Carl Hoang
Senior Member
your point.
My $100 software will probably help my photos and wallet at the same time.
My $100 software will probably help my photos and wallet at the same time.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why buy L lens when you have PC
- Thread starter Carl Hoang
- Start date
Then buy your $100 software and be happy with your results. Just don't try to force your views on other people who can obviously define the difference between non-L and L glass.
TargetSu
Senior Member
That image is not even close to being useable, let alone saleable. You're crazy to think that's a good image. The people look fake, almost wax like. The picture lacks any true detail that you would want from an action picture.
Stick to crayons please.
--
Paul S.
Canon EOS 10D
'Friends don't let friends shoot Nikon.'
Stick to crayons please.
--
Paul S.
Canon EOS 10D
'Friends don't let friends shoot Nikon.'
Steve Parkin
Leading Member
There is no further need to discuss this issue. If this guy believes 100 bucks in software can replace a superior lens, than terrific. To any pro shooter, that should be of great joy, because your competition won't be as great. 
L lens owners and even most decent photo editors probably understand why this argument doesn't hold water.
Software is terrific for optimizing a photograph, but NOTHING out there can do a spot on job of making a garbage lens mimic an L lens. Nothing.
As the saying goes, whatever floats your boat. Some people demand superior results, others are happy with less than that. The goal is to find what makes each of us happy and to go with that.
Steve
http://www.pbase.com/tgrwoods6
L lens owners and even most decent photo editors probably understand why this argument doesn't hold water.Software is terrific for optimizing a photograph, but NOTHING out there can do a spot on job of making a garbage lens mimic an L lens. Nothing.
As the saying goes, whatever floats your boat. Some people demand superior results, others are happy with less than that. The goal is to find what makes each of us happy and to go with that.
Steve
--
http://www.pbase.com/tgrwoods6
Steve Parkin
Leading Member
A pic from an L lens can be optimized, as can a pic from a non-L lens. however, the L lens captures a much more accurate and sharp image to start with. Detail in shadows, in feathers, etc, that the lens can resolve if you have a good lens, that you can't get w/ a lot of lesser grade lenses. Now, how can a software program create detail in a birds wing for example if the lens wasn't able to show that detail to begin with?
Answer? It can't.
There are good non L lenses and yes, software can improve them, but there is no true substitute. Will there ever be? Its gonna get much better, but no software program is ever going to be able to improve on the before used example of detail in a birds wing. If there's no information captured, software can't improve it.
This is a pretty generally accepted limitation of reality. You can't improve what does not exist. And the facts are facts - L lenses can render picture information that many lesser grade lenses cannot.
Steve
http://www.pbase.com/tgrwoods6
Answer? It can't.
There are good non L lenses and yes, software can improve them, but there is no true substitute. Will there ever be? Its gonna get much better, but no software program is ever going to be able to improve on the before used example of detail in a birds wing. If there's no information captured, software can't improve it.
This is a pretty generally accepted limitation of reality. You can't improve what does not exist. And the facts are facts - L lenses can render picture information that many lesser grade lenses cannot.
Steve
--My point is L lens is great for negatives where you can't
manipulate it. You get it right the first time or it's a gonner.
With digitized photo, there are million ways to improve it.
We're in the new era for photography and the difference between L
lens and average has shrunk drastically due to software and soon it
will be just nothing. So why pay high price for L lens when you can
get a decent 3rd-party lens at 1/2 price.
People used to think computers can't replace humans in doing jobs.
Guess again.
The difference is noticeable at all sizes and on screen. The
amount of difference you see in the smaller prints is less, but is
still there. On screen photos its also noticeable. Again, the
larger you view it, the more noticeable.
As many say, you get what you pay for. It would be nice to
convince myself that the Chevy Cavalier out in my driveway is just
as good as that Corvette I saw the other day, but it just doesn't
do it.
