Alessio Brinati
Well-Known Member
this is my, and only my point of view on mirrorless; I read on the forums often fierce clashes between those who support the reflex system and those who are praising the new spreads, others who justify their passage (as if it were something to be ashamed) ML system with a simple and banal excuse: weight reduction ; because often the change is dictated by simple curiosity to try a new system, or think that that system will fill your gaps and you will make better pictures, or even because you are "sick" of technology and you always want to have the latest news. When one speaks of the Sony fullframe system against "screaming" from those who defend SLRs are mainly two:
1) the system has few lenses;
2) the weight savings is small.
1- true if we restrict the catalog sony And, false, very false if you think that you can adapt any lens produced in the last century! and it is at this point that the title of this topic.
2-partially true if you look at only the scale, but we must also consider the dimensions and here the difference is clear!
back to the point 1: I am born, photographically speaking, in the analog era, with super yashica fx3 super 2000; from them are the three lenses with which I started with the system sony: zeiss contax 28, 50 and 85. The focus (manual !!!) millimeter that a ML allows thanks to the focus magnification and peacking make maf manual a pleasure, a pleasure that I felt the most by far in 2005 when I left the film.
Yes, because switching to digital I always felt incomplete .. that gesture you engage with your finger and thumb ... the "tac" when you adjust the iris, focus on a point without having to choose one of the many scattered points in the viewfinder .. . and the "contagion" with the digital pathology, namely the continuous and exhausting search for the edge-to-edge sharpness at any aperture, the constant fear that your new lens that it has cost many sacrifices focus where it seems to him, or it stops working ... the contnua exploration pixel looking for aberrations, flare, ghost and so hoping not to find them .... but why?!?
the "perfect imperfection" of lenses with 40-50 years behind him, now it seems that those with pre-filters or photoshop script, the quality of the blur, which today fills pages and pages of topics in forums all over the world only to find that the bookeh that you can get it with a lens Russian paid 30 € a flea market under the house ...
already because today they buy expensive and modern lenses looking qualities that were once taken for granted. and here is my return to the past ... I realize now that the photos that I have as I have always tried to make them, especially in portraits .. make me laugh those seeking optical super sharp close-ups and then spend hours on Photoshop to eliminate the defects. My favorite lenses are lenses that were still on the stock market for 15 years, others I purchased for little and are + old my mother ....
Today I took the Konica hexanon 40 1.8, and take 50 1.4 tomorrow I can not wait to try them .. vintage "recent" as they have only 30 years old: D
in the last 6 months my photographic maturity was clear even according to those who follow me for some time and observed (and criticism) always my photos. And it is on the A7: why not make better photos of canon 6d I had before, but because she, like the other ML, gives you the ability to fully customize your shooting experience, the ability to carry around 4 or 5 lenses which together weigh as the only sigma Article 35, lens spectacular that I had but I wore alone because of his size.
With her, I have not burnt out highlights, when it happens it is a desired effect and will be aware of how, I always had a balanced exposure could immediately see the histogram of the situation pre-shot, the composition is generally more accurate being able to configure if you have a free moment viewfinder or with the rule of thirds or the diagonals
and then let's also the economic side: the modern and expensive lens I have only 55 FE 1.8 (which despite its "little" light can give unique images, in my opinion equal to 50L lauded by many for its "magic") everything else has cost up to 100 €.
many people was hurt when he knows that the photo he thought was made with the modern and expensive FE 70200 f4 is actually made with the old Minolta 70210 f4. just as they do not believe that old wide angle as Zeiss 28 and Minolta 20 can churn out those photos that you can see in my flick, think of who knows how many hours I spent at the pc and remain incredulous only when i keep the jpg out from sony.
With Sony went back to shoot as I did at the time of the film, I had to wait for the technology progress to go back , absurd but true
1) the system has few lenses;
2) the weight savings is small.
1- true if we restrict the catalog sony And, false, very false if you think that you can adapt any lens produced in the last century! and it is at this point that the title of this topic.
2-partially true if you look at only the scale, but we must also consider the dimensions and here the difference is clear!
back to the point 1: I am born, photographically speaking, in the analog era, with super yashica fx3 super 2000; from them are the three lenses with which I started with the system sony: zeiss contax 28, 50 and 85. The focus (manual !!!) millimeter that a ML allows thanks to the focus magnification and peacking make maf manual a pleasure, a pleasure that I felt the most by far in 2005 when I left the film.
Yes, because switching to digital I always felt incomplete .. that gesture you engage with your finger and thumb ... the "tac" when you adjust the iris, focus on a point without having to choose one of the many scattered points in the viewfinder .. . and the "contagion" with the digital pathology, namely the continuous and exhausting search for the edge-to-edge sharpness at any aperture, the constant fear that your new lens that it has cost many sacrifices focus where it seems to him, or it stops working ... the contnua exploration pixel looking for aberrations, flare, ghost and so hoping not to find them .... but why?!?
the "perfect imperfection" of lenses with 40-50 years behind him, now it seems that those with pre-filters or photoshop script, the quality of the blur, which today fills pages and pages of topics in forums all over the world only to find that the bookeh that you can get it with a lens Russian paid 30 € a flea market under the house ...
already because today they buy expensive and modern lenses looking qualities that were once taken for granted. and here is my return to the past ... I realize now that the photos that I have as I have always tried to make them, especially in portraits .. make me laugh those seeking optical super sharp close-ups and then spend hours on Photoshop to eliminate the defects. My favorite lenses are lenses that were still on the stock market for 15 years, others I purchased for little and are + old my mother ....
Today I took the Konica hexanon 40 1.8, and take 50 1.4 tomorrow I can not wait to try them .. vintage "recent" as they have only 30 years old: D
in the last 6 months my photographic maturity was clear even according to those who follow me for some time and observed (and criticism) always my photos. And it is on the A7: why not make better photos of canon 6d I had before, but because she, like the other ML, gives you the ability to fully customize your shooting experience, the ability to carry around 4 or 5 lenses which together weigh as the only sigma Article 35, lens spectacular that I had but I wore alone because of his size.
With her, I have not burnt out highlights, when it happens it is a desired effect and will be aware of how, I always had a balanced exposure could immediately see the histogram of the situation pre-shot, the composition is generally more accurate being able to configure if you have a free moment viewfinder or with the rule of thirds or the diagonals
and then let's also the economic side: the modern and expensive lens I have only 55 FE 1.8 (which despite its "little" light can give unique images, in my opinion equal to 50L lauded by many for its "magic") everything else has cost up to 100 €.
many people was hurt when he knows that the photo he thought was made with the modern and expensive FE 70200 f4 is actually made with the old Minolta 70210 f4. just as they do not believe that old wide angle as Zeiss 28 and Minolta 20 can churn out those photos that you can see in my flick, think of who knows how many hours I spent at the pc and remain incredulous only when i keep the jpg out from sony.
With Sony went back to shoot as I did at the time of the film, I had to wait for the technology progress to go back , absurd but true
