-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How good lenses do we need? How good todays lenses are?
- Thread starter Dervast
- Start date
I suppose. It's hard to reconstruct trees from scratch!I don't know what he is implying, but I was making a factual statement regardless; however, I do agree with you that to that degree "why bother". In actuality though, a lot of artists do this. I was just keepin it real and not leaving that reality out.Not really - not in the way he's implying. I mean, why bother at that point?A "good" Photoshop user might not be able to, but the advanced/expert can detail just about anything; albeit making pixels up. But that's another debate for what's real and what's not.
Indeed, why bother with lenses at all - or cameras, for that matter. 100% of all digital imaging can be done in Photoshop.I suppose. It's hard to reconstruct trees from scratch!I don't know what he is implying, but I was making a factual statement regardless; however, I do agree with you that to that degree "why bother". In actuality though, a lot of artists do this. I was just keepin it real and not leaving that reality out.Not really - not in the way he's implying. I mean, why bother at that point?A "good" Photoshop user might not be able to, but the advanced/expert can detail just about anything; albeit making pixels up. But that's another debate for what's real and what's not.
Mike CH
Veteran Member
Adding sharpness to an unsharp image at the individual pixel level, by hand? And doing this regularly? That won't quite get past my credulity filterI don't know what he is implying, but I was making a factual statement regardless; however, I do agree with you that to that degree "why bother". In actuality though, a lot of artists do this.Not really - not in the way he's implying. I mean, why bother at that point?A "good" Photoshop user might not be able to, but the advanced/expert can detail just about anything; albeit making pixels up. But that's another debate for what's real and what's not.
Do you have an example?Hmm - with everything but sharpness I can readily believe your artists reality. But sharpness?
Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.
57LowRider
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,240
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 2,053
I find the Fuji XF lenses are superb, but then they're system lenses and the system can (and sometimes does) compensate for error. The most surprisingly wonderful legacy lens I have is a 1983 Olympus 50mm/f1.8 - it is really very very nice and probably works well on any of the current mirrorless cameras.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Lenses don't have to be tack sharp these days to get good shots IMO. 10 years ago 6 MP was a big deal. A professional grade lens might be able to pull 3-4 MP of resolution from that. You put that same lens on one of these new 24-36 MP sensors, you are pulling 2-3x the resolution with no improvement to the optics. Sure, even better glass will enable you to get even more of that resolution, but my point is while lenses today are much better than they used to be on the whole, sensors are really where the gains in IQ and usability have come from.
I disagree with what you've written above. Lenses designed for smaller sensors such as pancake lenses and the 60mm macro canon to me represent huge advances. In the last year, the 18-35mm sigma art have brought huge increases in resolution to the mass market.
Even compacts have advanced massively with larger sensors than ever before coupled with f/2 optics.
From my Coolpix 950 to my Canon 650D, it's been a roller-coaster ride. The entry model cameras in DSLR land coupled with even the cheap kit lenses I think put film to shame in a massive way.
Why? Immediate feedback. Before, I'd shoot for a week, spend an afternoon in the darkroom and there was a huge disconnect between what I shot and when I processed the film. I could only learn if I took copious notes. Learning to craft am image from beginning to end and be a photographer when you're not in college and/or paid to do it was prohibitive in terms of time and resources.
Now, anyone that can afford a s/h 40D and a 50mm f/1.8 can learn to produce something printworthy in a single day.
Back to the subject... We're limited by our display sizes. 4k looks like it's going to be the next standard and we cover that with most of our equipment right now. Sure, you can print bigger and higher resolutions may be needed for some massive projects that are immersive in nature - where you cannot but look at portions of it at a time. That leaves us with crops - where we throw away pixels for the purpose of greater enlargement or aspect ratios.
Where *some* lenses need to pick themselves up is AF accuracy. Even the 50mm f/1.8 canon is exceptionally sharp when in-focus - and it's good wide-open. Not bad for an older design!
cb
I think Nikon said as much in the DPR interview - if I recall correctly what he was actually saying.
Actually i kind a like the real thing milled out of solid metal block.
I wonder why Cosina don't have Stainless steel CV / M lens group, and the Bessa R4A rangefinder camera or even better, the Zeiss Ikon in milled from stainless steel with nice Biogon 35mm 2.0, planar 50mm 2.0, Distagon 18mm 4.0.
But it won't last even a bit. Friction makes deep scratches and holes inside plastic.
Especially in the buttons dials and knobs. Not like there is aesthetic look to even begin with.
Plastic is cheap mass production low quality material.
M
meland
Guest
Depends on the plastic.
Ha ha. Now this is getting fun. I think most of the metal parts on the lenses would be difficult to mill since milling is a square/plane kind of thing. You're probably using the word "mill" interchangeably with "machine" and in the case of lenses, you want something "turned" as in "lathed" out of solid stock.
I'm not sure what parts aren't machined on a lathe with the ZM lenses. You're getting a lot of modern machine work on those lenses.
BTW - if you don't have a Macbook Pro, it's exactly what you're looking for - solid milled aluminum. You just need to send Apple a solid billet of titanium and have them make a special one for you. It will be heavier mind you...
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
IMO you are kind of speaking to my point. The immediate feedback comes from the sensor being digital. The lenses worked the same during that transition. And many lenses are not truly great. They are better than before thanks to CAD design and all that, but you look at something like an LX100, it's a heavily compromised lens aided by software correction. Sensors have definitely been doing the heavy lifting on the advances in IQ over the last few years.
Around thirty years old this lens
I really don't have an issue with any of my old lenses to be honest. They were picked very carefully though.
A lot still comes down to the sensor, the sensor still needs to be decent enough to keep up with the res as well.
All the best.
Danny.
--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Just Kingfisher ..... http://www.flickr.com/photos/96361462@N06/
Last edited:
Sure does. And wear parts typically are metal to metal.
gandalfII
Senior Member
In 1982 I went from pretty good Rokkor primes to the very best Nikkors: 20/2.8, 35/1.4, 105/2.8 macro. Those served me well but when I went digital and wanted equivalent focal lengths I settled on 11-22 and 50 macro Zuikos. Those 2 upgrades were significant and about equal improvements, so I would say yeah, the best stuff today is definitely better.
It wasn't until the EM1 about a year ago until those old lenses had a sensor to match. It looks like the emerging m43 pro lenses may outperform the current sensors.
As to what you need, that's up to you. A local newspaper prints PP'd cell phone images at about 14x20" and they look pretty decent.
It wasn't until the EM1 about a year ago until those old lenses had a sensor to match. It looks like the emerging m43 pro lenses may outperform the current sensors.
As to what you need, that's up to you. A local newspaper prints PP'd cell phone images at about 14x20" and they look pretty decent.
I am extremely tempted to, but I don't want to cause trouble and show that someone's photo is not real/a photo/more digital art etc. etc. I wouldn't want that done to me or anyone by putting something debatable for people to slaughter. I can assure you there is some. I would say Google fake images or something similar to that. As far as the whole image that depends. The most I'd do is to the eye or rebuilding an arm. Maybe I will article that when I'm done with this new arm.Adding sharpness to an unsharp image at the individual pixel level, by hand? And doing this regularly? That won't quite get past my credulity filter
Similar threads
- Featured
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum