OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,819
One more on edges ..

boggis the cat wrote:

I have the SWD, but it should be the same optically (AFAIK -- some people seemed to think it was slightly different).

did vignette like there was no tomorrow,

I haven't noticed that.  I use it outdoors in bright light, however, and typically would only have uniform sky areas to notice any vignetting.

Then what do you call this?


And if you do not see it then what are we discussing? I have loads of my own 50-200 frames, and many of them are just as this one above.

My point was that FT lenses are designed for FT, so they don't get any advantage from 'cropping' a lens designed for use on e.g. APS-C or 135.

In my experience Sigma 150 performs better on the same camera at the same FL than 50-200, and Sigma is designed for 135, and it is cheaper. At least it was when I compared them.

You appeared to be claiming that there would be such an advantage.

boggis the cat wrote:

Vignetting is problematic for 135 use, but is good for APS-C:

12 MPixel is more than sufficient, IMO.  For my uses.

If you want to produce very large, high resolution / high detail prints then more pixels are better provided there is no other problematic trade-off.

(I would not care if Olympus stayed at 16 MPixel, or went back to 12 MPixel, actually.  OTOH the 5 MPixel from the E-1 is insufficient in some cases.)

I see difference every time I upgrade the camera, incrementally; 8, 10, 12, 16, 38. Again, if you do not see it then what else are we discussing?

It is the same as with Olympus, some lenses do not project wide open evenly, other do. I can not be very specific about it, as I simply was not looking for it. I need to take more lenses out. And when I shoot wide open the corners have no significance in 99% of the outcome, so why should it even matter. Why is it important to you?

My preference is for as uniform an edge-to-edge result as possible.  That means uniform in all ways.  One think I don't care for with MicroFT is the dependence on distortion correction.  Correcting optically is far better.

I wonder what Louis meant here,

You'd have to replace the lenses.

I don't really understand the attitude that 'edges are not important'.  Does that mean that you always crop heavily?  (So compose 'wider' than you want?)

No, it does not mean that I crop heavily - I do not crop at all. Edges can sometimes be seen at closer to wide open, and they disappear when the lens is stopped down. Let me give you few examples, last time, wide open and with the point of interest off center.

35/1.4 @ f1/4

50/1.4 @ f1/4

135/2 @ f/2

Aside that neither of these frames above can even be taken with FT, why (for you) are the edges important here?

Now, let's take it up to the mountains, where with strong UV almost any lens will show shaded corners, and stop the lens slightly down. What do we see now?

35/1.4 @ f/5.6

35/1.4 @ f/7.1  .. the lens was slightly closed for better sun effect ..

.. and so on.

The format that I print and frame is what the most efficient to me.

Sure.  But if you want to crop nearer one edge (or at an edge) then you will run into any 'edge issues' -- so it is better to start off with as uniform an image as possible.

Meaningless ..

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow