Cult of Sharpness

I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?

You know you want to.

If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.

Are you in?

Frank@Zappa.com

<> wrote in message
news:...
>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>
> You know you want to.
>
> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>
> Are you in?

ah, just when I was thinking of starting a softness sect...

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:11:42 -0800, wrote:

>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>
>You know you want to.
>
>If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>
>Are you in?

"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." -
Groucho Marx

Now, if perchance you decided to start a club that included people who
found photographic subjects and compositions that are so astounding and awe
inspiring, no matter the resolution, count me in.

Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and internet
trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.

Educated & Experinced Pro

In article <>,
wrote:

> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>
> You know you want to.
>
> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>
> Are you in?

The 'Cult of Cheapness' is a powerful foe. Be careful of your words.
--
I won't see Goolge Groups replies because I must filter them as spam

Kevin McMurtrie

In rec.photo.digital wrote:
> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?

> You know you want to.

> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.

> Are you in?

I'm not clear what you want to achieve. I thought that for any given
exchangeable lens camera it was possible to get a lens with at least
slightly higher resolution than its sensor -- if you were prepared to
pay for it.

But it sounds as though you want to stop them making soft lenses
altogether. If you can buy the sharp lenses you want, why would you
want to stop them making the much cheapr and not so sharp lenses that
most people are happy with?

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:00:58 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" <> wrote:

><> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>>
>> You know you want to.
>>
>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>
>> Are you in?
>
>there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
>with is "cheap" lenses
>If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first


I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
That thing was soft as shite.

Frank@Zappa.com

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:20:41 -0600, John Sheehy <> wrote:

>Educated & Experinced Pro <> wrote in
>news: :
>
>> Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and
>> internet trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.
>
>Wow. What about a club for people who imagine ridiculous dichotomies?

The P&S Troll is a club of one.

John A.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:08:54 -0800, wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:00:58 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" <> wrote:
>
>><> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>>>
>>> You know you want to.
>>>
>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>>
>>> Are you in?
>>
>>there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
>>with is "cheap" lenses
>>If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first
>
>
>I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
>That thing was soft as shite.


Yet the review samples of that Smegma lens that were supplied to the
photo magazines were all sharp ... just like all the Smegma lens
review samples. No wonder the reviewers are so keen to keep them -
they could never find one as good in a camera store.

Bruce

<> wrote:

> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?

> You know you want to.

Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.

> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.

You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
but you'll have sharp lenses.

That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.

As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and
ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for
you, but not for most people.

F'up,
-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

> <> wrote:
>
>> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>
>> You know you want to.
>
>Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
>
>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>
>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
>bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
>one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
>(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
>but you'll have sharp lenses.
>
>That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
>
>As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and
>ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for
>you, but not for most people.
>
>F'up,
>-Wolfgang

What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.

On reconsideration, I take that back. There is only one situation in which
you can use any D/SLR lens' full resolving power. If you mount the camera
on a sturdy tripod in a pitch-black room, lock up the mirror, use a slow
shutter-speed (about 30 seconds to wait for all vibrations to dampen down),
triggered on hand-free time-delay or with a cable-release. Fire a flash
mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash. Trigger the
flash pulse 30 seconds after the first curtain opens, while both curtains
of the shutter are still open, to create the exposure. Using a 2nd curtain
flash-sync setting if you have one. Only then can you detect or use a lens'
true resolving power with your D/SLR camera.

A unique shooting situation but the only one way where you can accomplish
this task.

(Wondering when they're ever going to get smart enough to figure this stuff
out.)

Uh - you forgot something important - again