After reading and commented on a posting on lenses, Leitz vs. Zeiss, which is better? I thought of continuing the discussion from a different direction.

There have been numerous postings asking advice on the choice of a camera by beginners as well as more experienced photographer but few, far too few, about lenses. The lens must see the scene that we wish to record collects and projects the information/analog data on to the film plane to be recorded. If the details and nuances were not resolved by the lens, no amount of post processing will add to ground truth. Post processing enhances the data but cannot create new “facts”, although one can easily remove unwanted details.

The lens and camera sensor should form a partnership, be compatible. For example, it makes no sense to pair a high-resolution lens that can image over 40 line-pairs/mm with an AA filter (OLPF) mounted camera sensor. This low pass filter cuts off the fine details (high frequency) one paid for with the $$ lens then pay again in the camera to remove it!! Remember it wasn’t too long ago we were encouraged to trade-in 1970’s or earlier Zeiss or Leitz glass for digital-ready lenses – I sincerely hope that you did not.

I plan to post three sets of comparisons with images recorded in 12MP, 36MP, and 42MP mirrorless cameras using the following set of lenses:
Kern macro Switar, APO, 50mm/f 1.8 – lens for ALPA SLR, 1975
Leitz Summicron Symmetric IV, 35mm/f 2.0 – classic M mount for Leica RFMP
Carl Zeiss Planar ZM, 50mm/f 2.0 – with Leica M mount
Carl Zeiss Biogon ZM 25mm/f 2.8 – with Leica M mount

All the images were captured in RAW over 10+ years; edited using Lr and/or Ps, Adobe Flat Field correction for Biogon, and Nik plugin for B & W. FYI, no Leica cameras will be included.

Thank you for following the verb age so far, if you think these non-rigorous comparisons might amuse you please comment.
Gkl

Hi Jay

I have both Luminar 3 & 4.
- The interface at the #3 is much better, #4 is a little confusing.

About the features you will find at #4:
- Better AI: true, the AI acent (I think that's the name) is really good and it has better noise reduction.
- Sky Replacement: Well, it's funny, but you can't use it a proff way, there is not so many skies to use, after some months you will be bored, and is really bad when you have trees in your skies.
- There is 2 AI for portraits, I have tried and I think it does a good job, but well, I am a landscape photographer, so Portraits are not my area.




Now to answer your question:
No, FOR ME is not worth the move, not YET, if they update the interface at #4 like the #3 then is worth.

The difficulty is not just in the greens (yellows), its that --as shown here-- the image is over-exposed by a stop or two. Highlight areas in the tree trunks and background gravestones have no texture at all, meaning they've been blown out due to overexposure. If shot in raw, the highlights might be recoverable, but if shot as jpg ???

In instances like this --regardless the format the original may have been shot in-- making colors 'truer to life' would not be best addressed by making changes in hue or saturation levels, but by decreasing overall exposure and/or lowering shadow values and/or blacks a little. Doable in PsE.