectral sensitivity could be at play also. Unfortunately it is what I currently have for the Mamiya TLRs (other than a 25A, but I did not want to go extreme).

I think the Spotmatic shot is also best because of the Zeiss lens I used. I suspect a Takumar lens would also be good, but I do not have any (and in fact I bought some inexpensive M42 cameras specifically for the Zeiss lens; though in the mean time I have also picked up a few other M42 lenses, none as good as the Zeiss).

 

[compur]

Is that Ultron the one with concave front element?

 

[markjwyatt]

Is that Ultron the one with concave front element?

Yes, that's the one. My dad bought a Zeiss Icarex 35S TM in the early 70s (maybe late 60s). I bought it form him when I was around 12 and it became my first keeper camera. The shutter stopped working well in the early 80's, but I kept the camera and lens around all these years (fortunately- I had no idea at the time how good it was). I have recently revived the lens (had it CLA'd recently to get it working smoothly again).

 

[compur]

Yes, that's the one. My dad bought a Zeiss Icarex 35S TM in the early 70s (maybe late 60s). I bought it form him when I was around 12 and it became my first keeper camera. The shutter stopped working well in the early 80's, but I kept the camera and lens around all these years (fortunately- I had no idea at the time how good it was). I have recently revived the lens (had it CLA'd recently to get it working smoothly again).

I had an Icarex TM with that lens too. Mine also developed problems and, unfortunately, I sold both body and lens. It's a honey of a lens though. Wish I still had it. But, Takumars are very nice too.

 

[markjwyatt]

I had an Icarex TM with that lens too. Mine also developed problems and, unfortunately, I sold both body and lens. It's a honey of a lens though. Wish I still had it. But, Takumars are very nice too.

I find this an interesting topic. German lenses seem to have a mystique about them. I do think there is something real about that mystique though. I got my Contax rangefinder going, and can see potential with the Sonnar 50mm f2 lens (micro-contrast, "bokeh, probably other factors). People talk about how a lens "paints with light" (photo graphy), and many consider Leitz or Carl Zeiss as having the best characteristics from an aesthetic perspective. I think a lot of modern lens designs are driven by bench metrics related to things like "sharpness", rather than how a scene is presented by the lens on film/sensor.

I also hear (but am not an optics expert so cannot confirm) that the rangefinder lenses work better because they are closer to the film plane and the lens does not need to project the image as far. On the other hand we have lenses like the Ultron, so there must be ways to manage this.

 

[compur]

German lenses seem to have a mystique about them. I do think there is something real about that mystique though.

I do too. An image is a complex thing and no amount of technical specs or analysis can fully define it IMO.

 

[n614cd]

I had an Icarex TM with that lens too. Mine also developed problems and, unfortunately, I sold both body and lens. It's a honey of a lens though. Wish I still had it. But, Takumars are very nice too.

I find this an interesting topic. German lenses seem to have a mystique about them. I do think there is something real about that mystique though. I got my Contax rangefinder going, and can see potential with the Sonnar 50mm f2 lens (micro-contrast, "bokeh, probably other factors). People talk about how a lens "paints with light" (photo graphy), and many consider Leitz or Carl Zeiss as having the best characteristics from an aesthetic perspective. I think a lot of modern lens designs are driven by bench metrics related to things like "sharpness", rather than how a scene is presented by the lens on film/sensor.

I also hear (but am not an optics expert so cannot confirm) that the rangefinder lenses work better because they are closer to the film plane and the lens does not need to project the image as far. On the other hand we have lenses like the Ultron, so there must be ways to manage this.

Then you will like the new Full Frame Mirrorless mounts from Canon, Nikon, Sony, and the L-Mount alliance. Al have decreased the lens back to sensor from 45-50mm down to roughly 20mm.
This will make a lot of things possible now which were technically different or impossible.
Note: this is based on reading blogs by engineers and others who actually in understand this stuff.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[markjwyatt]

Then you will like the new Full Frame Mirrorless mounts from Canon, Nikon, Sony, and the L-Mount alliance. Al have decreased the lens back to sensor from 45-50mm down to roughly 20mm.
This will make a lot of things possible now which were technically different or impossible.
Note: this is based on reading blogs by engineers and others who actually in understand this stuff.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

I like my Fuji XT2 a lot. It is not full frame, but it does produce nice results, and also is mirrorless.