More Petzval

Blog:
http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Mer_Petzval?lang=en


I'll probably post more of these as time goes by. I were over at a
friend for barbecue and brought the Petzval, this time mounted on the
Sony A7 with a Nikon adapter, and the focus peaking and focus
magnification in the EVF certainly made it easier to focus. It's not
razor sharp, but really good overall.

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209462.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/1000 sec., ISO 100

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209463.jpg

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209464.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/3200 sec., ISO 100

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209465.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/125 sec., ISO 100

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209466.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/160 sec., ISO 100



--
Sandman[.net]

On 04/06/2014 15:51, Sandman wrote:
Blog:
http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Mer_Petzval?lang=en


I'll probably post more of these as time goes by. I were over at a
friend for barbecue and brought the Petzval, this time mounted on the
Sony A7 with a Nikon adapter, and the focus peaking and focus
magnification in the EVF certainly made it easier to focus. It's not
razor sharp, but really good overall.

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209462.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/1000 sec., ISO 100

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209463.jpg

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209464.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/3200 sec., ISO 100

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209465.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/125 sec., ISO 100

http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209466.jpg
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/160 sec., ISO 100




I like number 4. I'm still not sure I would want to go this way though.

On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 05/06/2014 06:44, David Taylor wrote:
On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?


There is something curiously disorienting about the photos.

First thought is wide aperture, but then of course a number of elements
seem inconsistent with just that, and some manner of software processing
comes to mind. But then that doesn't quite work as an explanation.

Reminds me of the preference/'realism' some get from analogue/vinyl
music systems :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?


They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
if they like it, that's fine with me.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?


They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
if they like it, that's fine with me.

the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?


They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
if they like it, that's fine with me.

The Petzval is about making old technology available for new
generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article , David Taylor wrote:

RichA:
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been
turned around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they
supposed to differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone
really consider them an improvement?

Not everything needs to be an improvement. It's an art lens, that renders
blur in a very specific way. A lot of people like the result. Not all do,
though.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 6/5/2014 9:15 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?


They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
if they like it, that's fine with me.

the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...


I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just because
it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval bokeh simply
isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 6/5/2014 9:15 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?


They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
if they like it, that's fine with me.

the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...


I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just because
it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval bokeh simply
isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.

No, I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the optical principles are
now available for testing for anyone with $600 to spare.
I agree that the lomogryphy implementation probably isn't the best one
through history. But thats a guess since i haven't had the opportunity
to study others. Back in the days they were made for large format view
cameras, I believe and not of the same design that's sold now.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography