Yes! That is exactly my impression of the DS lenses as well. I much prefer the non-DS version because it still has the traditional characteristics of what we have become used to for blur created by a lens not a computer.Anyone else out there feel like the Defocus Smoothing produces backgrounds that look too much like computational background blurring from smart phones?
For every example photo I've seen, I much prefer the standard over the DS version for that very reason. Rather than looking "dreamy," it just looks kinda fake.* Maybe it's just 'cause I'm old and didn't grow up in the smart phone Instagram filter era...
* It's a real background that looks like a computational fake background. Would that be a fake fake background?
I seem to have a different experience to others when it comes to Eye-AF on the R5. I get about 80% accuracy with Eye-AF regardless of aperture used. Sometimes it will decided to focus on an ear or a nose and miss the eye by quite a margin.Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.
If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.
We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped.
Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post.
So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?
I prefer to use single shot 'spot AF' and place the AF point over the eye myself. I find with that mode my hit rate at wide apertures is 90-95%. And when it does miss it usually hits just slightly behind the eye, on one of the rear most eyelashes. It never misses so much as to hit an ear or a nose like the Eye-AF does.. but that's just my personal experience and the reason why I take care of the focus point manually