2 ms·
Completely agree, I am not saying its a bad thing. I do care for resolution in landscape photography, where I need to crop, and a modern high end lens+sensor l
by aenis 5y ago
Completely agree, I am not saying its a bad thing.
I do care for resolution in landscape photography, where I need to crop, and a modern high end lens+sensor lends itself to this usage pattern well.
For portraits, I think less resolution is usually better. I do most of my potrait shots with two decade old lenses despite having nearly all the modern Nikkors in my bag.
- petre 5y agoI did landscape photography as well but nothing beats the Mamiya 7 lenses except maybe some of the new full frame mirrorless primes? Super sharp, no visible distorsion. The Tessar is very sharp in the center though, which is great for 6x6, works well for portraits and documentary photos. I have most of the meaningful AI era Nikkors but then almost completely gave up on 35 mm after getting the Mamiya and two Rolleis. I still used the 35mm Planar though, love it. Sold all the AF Nikkor stuff I used on the dSLR and got a Panasonic m43 with two primes. I will get the 15mm Leica DG next, to replace the unremarkable 14 mm Panasonic. Not going to lug around dSLRs any more.
- aenis 5y agoThat sounds like a great setup. I switched to a Nikon with a 40mpx sensor and their new mirrorless lenses are crazy sharp, even the cheap ones. I have all they have released and it seems even the kit lenses are sensor limited. Incidentally, i really dont like any of those lenses for potraits of ordinary people, with no makeup and fancy lighting and postprocessing. Every skin por, every small imperfection shows. For this I default to the old lenses and the subjects are happy.