More Petzval

Blog:
<http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Mer_Petzval?lang=en>


I'll probably post more of these as time goes by. I were over at a
friend for barbecue and brought the Petzval, this time mounted on the
Sony A7 with a Nikon adapter, and the focus peaking and focus
magnification in the EVF certainly made it easier to focus. It's not
razor sharp, but really good overall.

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209462.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/1000 sec., ISO 100

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209463.jpg>

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209464.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/3200 sec., ISO 100

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209465.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/125 sec., ISO 100

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209466.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/160 sec., ISO 100

 

Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned around.

 

On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?

 

They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
if they like it, that's fine with me.

 

the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...

 

Not everything needs to be an improvement. It's an art lens, that renders
blur in a very specific way. A lot of people like the result. Not all do,
though.

 

I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just because
it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval bokeh simply
isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.

 

No, I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the optical principles are
now available for testing for anyone with $600 to spare.
I agree that the lomogryphy implementation probably isn't the best one
through history. But thats a guess since i haven't had the opportunity
to study others. Back in the days they were made for large format view
cameras, I believe and not of the same design that's sold now.

 

They were for large format cameras, yes. But the design is actually quite
consistent. Older Petzval's were bigger of course, but they also had
watergate apertures, and a focusing knob instead of a ring.

<https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets...e814863b5cdecf85bc3e7452_large.jpg?1374739912>

 

You just wana argue for the sake arguing here...
I said that the Lomography implementation might not be the best... And
that PeterN could very well have a good grounds for his reservations.
I, don't have the time to investigate that right now.

 

No need, there's nothing to investigate [/QUOTE]

You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say that
there's no need to investigate it's qualities....

You've just proved that your critics sometimes are right!

Idiot!

 

I didn't say that. Maybe I misunderstood this comment of yours:

android
06/06/2014 <>

"And that PeterN could very well have a good grounds for his
reservations. I, don't have the time to investigate that
right now."

I didn't realize that you meant that the supposed reservations Peter has
against the lens' "qualities" was what you meant to investigate. I think
that's due to Peter not actually claiming anything about it's qualities,
only expressing a personal opinion about the resulting images.

Why so aggresive? Whatever did I say to make you this way? I seriously want
to know. I mean, the moron trolls here are offended all the time when I
prove them wrong, but I didn't do any of that here. You seem to just want
to blow things way out of proportion here.

You snipped away most of my post, so I never got an answer to my question
to what supposedly I'm "arguing" about here, as you claimed?

 

*************
On 2014-06-05 15:30, Sandman wrote:> In article

Not only an idiot but also a blatant lier!

Bye!

 

*************
And at that time, in the early nineteen century view cameras was was it
was all about... You know this by now. Couse I told ya!
http://tinyurl.com/opbb6jz

 

You misunderstood me, and perhaps I was unclear. And I even explained above
(still quoted) what I meant. I didn't lie. I never lie.

You made two claims:

1. You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens
2. You say that there's no need to investigate its qualities

I responded following the second claim with "I didn't say that", which you
thought was a response to the first claim. My mistake was to not break up
your sentence in smaller parts and affirm the first claim and deny the
second, eliminating any cause for confusion.

What baffles me is how you would totally miss that there were two claims
from you and instead of contemplating that I might be in reference to the
latter, you just jump up and call me a liar.

About which part? I responded to you expressing a thought and a suspicion.
You made no claim.

*************[/QUOTE]

Nowhere above are you commenting on whether or not it was for large format
cameras, nor about whether or not the Lomography used the same design as
the originals. Not sure why you're pasting this in?

I have known about the Petzval for decades. Don't flatter yourself

I responded to this from you:

android
06/05/2014 <>

"Back in the days they were made for large format view
cameras, I believe and not of the same design that's sold
now."

There you seemed, to me, to express a belief that "back in the days" the
Petzval was for large format cameras. This is a true belief, so I responded
by verifying that. Then you said, and I saw this is conjecture on your part
as well, that the Lomography is not of the same design as the old lenses.
So I added some information to that as well, without actually saying either
way. I noted that they both use watergate apertures and a focusing knob.
Oh, and they're both made in brass.

So, basically, I wrote nothing to contradict or question anything you said,
and then you replied by saying that I just wanted to argue - but with WHAT?
I haven't argued about anything - if anything, I am agreeing with you.

So again - I have no idea what got you so worked up.

 

It was and is a fact. Your verification totally unnecessary.

Then you said, and I saw this is conjecture on your part

Then you would agree that lenses for different formats has to evaluated
separately.

Totally irrelevant for the output from the camera...

I have only informed you that you're an idiot and a liar and on your
request substantiated that claim... You snipped the essentials out of my
previous posts, of course. Those can't be deleted by you though...

 

It's not supposed to be an improvement, it's supposed to be a "wacky
lens" or "effect lens".

Have a look at this at the 01:30 mark, that's
Lomography Petzval on a 5Dmk3. Gives you a direct comparison to other
lenses, so you can see what the Petzval "does".

 

Fair enough. But it still not me arguing. You expressed a belief, and I
verified it. No big deal.

I was just responding to what you said, not saying anything about the
output from the camera. Not sure why you're bringing that up?

You have called me an idiot and a liar without being able to substantiate
either, yes.

You have called me a liar. I have shown that that isn't case. You have also
called me an idiot for no obvious reason. I'm still waiting for a reason
for that one. You have also said I am only arguing but you have failed to
point to what argument we're having.

You make lots of claims you can't stand by. Why is that? And why do you
continously fail to answer very simple questions?

I don't lie, nor have I argued about anything with regards to the Petzval
lens. You have misunderstood several things I've said and when I've
explained what I've meant I have seen nothing from you to acknowledge that
you misunderstood me (or that I was being unclear) and here you are still
calling me a liar. Bad form, very bad form.