E-300 vignetting?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by astrofax, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    Exactly my whole pount. What do you think a 12MP APS sized sensor is going
    to do?

    The way I see this, say the 4/3 system totally dies and I have to buy new
    lenses to go to the latest 12-16MP APS sensor camera or a 30MP full size
    one. The current canon glass isn't going to work with these newer cameras
    very well either so ANYONE using them needs to buy new glass to get results
    from them. It's like people buying a 20D so they can then use some cheap
    non-L canon lenses, what's the point?

    After seeing the MTF graphs from the new ZD lenses, they should have no
    problem resolving what a 12-16MP 4/3 sensor can resolve. Much of the
    current canon glass can't. Sorry if you don't like hearing that.
     
    Stacey, Mar 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    On a 6X9 camera it will. The results from an old folder beats any of these
    digital cameras we are talking about in larger prints, it's just limited on
    what it can be used for.
     
    Stacey, Mar 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. A: Lower noise. Legacy of lenses.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 14, 2005
  4. It does vignette.

    Take a picture of a white wall wide open. Dark corners, anyone?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 14, 2005
  5. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Exactly my point. People keep talking about how 4/3 is such a "dead end". If
    it is, the legacy canon glass is also a dead end and at some point (which I
    think the 20D is close to) they won't resolve enough more to use the extra
    MP so new better lenses will be needed. I guess my thinking is, it's more
    likely for canon to make a 12MP APS sensor camera, that people can afford
    to buy and will the current legacy lenses resolve well enough at that MP
    density to make them useful?

    Of course there is given the grain size etc and when the 35mm film lenses
    were designed, they knew this.

    Tells me the lenses being used are good enough for this resolution. Time
    will tell if they can go any further. Like the link showed, on the 1Ds the
    100-400L is limiting the camera, how can they "go further" using this same
    glass that's already pushing the envelope?
     
    Stacey, Mar 14, 2005
  6. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    I agree and if they do (which at some point they will) -everyone- will be
    buying new lenses that can exploit it. I think holding on to the notion
    that the old 35mm film lenses can somehow resolve enough to work on these
    future bodies is dreaming. The 1Ds is aready pushing what they can deal
    with.
     
    Stacey, Mar 14, 2005
  7. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    What, you avoiding the question?
     
    Stacey, Mar 14, 2005
  8. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest


    Call me stupid, but when did the 100-400L become
    the sine qua non of lens resolution?

    Last time I checked photodo, the best lenses
    for overall resolution were primes, usually
    around 90-100 mm.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Mar 14, 2005
  9. astrofax

    John Francis Guest

    That rather depends on your choice of film.
    The best 35mm films still do somewhat beter than that,
    especially considering the fact that they actually sample
    R,G, & B at each location, independently.

    Mind you, the difference is academic unless you are shooting
    on a *very* rigid camera platform, with a first-rate lens.
    And the other characteristics of digital look a lot nicer.
     
    John Francis, Mar 14, 2005
  10. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    rafe bustin wrote:

    Sure but how many people want to go -back- to prime lenses? Not me.
     
    Stacey, Mar 14, 2005
  11. astrofax

    Chris Brown Guest

    There's another kind?
     
    Chris Brown, Mar 14, 2005
  12. astrofax

    Chris Brown Guest

    You didn't ask me a question - I was simply providing a point of
    information.
     
    Chris Brown, Mar 14, 2005
  13. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    Sorry, I, and most others, disagree. It is generally conceded that a 16mp
    digital exceeds the resolution of even ISO40 Velvia. And color accuracy
    vs. resolution is another argument.
     
    Skip M, Mar 14, 2005
  14. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    NO reply to my contention that you lied about me slamming the image quality
    from Olys or hijacking threads?
    Your original contention was that the lenses underperform with the 8mp 20D,
    then said you were wrong, the article was about the 1Ds. I read the
    article, and he notices the difference with the 10D (not the 20D), too, not
    that the lens performs up to snuff with the 10D but not the 1Ds. He says
    that it performed well in that past, but not now. The writer doesn't show
    any comparison of the two on film vs. digital, only makes the contention
    that this it true. There has been a argument that the 400 f5.6 outperforms
    the 100-400 on film, too. I would be surprised if it didn't, since they're
    the same speed at 400mm and the fixed focal length lens doesn't have the
    extra IS element, nor the elements/mechanics for the shorter focal lengths.
    I think the limitations are with the lens itself, not the relationship
    between it and a high resolution sensor. And, I think, some of the
    limitations are with the author, since he didn't notice a performance fall
    off with the D60, but does with the 10D, which has the same resolution.
    This article in no way supports your contention that Canon lenses won't
    support higher resolutions.
     
    Skip M, Mar 14, 2005
  15. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest


    You need to form some consistency in your
    argumentation and rhetorical strategy.

    If you're making a case about CCD sensors
    being "too good" for legacy lenses, then you
    should at least be talking about the best
    available lenses -- not just those chosen
    at random or on the basis of convenience.

    Some things haven't changed (between film
    and digital) notwithstanding your enthusiasm
    for the latter.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Mar 14, 2005
  16. The Nyquist frequency of a 12MP 4/3 sensor (3000 x 4000 pixels) would be
    3000/(2*13) = 115 lp/mm.

    Please show us a link to MTF charts that give the MTF at 115 lp/mm for ZD
    lenses.

    By the way, your claim is essentially that Oly zooms are going to be
    providing twice the resolution of
    Canon primes. And that's seriously ridiculous.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 14, 2005
  17. With ones? Velvia? No.
    Er, no. And even were it true, that has no effect on the LUMINANCE,
    which is most important to spatial resolution.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 14, 2005
  18. astrofax

    John Francis Guest

    Not even Fuji claim Velvia(50) is their highest resolution film.
    They put Provia 100F above that.

    But let's stick with Velvia. Carl Zeiss claim to have measured
    150 lp/mm on Velvia, under normal photographic conditions (not
    in a lab with 1000:1 test targets).[1]


    That's considerably higher than a 16MP full-frame sensor
    (which will give you, at best, 60 lp/mm)

    There are several other films (e.g. the Kodak Portra range)
    which also achieved 150 lp/mm.

    (Kodak Ektar 25 managed 200 lp/mm, but that's discontinued.
    I've still got a dozen rolls in my freezer, though ... )


    One big benefit of digital, in these situations, is that the
    resolution on the sensor is what you get - there's no extra
    loss due to scanning (you're not going to beat that 16MP
    using a consumer-grade 2700/2850 dpi scanner).

    And, as I pointed out, it's academic unless you're using a
    lens capable of delivering high enough resolution for the
    difference to matter, and optimal shooting conditions such
    as a rigid camera platform, etc. In which case you might
    just as well use the *right* tool for the job, and switch
    to medium-format or large format, if you want resolution.

    [1] http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_19_en/$File/CLN19_en.pdf
     
    John Francis, Mar 15, 2005
  19. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    So you think the present canon zoom lenses are as good as they can ever get?
    I'm not going to go down the road of trying to bash something but I've
    looked at the MTF of diferent lenses and some of (even the L lenses) aren't
    =that= great.


    That is my whole point, when the sensor density gets to the point where
    their L zooms can't keep up, you don't think they'll design some that will?
    Or do you think they'll just tell people they have to use the old prime
    lenses to get good results? Like you said, to go -way past- 35mm quality,
    something has to give and the present optics are going to be part of the
    problem.
     
    Stacey, Mar 15, 2005
  20. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Chris Brown wrote:

    Sorry, read this as being from a different poster..
     
    Stacey, Mar 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.