E-300 vignetting?

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

  1. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest

    You're talking about vastly increased
    sensor density over present values --
    as if that were a foregone conclusion.

    Me, I really don't care all that much
    and am content to wait it out.

    Way I see it, a 1Ds with a decent "L" lens
    is already almost as good as scanned 645
    film. So when that camera (or one like it)
    gets to within my budget, I not only ditch
    my Nikons but my 645 gear as well.

    I'll probably keep the Nikon scanner, and
    maybe even pick up some 6x7 MF gear, just
    for kicks.

    Like I said... win-win. But that's all
    in the future, a year or two or three,
    and in the meantime there's a role for
    all the different camera bodies in my kit.

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Mar 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. astrofax

    Rob Davison Guest

    I don't think that. It does seem reasonable to me though that a
    $xxx 70-200mm zoom will always be behind a $xxx 200mm prime in terms
    of ultimate image quality.

    Whether this difference is noticable or worth trading the convenience
    of a zoom is down to individual circumstance and choice.
    What's wrong with selling them new primes?
    I own more prime lenses than zooms and use the primes much more.

    Having a sensor that can handle more than a given lens can supply
    doesn't necessarily make that lens useless.
    ....you go to medium or large format just as you do with film.

    A big sensor and a large hunk of glass. Which just happens to be
    in the other direction from the one you're headed with 4/3rds...

    Rob Davison, Mar 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    rafe bustin wrote:

    Yep, I totally agree.
    Stacey, Mar 15, 2005
  4. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Funny the 1Ds is already at or very close to medium format with a smaller
    sensor area than the film. I would think as technology improves, you will
    be able to get better quality with a smaller camera. 35mm using modern film
    is better than 6X6 was back in the 50's using the film avalible then..

    Why should digital be different? Everyone assumes the sensor technology is
    at it's peak and the only "upgrade" path is a bigger sensor. Time will tell
    but I doubt that's going to be the path.
    Stacey, Mar 15, 2005
  5. As a film user, I'd _really_ like to know:

    What modern film in 35mm makes a better 11x14 than Plus-X in D-76 in my 50's

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 15, 2005
  6. astrofax

    Ton Maas Guest

    With reference to this thread it is interesting to note that the testers
    made an explicit comment about the lack of vignetting in the new digital
    zuikos, especially the 11-22mm. Compared against other super wide-angles
    recently tested by them (Sigma EX 3.5-4.5/15-30mm DG), it shows less
    vignetting and distortion than the competition yet offers more speed.
    According to Foto Magazin wide angles are area where the 4:3 concept
    really shines.

    Ton Maas, Mar 15, 2005
  7. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest

    I think you're overstating the improvements in film
    over the years. Noise limits what we can capture,
    in digital as well as with film.

    I don't pretend to know how it will turn out. In
    fact, I believe that we're already seeing a slow-
    down in the technology growth curve for digital
    capture. That's not surprising, because a vast
    portion of the market is already getting what
    it needs.

    What portion of the market needs, and is willing
    to pay for, more resolution than what's now

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Mar 15, 2005
  8. astrofax

    Ton Maas Guest

    Maybe Stacey's point wasn't formulated as eloquent as it could have
    been. Let me try and be more specific. Take the Zuiko 2.0/90mm macro, a
    lens that was tested (in a German magazine) against the short telephoto
    macros from all other major players. This is how the two top performers
    from that test (the Zuiko and the 2.8/100 Makro Planar from Zeiss)
    compare with the Micro Nikkor 2.8/105 wide open:

    resolution contrast
    center edge average center edge average

    Zuiko 8.9 8.6 8.8 9.1 8.8 9.0
    Zeiss 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.0 9.0 9.0
    Nikkor 7.8 7.2 7.6 8.1 7.6 7.9

    Out of all OM zuikos I thought that at least THIS lens would be at least
    an adequate performer on the E-1, but it is simply no match for the new
    Digital Zuiko 2.0/50mm macro, which gets the "dream score" of 9.4 in a
    recent test by German Foto Magazin (3/2005).

    Ton Maas, Mar 15, 2005
  9. astrofax

    Ton Maas Guest

    Indeed, Foto Magazin from Germany just tested 6 of the new Digital
    Zuikos and concludes that they are "already" outperforming the E-1's

    Ton Maas, Mar 15, 2005
  10. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    Like I've said in other parts of the discussion, Zuiko glass has always had
    a stellar reputation, and, of course, there've been significant advances in
    lens design since the manual focus days of the OM series of cameras.
    Skip M, Mar 15, 2005
  11. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest

    They would have to, of course, if one expects
    sensor density to climb -- which is a basic
    and fundamental premise of the 4/3 club.

    If you make the lenses just good enough for
    today's sensors, that leaves no room for

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Mar 15, 2005
  12. astrofax

    RichA Guest

    It's kind of a broad-brush. My first Olympus lens, 50mm f1.8 was not
    a sharp lens. I replaced it with an f1.4 and that lens was sharp.
    My 100mm f2.8 was sharper still. IMO, the biggest problem with
    current digital lenses is the lack of speed for them, especially the
    zoom. Considering in most cases (especially Olympus) they are
    supporting much smaller imaging elements than 35mm film, the slowness
    of the lenses is a pain in the neck.
    RichA, Mar 15, 2005
  13. astrofax

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Olympus just launched three new, bright 4/3 lenses:
    - Zuiko Digital ED 14-35 1:2.0
    - Zuiko Digital ED 35-100 1:2.0
    - Zuiko Digital ED 90-250 1:2.8
    Alfred Molon, Mar 15, 2005
  14. astrofax

    RichA Guest

    That's better.
    RichA, Mar 16, 2005
  15. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Given that most of the canon primes come from the time this OM 90mm was
    designed and made, you're still missing the point. This zuiko is BETTER
    than the canon lens of this type being made today and the new zuikos are
    better that either of these to deal with the smaller higher density

    But then I don't think you -want- to get it.. Canon has been busy designing
    bodies and IS technology etc. Soon (when more resolution is needed from
    high MP density) their lenses are going to be the weak point in their
    system and will be replaced with improved ones. Keep buying those L lenses
    in hopes they will work in the future while 4/3's dies...
    Stacey, Mar 16, 2005
  16. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Well you can see some are already limited, how is this going to get -better-
    as the cameras improve?
    Stacey, Mar 16, 2005
  17. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Not really. Look at the color print film from the 60's compared to what is
    being made today. Even in B&W the T-max and delta films resolve way more
    than the tri-x etc from back then. At that time studios were still all
    shooting 4X5 or larger and no one would even consider shooting a wedding on

    Neither do I, it's like trying to guess where computers will be 5 years from
    Same as would buy medium format.
    Stacey, Mar 16, 2005
  18. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    Which is my point. The canon guys buying L lenses are betting that canon is
    going to make a full frame sensor rebel / X0D rather than moving the MP
    density up on the APS size sensors. Think about this, if canon can stay
    with a APS sensor, move into the 12-16MP range and then market "You need
    these new digital designed lenses to get the most from your 40D" which
    route do you think they'll take? The route that sells one body and works
    good with old lenses they have already sold you? Yea I bet they'll do that
    to help save you some money!
    Stacey, Mar 16, 2005
  19. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest

    My point exactly. A very small and very
    pricey market. It can be hard to make a
    profit in such markets.

    Point being -- it may well happen (and I hope
    it does) but it'll never be cheap. Cheap only
    happens where there's a mass market.

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Mar 16, 2005
  20. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest

    Jeez, Stacey why do you need to be so
    judgmental about all this?

    Consider this: Canon L lenses existed
    long before Canon's first DSLR.

    Do I hope there will be a cheap full
    frame Canon DSLR some day? You bet.

    Am I counting on it? Not really.
    I've got what I need for the moment,
    and waiting to see which way the
    wind blows.

    What makes your crystal ball better
    than anyone else's? Why does it upset
    you if others bet differently from you?

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Mar 16, 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.