|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 8, 2007 16:57:09 GMT -5
I did not want to take away from the Agfa Optima IIs thread so I started this one. Do people obsess too much about how good a lens is? I think it is really getting to the point where you need a room full of lab equipment to see much difference in the reputed top notch lenses. If that is the case then shooting handheld in the real world negates most if not all of the advantages. Add to that the proposition that most images are not enlarged a great deal for personal use and shot at middle apertures it seems a waste of stomach acid to me. OTH if you are a pro and do Gallery work that maybe a different story. I am only talking about hobby shooters here and see no reason to spoil my fun with older cameras worrying about something I usually can't see. The testing is not done on a large enough sample to really be worth the effort. The sample variations lens to lens is important though. One lens of a specific model may perform better than another lens of that same specific model due to manufacturing tolerances or plain mishandling during shipment or use ie. dropped etc. Unless you test them side by side you would more than likely have been satisfied with the results of the lesser performing lens. That is assuming that nothing is grossly wrong with either lens. What do you say?
Bob
|
|
bobm
Contributing Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by bobm on Jan 8, 2007 17:04:53 GMT -5
I've deleted this post from the Agfa thread as this is now where it should be. To quote Ron Herron: "What I sometimes find irritating are the people who look down their noses at some of the "lesser" lenses, because they are, well...lesser. They don't have quite the same corner sharpness as the best-of-the-best, for instance, and that becomes an issue -- when, in truth, most of the ones making the issue couldn't tell the difference if someone didn't tell them it was there. " I've lost count of the amount of lens threads on various forums that go on forever and get lost in a technical maze for this very reason, with some of the more, shall we say, easily led members, sometimes being put off buying a lens or camera because it doesn't measure up to the exacting technical standards quoted and insidiously imposed by the "cognoscenti"..... Same goes for forums where if you post a shot, it gets critique whether you actually want it or not, and said "critique" basically boils down to either subjective personal opinion and/or whether your shot ticks all the boxes for competition standard. Some of the most evocative images of our time wouldn't pass muster according to the standards that seem to be getting applied today. Why these guys can't just go out, take pictures and enjoy their resulting images as well as other people's without obsessing over whether the image is perfectly exposed, has perfect edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner sharpness, etc, etc, etc, and hell knows what else defeats me. This is why this forum is such a breath of fresh air for me personally, since we are all well aware of our equipment's limitations, but that doesn't stop us all from going out and actually using our gear, enjoying the results of our endeavours and sharing them with others whether they be technically perfect or not. To quote Ansel Adams: "A photograph is usually looked at, seldom looked into." And: "Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art." Excluding those photographers for whom image enlargement is a necessity, maybe the pixel peepers should try and remember Ansel Adams' words....
|
|
|
Post by brianvsweeney on Jan 8, 2007 17:13:55 GMT -5
That's why we invented B O K E H.
(Since when does this get replaced by MORONIC WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
I just got back 5 rolls from the holidays.
All Shot with 50's. Canon 50/1.4. Canon 50/1.2, Summicron Collapsible in LTM, J-3 in LTM, and a Type II Rigid Summicron.
The 50/1.2 was softer and lower contrast, but the shots of Old Town Alexandria at Night with 1/8th and F1.2 came out just fine. The others are a toss-up for sharp. The Summicron's have lower contrast, which fit the mood for portraits. Some shots taken in B&W of the Wax Figures at the new Marine Museum at Quantico, VA came out life-like. Shots with the Leica IIIf and Collapsible Summicron taken in late-day are as sharp and colorful as I would ever need. But then, there is speed.
I like choice. The nice thing about LTM cameras are the vast choice in lenses. I just picked up some Russian lenses for the Contax mount: A Helios-103 53/1.8 and a Menopta 53/1.8. Both are Summitar formula lenses. I am going to shim them for my Nikon RF's. I'm also going to attempt to make a mount for the 50/2 lens-head from a type I Rigid Summicron to go onto a Nikon RF. The lens-head unscrews for use on a bellows. I think it will fit on a Nikon S-Mount camera with a little help. Should RF couple if I shim it right. The plan is to use a DMUOO adpater tied to an Internal Mount from a parts Helios.
Not obsessing over sharpness, just choice.
|
|
|
Post by paulatukcamera on Jan 8, 2007 18:26:21 GMT -5
I know I shouldn't participate in this - it only arouses me to an unreasonable frenzy as people rubbish everything I say on this topic (on other forums). I simply can't see why digital pixel fanatics get into a real "tizz" about microscopic irrelevances. 1. Take the more megs, the better argument. I took my first digital steps five years ago buying a Nikon 770 2meg. It had an excellent lens and produced really good results. Now look at it full size: www.ukcamera.com/images/bringinginthelogslge3.jpgNot just 2megs, but tiny sensor size, slowish zoom lens - all the things that shouldnt (in their words) produce results. 2. The DSLR is supreme argument: This series was taken at Symmonds Yat of the Wye Valley: OK. Not a DSLR, but one of these all purpose large zoom Bridge Cameras. Ask the forums - not worth buying - noisy at 400asa and above, only five meg etc etc. Not a proper camera eh? See that small white spec in the field: Try that with your DSLR whatever its megapixels! See the purple fringes? Do they detract? (I can read the numberplate on my version) Next: See that house, to the left of the large one? This one! Not being absolutely straight with you - the lens is a Leica Zoom! Camera a 5meg Panasonic FZ20 - currently on eBay for under $200. Despite its chip size being similar to that in an Super 8 film camera, I would not buy a DSLR at the moment. Far, far too expensive for getting rid of the odd purple fringe. If I want real quality I'll use film Paul Apologies to some of you who have seen these photos before in another forum - I lost the argument - they said sensor performance of a DSLR was so superior that I didn't know what I was talking about! I still think I do.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 8, 2007 19:45:25 GMT -5
Paul
My first digi was a C5050 5meg camera and it works just fine and the liabilities for me is in how you must operate it, not the IQ. When I needed more tele for an up and coming trip where taking film would be a hassle I got your FZ20's younger sibling the FZ50. It operates in a way that I like better than the C5050 but I wish they had left it at a 5 meg not the 10 it is. I use the highest quality JPEG setting on both and they print 8X10 inches nicely with no purple fringing that I can see. I would prefer to take film this trip but this works and is so much more convenient because it is good enough to to the job for my standards.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jan 9, 2007 14:38:56 GMT -5
Ha - don't see how the quality argument can arise on a website?? The monitor I'm viewing this post with is garbage (I learnt some time ago never to critique photos unless I'd viewed them on a worthwhile monitor first).
But 2, 5 or 10 Mpx doesn't matter when you are faced with the 250k file limit. Obviously, there are some of you who need to sell pictures to make your livelihood, and in those situations, how big you can blow up a particular shot becomes critical.
But, never having sold a photo in my life (OK, no wonder, I hear you say!), it seems to me that the film shots that we take are just as liable to run into pixel problems as straight digital imports - we don't like digital, but we all use scanners??
Just keep putting up the pictures!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 9, 2007 18:46:11 GMT -5
I did not want to take away from the Agfa Optima IIs thread so I started this one. Do people obsess too much about how good a lens is? <Snip> Unless you test them side by side you would more than likely have been satisfied with the results of the lesser performing lens. That is assuming that nothing is grossly wrong with either lens. What do you say? Bob Few things in life amuse me more than camera & lens snobs and those who obsess over "Brand X is better than Brand Y or Brand Z". If you take five lenses of different brands that are otherwise identical and take the same scenes with each under the same conditions, I defy anyone to tell which lens shot which image and be correct 100% of the time...... or even most of the time. Images should please the photographer unless someone else is paying for them. I took two rolls of 36 exposures and two rolls of 24 exposures over the Christmas holidays. The majority are of family. It was only the second time we've had an opportunity to be with our newest granddaughter so she was the subject of many pictures. Of more than 50 images, the one below is the one I like best. It's not the sharpest or best composed but the expression on her face is priceless. It's one of amusement and yet impish at the same time. It's the kind of expression that will melt daddy and granddaddy's hearts. I intend to have this one enlarged and framed. I don't really care which camera or lens took it..... only that the results please me. IMO, if the owner of a lens is happy with the results than no one else has the right to spoil it for them. Those who obsess over equipment will always be looking for one more piece and rarely stop to enjoy the use of what they already own. It's a trap. Avoid it if you can. Walker
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 9, 2007 19:32:35 GMT -5
I ahgree wholeheartedly with what you say about lenses, Walker. I wish magazines had never started publishing MTF functions. They lead to so many heated arguments.
I also agree even more about your youngest granddaughter. She's wonderful (but I don't need to tell you that). Looking at the `picture I was expecting to hear delightful little chuckles any second.
PeterW
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jan 9, 2007 19:55:00 GMT -5
... Not being absolutely straight with you - the lens is a Leica Zoom ... To keep in touch with NikonBob's initial post, I suspect that method might be more critical than lens pedigree in this type of comparison. So Paul, were your originals for the car and house comparisons hand held or on a tripod? In the absence of that room full of equipment, Paul's examples offer a good way to compare lens performance in everyday use. But it needs some standardization - hand/tripod, how many stops down, shuter speed etc. - to judge effects from shake etc in unsharpness. We need to know something about your method, too, Paul. Was the "white speck" to "car with licence number" a 100% zoom view or was there some enlargement as well? Zooming and enlarging aren't quite the same thing. You don't usually zoom film negatives or transparencies but I suppose you would be zooming if you put them under a microscope or watchmaker's glass (at verying degrees down to emulsion molecules which are the pixels on film), and enlarging if you put them in a projector or enlarger. So Paul, were they resampled up to some degree? i.e. resampling 5MP to 20MP would be a 4X linear enlargement. I was tempted to see what a humbler lens would do in comparison, but by the time I've browsed around enough the thread will probably have gone cold.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 9, 2007 19:56:41 GMT -5
OK, here's litle test for you all. Was this picture taken with a three-element lens, or four-element lens, or what? I'll tell you when a few people have had a guess. PeterW
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 10, 2007 0:56:38 GMT -5
I ahgree wholeheartedly with what you say about lenses, Walker. I wish magazines had never started publishing MTF functions. They lead to so many heated arguments. I also agree even more about your youngest granddaughter. She's wonderful (but I don't need to tell you that). Looking at the `picture I was expecting to hear delightful little chuckles any second. PeterW Peter, thank you for the comments, especially about the little one. Magazines want two things: subscriptions/sales and advertising dollars. The first leads to the second so the more interest a magazine can generate, the more they sell and the more advertisers they pull in. Comparisons of lens and cameras that create discussions and arguments do just that so it makes economic sense. One magazine writer - a fellow by the name of Jack O'Connor - who wrote a monthly column many years ago once said that if he was short on time or lacking good ideas, he'd simply dash off a story about "X" vs "Y" and it was certain to generate letters and arguments. I enjoy a well written comparison of lenses or cameras but always with the thought in mind that the results are valid only for the items being compared. As already stated previously by another poster, two identical lenses can give results that differ by degrees or even considerably. In actuallity it's a rare lens that performs so poorly that I'm not happy with the results. BTW, was the picture you've posted taken with a Brownie? Walker
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 10, 2007 5:11:21 GMT -5
Peter,
Unquestionably an "or what?".
Mickey
|
|
jack
Senior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by jack on Jan 10, 2007 9:52:17 GMT -5
Peter
This was looks like some of the pictures I have taken in the early years with a box cameras which had only a doublet on medium format, that my vote.
Jack
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 10, 2007 10:28:49 GMT -5
I might have known I couldn't fool you lot. You're way too perceptive. It was taken by my Dad back in the 1930s at Southampton docks with an Ensign Box camera. In case anyone wondered, or even cared , the ship was the SS Olympic, sister ship to the Titanic. PeterW
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jan 10, 2007 10:41:49 GMT -5
Peter
Just goes to prove the "eye" is more important than the equipment......
;D Bob
|
|