Re: Interesting article on dla

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 22, 10:24 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote:
    > I was surfing around the web, looking for info on how diffraction limits pix
    > quality at various apertures, and I came across this:http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8304/what-is-a-diffraction-l...
    >
    > I found it interesting that even the worst blurring at F/22 in some of the
    > tests resulted in a sharper image than could be achieved with the lens wide
    > open, or even slightly stopped down.
    >
    > Enjoy,
    > Dudley
    >
    > --
    > "The balance between staying positive and being realistic lies somewhere in
    > the area of remaining hopeful."  Irwin Barker


    Just means some lenses have a long way to go before they are anywhere
    near perfect. A perfect lens, that provides 1/10th wave accuracy (1/4
    isn't perfect) should have as sharp an image wide open as stopped down
    to f5.6. If the lens's actual resolution was measured, it would
    resolve more when wide open. It's hard to prove visually as sensors
    are not pixel-dense enough to exploit it. No wide angle and normal
    lenses meet this criteria, at all. Some macro lenses are pretty
    good. Some telephoto lenses are close, principally high-end
    telephotos with reasonable apertures. 300mm f4.0's that kind of
    thing.
    Diffraction-limited lenses are capable of being mated with equally
    good teleconverters, which of course wide and normal lenses can't be.
    RichA, Mar 23, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Just means some lenses have a long way to go before they are anywhere
    >near perfect. A perfect lens, that provides 1/10th wave accuracy (1/4
    >isn't perfect) should have as sharp an image wide open as stopped down
    >to f5.6. If the lens's actual resolution was measured, it would
    >resolve more when wide open. It's hard to prove visually as sensors
    >are not pixel-dense enough to exploit it. No wide angle and normal
    >lenses meet this criteria, at all.



    Not true. The Leica Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH is at its sharpest in
    the centre when wide open at f/2.8 and at the edges at f/4. Stopping
    down from f/4 gives no further gain in resolution, so the lens is
    diffraction limited at f/4 across the frame and at f/4 in the centre.
    The resolution of this lens is so high that no currently available
    digital sensor can exploit it. However, ultra high resolution film
    can, and the results are outstanding.

    There are several other Leica M lenses that are almost as close to
    perfect as the 24mm Elmarit. Once again, they will only produce to
    their full potential on film such as ADOX CMS-20, which is one of two
    black and white films I use with my rangefinder gear.

    <http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html>

    The other black and white film I use is Kodak BW400CN. You would
    expect an ISO 400 chromogenic film to be way behind a highly
    specialised ISO 20 emulsion when it comes to resolution, but I am
    constantly surprised by what BW400CN can achieve. If and when it is
    discontinued by Kodak I will buy a freezer that is large enough to
    store enough BW400CN for the rest of my life. It really is that good.
    Bruce, Mar 23, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce <> wrote:

    > Stopping
    >down from f/4 gives no further gain in resolution, so the lens is
    >diffraction limited at f/4 across the frame and at f/4 in the centre.



    Sorry, should obviously be f/2.8 in the centre.
    Bruce, Mar 23, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 23, 9:01 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Just means some lenses have a long way to go before they are anywhere
    > >near perfect.  A perfect lens, that provides 1/10th wave accuracy (1/4
    > >isn't perfect) should have as sharp an image wide open as stopped down
    > >to f5.6.  If the lens's actual resolution was measured, it would
    > >resolve more when wide open.  It's hard to prove visually as sensors
    > >are not pixel-dense enough to exploit it.  No wide angle and normal
    > >lenses meet this criteria, at all.

    >
    > Not true.  The Leica Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH is at its sharpest in
    > the centre when wide open at f/2.8 and at the edges at f/4.  Stopping
    > down from f/4 gives no further gain in resolution, so the lens is
    > diffraction limited at f/4 across the frame and at f/4 in the centre.
    > The resolution of this lens is so high that no currently available
    > digital sensor can exploit it.  However, ultra high resolution film
    > can, and the results are outstanding.
    >
    > There are several other Leica M lenses that are almost as close to
    > perfect as the 24mm Elmarit.  Once again, they will only produce to
    > their full potential on film such as ADOX CMS-20, which is one of two
    > black and white films I use with my rangefinder gear.
    >
    > <http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html>
    >
    > The other black and white film I use is Kodak BW400CN.  You would
    > expect an ISO 400 chromogenic film to be way behind a highly
    > specialised ISO 20 emulsion when it comes to resolution, but I am
    > constantly surprised by what BW400CN can achieve.  If and when it is
    > discontinued by Kodak I will buy a freezer that is large enough to
    > store enough BW400CN for the rest of my life.  It really is that good.


    Good info. I almost bought the Leica 24mm f2.8 R lens. I wonder if
    it's as good as the M?
    Any idea of the ADOX film is the same as this Rollei?

    http://www.freestylephoto.biz/42220...an-Film-35mm-x-36-exp.-Single-Roll?cat_id=402

    Very roughly, it's = 70 megapixels on a 4/3rds size piece of film at
    normal contrast. However, I really wonder how much of that resolution
    is preserved until the print stage?
    This is definitely something I'd like to test out.
    RichA, Mar 23, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Mar 23, 9:01 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Just means some lenses have a long way to go before they are anywhere
    >> >near perfect.  A perfect lens, that provides 1/10th wave accuracy (1/4
    >> >isn't perfect) should have as sharp an image wide open as stopped down
    >> >to f5.6.  If the lens's actual resolution was measured, it would
    >> >resolve more when wide open.  It's hard to prove visually as sensors
    >> >are not pixel-dense enough to exploit it.  No wide angle and normal
    >> >lenses meet this criteria, at all.

    >>
    >> Not true.  The Leica Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH is at its sharpest in
    >> the centre when wide open at f/2.8 and at the edges at f/4.  Stopping
    >> down from f/4 gives no further gain in resolution, so the lens is
    >> diffraction limited at f/4 across the frame and at f/4 in the centre.
    >> The resolution of this lens is so high that no currently available
    >> digital sensor can exploit it.  However, ultra high resolution film
    >> can, and the results are outstanding.
    >>
    >> There are several other Leica M lenses that are almost as close to
    >> perfect as the 24mm Elmarit.  Once again, they will only produce to
    >> their full potential on film such as ADOX CMS-20, which is one of two
    >> black and white films I use with my rangefinder gear.
    >>
    >> <http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html>
    >>
    >> The other black and white film I use is Kodak BW400CN.  You would
    >> expect an ISO 400 chromogenic film to be way behind a highly
    >> specialised ISO 20 emulsion when it comes to resolution, but I am
    >> constantly surprised by what BW400CN can achieve.  If and when it is
    >> discontinued by Kodak I will buy a freezer that is large enough to
    >> store enough BW400CN for the rest of my life.  It really is that good.

    >
    >Good info. I almost bought the Leica 24mm f2.8 R lens. I wonder if
    >it's as good as the M?



    Best avoided. Like quite a lot of the early Leica R range, it was
    based on an old Minolta design that wasn't particularly good to start
    with. The focal length is not one with a long tradition in the Leica
    range where 21mm and 28mm are firm favourites, so there wasn't enough
    demand to justify replacing it with a 100% Leica design.

    Even in the M range, the 24mm f/2.8 ASPH was not a top seller until
    recently in spite of its superlative optics. The 21mm f/2.8 ASPH sold
    much more strongly despite being optically inferior.

    The 24mm finally became a popular lens for the M8 and M8.2
    rangefinders because the widest set of frame lines in their viewfinder
    was for the 24mm focal length.

    It has now been replaced in the range by two lenses, an f/1.4 and an
    f/3.8, both of which are optimised for digital capture. The
    superseded (though still available) f/2.8 performs very well indeed on
    my M9P but the vignetting is significant.

    The new f/1.4 costs almost double the price of the last f/2.8 and the
    new f/3.8 about a third less. I am so happy with my f/2.8 that I
    haven't even tried the new ones.


    >Any idea of the ADOX film is the same as this Rollei?
    >http://www.freestylephoto.biz/42220...an-Film-35mm-x-36-exp.-Single-Roll?cat_id=402



    No idea, sorry. As with my 24mm lens, I have grown very fond of the
    ADOX emulsion and would prefer exploring its sublime abilities to
    learning how to use yet another emulsion that seems not to offer any
    advantages at all. However, the Rollei film is worth a try for anyone
    who isn't quite as wedded to another film in the way that I am. ;-)


    >Very roughly, it's = 70 megapixels on a 4/3rds size piece of film at
    >normal contrast. However, I really wonder how much of that resolution
    >is preserved until the print stage?
    >This is definitely something I'd like to test out.



    It is very hard work getting every last bit of resolution out of these
    films. I use a sturdy tripod for all my shots and take meticulous
    care with focusing. That can include making small manual corrections
    to the rangefinder focusing to compensate for focus shift. That
    doesn't affect my 24mm lens but it does affect the 35mm.

    Processing has to be done with the greatest of care. The developer
    needs accuracy in mixing and the nature and amount of agitation during
    developing can make a significant difference to the results.

    Finally, printing needs to be done with the very best equipment. I
    use a Leica V35 enlarger but with a rather exotic Schneider lens. In
    fact I have two V35 enlargers, one with a Schneider 40mm lens that
    allows "autofocus", and the other with a Schneider 45mm lens that
    doesn't because the V35 linkage that preserves focus at different
    print sizes only works with the 40mm focal length. The Leica 40mm
    Focotar was supposed to be a stellar lens but it is seriously
    outclassed by the more recent Schneiders.

    There is something very satisfying about using the world's best lenses
    for capture, the world's highest resolution film for recording and the
    world's best enlarger lenses for printing. But it does mean that
    every other aspect of the workflow has to be absolutely right, and the
    slightest imperfections stick out like a sore thumb.

    It makes Kodak BW400CN and one hour developing at a minilab look very
    attractive as an alternative. Compared with CMS 20, BW400CN is easy
    and very forgiving. ;-)
    Bruce, Mar 23, 2012
    #5
    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. Tech

    Interesting Article

    Tech, Jul 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    394
    Duane Arnold
    Jul 16, 2004
  2. radiosigs

    Veritas DLA CD burner problem

    radiosigs, Nov 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,711
    Lancelot Potresselli
    Nov 20, 2004
  3. Shawn

    interesting article

    Shawn, Aug 11, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    434
  4. George Preddy

    Canon 10D AF problems, interesting article...

    George Preddy, Jan 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    700
    George Preddy
    Jan 10, 2004
  5. §ñühw¤£f

    Re: Veritas dla problem

    §ñühw¤£f, Jun 28, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    421
    thanatoid
    Nov 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page