>>4414024There’s a lot wrong. It takes the same technically flawed photo as a $500 lens that has autofocus. But it’s like $3000 after tax and shipping and doesn’t have autofocus.
How much unquantifiable magic is in these lenses? None. Unquantifiable magic is not real. You can’t buy creativity or so called soul canned in a lens. There is no zeiss pop. There is no such thing as color science, microtonal harvesting, tonality, or depth rendition. Its just camera settings, perspective, and lighting in the end. Some cameras can use different settings in different lighting because they suck up more light and that’s why we can buy our own lights for cheap instead of buying new cameras. Photography: explained.
>>4414025And here’s some seething from a scam victim. These people overspend on cameras that vastly underperform an old canon DSLR kit (ie: a $1699 fuji xt5 and $1000+ each voigtlander lenses) and when people point out the images are identical to those taken with cheaper gear, they chimp out, which sounds like this
>PIXEL PEEPER FUCKI G PIXEL PEEEEEEEP YOU DONT TAKE PHOTOS YOU HAVENOFUCKI-FUCKIFUCKING SOOOOOOUL YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST YOU WILL NEVER BE AN ARTIST HYLICHYLIC HYLIC
Now buying a sharp lens to document cool shit and examine it closely is good fun. But lol. Imagine freaking out like this guy because someone pointed out a stripped down four figure dollar metal tube full of glass is the same as chinkshit.
Photography is infested with companies like zeiss, leica, and voigtlander that sell you blurry pictures for a premium associated with bullshit snake oil "for real artists" marketing that would make gibson guitar co blush. And the people who fall for it hate nothing more than people pointing it out. The seethe goes hard.
>HOW DARE YOU ZOOM IN AND POINT OUT MY LENS IS JUST AS SOFT AS YOUR $100 CANON 50MM YOU FUCKING INHUMAN AUTISTIC PIXEL PEEPER YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF ABSTRACT THOUGHT OR CREATIVITY 