Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18873750
a9 power

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ga5​fGC Wood motion III by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr

Beautiful shot Robert !

digital_AM wrote in post #18873745
Thank you for the kind words Travis. Great image! That's a pretty awesome deck and view. The GM doesn't have as much microcontrast as the Loxia 21 which I think serves it well for architecture images.

Thanks. I will be honest...I can't see microcontrast...I can't pick it out in an image that is shot with a lens that "has" it...versus one that doesn't. I do notice how color is rendered with some lenses, and overall contrast, the 85GM being as noted extensively being a fairly flat color rendering lens. But microcontrast...yeah, I can't see it...

TRhoads wrote in post #18873896
Thanks. I will be honest...I can't see microcontrast...I can't pick it out in an image that is shot with a lens that "has" it...versus one that doesn't. I do notice how color is rendered with some lenses, and overall contrast, the 85GM being as noted extensively being a fairly flat color rendering lens. But microcontrast...yeah, I can't see it...

Micrcontrast is basically an optical clarity slider to me...harder tonal shifts that make details pop. The way most modern lenses render seem to emphasize this. It's really interesting that Sony seems to buck this trend with the GM lenses and strives for a flatter rendering and it's a positive thing IMO. It's a more natural rendering that emphasizes the subtle tonal shifts that are lost when the contrast is high.

I agree with alfredo that it works for your photo as there are a lot going on tonally to appreciate. It's a great photo

mystik610 wrote in post #18873902
Micrcontrast is basically an optical clarity slider to me...harder tonal shifts that make details pop. The way most modern lenses render seem to emphasize this. It's really interesting that Sony seems to buck this trend with the GM lenses and strives for a flatter rendering and it's a positive thing IMO. It's a more natural rendering that emphasizes the subtle tonal shifts that are lost when the contrast is high.

I agree with alfredo that it works for your photo as there are a lot going on tonally to appreciate. It's a great photo

so the 16-35 GM has good microcontrast? or more than other lenses...whatever it is, I like the look in Alfredo's work, and I like what it did for me this year on the CA projects, and it really has me leaning toward selling off the B18 and B25 and going to a one lens solution. Less lens changes and less lenses being carried and looked after on site.

TRhoads wrote in post #18873907
so the 16-35 GM has good microcontrast? or more than other lenses...whatever it is, I like the look in Alfredo's work, and I like what it did for me this year on the CA projects, and it really has me leaning toward selling off the B18 and B25 and going to a one lens solution. Less lens changes and less lenses being carried and looked after on site.

The 16-35 GM has less micro contrast than the batis lenses you are thinking of selling. Less micro contrast is a trait of the GM line. Loxia and batis lenses have higher micro contrast (or at least higher overall contrast, I call it micro contrast but could be wrong)

xpfloyd wrote in post #18873911
The 16-35 GM has less micro contrast than the batis lenses you are thinking of selling. Less micro contrast is a trait of the GM line. Loxia and batis lenses have higher micro contrast (or at least higher overall contrast, I call it micro contrast but could be wrong)

ah...ok. Thanks. Like I said, I can't really see it all that much, I love the way the 3 of them render, and is why its been a struggle to decide which way to go.

Microcontrast is just contrast hah...not sure where the term microcontrast came about

But yes...16-35GM has less microcontrast. Same as the rest of the GM lenses. It's a really distinctive look IMO and it works. I think in the past we always associated contrast with sharpness because higher quality glass tended to be both sharp and really contrasty. GM lenses are sharp, but on the flat side in terms of rendering so it emphasizes tonal details that are lost when the tonal shifts are so drastic.

Using an audiophile analogy, I'd say that most modern lenses are a lot like modern audio gear...all boom and sizzle. Warmer/flatter audio gear may not have as visceral of a sound signature, but bring out audio details you never noticed in recordings you've heard for years. Same with the GM lenses.

I've tended to favor flatter contrast in post over the past couple of years. I think GM rendering has influenced a lot of that.

I keep wondering about this:
https://shop.stcoptics​.com/product/clipfilte​r_sonyff/
Talk about portable and it would work with all lenses!

mystik610 wrote in post #18873922
Microcontrast is just contrast hah...not sure where the term microcontrast came about

But yes...16-35GM has less microcontrast. Same as the rest of the GM lenses. It's a really distinctive look IMO and it works. I think in the past we always associated contrast with sharpness because higher quality glass tended to be both sharp and really contrasty. GM lenses are sharp, but on the flat side in terms of rendering so it emphasizes tonal details that are lost when the tonal shifts are so drastic.

Using an audiophile analogy, I'd say that most modern lenses are a lot like modern audio gear...all boom and sizzle. Warmer/flatter audio gear may not have as visceral of a sound signature, but bring out audio details you never noticed in recordings you've heard for years. Same with the GM lenses.

