anyway, I also see a difference in the glass here. TO ME (do I always need to say that!
) the Contax glass just has more dimensionality. It sort of like thge difference Robert pointed out between the Nikon D3 images and the Leica.
Maybe its the micro contrast. who knows
Anyway, we are talking versions of great IQ. MF is
"sumfin differnret, yes?"
Regards
Victor
Victor,
I was not going to comment on this image, but I had another espresso, so here is what I am seeing.
For openers, not sure what processing you put this through, but it appears oversaturated. You may prefer/like the color, and that is fine, but this looks too saturated to my eyes. Second, it is also significantly oversharpened. This shows up in a couple of very pronounced ways. One is the obvious halo on the right side cliff above the gentlemen's head, and the other is a very pronounced "crunchy" look to the background in your original and crop. If this is what you consider having the ability to "cut you" with sharpness, my feeling is that one should not try to dial in added effect through this kind of over sharpening.
That "crunchy" appearance is something I have seen from expensive and cheap glass. They are artifacts created in processing (ACR is notorious for being able to do this to otherwise good files), and they result from various incompatible settings of aperture and the sensor on certain types of backgrounds, mostly fine leaves, pine needles and some other sharp, pointy vegetation that has high contrast and some specular highlights. Best cure is to dial back the sharpening a lot in this case, and also shoot with either a much wider aperture for better bokeh, or stop things down further, but not to the point where diffraction starts to set in.
I agree with Keith in his comment that this is NOT the best example of MF IQ. This may be a very sharp image with great colors, etc., but it really looks like you overcooked this one in post. Sorry if that sounds critical, but this one does hurt the eyes, and there are ways to avoid this. Just offering up my thoughts and comments.
LJ
P.S. forgot to add.....those "cruchy" artifacts are the product of processing and oversharpening a file that is already struggling with the aperture/sensor/dark shiny foliage issue.....at a particular distance. Had those tress been closer or further away, it may not have come up. It is hard to know exactly how some things react when shooting, but these sorts of conifer/juniper or whatever type trees can create problems....all made worse by not so good conversion algorithms and oversharpening.