Micro-contrast is a premium attribute in some brands while being spread more evenly on others. I didn’t know it was due to micro-contrast then. Now, I shall explain it to you. At first, I thought it was a question of dynamic range but then it wasn’t really it. While, I’ve rarely questioned the cost of Nikkor lenses, I’ve always asked myself: Why do Zeiss lenses cost so much? Why do Canon L lenses cost so much? When you start reading about them, some photographers describe something intangible that can’t really be noticed on side-by-side images but in the displayed body of work produced with these lenses, as if the photographed subjects suddenly felt more alive than with “sharper” “more perfect" optics. Every article online even went to compare lenses on 1:1 pixel level close up to clearly demonstrate the superiority of a lens over the other. It went on like this for years: Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Sony, etc… they all seem to be so similar on paper and sharpness. Life was simple, going one Nikon camera after another, trying a bunch of photography equipment and comparing them on measurable values again: sharpness, bokeh, ISO and dynamic range. Even though my purchases weren’t so expensive, I’ve always felt great reassurances in using sharp lenses that I’ve carefully researched for. As I kept growing, I learned to read lens reviews for my camera in terms of measurable characteristics like MTF resolution charts (for sharpness), distorsion and chromatic aberrations (through ) in order to purchase the right equipment for my camera. When I started photography, life was simple: get a good camera (a Nikon D80 at the time), get a sharp lens and be happy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |