A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, etc, etc.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 26, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Two lenses. One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length. Both
    capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution. Both tested on the
    same object and one of them beats the other.
    How?
    RichA, Jun 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > Two lenses. One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length. Both
    > capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution. Both tested on the
    > same object and one of them beats the other.
    > How?
    >

    Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?
    Me, Jun 27, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 27/06/2012 4:55 p.m., Rich wrote:
    > Me <> wrote in news:jse3bn$uo9$:
    >
    >> On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >>> Two lenses. One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length. Both
    >>> capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution. Both tested on the
    >>> same object and one of them beats the other.
    >>> How?
    >>>

    >> Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Just speculating on something I read. But it is a bit of a riddle.
    >

    Are you obsessing about "resolution" or is it one of the many other
    objective and/or subjective qualities of lenses where one beat the other?
    Me, Jun 27, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 27, 1:21 am, Me <> wrote:
    > On 27/06/2012 4:55 p.m., Rich wrote:> Me <> wrote innews:jse3bn$uo9$:
    >
    > >> On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > >>> Two lenses.  One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length.  Both
    > >>> capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution.  Both tested on the
    > >>> same object and one of them beats the other.
    > >>> How?

    >
    > >> Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?

    >
    > > Just speculating on something I read.  But it is a bit of a riddle.

    >
    > Are you obsessing about "resolution" or is it one of the many other
    > objective and/or subjective qualities of lenses where one beat the other?


    Resolution only. If both lenses exceed the sensor's capability, how
    can one appear to resolve more in images? If the lenses were the
    limiting factor, you would likely see differences because the sensor
    would still be able to handle them, but since the lenses exceed the
    sensor's imaging capabilities, both images should be the same
    resolution.
    RichA, Jun 27, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 27, 7:58 am, "R. Mark Clayton" <>
    wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Two lenses.  One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length.  Both
    > > capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution.  Both tested on the
    > > same object and one of them beats the other.
    > > How?

    >
    > Different aperture maybe?


    I don't know. I would assume not, that both lenses would have been
    used at their respective "best" apertures.
    RichA, Jun 27, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Jun 27, 1:21 am, Me <> wrote:
    >> On 27/06/2012 4:55 p.m., Rich wrote:> Me <> wrote innews:jse3bn$uo9$:
    >>
    >> >> On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >> >>> Two lenses.  One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length.  Both
    >> >>> capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution.  Both tested on the
    >> >>> same object and one of them beats the other.
    >> >>> How?

    >>
    >> >> Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?

    >>
    >> > Just speculating on something I read.  But it is a bit of a riddle.

    >>
    >> Are you obsessing about "resolution" or is it one of the many other
    >> objective and/or subjective qualities of lenses where one beat the other?

    >
    >Resolution only. If both lenses exceed the sensor's capability, how
    >can one appear to resolve more in images? If the lenses were the
    >limiting factor, you would likely see differences because the sensor
    >would still be able to handle them, but since the lenses exceed the
    >sensor's imaging capabilities, both images should be the same
    >resolution.




    The idea that a sensor has a defined limit of resolution is a fallacy.
    Perhaps the claim might have some justification if the world was
    composed of rectilinear line pairs, but the real world just isn't like
    that.

    Even a very basic sensor such as a 6 MP APS-C CCD will record more
    detail if a better lens is fitted. Even a poorly performing consumer
    grade lens will record more detail if used on a Nikon D3200 (24 MP
    APS-C) or D800 (36 MP full frame).

    The defined limits that some people enjoy quoting from theory may have
    some value for lens designers but they are of little or no relevance
    to making images of the real world. And that's why a better lens will
    always give better results than a lesser lens even when both have
    resolving powers that appear to exceed the theoretical limit of the
    sensor.

    Of course this won't be apparent to people who only quote from theory
    and appear completely incapable of making judgments of any value about
    what their eyes are telling them. I don't mean you, Rich. ;-)
    Bruce, Jun 27, 2012
    #6
  7. In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    > On Jun 27, 1:21 am, Me <> wrote:
    >> On 27/06/2012 4:55 p.m., Rich wrote:> Me <> wrote innews:jse3bn$uo9$:
    >>
    >> >> On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >> >>> Two lenses.  One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length.  Both
    >> >>> capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution.  Both tested on the
    >> >>> same object and one of them beats the other.
    >> >>> How?

    >>
    >> >> Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?

    >>
    >> > Just speculating on something I read.  But it is a bit of a riddle.

    >>
    >> Are you obsessing about "resolution" or is it one of the many other
    >> objective and/or subjective qualities of lenses where one beat the other?


