Clyde Butcher, August 26, 2014 Facebook Posting:
"Sunday I took off to Myakka to test out a few lenses. The weather wasn't really any good for photography, but I wanted to test them before my trip to Bozeman MT where I have an exhibit in the Rocky Mountain Museum.
Using my Sony a7R digital body, I took the same photo at Myakka using the Cambo Artus with the RZ Mamiya 75 shift lens, then with the Cannon 17mm, then the Voigtlander 15mm, and then with the Zeiss 15mm lens. My conclusion has be introduced by saying that my eyes aren't what they use to be, and that none of this was done scientifically. Anyway, when I put the images up on the computer screen the two best lenses appeared to be the Cannon 17mm and Zeiss 15mm. Hard to tell the difference. Then the Voigtlander, which was so close to the other two that it wasn't worth saying it was to much different. As for the Mamiya, it too was very sharp, but in a much different way. It looked like…well, a photograph I had taken with film. It was sharp enough for me to enlarge it to a ten foot print on my computer screen and still look sharp, but it didn't have that HD quality to it that digital lenses have…it isn't a digital lens so it behaves differently. It's hard to explain.
Now that I know what each lens will do, I'm ready for some "real" photography!"
Clyde's been experimenting with digital photography, because he felt he couldn't carry around his large format cameras all the time. But an interesting discussion of experimenting with lenses from film cameras to eliminate that "Digital Look", something that I also find unattractive. I think you know what I mean, that "unnatural sharpness" of things your eyes can't actually see.
Remembering that people are not best served by HD television, why should all of your photography have that HD look too?
Thanks for the Test Clyde............Glad that the Mamiya Lens looked "real":
Our Last Look (for now) at that Mamiya 80mm Sekor Macro