645Z review

[tsjanik]

As Erik mentioned, you can see Diglloyd.  He is very thorough and methodical and he has worthwhile observations delivered with a somewhat acerbic wit, but Lloyd's methods don't consider all the aspects some find important in a lens. For example, he bases a great deal on shots of the the mosaic of the Leland Stanford Chapel; it's beautiful, but the functional equivalent of a brick wall test.  Here's the summary of a recent Japanese review you might find valuable:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-645d-medium-format/263056-nippon-camera-article-about-fa-lenses.html#post2823096

[dng88]

"I like a good slippery slope as much as the next man, provided I have well waxed wood underfoot. If you have shot an Oly with the 45 f1.2 or 150 f1.8 lately, at base ISO, you would know what we meant. "

Quite like your review on DP1/2/3m and I got it all.  For these, not interest in 645Z until I got the money but given I may got a GH4, may I ask what are these lens.  Cannot find it at all.

Got a 42.5 f1.2 and 150 f2.8 from Panasonic and 75 f1.8 from Olympus.

For your kind advice.
 

[jeremyrh]

And yes, there is a logical tension

I haven't heard it called that before.

[ndevlin]

I haven't heard it called that before.

The internet world of photography, or perhaps more accurately 'camerography', is populated principally by people who are driven to seek mastery over their perceived universe through quantification, failing to appreciate that art never arrives at the end of an equation. 

Those who seek satisfaction from the 'logical' ordering of all things, especially such things as feelings, pleasures and desire, will rarely produce any art of note, but fill fora such as this one prodigiously.

- N.

[jeremyrh]

The internet world of photography, or perhaps more accurately 'camerography', is populated principally by people who are driven to seek mastery over their perceived universe through quantification, failing to appreciate that art never arrives at the end of an equation. 

Those who seek satisfaction from the 'logical' ordering of all things, especially such things as feelings, pleasures and desire, will rarely produce any art of note, but fill fora such as this one prodigiously.

- N.

Possibly, but being illogical is not, in itself, a particularly desirable quality.

[Telecaster]

...being illogical is not, in itself, a particularly desirable quality.

No, it isn't (IMO). With creativity I think there's a healthy tension between the technical/analytical and spontaneous/intuitive/emotional aspects of people's natures. Folks who are too focused on one of these aspects tend to neglect the other, to the detriment of their contribution to whatever pursuit they're engaged in.

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

I don't necessarily feel that way. An image can be great, but if it is lacking technical quality it's use is limited.

Here is an example:



Here I was playing with a fisheye. I like the image, but I made the mistake of having the fisheye at manual focus setting on 15 cm after a flower shot. The mage looks OK at small scale but absolutely useless enlarged (see link below second image):



http://echophoto.smugmug.com/photos/i-fRkCzw6/0/O/i-fRkCzw6.jpg

Stupid mistake, perhaps I have a chance to reshoot next year ;-(

Ok the image is not great, but I like it. Anyway the lack of technical quality makes it unusable, weather I like it or not…

Best regards
Erik

No, it isn't (IMO). With creativity I think there's a healthy tension between the technical/analytical and spontaneous/intuitive/emotional aspects of people's natures. Folks who are too focused on one of these aspects tend to neglect the other, to the detriment of their contribution to whatever pursuit they're engaged in.

-Dave-

[dchew]

Erik,
I don't think this in any way conflicts with what Dave said. He didn't say the technical/analytical quality is irrelevant, he just said being too focused on that aspect vs. spontaneous/intuitive/emotional aspects would be a detriment to the pursuit.

To me, what Dave is eluding to is like saying your image is unusable because:
- it has some distortion
- the shadows are blue, not neutral
- It should have been ETTR so we could see detail in the bush shadow along the fence.

Nice image by the way.
 
Dave
(um, the other Dave)

[KirbyKrieger]

Imho, the picture is one's goal, and is what we should judge and discuss.  As picture-makers, we will naturally connect made pictures to picture-making, and attempt to synthesize wisdom.  That can be helpful, but is limited to the amount that process can _directly and in isolation_ influence product.  That amount is more limited than most picture-makers accept.

What counts — for fine art at least — is what a picture means, or how it effects other humans.  Everything else  — including the so-called tension between analytical perception and emotional perception — generally deflects our attention away from that crucial point.

The lesson for picture-makers — which posters to this thread seem to be groping towards — is to make effective pictures, and to discuss picture effectiveness.

[Telecaster]

Erik,
I don't think this in any way conflicts with what Dave said.

Right-o. If your intent is a deep DOF photo, sharp throughout, and you fail to deliver it...well, yeah, you do it over again (next year if necessary).     If your intent is a shallow DOF photo, almost nothing in focus...that requires technique too. Etc. Balance in intent is the ticket IMO. Neither denigrate your tools nor be subservient to them. This applies to a relatively affordable whizbang piece of gear like the 645Z too.

Now...I've got more day lilies to aim my lenses at. If I'm properly balanced I might even take an effective photo or two.   

-Dave-

[KirbyKrieger]

Now...I've got more day lilies to aim my lenses at. If I'm properly balanced I might even take an effective photo or two.   

-Dave-

Love to see and discuss one    .

[Telecaster]

Love to see and discuss one    .

My take on online critique is pretty dim, but there is an illustrative day lily pic from last week in the thread below (on the page of the thread I've linked to):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91387.60

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

a nice picture, indeed.

Best regards
Erik

My take on online critique is pretty dim, but there is an illustrative day lily pic from last week in the thread below (on the page of the thread I've linked to):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91387.60

-Dave-

[Isaac]

Neither denigrate your tools nor be subservient to them.

He could do things that astounded other artists: as when the great Giovanni Bellini asked to see the “special brushes” with which Dürer painted long tresses of hair, and found they were simply common-or-garden half-stiver ones, floated over the paper to make rippling parallel lines.