I think you sound like a guy who doesn't own L glass and is trying
to convince himself he doesn't need it. If you can afford it, and
you want to take your photography's maximum potential quality to
another level, buy the stuff with L in the name.
I'm a believer!
Steve
http://www.pbase.com/tgrwoods6
Carl Hoang
Senior Member
for these lenses? Aside from quality, how do they handle under all sort of weather conditions.
TargetSu
Senior Member
Why don't you post something a little stupid and idiotic?
There are some things technology can't fix. This thread is one of them.
--
Paul S.
Canon EOS 10D
'Friends don't let friends shoot Nikon.'
There are some things technology can't fix. This thread is one of them.
--
Paul S.
Canon EOS 10D
'Friends don't let friends shoot Nikon.'
you can't generate detail with a PC. USM can enhance exhisting detail to some degree - although at some level you are paying for that enhancement. The better optical quality lenses (not all L) generate information that can't be drawn out of an image where it wasn't recorded in the first place. Also it depends on print size - I guess you might not see much of a difference at 4x6 between a sharpened image from a lower optical quality lens and a good quality lens . . .but now print it at 16X20 and I bet it will be painfully obvious. Cindy
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must be wrong...
--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must be wrong...
sorry, but the first soft image is much better. the second one is painful to even look at.
-tim
Canon 1 0 D, 24-70mm/f2.8 L-Series, 75-300mm/f4-5.6 IS, 35mm f2, Canon 4 2 0EX Speedlight
Sony 7 1 7, Nikon 9 9 5 & Konica KD-4 0 0 Z
Accessories....tons of course
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp
--Of course not. But isn't this thread about "L" vs. "non-L" lenses?
In these cases detail is captured by both but the L lens does a
much better job of it. The edits required to compensate are not in
the realm of the miraclous - and a miracle is what is needed to
re-focus the extremely blurred background in your photo example.
This example below is a before and after 100% crop of a shot I took
while "abusing" my 135 f2.0 L - Just to see what I could do, I shot
the first half of a soccer game last Friday with both the 1.4X and
2X II teleconverters stacked (kids, don't try this at home!) As
you can guess the stacking of TC's produced very soft results.
Adding to the problem, the game was in the early evening so it was
shot at ISO 800.
Without further delay I present exhibit 1:
Retouching consisted of Neat Image, Focus magic and some minor tone
and color adjustments.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Focus Magic nor do I own any stock in
the company... hmmm... not a bad idea though - if they ever get big
enough to go public
-tim
Canon 1 0 D, 24-70mm/f2.8 L-Series, 75-300mm/f4-5.6 IS, 35mm f2, Canon 4 2 0EX Speedlight
Sony 7 1 7, Nikon 9 9 5 & Konica KD-4 0 0 Z
Accessories....tons of course
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp
Carl Hoang
Senior Member
Although I haven't printed many beyond 8x10 so I can't really compare but I assume the quality will get more noticable with larger prints.
For quality, this is the real factor here.
I wonder at what size that you can really tell from 2-3 feet away.
Thanks for mention it.
For quality, this is the real factor here.
I wonder at what size that you can really tell from 2-3 feet away.
Thanks for mention it.
Melanie Kipp
Forum Pro
Joe Reilly129599
Senior Member
Julio,
I love yah, Man, but Michael Jackson came to mind when I saw your "after" image [ sMiLe ]. Sorry, but too much time under the knife...
Carl,
I disagree with your point. At the office, I don't have 100% crops to share, but there is simply no way that simulated sharpness can compare to geniune sharpness. Focus Magic, or any other sharpening tool, simply cannot create detail that wasn't there before. It can make mathematical inferences but, like humans, will guess wrong with regularity. To be sure, such tools can enhance appearance when used in moderation, but they cannot close the gap between cheap and pro lenses. Get real.
I'm not a lens bigot (3 of my 4 are consumer grade) and I have built considerable skill in use of PS CS. Thus, I'm more likely to agree with you than some. But I don't. Software cannot create what the camera never saw.