    > Resolution only. If both lenses exceed the sensor's capability, how
    > can one appear to resolve more in images? If the lenses were the
    > limiting factor, you would likely see differences because the sensor
    > would still be able to handle them, but since the lenses exceed the
    > sensor's imaging capabilities, both images should be the same
    > resolution.


    Because MTF isn't a sudden cutoff. Nor is the (presumably) Bayer
    filter on the sensor. Nor are some of the other limiting factors on
    sensor resolution. So even if both lenses have an MTF above the
    "limit" of sensor resolution the one which has a higher MTF, plus
    higher levels of other parameters associated with resolution, such as
    microcontrast, will achieve a higher resolution on the sensor.

    They were tested on the same sensor in the same camera, weren't they?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 27, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 27, 10:50 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 27, 1:21 am, Me <> wrote:
    > >> On 27/06/2012 4:55 p.m., Rich wrote:> Me <> wrote innews:jse3bn$uo9$:

    >
    > >> >> On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > >> >>> Two lenses.  One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length.  Both
    > >> >>> capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution.  Both tested on the
    > >> >>> same object and one of them beats the other.
    > >> >>> How?

    >
    > >> >> Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?

    >
    > >> > Just speculating on something I read.  But it is a bit of a riddle..

    >
    > >> Are you obsessing about "resolution" or is it one of the many other
    > >> objective and/or subjective qualities of lenses where one beat the other?

    > > Resolution only.  If both lenses exceed the sensor's capability, how
    > > can one appear to resolve more in images?  If the lenses were the
    > > limiting factor, you would likely see differences because the sensor
    > > would still be able to handle them, but since the lenses exceed the
    > > sensor's imaging capabilities, both images should be the same
    > > resolution.

    >
    > Because MTF isn't a sudden cutoff. Nor is the (presumably) Bayer
    > filter on the sensor. Nor are some of the other limiting factors on
    > sensor resolution. So even if both lenses have an MTF above the
    > "limit" of sensor resolution the one which has a higher MTF, plus
    > higher levels of other parameters associated with resolution, such as
    > microcontrast, will achieve a higher resolution on the sensor.
    >
    > They were tested on the same sensor in the same camera, weren't they?
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm


    Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. The Zeiss
    won over the Summilux.
    He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
    RichA, Jun 27, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. The Zeiss
    >won over the Summilux.
    >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.



    Which Zeiss? Which Summilux? There are several variants.

    Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    f/1.4 in M mount.
    Bruce, Jun 27, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    > >won over the Summilux.
    > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.

    >
    > Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.
    >
    > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    > f/1.4 in M mount.


    Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
    URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    can't find word one about now.
    RichA, Jun 28, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    >> >won over the Summilux.
    >> >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.

    >>
    >> Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.
    >>
    >> Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    >> f/1.4 in M mount.

    >
    >Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
    >URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    >fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    >can't find word one about now.



    Is this the 60mm?
    <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/news/1-latest/102-first-fully-corrected-lens-for-the-uv-vis-nir-spectrum-introduced.html>
    <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155.html>

    It is/was made by Coastal Optical Systems, Inc. of Florida, which
    became a wholly owned subsidiary of Jenoptik in 2002 and now trades as
    Jenoptik Optical Systems, Inc.

    There is also a 105mm macro lens:
    <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-105mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-40.html>

    The lens designer's home page is here:
    http://www.caldwell-photographic.com/Home_Page.html

    Unfortunately, that's all there is, but Brian Caldwell has been active
    designing various esoteric lenses in the last few years.
    Bruce, Jun 28, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 28, 5:30 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    > >> >won over the Summilux.
    > >> >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.

    >
    > >> Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.

    >
    > >> Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    > >> f/1.4 in M mount.

    >
    > >Well, that's the annoying part.  I read the thing fast and forgot the
    > >URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    > >fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    > >can't find word one about now.

    >
    > Is this the 60mm?
    > <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/news/1-latest/102-first-fully-corrected-l...>
    > <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60m...>
    >
    > It is/was made by Coastal Optical Systems, Inc. of Florida, which
    > became a wholly owned subsidiary of Jenoptik in 2002 and now trades as
    > Jenoptik Optical Systems, Inc.
    >
    > There is also a 105mm macro lens:
    > <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-105mm-s...>
    >
    > The lens designer's home page is here:http://www.caldwell-photographic.com/Home_Page.html
    >
    > Unfortunately, that's all there is, but Brian Caldwell has been active
    > designing various esoteric lenses in the last few years.


    Thanks, it looks like the price went up $1000.00.
    RichA, Jun 28, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    >> >won over the Summilux.
    >> >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.

    >>
    >> Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.
    >>
    >> Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    >> f/1.4 in M mount.

    >
    >Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
    >URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    >fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    >can't find word one about now.


    How long ago did you read it? Would it still be in your browser
    history? (Ctrl-H on most browsers, IIRC)
    John A., Jun 30, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "John A." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>It's like the $4000
    >>fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    >>can't find word one about now.

    >
    > How long ago did you read it? Would it still be in your browser
    > history? (Ctrl-H on most browsers, IIRC)


    Can't imagine *anyone* having a URL from 2 years ago still in their browser
    history!
    In their "favourites" list *IF* they kept it perhaps, but apparently that
    was not the case here.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jun 30, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:00:12 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>>It's like the $4000
    >>>fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    >>>can't find word one about now.

    >>
    >> How long ago did you read it? Would it still be in your browser
    >> history? (Ctrl-H on most browsers, IIRC)

    >
    >Can't imagine *anyone* having a URL from 2 years ago still in their browser
    >history!
    >In their "favourites" list *IF* they kept it perhaps, but apparently that
    >was not the case here.


    Actually, he was comparing his difficulty in re-finding the originally
    mentioned article to the similar difficulty in finding the fluorite
    article of two years ago. He never mentioned how long ago he read the
    originally mentioned article.
    John A., Jul 1, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 27/06/2012 05:48, Me wrote:
    > On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >> Two lenses. One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length. Both
    >> capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution. Both tested on the
    >> same object and one of them beats the other.
    >> How?
    >>

    > Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?


    It is quite possible depending on the target pattern. If the lens
    resolution can and does exceed the sensor resolution then the image is
    undersampled by the detector and may show jaggies and/or chroma
    artefacts on some line art subject material with sharp edges.

    The lens with the highest resolution may subjectively produce images
    with unflattering alias artefacts under these circumstances depending on
    the nature of the image and anti-alias filter fitted to the sensor.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jul 3, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    : > RichA <> wrote:
    : > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    : > >won over the Summilux.
    : > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
    : >
    : > Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.
    : >
    : > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    : > f/1.4 in M mount.
    :
    : Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
    : URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    : fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    : can't find word one about now.

    Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml#24

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 4, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >: On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >: > RichA <> wrote:
    >: > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    >: > >won over the Summilux.
    >: > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
    >: >
    >: > Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.
    >: >
    >: > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    >: > f/1.4 in M mount.
    >:
    >: Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
    >: URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    >: fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    >: can't find word one about now.
    >
    >Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution
    >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml#24



    It cannot be the comparison Rich referred to because the Summilux won.

    However, the Leica Summilux lens didn't win by a big margin and the
    cost advantage in favour of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar is huge.

    I would be interested to see a comparison with the Leica Elmarit-M
    24mm f/2.8 ASPH which is by some margin the sharpest 24mm lens ever
    made for the 35mm format.
    Bruce, Jul 4, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:42:38 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : >: On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    : >: > RichA <> wrote:
    : >: > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    : >: > >won over the Summilux.
    : >: > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
    : >: >
    : >: > Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.
    : >: >
    : >: > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    : >: > f/1.4 in M mount.
    : >:
    : >: Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
    : >: URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    : >: fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    : >: can't find word one about now.
    : >
    : >Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution
    : >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml#24
    :
    :
    : It cannot be the comparison Rich referred to because the Summilux won.

    Reading it more carefully, I see that the reviewer mentioned that he had tried
    to do the comparison a few months earlier but had screwed it up. Maybe that
    was the comparison that Rich remembers.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 4, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:11:52 -0400, I <> wrote:
    : On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:42:38 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : :
    : : >On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : : >: On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    : : >: > RichA <> wrote:
    : : >: > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper.  The Zeiss
    : : >: > >won over the Summilux.
    : : >: > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
    : : >: >
    : : >: > Which Zeiss?  Which Summilux?  There are several variants.
    : : >: >
    : : >: > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount?  I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
    : : >: > f/1.4 in M mount.
    : : >:
    : : >: Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
    : : >: URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
    : : >: fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
    : : >: can't find word one about now.
    : : >
    : : >Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution
    : : >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml#24
    : :
    : :
    : : It cannot be the comparison Rich referred to because the Summilux won.
    :
    : Reading it more carefully, I see that the reviewer mentioned that he had tried
    : to do the comparison a few months earlier but had screwed it up. Maybe that
    : was the comparison that Rich remembers.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_first_impressions.shtml

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 4, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve Roberts

    Enigma Special Edition - Aspect Ratio?

    Steve Roberts, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    455
    Joshua Zyber
    Sep 17, 2003
  2. swoosh
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    423
    swoosh
    Sep 5, 2006
  3. Sosumi

    Happy enigma about crappy Sigma

    Sosumi, Jan 9, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    908
    Paul Allen
    Jan 12, 2008
  4. Rubicon

    A public Wi-Fi enigma

    Rubicon, May 5, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    363
    Rubicon
    May 5, 2008
  5. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    8,567
Loading...

Share This Page