Reading mode: Light Dark

Most all m4/3 lenses seem soft or mediocre at best (so far)...

Go to last post
I'm sure (hope) you wouldn't enter any of those in a photo contest. 1) Why would anyone focus on eyelash whiskers? 2)... well, get your model to try a facial before posing or perhaps soften up the skin tone some. 3) next time focus on the eyes (or in this case, eye).

PS: My antiquated FZ8 could do that with as little PP.

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
 
R Stacy said:
I'm sure (hope) you wouldn't enter any of those in a photo contest. 1) Why would anyone focus on eyelash whiskers? 2)... well, get your model to try a facial before posing or perhaps soften up the skin tone some. 3) next time focus on the eyes (or in this case, eye).
Click to expand...
After reading through this whole thread that you initiated, I was under the impression that you were talking about the dearth of sharp lenses in the MFT format.

Here is a post where the OP posts examples of a particular lens' (Leica Elmarit 45/2.8 macro) sharpness and your only comments are about eyelash whiskers and the need for the model to get a facial???

These aren't models.....they are photographers (like me....and maybe you) making an effort show the attributes of a new lens that not many people can get their hands on.

You should thank them for their time in answering your post.

Richard
 
R Stacy said:
...Why would anyone focus on eyelash whiskers?
...
next time focus on the eyes (or in this case, eye).

PS: My antiquated FZ8 could do that with as little PP.
...
Click to expand...
Terry is showing you an considerable enlargement of an entire portrait - your response is ridiculing her for showing you the detail around the eye - an extremely common and useful out-take from portraits to show focus and resolution. You have apparently missed this point entirely in your haste to belittle her example.

She posted the complete photos (BTW never claiming them as examples of best work, only as early samples from the newly acquired lens) in this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=33775139

Regarding the issue of the eye vs. eyelashes (or eyebrows) being in best focus - at this portrait distance (several feet - remember this is an enlargement not a macro shot), there is a very small difference in focus distance between the eyelash and eye. The camera is focused well on the eyebrow and the surface of the subject's spectacles (note the dust spots on the lenses). The surround of the eye itself shows a lot of detail, though perhaps somewhat softer - I'd venture that he is wearing prescription glasses and these may contribute more to any focus shift than the DOF issue of eyelash/eyebrow vs. cornea.

--
JoelH
 
Joel Halbert said:
Joel Halbert wrote:
R Stacy said:
...Why would anyone focus on eyelash whiskers?
...
next time focus on the eyes (or in this case, eye).

PS: My antiquated FZ8 could do that with as little PP.
...
Click to expand...
Terry is showing you an considerable enlargement of an entire portrait - your response is ridiculing her for showing you the detail around the eye - an extremely common and useful out-take from portraits to show focus and resolution. You have apparently missed this point entirely in your haste to belittle her example.

She posted the complete photos (BTW never claiming them as examples of best work, only as early samples from the newly acquired lens) in this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=33775139

Regarding the issue of the eye vs. eyelashes (or eyebrows) being in best focus - at this portrait distance (several feet - remember this is an enlargement not a macro shot), there is a very small difference in focus distance between the eyelash and eye. The camera is focused well on the eyebrow and the surface of the subject's spectacles (note the dust spots on the lenses). The surround of the eye itself shows a lot of detail, though perhaps somewhat softer - I'd venture that he is wearing prescription glasses and these may contribute more to any focus shift than the DOF issue of eyelash/eyebrow vs. cornea.

--
JoelH
Click to expand...
Well, erm, that Macro thing, according to the review data here on DPReview, ain't all that great as far as sharpness goes; the reviewer even dared to show a comparison of it against the G1 kit lens at f5.6 and the kit lens did better (on the MFT chart).

I think many (most?) lenses would produce sharpness/detail of that calibre around the central area of an image, my old Sony F717 would be tsimilarly impressive and it employs a 5x zoom lens in front of a tiny 2/3" sensor.

Regards,
 
R Stacy said:
... please read (and next time quote) the full text of my initial post. That would include exactly what I said.

If you prefer to quote one line out of context to make your own point... that would (by default) not be exactly what I said.
Click to expand...
hmmm...now you've really confused me.

so just one question to clear everything up. do you or do you not think that all MFT lenses are at best mediocre?
R Stacy said:
--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
Click to expand...
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com
 
Terry,

It's truly a waste of energy trying to talk to people like R Stacy and Harald66. They live in a fantasy world of specs and self-rightgeousness, and are unwilling to open their eyes and admit that they have no first hand experience with the lenses they descry.

Anyone willing to accept some reviewers' opinions and online test reports as gospel truth is acting on faith ... they simply believe, "I can't be wrong! I saw it on the internet!"
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
Godfrey said:
Godfrey wrote:
Terry,

It's truly a waste of energy trying to talk to people like R Stacy and Harald66. They live in a fantasy world of specs and self-rightgeousness, and are unwilling to open their eyes and admit that they have no first hand experience with the lenses they descry.

Anyone willing to accept some reviewers' opinions and online test reports as gospel truth is acting on faith ... they simply believe, "I can't be wrong! I saw it on the internet!"
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
Click to expand...
Come come now, that ain't fair.

I never quite understand why you dismiss reviews so much, and champion user experience as being superior (or appear to me to be doing so).

If your attitude were taken to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't vote for your Senator on the basis that you first need to stand for elected office; you wouldn't trust the speedometer on a car, as it has obviously been tested and/or checked by a reviewer, so one had better do one's own test of the speedometer's calibration; one wouldn't buy a house based on the recommendation of a reviewer (read: surveyor); etc etc etc.

The reviewers are by and large experienced experts in their field, just like mechanics, doctors, teachers and the like; and yes some of them are better than others. Just as we rely on expert findings in many other walks of life, I can't for the life of me see why it is we should suddenly stop so doing as soon as it comes to photography.

I have never been to China but I know there was a massacre in Tiennaman Square (spelling?), and I ain't ever been to da moon but I am pretty sure I could point to it. Likewise, does one really really have to handle a lens or camera to make an informed opinion on it?!!

And yes, user experience can add something that a review can't as users often find things that reviewers don't have the time to find e.g. our earlier discussion re flash and manual lenses on a Panny body. But I think your pooh poohing of reviewers and reviews is a bit off beam.

Regards,
 
did any of the reviewers say that all MFT lenses are mediocre at best?

i seem to recall that reviews of a few panny MFT lenses (in particular, the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 macro) to be very good to excellent. please correct me if i'm wrong, as that is certainly my opinion of them based on first hand user experience as well.
plevyadophy said:
plevyadophy said:
Godfrey wrote:
Terry,

It's truly a waste of energy trying to talk to people like R Stacy and Harald66. They live in a fantasy world of specs and self-rightgeousness, and are unwilling to open their eyes and admit that they have no first hand experience with the lenses they descry.

Anyone willing to accept some reviewers' opinions and online test reports as gospel truth is acting on faith ... they simply believe, "I can't be wrong! I saw it on the internet!"
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
Click to expand...
Come come now, that ain't fair.

I never quite understand why you dismiss reviews so much, and champion user experience as being superior (or appear to me to be doing so).

If your attitude were taken to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't vote for your Senator on the basis that you first need to stand for elected office; you wouldn't trust the speedometer on a car, as it has obviously been tested and/or checked by a reviewer, so one had better do one's own test of the speedometer's calibration; one wouldn't buy a house based on the recommendation of a reviewer (read: surveyor); etc etc etc.

The reviewers are by and large experienced experts in their field, just like mechanics, doctors, teachers and the like; and yes some of them are better than others. Just as we rely on expert findings in many other walks of life, I can't for the life of me see why it is we should suddenly stop so doing as soon as it comes to photography.

I have never been to China but I know there was a massacre in Tiennaman Square (spelling?), and I ain't ever been to da moon but I am pretty sure I could point to it. Likewise, does one really really have to handle a lens or camera to make an informed opinion on it?!!

And yes, user experience can add something that a review can't as users often find things that reviewers don't have the time to find e.g. our earlier discussion re flash and manual lenses on a Panny body. But I think your pooh poohing of reviewers and reviews is a bit off beam.

Regards,
Click to expand...
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com
 
polarabbit said:
hmmm...now you've really confused me.

so just one question to clear everything up. do you or do you not think that all MFT lenses are at best mediocre?
Click to expand...
R Stacy's original post title said " most all", not "all." And s/he specifically mentioned the 20mm as a possible exception.

That said, my experience with the lenses I've used (14-45 and 45-200, so far) is that they're excellent within the constraints of their aperture ranges. the 14-45 in particular is superb for a kit lens.
--
-Jay

http://flickr.com/photos/48504267@N00/
 
Since you put so much faith in them.

"Overall, we can't help but conclude that the 20mm F1.7 is the first must-have lens for Micro Four Thirds, and one which especially makes sense with the compact-bodied E-P1 and GF1. On these cameras it provides a winning combination of small size, high all-round image quality and excellent low-light capability."

from dpreview.

"Central sharpness (45mm macro) is very high wide open, but the corners are notably softer. This pattern persists on stopping down; the highest central sharpness is achieved around F5, with the corners continuing to sharpen up until F8"

again from dpreview.

"The 7-14mm ƒ 4 produced very sharp images. At the wider end of its focal length, images are sharp even when used at the lens' widest aperture; between 7-12mm at ƒ 4, the central region of the image is tack-sharp at 1 blur unit, with the corners showing just the slightest hint of softness at around 1.5 blur units. At 14mm there's a slight increase in corner softness as the central region of sharpness shrinks and the corners increase to 2 blur units. Stopping the lens down to ƒ 5.6 produces its best results, with the central region at a consistent 1 blur unit and the corners between 1.5 and 2 blur units."

from slrgear

Soft?? Mediocre??

--
http://davidmartynhughes.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29782425@N08/
http://davidmartynhughes.smugmug.com/Photography
http://web.me.com/davidmartynhughes/Site/Home.html
 
Jay Gloab said:
polarabbit said:
hmmm...now you've really confused me.

so just one question to clear everything up. do you or do you not think that all MFT lenses are at best mediocre?
Click to expand...
R Stacy's original post title said " most all", not "all." And s/he specifically mentioned the 20mm as a possible exception.
Click to expand...
point taken, however:

1. the 20/1.7 is not leica's "lone entry" in MFT; and
2. the 20/1.7 is not the only MFT lens that is highly rated.

i do not have experience using the 14-45 and 45-200 but i had opted for the 14-150 FT (iso the 14-140 MFT) and 45/2.8 macro instead because I believe the latter two are superior lenses to the former two (based on reading extensive reviews about them prior to making the purchase decisions).

unless you consider the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses "mediocre", the OP's statement of "most all" MFT lenses being mediocre is still inaccurate IMHO.

actually, with your and my opinions combined, i would say that "most all MFT lenses are very good to excellent" to be a more accurate statement, as the only other MFT lenses not being covered are the Oly pancake and kit zoom, pretty much, no?
Jay Gloab630253 said:
That said, my experience with the lenses I've used (14-45 and 45-200, so far) is that they're excellent within the constraints of their aperture ranges. the 14-45 in particular is superb for a kit lens.
--
-Jay

http://flickr.com/photos/48504267@N00/
Click to expand...
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com
 
plevyadophy said:
I never quite understand why you dismiss reviews so much, and champion user experience as being superior (or appear to me to be doing so). ...
Click to expand...
With all due respect to Andy and the others who publish reviews on-line, whom I am sure are trying to do a good job in good faith, the reasons I have no use for these reviews is:
  • I don't know their credentials for the job.
  • The tests they provide are inadequately documented with respect to methodology
  • The reviews casually mix data and inferences from the data, as well as personal impressions.
  • The sample photos provided likewise are inadequately documented and rarely anything that returns me any real, useful information.
When it comes to doing research, I have 20+ years of research history in my career. I don't consider these reviews to be a very data rich target for useful information. They're great 'feel good because I like how X reviewer sees things' advertising.

Likewise, I don't adopt good online reviews or descry bad online reviews. I think they're all about the same: very variable in quality, poor information, mostly useful to read the specifications.

A technical review is not news reportage, as in a documentary report on the happenings at Tienneman Square. A technical review of a camera or lens requires a different kind of 'interrogation of the subject' from an information gathering perspective.

Not to mention that with what's been happening in news reportage in the past fifty years, I find credibility there sorely lacking these days too. News is more entertainment and titillation now than information, controlled as it is by spin doctors and editorialists.

I champion first hand experience because I
a) know what I'm looking for clearly when I'm testing something,
b) know the extent and quality of the methodology in testing I use,
c) can re-test at will if I make an error in setup, and
d) understand the data produced in ways that cannot be achieved
looking at published reports, with no ambiguity.

When I make test photos to learn a lens behavior, I understand both ends of the game: what I'm looking for and what was recorded, and I know the entire pedigree of the image files from exposure to display.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
TEBnewyork said:
TEBnewyork wrote:

The reviewer gave it a highly recommended rating which you refuse to accept or acknowledge!

--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, but with a good few qualifications if you read the text even going so far as to call the thing underwhelming (if my memory serves me correctly) and compare it to the Pancake which the team were rather enthused by but not so the Macro.

Regards,
 
Godfrey said:
Godfrey wrote:
plevyadophy said:
I never quite understand why you dismiss reviews so much, and champion user experience as being superior (or appear to me to be doing so). ...
Click to expand...
With all due respect to Andy and the others who publish reviews on-line, whom I am sure are trying to do a good job in good faith, the reasons I have no use for these reviews is:
  • I don't know their credentials for the job.
  • The tests they provide are inadequately documented with respect to methodology
Click to expand...
Really? If my memory is correct, DPReview do explain their methodology. However, I had a look for an explanation of SLRGear's methodology for lens tests and couldn't find it on their site :-( I was particulalry interested to know what on earth is a "blur unit" as they call.
Godfrey said:
  • The reviews casually mix data and inferences from the data, as well as personal impressions.
Click to expand...
Well, we all do that at times you and I both included.
Godfrey said:
  • The sample photos provided likewise are inadequately documented and rarely anything that returns me any real, useful information.
Click to expand...
I vary rarely look at DPReview's sample gallery or that of Imaginng Resource, just look at the test shots.
Godfrey said:
When it comes to doing research, I have 20+ years of research history in my career. I don't consider these reviews to be a very data rich target for useful information. They're great 'feel good because I like how X reviewer sees things' advertising.
Click to expand...
OK
Godfrey said:
Likewise, I don't adopt good online reviews or descry bad online reviews. I think they're all about the same: very variable in quality, poor information, mostly useful to read the specifications.
Click to expand...
OK, but as you know :-) I disagree.
Godfrey said:
A technical review is not news reportage, as in a documentary report on the happenings at Tienneman Square. A technical review of a camera or lens requires a different kind of 'interrogation of the subject' from an information gathering perspective.

Not to mention that with what's been happening in news reportage in the past fifty years, I find credibility there sorely lacking these days too. News is more entertainment and titillation now than information, controlled as it is by spin doctors and editorialists.
Click to expand...
Well, you sure is preaching to the converted on that one! :-)
Godfrey said:
I champion first hand experience because I
a) know what I'm looking for clearly when I'm testing something,
Click to expand...
Of course, true; I can relate to that.
Godfrey said:
b) know the extent and quality of the methodology in testing I use,
Click to expand...
Ah, but then you often post your findings here (I just had a peep at your impressions of the 45 Macro), so should we all give you a hard time about methodology and credentials? ;-)
Godfrey said:
c) can re-test at will if I make an error in setup, and
Click to expand...
So what? The professional reviewers can't?
Godfrey said:
d) understand the data produced in ways that cannot be achieved
looking at published reports, with no ambiguity.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a given.
Godfrey said:
When I make test photos to learn a lens behavior, I understand both ends of the game: what I'm looking for and what was recorded, and I know the entire pedigree of the image files from exposure to display.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a given too.
Godfrey said:
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for your detailed, open and well put reply.

Regards,
 
david martyn said:
david martyn wrote:
Since you put so much faith in them.
Click to expand...
I think you have missed the crux of my reply to Godfrey. Re-read it.
david martyn said:
"Overall, we can't help but conclude that the 20mm F1.7 is the first must-have lens for Micro Four Thirds, and one which especially makes sense with the compact-bodied E-P1 and GF1. On these cameras it provides a winning combination of small size, high all-round image quality and excellent low-light capability."

from dpreview.
Click to expand...
The Pancake is a good buy, lots of distortion though (albeit much less than other mFT lenses). I got one.
david martyn said:
"Central sharpness (45mm macro) is very high wide open, but the corners are notably softer. This pattern persists on stopping down; the highest central sharpness is achieved around F5, with the corners continuing to sharpen up until F8"

again from dpreview.
Click to expand...
Hmm, very selective. What about the suspected field curvature, and the comparison to to the kit zoom at f5.6 where the kit zoom out performed it ;-) And then look at the overall luke warm feelings towards this Macro, and then go read the review of the Canon 100mm Macro, and see the enthused tone (I think the reviewer said that the the lens was so good he had to retest to make sure he hadn't made a mistake, I don't recall this expensieve LEICA Macro getting such plaudits)
david martyn said:
"The 7-14mm ƒ 4 produced very sharp images. At the wider end of its focal length, images are sharp even when used at the lens' widest aperture; between 7-12mm at ƒ 4, the central region of the image is tack-sharp at 1 blur unit, with the corners showing just the slightest hint of softness at around 1.5 blur units. At 14mm there's a slight increase in corner softness as the central region of sharpness shrinks and the corners increase to 2 blur units. Stopping the lens down to ƒ 5.6 produces its best results, with the central region at a consistent 1 blur unit and the corners between 1.5 and 2 blur units."

from slrgear
Click to expand...
Well, Godfrey doesn't think much of published reviews and I don't think much of SLRGear reviews. I mean, what the f*%$ is a "blur unit"? I have actually been on their site to look and couldnt' find it.

Regards,
david martyn said:
Soft?? Mediocre??

--
http://davidmartynhughes.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29782425@N08/
http://davidmartynhughes.smugmug.com/Photography
http://web.me.com/davidmartynhughes/Site/Home.html
Click to expand...
 
tribac said:
have you ever used the Nikkor 14-24 on your D3x, and if yes how would you compare?
Click to expand...
The Nikkor is clearly better than the Lumix. That's not to knock the Lumix, but the Nikkor is arguably the best wide angle zoom ever made, it even shines on a D3x.

That said, after a lot of testing and playing, the 7-14mm is now my bread and butter lens on my E-P1, GF1, and GH1. It clearly has enough oomph for the current sensors to create excellent images. The difference between carrying a D3+14-24mm and an E-P1+7-14mm is, well, refreshing...

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com
 
plevyadophy said:
I think you have missed the crux of my reply to Godfrey. Re-read it.
Click to expand...
I did.
plevyadophy said:
Hmm, very selective. What about the suspected field curvature, and the comparison to to the kit zoom at f5.6 where the kit zoom out performed it ;-) And then look at the overall luke warm feelings towards this Macro, and then go read the review of the Canon 100mm Macro, and see the enthused tone (I think the reviewer said that the the lens was so good he had to retest to make sure he hadn't made a mistake, I don't recall this expensieve LEICA Macro getting such plaudits)
Click to expand...
Cancelled my order.
plevyadophy said:
Well, Godfrey doesn't think much of published reviews and I don't think much of SLRGear reviews. I mean, what the f*%$ is a "blur unit"? I have actually been on their site to look and couldnt' find it.
Click to expand...
So right.
--
http://davidmartynhughes.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29782425@N08/
http://davidmartynhughes.smugmug.com/Photography
http://web.me.com/davidmartynhughes/Site/Home.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top