My two pennies.
Joe
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
I love yah, Man, but Michael Jackson came to mind when I saw your "after" image [ sMiLe ]. Sorry, but too much time under the knife...
Carl,
I disagree with your point. At the office, I don't have 100% crops to share, but there is simply no way that simulated sharpness can compare to geniune sharpness. Focus Magic, or any other sharpening tool, simply cannot create detail that wasn't there before. It can make mathematical inferences but, like humans, will guess wrong with regularity. To be sure, such tools can enhance appearance when used in moderation, but they cannot close the gap between cheap and pro lenses. Get real.
I'm not a lens bigot (3 of my 4 are consumer grade) and I have built considerable skill in use of PS CS. Thus, I'm more likely to agree with you than some. But I don't. Software cannot create what the camera never saw.
My two pennies.
Joe
--Of course not. But isn't this thread about "L" vs. "non-L" lenses?
In these cases detail is captured by both but the L lens does a
much better job of it. The edits required to compensate are not in
the realm of the miraclous - and a miracle is what is needed to
re-focus the extremely blurred background in your photo example.
This example below is a before and after 100% crop of a shot I took
while "abusing" my 135 f2.0 L - Just to see what I could do, I shot
the first half of a soccer game last Friday with both the 1.4X and
2X II teleconverters stacked (kids, don't try this at home!) As
you can guess the stacking of TC's produced very soft results.
Adding to the problem, the game was in the early evening so it was
shot at ISO 800.
Without further delay I present exhibit 1:
Retouching consisted of Neat Image, Focus magic and some minor tone
and color adjustments.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Focus Magic nor do I own any stock in
the company... hmmm... not a bad idea though - if they ever get big
enough to go public
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
Carl Hoang
Senior Member
Do you think software can enhance that photo to get closer like 95%-99% of the L lens photo?
More than 10% off - forget it IMO.
More than 10% off - forget it IMO.
Carl Hoang
Senior Member
Just wondering how 10D would do in the rain.
Melanie Kipp
Forum Pro
I protected my 10D body from the rain ( an umbrella or plastic bag works well. ) It's not weather-sealed like the 1-series are, though.
There are other things about the L glass that make it a little nicer than the non-L glass... but most of my lenses are not L glass.
There are other things about the L glass that make it a little nicer than the non-L glass... but most of my lenses are not L glass.
--
Julio
Senior Member
(I love saying that - it reminds me of Hendrix )
I've never disputed that a good quality capture is preferable as a digital negative. On the other hand the original poster is not as out to lunch as some of the posters try to make him out to be. Some of the more aggressive posts against him are obviously ignorant of the "state-of-the-art" in digital processing.
This quote is from Michael Reichman's hands-on preview of DxO Optics Pro - I linked the review in one of my posts above - of course people like targetsu will have something useless and inane to say about Reichman also I expect
"How Good Is It?
In a word — remarkable. I know that some readers who aren't familiar with the fact that I'm often very critical of products, and am not afraid to say so in print, will think that I'm being hyperbolic. But I'm not. This product is revolutionary. It can't turn a bad lens into a good lens, but it can make a mediocre lens a lot better, and a good lens can be raised up to being terrific. I'd hate to put a percentage to it since the level of improvement will vary depending on a great many variables, but I'd describe what I usually see as at least a 50% subjective improvement, if not more — and that's a lot."
I jumped into this thread originaly as "Devil's Advocate" because I thought an interesting and valid question about L vs non-L was being dismissed out of hand without giving it much thought with cliched platitudes such as "GIGO nt"
Take a look at Reichman's examples and the ones at the DxO web site - they are much better examples than my quick and dirty 100% crop example (which nevertheless illustrated the point I was trying to make)
)I've never disputed that a good quality capture is preferable as a digital negative. On the other hand the original poster is not as out to lunch as some of the posters try to make him out to be. Some of the more aggressive posts against him are obviously ignorant of the "state-of-the-art" in digital processing.
