E-300 vignetting?

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

  1. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    As is everyone else..
    It doesn't, but what makes these other peoples crystal balls so clear?

    I guess I get tired of the "Only an idiot would...." comments that
    continually float around from these other crystal ball readers. How many
    times has "4/3's is dead" posts have been posted today? I was just pointing
    out that ANY system could just as easily be dead depending on which way the
    technology wind decides to blow.
    Stacey, Mar 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    Stacey, will you quit editing my replies to look like I said something other
    than what I did?
    The 400 f5.6 outperforms the 100-400, no matter what the medium, so his
    comments that it's different on one digital vs. another are suspect. That
    it performed well on the D60 but not on the 10D is very telling since they
    shared a sensor. I think he just wasn't as discerning until he got the
    higher res 1Ds. The 100-400 performs just like it always did.
    The 400 f5.6 performs well on the 1Ds. So it's not limited. In what way
    does that support your thesis?
    Skip M, Mar 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    What you don't seem to comprehend, where is the new 100-400 that isn't
    limiting what a higher res camera can resolve?
    Exactly, so canon isn't going to start designing better zoom lenses that
    these new camera's can produce the results they are capable of?
    If you're willing to say that a better zoom etc isn't possible than what
    canon already makes.

    My "thesis" is many of the canon's legacy lenses aren't up to the task of
    dealing with higher rez digital bodies. I suppose if you are willing to
    only shoot with certain primes lenses they are?
    Stacey, Mar 17, 2005
  4. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    What you are apparently unwilling ( I can't believe you are too limited
    intellectually to be able to, so it must be by intent!) to recognize is that
    the 100-400 was ALREADY limited, digital has NOTHING to do with it. It
    performs acceptably, and as well with digital as with film, within the
    limits of its design, with everything that Canon has now. It was never a
    stunning performer, in the context of the fixed focal length lenses, but did
    outperform the 35-350 and from some reports, outperforms the 400 DO and
    28-300 IS. It has IS, which only Nikon matches, so it has the market to
    itself. Why in the devil should they redesign it to suit you, who don't
    even use Canon cameras????? IF such a case ever exists, and Canon starts to
    lose customers because the lens isn't up to the task, they'll probably do
    something about it. But that isn't happening now.
    You seem to have fixated on a lens that you think underperforms as a
    digital lens, read an article from which you cherry pick info that supports
    your thinking, and won't get off of the idea. Now, if you had used the
    28-105 as an example, I would have agreed with you, it performs abysmally
    with the 8mp 20D but acceptably with the 10D. My 28-70 f2.8 Tokina, 17-35
    f2,8-4 Sigma, same thing. But the 100-400, that isn't true. I have the
    lens, I've used it with everything from Fuji Reala, K-64, Ilford XP-2,
    Plus-X, A2, 1n, D30, 10D and 20D. It works, and it works well, same as with
    my 28-135IS, 100 f2, Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro. You can find some that work,
    some that don't, but you pick on one, extrapolate that to "many" and think
    you've made a point. You're picking on the wrong lens, here, lady...
    By your logic, Oly's new offerings are limited, too, since better ones are
    possible. By the way, how well do your old OM lenses fit on the Evolt?
    Kinda limited, there, too, aren't they...
    Skip M, Mar 17, 2005
  5. astrofax

    RichA Guest

    Camera lenses as a group are inherently poor in terms of
    optical quality. What prevents them from seeming completely
    useless is the fact most of them are used at their prime
    focus magnification. So a 400mm lens is around 8x, a 200mm
    around 4x, at least with 35mm film. Typically, the elements
    in a camera lens are at least 1-4 waves out when it comes to
    optical accuracy. When you have multiple elements all with
    that kind of optical error, it takes a toll on resolution
    and contrast. Camera lens optical quality (on a wavefront measurment)
    is approximately 20-60x worse than what you can buy, if you want it.

    If you want to do the finest telephoto shooting possible and are
    willing to wait about five years for delivery, you can buy a
    telescope/telephoto lens from this American company. They make what
    are probably the best lenses on the planet, aside from strictly
    custom-made Zeiss lenses. A 600mm scope/lens f6 will set you back
    about $6000. You have to get on a waiting list to order, then
    once you order, you wait some more. Long focal length lenses
    (1500mm+) that this company made and sold for around $8000 now command
    prices in the used market of $30,000-$40,000.
    Their MTF figures will basically blow away anything from any camera
    RichA, Mar 17, 2005
  6. astrofax

    Hoffmann Guest

    Hmmmm - I took about 50 shots with an E300/14-45 combination, and there was
    very noticeable vignetting at full zoom in all of them.

    OK, so the 24-45 is a 'cheap' lens - but, really, is there any need for such
    poor performance?

    My other observations with the E300 were, noise, noise, noisem and more
    noise - even noticeable noise at ISO 200, and very noticeable noise at ISO
    400 in A4 prints, not good at all!

    I'm still trying to work out why the 4/3 is so noisy - yes, it has a smaller
    sensor, but not *that* much smaller than the competition - so why are the
    images from both 4/3 cameras so damned noisy?

    A lot of E300 users have commented on the loss of detail caused by the
    overly aggressive Olympus noise reduction - but, in a DSLR, there simply
    shouldn't be such a high level of low ISO noise to require NR in the first
    place! (or am I missing something?) Olympus claim (on the website) that,
    with the E300, "Shadow noise is virtually non-existent" - IMHO this is SO
    untrue that it's bordering on criminal deception!

    For my money, forget all the arguments about optics and the previewed
    benefits/disadvantages of 4/3 - it is the sheer amount of noise that will
    ensure that the system never becomes mainstream.
    Hoffmann, Mar 17, 2005
  7. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    So you don't see that these lenses are a PROBLEM if they increase the MP
    density even more? Why would anyone buy these and then expect them to be
    useful in the future as the sensor resolution increases (which will be way
    beyound what film could ever record)? This whole "future proof" arguement
    is BS. That's all I'm saying. You may wish to believe you've made a life
    long invetsment, I'm sure canon is working on a way that they won't be the
    last lens you buy from them.
    Stacey, Mar 18, 2005
  8. astrofax

    rafe bustin Guest

    So it's a win-win for Canon and Tokina too!

    Seriously, Stacey, what did *you* expect?

    It wasn't so long ago that you were fighting
    this technology tooth and nail and telling us
    it could never compare to film.

    Now you're telling us it's soooo good that
    we should be chucking our L lenses down the

    Slow down, woman. Take a deep breath.

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Mar 18, 2005
  9. astrofax

    RichA Guest

    Cameras are now basically computers and the manufacturers want you to
    have a reason to replace equipment as fast as possible as new models
    come out.
    RichA, Mar 18, 2005
  10. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    Substitute MAY BE for ARE, and you may have a point. My point is that the
    lenses perform with current cameras as well as they did with the cameras for
    which they were designed.
    Olympus sure made sure the OM lenses you had weren't the last ones you
    bought, didn't they? No one can ever conclude that something enough better
    than what they have won't come down the pike, you can't say that even about
    the f2 zooms that Oly has produced. You can argue "What if," and "maybe"
    all you want, but I'm dealing in "what is."
    I do not believe, nor even wish, that I've made a "lifelong investment."
    I've seen to many changes and "improvements" to think that nothing will ever
    be improved upon. But as long as the lenses I have perform on whatever
    camera upon which I have them mounted in a manner that I, and my clients,
    such as they are, find acceptable, I'm not going to worry about what may be
    coming down the pike. In the event that Canon finds that their lens line
    performs to a level that costs them sales, then I'm sure that they'll take
    appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
    And that was not your point, by the way. Your point was that many of
    Canon's lenses don't perform to the level of the sensors in their cameras,
    now. Not in the future. Or if that was your point, you have a damned funny
    way of trying to make it!
    Skip M, Mar 18, 2005
  11. astrofax

    RichA Guest

    Canon does own one of the largest producers of top quality fluorite
    glass (Optron) which is used in some camera lenses but primarily
    in lenses for semiconductor production. They do have the materials
    on hand to make the finest lenses possible, if they ever bother
    RichA, Mar 19, 2005
  12. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    And they do make some of the finest lenses available, like the 70-200 f2.8,
    300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8, the 100 f2.8 Macro, and many others that are ranked
    highly in their respective classes.
    Skip M, Mar 19, 2005
  13. astrofax

    Stacey Guest

    I have no delutions that these are the last lenses I'll be buying. =THAT= is
    my point, the canon users seem to think these legacy film lenses are a
    "lifetime" investment and will never need to be replaced. I don't see them
    making it past the next round of dSLR upgrades. Then again no one knows
    what the future is going to bring for sure.
    Stacey, Mar 19, 2005
  14. astrofax

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The Canon Pro 1 has a fluorite lens, yet the lens performed poorly in
    tests (see for instance the dpreview test). The lens of the Olympus
    8080, which does not contain fluorite elements, instead performed better
    in the tests.
    Alfred Molon, Mar 19, 2005
  15. astrofax

    Skip M Guest

    Stacey, why don't you stop with the generalizations? Not all Canon shooters
    think that many of their lenses are "lifetime" investments, in fact,
    probably very few of them do. I've never seen anyone state that all of
    their lenses will work on any camera that Canon may ever produce. It's just
    that the lenses work as well, now, on present cameras, as they ever did on
    the cameras for which they were designed. And that includes the 16mp 1Ds
    mkII. If the next round of upgrades includes the rumored 11mp model between
    the 20D and 1Ds, or if it is just an upgrade of the 20D, the lenses will
    work just fine, too. If the 1Ds gets upgraded, at some point, to the 20+mp
    range, then we may see the lenses become the limiting factor.
    Skip M, Mar 19, 2005
  16. astrofax

    RichA Guest

    Fluorite is used solely to supress chromatic aberration which in turn
    is used to increase speed. Aspherization is used to control off-axis
    aberrations. The Olympus people simple did a great design job on
    their lenses. Even though lens design is done with software, the
    person doing it has to know what they are doing. Often, a lens will
    sacrific the control of one aberration to correct another.
    RichA, Mar 20, 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.