I've tended to favor flatter contrast in post over the past couple of years. I think GM rendering has influenced a lot of that.

ah, now I get it...better tonal changes that are smoother and more subtle is less microcontrast...and that explains why I like the 16-35 GM so much, the tonal changes are so smooth and flowing...thank you for this explanation...I feel like less of an ID10T now...

OK, this is what happens when you have too much time on your hands....I really need to polish up my photoshop skills

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2gag​aXD

FWIW, I see micro-contrast in almost exactly the opposite way. I think that it provides more subtle gradations (rather than smoothing them out) that give a better perception of depth and shape. Same thing with the audio side of thing - I used to sell six-figure two-channel audio systems and I see dynamics:micro-dynamics as analogous to contrast:micro-contrast. Dynamics are the range from the silence between notes and the boom of the timpani. Micro-dynamics is the sonic texture - the timbre of woodwind or of a horsehair bow being drawn across strings. Both scales, large and small, contribute to an illusion of reality, it's just a question of which aspect speaks to you and how you'd like to impart that in your work.

TRhoads wrote in post #18873938
ah, now I get it...better tonal changes that are smoother and more subtle is less microcontrast...and that explains why I like the 16-35 GM so much, the tonal changes are so smooth and flowing...thank you for this explanation...I feel like less of an ID10T now...

This is where I'm seeing differences in my 5dmk3 and mk4 canon gear. The 5dmk4 looks different and sharper than my 5dmk3. However the 5dmk4 seems to still have a smoother subtle look over all of my sony gear.

Fuji aps-c is the smooth transition beast. This is probably the draw to engineered film look fuji provides straight out of the gates. Problem is the high iso just does not meet my demands and needs.

The sony gmaster 70-200 with my A73 is very sharp to my eyes and gives a more digital crispy look slightly more than my 5dmk4 with EF70-200 f/2.8ISmk2.

This is where I look at natural light portraits and find the Sony to have a harder look. I use dehaze in LR and slide it to -10 (to taste) to soften up the harder micro contrast sony render. Canon and Fuji certainly look different to my eyes. This is where you can see a distinct sony render look if you look at different photog's portraits in canon, sony and fuji world. If you uplift shadows in sony you cannot make a human look like a cartoon character. With fuji and canon you can create a cartoon look if you're aggressive in uplifting shadows.

Miranda1 wrote in post #18873944
OK, this is what happens when you have too much time on your hands....I really need to polish up my photoshop skills

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2gag​aXD Alternative Interpretation by Jose Raposo, on Flickr

did you do some sort of sky swap?

AlanU wrote in post #18873948
This is where I'm seeing differences in my 5dmk3 and mk4 canon gear. The 5dmk4 looks different and sharper than my 5dmk3. However the 5dmk4 seems to still have a smoother subtle look over all of my sony gear.

Fuji aps-c is the smooth transition beast. This is probably the draw to engineered film look fuji provides straight out of the gates. Problem is the high iso just does not meet my demands and needs.

The sony gmaster 70-200 with my A73 is very sharp to my eyes and gives a more digital crispy look slightly more than my 5dmk4 with EF70-200 f/2.8ISmk2.

This is where I look at natural light portraits and find the Sony to have a harder look. I use dehaze in LR and slide it to -10 (to taste) to soften up the harder micro contrast sony render. Canon and Fuji certainly look different to my eyes. This is where you can see a distinct sony render look if you look at different photog's portraits in canon, sony and fuji world. If you uplift shadows in sony you cannot make a human look like a cartoon character. With fuji and canon you can create a cartoon look if you're aggressive in uplifting shadows.

ON the first Sony lenses I used, I felt like they were very sharp, and for people had too much contrast, and it didn't feel as natural...and that is probably why I love the 85GM so much, it renders flatter, more subtle shadows on people. The color is quite different to my old Canon days, but the 85GM on the a9 gives me close to the feel I had on the 5D2 which I loved for portrait work...except for the tendency to be front or back focused...

digital_AM wrote in post #18873745
Thank you for the kind words Travis. Great image! That's a pretty awesome deck and view. The GM doesn't have as much microcontrast as the Loxia 21 which I think serves it well for architecture images.

Agree Alfredo. Less microcontrast serves architectural photography better if you’re shooting new work for architects and designers.

I think of it in terms of portraits: if you’re shooting a glamorous portrait you want a lens that de-emphasizes skin imperfections to express youth and flawlessness (you want less microcontrast), but if you shoot some old guy working in a market you may well want a lens that exaggerates his wrinkles to express a lifetime of labor and roughness, so a lens with more microcontrast might be desirable. Likewise, if you’re shooting old architecture where the natural patina - the wear and tear of time - is part of the beauty of old architecture, then a lens that renders greaters microcontrast lens can be a better choice.

We need both kinds of lenses to tell different kinds of stories.