This quote is from Michael Reichman's hands-on preview of DxO Optics Pro - I linked the review in one of my posts above - of course people like targetsu will have something useless and inane to say about Reichman also I expect
"How Good Is It?
In a word — remarkable. I know that some readers who aren't familiar with the fact that I'm often very critical of products, and am not afraid to say so in print, will think that I'm being hyperbolic. But I'm not. This product is revolutionary. It can't turn a bad lens into a good lens, but it can make a mediocre lens a lot better, and a good lens can be raised up to being terrific. I'd hate to put a percentage to it since the level of improvement will vary depending on a great many variables, but I'd describe what I usually see as at least a 50% subjective improvement, if not more — and that's a lot."
I jumped into this thread originaly as "Devil's Advocate" because I thought an interesting and valid question about L vs non-L was being dismissed out of hand without giving it much thought with cliched platitudes such as "GIGO nt"
Take a look at Reichman's examples and the ones at the DxO web site - they are much better examples than my quick and dirty 100% crop example (which nevertheless illustrated the point I was trying to make)
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/technology/lseries.html
-tim
Canon 1 0 D, 24-70mm/f2.8 L-Series, 75-300mm/f4-5.6 IS, 35mm f2, Canon 4 2 0EX Speedlight
Sony 7 1 7, Nikon 9 9 5 & Konica KD-4 0 0 Z
Accessories....tons of course
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp
--
-tim
Canon 1 0 D, 24-70mm/f2.8 L-Series, 75-300mm/f4-5.6 IS, 35mm f2, Canon 4 2 0EX Speedlight
Sony 7 1 7, Nikon 9 9 5 & Konica KD-4 0 0 Z
Accessories....tons of course
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp
Carl Hoang
Senior Member
and computers. Behind them all, there are engineers who probably make the lens.
I believe we're just in the infancy of digital photography.
I believe we're just in the infancy of digital photography.
(I love saying that - it reminds me of Hendrix
I've never disputed that a good quality capture is preferable as a
digital negative. On the other hand the original poster is not as
out to lunch as some of the posters try to make him out to be. Some
of the more aggressive posts against him are obviously ignorant of
the "state-of-the-art" in digital processing.
This quote is from Michael Reichman's hands-on preview of DxO
Optics Pro - I linked the review in one of my posts above - of
course people like targetsu will have something useless and inane
to say about Reichman also I expect
"How Good Is It?
In a word — remarkable. I know that some readers who aren't
familiar with the fact that I'm often very critical of products,
and am not afraid to say so in print, will think that I'm being
hyperbolic. But I'm not. This product is revolutionary. It can't
turn a bad lens into a good lens, but it can make a mediocre lens a
lot better, and a good lens can be raised up to being terrific. I'd
hate to put a percentage to it since the level of improvement will
vary depending on a great many variables, but I'd describe what I
usually see as at least a 50% subjective improvement, if not more —
and that's a lot."
I jumped into this thread originaly as "Devil's Advocate" because I
thought an interesting and valid question about L vs non-L was
being dismissed out of hand without giving it much thought with
cliched platitudes such as "GIGO nt"
Take a look at Reichman's examples and the ones at the DxO web site
example (which nevertheless illustrated the point I was trying to
- they are much better examples than my quick and dirty 100% crop
make)
Julio
Senior Member
You are rude and way too quick to aggressively dismiss things you obviously know next to nothing about - how unfortunate for you.
The thread and question is valid and timely.
Take the time to read Michael Reichman's article about DxO Pro.
Also...
Post some examples of what you consider to be a "saleable" action shot that you have taken recently - a 100% crop of, preferably an ISO 800 shot that is.
FYI... that shot and several others I took will likely be featured in the Calgary Wildfire website soon
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum