keepreal
Leading Member
If you are a member, please put in a good word for me. That is ambiguous, but you know what I mean.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Medium and high end digital should not cut corners
Tequila MockingjayBird
Senior Member
Tequila MockingjayBird
Senior Member
That is because we all, as shareholders in those companies want larger EPS, and a mutual fund that grows phenomenal rate so as to ensure a retirement that does not involve sitting in a wheelchair smiling at walmart shoppers
keepreal
Leading Member
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
Same here. Grew up with a darkroom in the basement.
[snip]
OK...that's a provocative proposition that doesn't line up with my personal experience. I'd say hat IQ has steadily improved since the advent of digital while cost and weight has gone down.
FYI, I'm also a Nikon+Oly shooter.
[snip]
FYI, that article is not by Steve Huff. It's by a "guest". The Heliar was designed for film. It has an incredibly close positioning of the exit pupil to the film/sensor plane. Since film cameras don't use filter stacks in front of the plane on which the image is projected, this close spacing isn't an issue. That is not the case with digital, which stacks AA and other filters on top of the plane. That's a big problem in particular for wide angle lenses like the Heliar that have an extraordinarily short exit pupil distance. As a result such lenses are bad candidates for adapting to digital cameras. See here. Of course, lens manufacturers know about these issues and deliberately avoid creating lenses with these old-school designs.
If 12mm is wide enough for you, you should consider the Oly 12-40mm f/2.8. At all apertures at 12mm it is almost exactly as sharp at the corners/edges as at the center. It's simply a better lens than the 12mm prime if you don't need the extra < 1 stop.
Tonal gradation is a function of the camera and the amount of noise produced on the image. All half-decent raw processors will give you sufficient flexibility to manipulate tones. If they don't, you shouldn't be using them anyway.Many of you will immediately think that this does not matter, in either case, because software correction is provided to deal with this. I do not agree.
Micro Four Thirds Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO at 7mm
Firstly, I shoot RAW and insist upon the freedom to choose which software I use for RAW development as I make that choice based entirely upon tonal gradation and which does it best.
If you're serious about your photography (as your thread title implies), you shouldn't be penny-pinching on the software processing/editing side of things.
Well, if you're not willing to put up with less than the best digital can offer, then you're undoubtedly using Photoshop for postprocessing even if you're not necessarily using ACR for raw conversion. This is especially true if you care about tonal manipulation. By the way, tonal quality is also very much a function of the printer/paper you use. Digital printers have come a very long way in that regard.
This is nonsense. With respect to vignetting, who cares these days? It's easily remedied in post. Vignetting was just as much an issue (for instance with your Heliar) in the film days as it is today. Regarding distortion correction, the Oly 12-40mm is an example of how lenses are being designed today to take advantage of benefits of a hybrid optical/software strategy. The option for software correction didn't exist in the film era. That doesn't mean that lenses using optical correction-only (which is the alternative to software correction) are better with respect to ultimate IQ. You can't judge the success of the hybrid strategy by only looking at half of the strategy. You must judge it by what's generated AFTER software correction is applied since that's specifically how the SYSTEM was designed to work. To judge otherwise would be akin to saying the Heliar is a crappy lens because it doesn't work well when adapted to digital. Judge it by how it was intended to be used, not by some artificial standard.
Actually, it's more like 11mm f/2 when software correction isn't applied. There is no "chopping" of bits to bring it to 12mm, there's actually an interpolation of portions of the edge that's similar to downsizing. Call it "compressing" if you must, but "chopping" is incorrectly perjorative.
The problem is trying to use an old lens design for a new use case. The "deficiency" is not inherent to digital.
None of your evidence supports this conclusion. Other than one example of a film lens design that doesn't adapt well to digital, you've provided no evidence that lens makers are producing lenses today that are incapable of producing comparable perimeter IQ to film-generation lenses. Perhaps you've forgotten about all of the crappy wide angle lenses churned out in that bygone era?
QC/QA is a completely different issue. You're muddying the discussion by raising it in the context of digital and hybrid lens design.
Apparently not far enough, given how many camera manufacturers are struggling to make ANY profit these days.
Last edited:
As in, project a test image onto a screen, and hope the screen is perfectly flat? You'd still need a huge screen. Paint the side of a barn white, perhaps?
I'm curious, do you have any indication or evidence that current distortion tests are wrong, because the image surface is relatively close to the film plane? Remember, it's not like the reviewers stick to the lab, they take the lenses out for a drive as well.
Why is it "cheating" at all?
It doesn't substitute for poor technique on the photographer's part. The lens elements aren't constructed with lower precision. The tolerances on lens construction isn't looser. Algorithms aren't a substitute for build quality. R&D is not cheaper. Manufacturing probably isn't cheaper either.
It's just a different way of producing the final image. I don't see why it's any different than, say... stitching a panorama in post, instead of using a lens with a 160º angle of view; or shooting multiple exposures for HDR, instead of supplementing with flash or using a camera with very high DR.
keepreal
Leading Member
So greed is good and that justifies anything?
keepreal
Leading Member
Yes. I alsready said so about my m.Zuiko 12mm f/2. I actually did tests to prove it. Up close it has wild barrel distortion but at about fifty feet, none is usually discrenable.
Yes, and 99% of the time shoot material haphazardly that tells you next to nothing.
It isn't but to get the angle by stitching you forgo other important considerations.
You have just gone from the sublime (well possibly) to the ridiculous.
bosjohn21
Forum Pro
whats too far how much profit is ok how much is not. the Japanese market norm is to make cameras that sell within given narrow price range. To maintain the price goal in an ever more expensive climate for manufacturing there are what you refer to as less then stellar build quality. in this case move up. As for Leica even they have to worry about pricing their products out of reach. As each year goes by the cost of making the same camera goes up so will the price of the camera go up. The maker juggles price increase with ways to keep the price down. Its not a conspiracy just a reflection of the rising cost of making your favored toys.
Tequila MockingjayBird
Senior Member
Not my words. I only indicated what is causing this greed. It is us (as the majority).
keepreal
Leading Member
Size and weight went up so much first that it still is way up there, even with the improvements. And for example, look at the size of the m.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO on MFT. Utterly crazy.
All true except there have been further versions of the Heliar that are supposed to improve it on digital.
At -8.53% barrel distortion it is a fair bit worse.
That's only half the story. How about the other half, why it does not compare with the gradation from film?
Totally agree with all of that and apply it.
PARTIALLY.
It has been modified twice for digital. Why did they bother?
and whether it forces me to use software that I do not want to use and forces me to abandon software that I do want to use.
You wish.
True, but if there are such marvellous new digital designs, why are manufacturers wasting their time coming up with lenses like the Heliar 15mm f/4.5 versions 2 and 3 for digital?
My point is that you cannot trust Nikon any more and I stand by that.
Diddums. The profit should come from putting the horse before the cart.
Last edited:
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
Camera makers have been failing steadily for many years because they didn't make enough profit. Even Leica, with its high prices, hasn't been immune. In real terms prices are probably lower now than they've ever been.
Some cameras and lenses are now made by electronics firms (who have, generally, bought failed "real" camera makers). They use their knowledge of electronics to achieve simpler - and hence cheaper - lenses that satisfy the majority of their customers.
There are traditional lens makers who don't resort to electronics but can't get round the basic facts of optical life to make distortion-free lenses. Naturally, some are better than others - and are more expensive.
So I'm not sure I get what you are complaining about - the ones who don't cut corners but then need to charge a lot to cover their expenses; or the ones who keep the industry (just about ) alive by selling things the mass market can afford.
But perhaps, at 74, I'm just a silly bugger ...
keepreal
Leading Member
I thought you were offering a justification!
keepreal
Leading Member
Cannot argue too much with that except to say that companies like Leica seem to deliberately up the prices until few can afford them as if that increases their prestige. I can understand that with a Lamborgini which looks flashy and often beautiful in a way everybody's eyeballs drop out of their sockets, but with a camera?
keepreal
Leading Member
No, not need so much as choose. No, not afford, but be conned into buying.
Two years to go and then I can join you, or perhaps already I am ahead of you.
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
And if they choose not to cover their expenses, then what?
Where's the con? There is a vast range of photographic equipment available to cover a vast range of wants and/or needs. There is more information than ever available to inform consumer choice.
Most buyers have the sense to realise that if they see cameras at £2,000+ and £500+ the £500+ one will not be as good as the £2,000+ one. Unless the seller says "this one is only 1/4 the price but is as good in every way" there is no attempt to con anyone.
I really don't think so. Responding to challenges by the puerile "diddums" is hardly a sign of maturity.
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
Last edited:
ArachnidClaw
Active member
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 106
No denying it is a significant investment, though in the case of the a7RII you do get quite a lot for your money.
One echo of the Minolta connection (Minolta pioneered IBIS systems in their DiMAGE series) is the inclusion of the in-body stabilization in later Sony Alpha models including the a7RII - which I think is one of various practical demonstrations that Sony have continued to pursue Minolta concepts and innovations. They are pushing the envelope in other ways too, as I'm sure you're aware. In various respects the philosophy and design intent of Sony mirrorless has the Minolta imprint on it, I think.
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
Compared to what on film? Granted, it's a difficult apples-to-oranges comparison, but small digital cameras are capable of producing better IQ than 35mm SLRs at least in some respects. Now with mirrorless fullframe cameras like the Sonys, there is no size advantage left for film cameras. Weight of lenses is a wash when comparing fullframe-to-fullframe.
Actually, the uncorrected barrel distortion at 12mm is about 6.3%, but regardless of the test measurement you're using, it's irrelevant. In fact, you just proved my point for me by pointing out that the 12-40mm has greater distortion than the 12mm prime. Despite that increased distortion, the zoom is sharper across the frame and considerably so at the edges. Likewise, distortion for the 12-40mm decreases as you increase focal length. Yet sharpness declines everywhere as well. In other words, there is NO necessary correlation between the amount of uncorrected distortion and perimeter IQ for these hybrid design lenses. You can NOT judge/predict the ultimate IQ based on uncorrected distortion.All true except there have been further versions of the Heliar that are supposed to improve it on digital.
At -8.53% barrel distortion it is a fair bit worse.
It's a complicated issue and not terribly relevant to this thread. However, if you want to debate it you need to support your hypothesis that digital tonal gradation is worse than film. Plus, we need to separate the topic into a discussion about film negative/slide/transparency tonal gradation vs. digital sensor-generated images and wet prints vs. ink jet.
What's that supposed to mean?
You're making much too much of the issue. It's only a problem at wide angles and it's not as though non-software corrected lenses don't also have distortion as well. Further, you can process using software that doesn't auto-correct and then manually correct in Photoshop or other tools if you find the distortion to be objectionable. I have frequently used RawTherapee (without software correction active) to process my wide-angle Oly mFT images (including the 12-40mm at 12mm) and rarely find it necessary to manually correct for distortion. At times, it's actually a bonus because the lens has captured a wider angle of view than the stated 12mm.
I'm not wishing at all. I'm describing exactly what happens. As already noted above, there is no necessary correlation between the nominal amount of distortion and the finalized IQ for these hybrid lenses.
Well, actually Voigtlander significantly redesigned the Heliar (version iii) specifically to work better on digital cameras.
I haven't noticed that at all. Then again, I use Lightroom, which uses the automatic distortion. PTLens should also handle any such distortions very easily.
It's also not clear what, if anything, you're doing to correct the distortion.
Most of them try to replicate real-world use.
You can also go to Flickr and find images photographed with the lens you're considering.
It is the same, because in both cases, you're using software to modify the captured images to produce the results you want.
Or... not
The only thing a lens does is redirect light in a specific way to a capture medium. That's all. There is no purity, there is no "right and wrong" about how to do it. It doesn't matter if it's optically corrected, or corrected in software. What matters is that the final image produces the quality you need.
And of course, it's a digital camera. It produces a digital image. The idea that it is somehow wrong to use software when creating the image is just weird. It's like saying "I don't eat meat, except for chicken."
Chikubi
Senior Member
"How far is too far?", is a fair question. Myself, I am fairly picky in that sense, I admit. I do a fair amount of paid work and I regularly jury work into shows, so I try to be very thorough by going over each image at 100% a few times looking for boogers and other assorted dings that need to go. This is for my serious work, of course; family snaps and casual stuff gets a quick once-over maybe and sometimes not even that. In general, I try to maintain a high professional standard for any work I produce as a legitimate end product. That doesn't mean I'm infallible as I'm human and I catch things every once in a while that I miss, but I push pretty hard not to miss from the get go.
I also, like you, think it has to do with the intended purpose of the final product. Case in point - I shoot Santa photos for the city I live in every year. It's a nice gig that makes a lot of folks happy and is something I enjoy doing. The photos are always 4x6 in a holiday folder, so as such I know I can push the ISO a bit higher than typical plus use a slightly wider aperture in order to stretch out my flash batteries (no AC power available). It's no big deal because I know that at that size any noise or slight softness with parties who're not the main subject are practically unnoticeable. Stuff I know will be displayed larger, or has the potential to be, I am much more critical with - as I was with your images.
It also probably doesn't hurt that I shoot a fair amount of film work, so I think my eyes have become pretty attuned to finding flaws due to having to clean up all my film scans since I shoot a hybrid process as opposed to a traditional one (no space at home basically).
Hard to say really. I just turned 47, so fair to middling I suppose age-wise. I'm near sighted with a bit of astigmatism, but not so bad that I have to rely on my glasses all the time. In daylight, I can drive without my glasses if I have to, but I prefer not to and for night driving definitely want them on. My doc says I have 20/20 up to about 1.5' or so, then after that I need glasses for correction. I leave them on when I edit, but when I work, read, or do anything else close-up I usually take them off. I edit all my work on a 27" iMac, but have an 11.6" MacBook Air that I use once in a while. My eysight is probably a bit better than average I'd guess, but not amazing by any means.
As for being super-observant, I may be, as I mentioned above, but hard to say personally. I have been editing digitally for nearly 20 years now, so it may just be that I'm more used to seeing the kinds of flaws that come with it. That's what happened with your Vrsic Pass shot - as soon as I saw it I knew that it simply looked off, unnatural, and had that "P'Shopped" feel to it, and once I looked closer I could make out very clearly all of the items I highlighted for you.
As for should you bother, I can't answer that. I know how I would feel about it as I mentioned, but what level you want to hold yourself to with your work is up to you. Personally, I think it's good enough to deserve that extra bit of time and caution, which in reality maybe only requires a touch more and not a ridiculous amount.
I find that having a very consistent editing workflow is key to a lot of things. I almost never use anything other than my iMac or the MBA. Sometimes I'll use my work system for stuff they need quickly, but it's not really calibrated or a good monitor because it's an IT workstation and not for imaging whatsoever. Aprt from that, I never edit images on anything that isn't my own usual system.
I'm always of the frame of mind that for serious work I have to put my best foot forward, print or otherwise, because it's what people see and judge me by. I slack a bit for some things as I mentioned earlier, but I do push pretty hard to keep things top quality.
That image I used was actually the 1600px image from your Ipernity site, not DPR. I pulled it directly from the page resources in developer mode, so if there is a discrepency between the original and that, it would be an Ipernity thing. I didn't see the borders in other photos that I flicked through, but you may want to look into it and see if there's something up on their end perhaps.
FWIW, I don't normally make a habit of snagging images via developer tools, but since I was using it for critical purposes, I wanted a good quality file to look at.
It's not the end of the world. There is a fair bit of cloning though because I could match the areas up point for point using a translucent layer to overly and compare them with.
It's a possibility.
Agreed, it does pay to become a good observer of nature.I have a picture in my living room of a large boat from the days of sail, that my father painted in oils brilliantly from a colour print. I treasure it greatly because I adored my father and still think of him quite often even 31 years after he died. Until quite recently, I thought his painting had one flaw. The water forced upwards from the prow of the boat does not taper upwards from the line of the sea but comes straight out, in life sized terms, several feet higher, completely hiding the structure of the front of the boat underneath. But then on TV I saw that that is exactly what happens.
So one needs to be careful not to look for problems where they do not exist. Up to a point, I address that suggestion to you.
--
HP: http://www.emasterphoto.com
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/
Photo Book: http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/414130
Similar threads
- User review
- Henry Richardson
- Micro Four Thirds Talk
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum