Roto Till Time ~ mid-Till ~ part Four

After finding the Sony 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA to be a very fine optic, I wondered how a little software function called "Capture Sharpen" might look with the 35mm Sony on an A7 full frame body and a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN on an APS-C A6000.

Short refresher course: 
"Capture Sharpen" is a software function that was seen some years back in Adobe's Photoshop application, Capture One, and somewhat more recently introduced in the Open Source Software RAW image processor called RawTherapee.

What "Capture Sharpen" does is offset the effects of Anti-Aliasing filters that some cameras have over the sensor.  AA filters combat moire color aberrations.  The filter softens images and the software tries to reverse the AA filter softening effect.

Sony A7 and A6000 have AA filters.  So I felt it would be interesting to see how the software changed a basic image.

 

I like using le Canard as my comparison subject.  The typeset print gives a nice crisp transition from light to dark.

Setup ~ 

• Setup one - 
• Sony A7, ISO100, 2second delay, AWB
• Lens - Sony 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA
  
• Setup two - 
• Sony A6000, ISO100, 2second delay, AWB
• Lens - Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee to snug up the curves, without and _with_ "Capture Sharpen"
  

Comparison ~

I compare the 35mm Sony on 24 mpixel Full Frame against a 19mm Sigma f/2.8 EX DN on 24 mpixel APS-C.  There are two sets of images from the lenses, the first set are without "Capture Sharpen" and the second pair of lines are with the software function applied.

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Comments ~

The software does, indeed, work some serious magic.  Comparing the before and after "Capture Sharpen" images shows what this function is supposed to do.

Looking more critically, the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN corner images clean up nicely, but they don't quite match the Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA until f/5.6.  I've used this particular 19mm lens for years and have always been satisfied with the image quality.

With this in mind, it'll be interesting to see if I can tell any "improvement" in image quality as I start using the 35mm ZA.  I suspect I won't be able to tell much, if anything, but I'll keep an open mind.  

 

The new (to me) Sony looks absolutely brilliant.

 

Sony A5000 with Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN
Can't imagine getting anything
sharper than this.

Roto Till Time ~ mid-Till ~ part Three

Roto-Tilling my old Nikon Nikkor lenses into new and shiny AF optics for the Full Frame Sony A7 cameras I own is fun.  There it is.  I have to admit it.  A friend rightly pointed out that it's in my nature to buy and sell.  The latest justification is that my eyes are getting flaky with age and that I can benefit from the automation.

One of the things that I feel when using Sony A7 Full Frame mirrorless cameras is that the image quality "feels" a whole lot like the image qualities of 4x5 and 8x10inch film cameras.  There is a lot of wonderful detail and subtle renditions possible with these A7 cameras.  I've thought a lot about how I used to shoot and to see if I could apply those approaches and lens selections to current digital imaging.

As with my experience of years ago working with a 210mm lens in 4x5 inch film, I remember the second most used focal length was 135mm/150mm.  Using a DOF calculator I found the equivalent Full Frame digital focal length is 35mm/40mm.

Since 40mm (150mm 4x5 film equivalent) lenses are a little steeply priced for this retired Way Way Behind the Curve kind of Cheapskate, I opted to look for as good a 35mm (135mm 4x5 film equivalent) as I could afford.

One of the Wild Out of Reach things I considered was finding a 482gram Sony RX1R to fill the 35mm focal length "need."  After reading a few reviews I learned the AF performance in low light might be a little dodgy and that the overall size/weight wasn't as small/low as perhaps I would've hoped.

On the other hand, a little 122gram 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA is as good as the camera body's AF can drive it at all light levels. Coupled to a 474gram Sony A7, the all up weight comes in at 596grams, or 110grams over the fixed mount lens with no dedicated EVF Sony RX1R.  And the 35mm lens would be a 1/4 the cheapest used price of an RX1R I could find.

So... I Hunted and Gathered a sweet little 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA Sony, brought it home, and took a look at how it compared with a known stellar optic.

 

Again, using le Canard as my subject, I took my by now mundane standard approach to comparing various lenses.

Setup ~ 

• Setup one - 
• Sony A7, ISO100, 2second delay, AWB
• Lens - Sony 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA
  
• Setup two - 
• Sony A6000, ISO100, 2second delay, AWB
• Lens - Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee to snug up the curves, with _no_ Capture Sharpen, just the lens and the sensor
   

Comparison ~

I compare the 35mm Sony on 24 mpixel Full Frame against a 19mm Sigma f/2.8 EX DN on 24 mpixel APS-C.  The reason is that I've seen that this Sigma is one of the sharpest/crispest/cleanest rendering lenses in the Closet of Goodies.

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Comments ~

The Sony 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA looks great across the field straight from wide open.  Of course people wrote about this 10 years ago when this model first hit the market.  Yes.  I'm 10 years Out of Date with the State of Things.

By comparison, the stellar little Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN is just ever so slightly soft wide open in the center of the frame.  The edges never seem to catch up with the Sony, either.

As with all the new toys, er, sorry, new tools, I will need to give the Sony time to "settle in" and to become part of my workflow.  The resolution sure looks promising.  The size and weight make it a "no brainer" for carrying around.  This could be a lot of fun.

Roto Till Time ~ mid-Till ~ part Two

After successfully hunting and gathering, that is to say, after lassoing and dragging home a pretty little Sony 55mm f/1.8 FE ZA, it was time to compare it to two lenses it is intended to replace.  These being a beautiful Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AiS and a good condition Nikon Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4 pre-Ai.

 

Using le Canard as my subject, I took my by now mundane standard approach to comparing various lenses.

Setup ~ 

• Sony A7, ISO100, 2second delay, AWB
• Bogen tripod
• Lenses -
• Sony 55mm f/1.8 FE ZA
• Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AiS
• Nikon Nikkor-S Auto f/1.4 pre-Ai

• RawTherapee to snug up the curves, with _no_ Capture Sharpen, just the lens and the sensor
   

Comparison ~

To confirm the AF system of the Sony A7 was doing it's "thing" properly, I included a manually focused pass with the 55mm lens.

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Comments ~

It appears the A7 AF system is indeed doing it's "thing" properly.  I really can't do any better by manually focusing.  

This is a Good Thing(tm) as the whole reason for Roto Tilling my lens collection is to gain automation as a way to help my aging eyes and to speed up the process of image taking.  It was getting to be a PIA having to slow way down to manually focus the Nikkors.  Increasingly I am not able to "nail" the focus, even with me taking my time.

Looking at the center of the field we can see where the Sony 55mm f/1.8 is sharp from wide open.  The Nikkor lenses show under-corrected spherical aberration at wide open.  This, I'm thoroughly convinced, is a deliberate design choice.  I think the Japanese appreciate the subtle "sfumato"-like rendition under-corrected spherical aberration can give. I'm keeping the Nikkor-S Auto just in case I can figure out how to use the shumato effect in Europe.

Stopping down, by f/2.8, the Nikkors and Sony lenses all look the same in the center of the frame.  The Nikkor Pixie Magic at f/1.4 and f/2 is now gone.  Said conversly, if I didn't want the focus automation, there is absolutely nothing wrong in terms of resolution with the old Nikkors.

At edges there are more obvious differences between the three optics.  The surprise is the Nikkor-S Auto at f/4 and f/5.6 which is clearly quite sharp at the edge.  

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Sony is very sharp at the edges across the field.  I have say that current lens design appears to have meaningfully improved the species at the edges at wide apertures.

One of the reasons for selecting 55mm on Full Frame Sony A7 mirrorless is that it is the equivalent to my old and much loved 210mm Schneider Symmar-S MC f/5.6 that I used when I shot 4x5 film.  I shot the 210mm for decades and it served me well.  I think it will take a year of use to see if that's how it turns out in practice with the Sony 55mm.

Roto Till Time ~ mid-Till ~ Part One

It was so frustrating trying to manually focus my Nikkor lenses under some conditions that I decided I was beating my head against an intellectual and historical wall.  

Sony A7 + adapter + Nikon Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4

The source of the frustration was I was missing the focus, even focus magnification in the EVF.  I'm getting old and my eyes aren't what they used to be.  After 50 years better/improved technologies exist.  Perhaps I should free my frustrated self and learn to trust the automation?

I know where the Magic Pixies are in old Nikkors, but they don't seem to enhance my photography, nor do they thrill me in the way I thought intellectually they should.  Historically, I wanted to own these lenses simply because they were the "thing to own" when I was young and I couldn't afford them then.  It'd come down to a "been there done that" situation.

 Length comparison
Sony A7 + adapter + Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4
Sony A7 + Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA "Zeiss"

Six out of twelve Nikon Nikkor manual focus lenses were very quickly sold and have found new and hopefully better homes.

In counting the proceeds of early sales it was easy to see there were sufficient funds to pick up two AF FE for Sony lenses. I would, of course, have to shop very carefully. Zeiss labeled Sony manufactured lenses are not cheap.

Crazily enough, I didn't have to search very hard.  I educated myself to learn what "good" prices are these days.  Wouldn't you know it, but several lenses showed up for the "right" prices from several sellers straight away.  

 Sony A7 + adapter + Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4
Sony A7 + Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA "Zeiss"

Perhaps it was the winter holiday season and folks were looking for a little extra change?  After making contact I selected the most responsive sellers and picked both up two lenses on the same day. Color me impatient.

The first lens is a Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA FE.  It had been purchased new and then seldom used.  The previous owner is a fashion videographer/photographer.  He found he preferred other lenses.  Checking the lens over I found the AF to be lightening quick.  I'd have to check the resolution later after I got home.

The second lens is a Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA FE.  It too had been purchased new.  This one was bought about two years ago.  It was now being replaced by a Sony 50mm f/1.2 FE.  The lucky b*sard!  Like the 35mm f/2.8 the 55mm's AF is lightening quick, so I this one followed me home, too, where I could more fully explore its optical performance.

Sony A7 + Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA "Zeiss"
Sony A7 + adapter + Nikkor-0 35mm f/2

The reason I started with 55mm and 35mm lenses on Full Frame Sony mirrorless is that when I shot 4x5 film, my favorite focal lengths were 210mm and 135/150mm.  The new Zeiss labeled Sony's are the large format equivalent focal lengths in the smaller format.

Comparing the overall sizes of these to my old Nikkors with adapters is an interesting exercise.

The 55mm f/1.8 isn't that much shorter than an adapted Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4.  The AF of the 55mm being the first obvious advantage over the Nikkor-S Auto.

The adapted 35mm Nikkor-O f/2 pre-Ai, however, looks like a telephoto compared with the Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA.  In fact, the little Sony is so small that it is approximately the same size and weight as the lovely (and very unfortunately discontinued) Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN.  Obviously the Sony covers Full Frame, where the Sigma only covers APS-C.

After I got home I compared the optical performance of the new tools against a couple old Nikkors that I still have and a pair of the Sigma EX DN that sit on my little APS-C cameras.  This will be the subject of Parts Two and Three of "mid-Till".

 

Sony A7 + Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA "Zeiss"
Sony A7 + adapter + Nikkor-0 35mm f/2

... a funny thing happened on the way to the Coloseum...

Decision made and things suddenly move quite quickly.

After realizing the pixie-level magic that's hidden in old manual focus Nikkors did not suit my photographic style, and after deciding which of my vast hord of Nikon lenses are less loved than they should be, I started posting items for sale.

In similar time I've been wrangling over which AF lenses to purchase.  I'm thinking of three lenses at most.  One each super-wide, wide, and normal lenses.  Out go 12 Nikkors (I'll be keeping 4 "just in case this doesn't work out the way I think it will" kind of lenses) and in come three new tools.

Sinar F, 90mm Schneider Super-Angulon f/5.6
My garage with a dismantled Jaguar XK150FHC.
Check out that old Mobile florescent light on the wall.
Now that I live in an apartment in France I find
I miss having a workspace like a garage.  Just
to do things in, you know what I mean?

Sony A7 images "feel" a lot like 4x5 view film camera work to me.  The image quality of the digital cameras have a clarity to them that I couldn't get with any film format smaller than 4x5 inches.

If my A7's are modern large format film camera equivalents, then perhaps I could think of which lenses I used most when I shot film? Back in the day I used various 90mm super wide angle, 135mm wide angle, and one 210mm slightly longer than "normal" lenses.

On a giggle and a lark, well, no, more seriously than that basic research, I went to a site where one can compare depth of field between lenses and formats.  When I typed in 90mm and 4x5 inch format I saw that the full frame digital equivalent is 24mm.  Huh.  Isn't that interesting.  I _love_ that focal length in FF digital, just as I did 90mm in LF work.

When I typed in 135mm when selecting 4x5inch film format the FF digital equivalent is 35mm.  Well.  Well.  Well.  That too is very useful.

Sinar F, 135mm Tessar formula f/5.6
I loved this bike.  It was only 500cc, but
oh how she was a sweet ride.  I got her
from David Dicks who was in the mid-west
at the time.  I had her several years before
passing her on to a friend, who then, in turn
passed her along to another/mutual friend.

Then I typed in 65mm and selected 1x full frame digital.  Why this switch in using the tool?  Well, I'd found a sweet looking little (or perhaps not so little) Sigma 65mm f/2 I lens for Sony and I hoped that it would turn out to be 210mm equivalent large format film.  I wanted to justify buying the Sigma. Except, it wasn't the equivalent focal length I thought it was.

65mm FF digital works out to be 240mm on 4x5.  Nope.  That's a deal breaker for me.  I never ever was in all my years of shooting film able to warm up to 30mm's difference on 4x5.  OK, sure, 240mm was wonderful on 5x7, but the reason should be obvious as to why that would be.

Speed Graphic, 210mm Schneider Symmar-S/MC f/5.6
Hillsboro airshow and SU27 aircraft.  It was the
first time Russian material was allowed/escorted
into US airspace.  I can't believe I still have
the negatives from this event.  Gads! that was
a long time ago...

So which FF digital focal length matched my much loved 210mm Schneider Symmar S/MC f/5.6 that I used for nearly three decades?  Tappity tap tap tap... and the answer is - 55mm.

Well, would you look at that, will you?  Doesn't Sony make a 55mm f/1.8 FE that comes with a cute little Zeiss badge on it?

Wheels are turning.  I tell you.  Wheels are turning.

Roto Till Time...

It has been a very tumultuous Fall.

We've been on the road traveling for three months.  We've seen sights.  We've been places.  Apartment door locks broke.  Washing machines self-destructed. Attempted picks were thwarted mid-pick... but.. Passports were later successfully picked.  Passports were miraculously returned through the US Embassy.  Covid was caught.  Covid was survived.  Yes, we were vaxx'd and boosted, so the effects were likely less than if we were stoopid enough to try and do it all on our own.

This is just the half of it.

Photographically it has been a tumultuous time as well.

To keep my travel kit as light as possible I carried a Sony A6000 with a Sony Zeiss ZA 16-70mm f/4 SEL OSS.  It did the trick.  Three months of photography.  Thousands of images to paw through.

During the quiet moments (yes, there were a few of those, too) I looked closely at Pictorialist images from the Sessionist Movement and for myself discovered something interesting.  "Soft Focus" lenses appear to work best on subjects in or about nature.  City and village images from the time tend to be sharp.  I've been interested in "soft focus" lenses to try and understand and then apply that understanding to make images that could be uniquely mine.

This kind of photography has been long contentious.  It is easy to remember that Group 64 hated William Mortensen, in part, because of his use of "soft focus" lenses.  This ignores the fact that after M.Mortensen left Hollywood I'm not aware of a single "soft focus" image that he ever made.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't find any.  He even talks a length about the importance of working with a clear, clean, sharp image.  

Makes me wonder what the Group 64 was going on about.  Pictorialism could be just as sharp as any other photographic style of the time.  So what was the difference between Group 64's approach and the Sessionists?  Maybe it had to do with the spirit with which photographers approached their craft?

It seems like Sessionists were experimenting with all manner of processing.  Clarence White, Karl Struss, Leonard Missone all worked on various techniques.  Later William Mortensen continued that tradition after the Sessionist movement had died.  Group 64 seemed to use whatever materials manufacturers sold them.

Some of the Pictorialist experimenting was indeed around optics.  Karl Struss tried different things and even had someone manufacture and sell lenses to his specification.

Yet, if I look at the vast majority of images from many different Pictorlist practitioners, they tend to be sharp and try to take advantage of various processes.  Platinum/palladium, gum bi-chromate, paper negative retouching and much more.  They also used special papers to try and add to the overall effect they were working toward.

In this light when I look closely at my preferred subjects they tend to be urban and not nature.  Process beyond posting to the internet and personal works tend to not rely on anything more than a camera and lens with a little software thrown in.

For the past four years I've tried to understand soft focus optics.  I've been considering Nikon Nikkor manual focus lenses.  There is pixie level magic in them and I think I finally understand why Nikon designed lenses the way they did.  They often give a subtle rendering when shot wide open.  Read through Nikon's Thousand and One Nights and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

Now that my curiosity has been satisfied and armed with the additional understanding that my preferred subjects do not respond well to "soft focus" rendering, I think it's time to let my old Nikkors go.