R
Ranger 9
Guest
In case anyone is interested in comparing results from older and more modern lenses...
After shooting yesterday's Canon 50mm f/0.95 picture posted earlier (here it is again)...
...I was back today and shot the same action with a 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander Nokton lens on the G1:
The lighting was more "dialed-in" today (note modeling on the dancer's back) and also brighter... but then again the Nokton is a bit over 1 stop slower, so I bumped up the ISO from 800 to 1250 to keep the shutter speed above 1/200.
For 1:1 comparison buffs: Canon on left, Nokton on right --
The Nokton is obviously much less flarey around the edges, although the level of detail (note hair) seems similar. And it interests me that the Nokton picture looks sharper even when reduced to web-viewing size.
On the other hand, it looks as if I picked up noticeably more background noise jumping from ISO 800 (for the Canon lens) to 1250 (for the slower Nokton) and this also seems visible even when the photos are reduced to web-viewing size.
What does this prove? Nothing, really -- for me they both have their place and I'm going to continue to choose one or the other depending on my priorities. But I felt it was interesting to see the differences...
After shooting yesterday's Canon 50mm f/0.95 picture posted earlier (here it is again)...
...I was back today and shot the same action with a 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander Nokton lens on the G1:
The lighting was more "dialed-in" today (note modeling on the dancer's back) and also brighter... but then again the Nokton is a bit over 1 stop slower, so I bumped up the ISO from 800 to 1250 to keep the shutter speed above 1/200.
For 1:1 comparison buffs: Canon on left, Nokton on right --
The Nokton is obviously much less flarey around the edges, although the level of detail (note hair) seems similar. And it interests me that the Nokton picture looks sharper even when reduced to web-viewing size.
On the other hand, it looks as if I picked up noticeably more background noise jumping from ISO 800 (for the Canon lens) to 1250 (for the slower Nokton) and this also seems visible even when the photos are reduced to web-viewing size.
What does this prove? Nothing, really -- for me they both have their place and I'm going to continue to choose one or the other depending on my priorities. But I felt it was interesting to see the differences...