Reading mode: Light Dark

Why buy L lens when you have PC

Go to last post
Does the "L" series lenses work well on a camera phone? :-)
BobbyC said:
Carl Hoang said:
Why buy L lens when you have PC and software to get you the best
sharpness of sharp.

I'm not sure if this subject has been discussed before. Since using
PC and photo software as part of 300D workflow, one could get by
with average lens and use the power of PC and software to get the
best picture.

I would love to see the comparison between L and non-L lens with
using software for correction. Please post your comparison if you
have any. TIA.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Who lives in a Pineapple under the sea?
 
Non-L lenses are not a single class. My first lens (say aloud: "Bleh") was mush; its replacement, a 28-135mm IS USM is a whole lot sharper. When it completely nails it, and I sharpen moderately in post, I get an image I would not likely spend more to improve upon. In that sense I agree with some of what you are saying. But my rate of tack-sharp shots with the 28-135 does not compare with that from better glass. It has a sweet spot and it has weak points. As one spends up, the sweet spot gets bigger and the weaknesses smaller. And the rate of tack-sharp shots goes up correspondingly.

Example: I recently picked up a Sigma 50-500 EX, a lens that is extraordinarily sharp from 100mm to 400mm. Some would argue (e.g. me) that Sigma EX glass is comparable to Canon L. Anyhow, my hit-rate of utterly tack-sharp images went up 40-50%. Now I want to carry the damned thing around all the time.

Don't view it as L vs. non-L. There is a huge spectrum in between. I would never recommend an L lens to a new shooter. Start moderate, find your balance in post-processing, then decide on future investment from a base of experience.

Just don't think that desktop software will curb your appetite for nice optics forever.
Carl Hoang said:
More than 10% off - forget it IMO.
Joe Reilly said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
 
it's not hard for any of us that comment here to believe in computers and software and engineers.

the point however, is that you can't produce what isn't being captured or cover up flaws from an non L lens and get the same results as you would if you shot the image with an L.

and yes....it's a fact that digital is in the infancy stages.
Carl Hoang said:
I believe we're just in the infancy of digital photography.
Julio Trujillo said:
(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)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
-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 said:
and computers. Behind them all, there are engineers who probably
make the lens.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I started programming at 14. I'm now 40. Do the math. Also, I'm technical Director for one of the more heavily-shopped commerce sites on the Web. I do understand the power of computers and software; I also understand the limits.

If you expect software to supplant good optics, accurate capture devices, and sound technique, then you have a long photographic road ahead of you. Your computer is not going to solve the problem for you.

--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
 
The DxO software does look interesting and worth investigating. However, it won't be an universal panacea for less-than-optimal lenses.

For one thing, it doesn't work with every camera and lens combination, just a limited selection as of May 2004 (see below). So if you have lenses or bodies not covered, you're SOL.

Canon EOS 10D with:
Canon 16-35 'L' f/2.8
Canon 17-40 'L' f/4.0
Canon 85 f/1.2
Canon 24-70 'L' f/2.8
Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Canon 50 f/1.4
Canon 15mm Fish-eye

Canon Digital Rebel / 300D / Kiss Digital with:
Canon 18-55 Kit Lens
Canon 50 f/1.4
Sigma 15mm Fish-eye in Canon mount

Nikon D100 with:
Nikkor 18-35 'AF' f/3.5-4.5
Nikkor Zoom 12-24mm f/4 DX
Nikkor 50 f/1.4 D
Nikkor 85 f/1.4
Nikkor Zoom 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF

Nikon D70 Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5 Kit
Nikkor 50 f/1.4 D
Sigma 15mm Fish-eye in Nikon mount
Julio Trujillo said:
(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)
Click to expand...
--
Make photographs, not equipment lists!
Friends don't let friends measurebate
http://www.pbase.com/pauls/
 
... down by the schoolyard. Always wanted to say that, as it reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel. My best to Mama Pajama [ sMiLe ]...

Granted, it looks impressive, but most of the WOW comes from removal of barrel and pincushion distortion. There, I do think software has great promise. But sharpness is the one attribute that --I think-- cannot be corrected. The sense of sharpness can be enhanced, but no software can create detail.

All this said, if DxO can add a couple of lenses I care about and perhaps knock the price down a smidge, I'm certain I'll bite. Meloves to tinker and spend...

Take care,
Joe
Julio Trujillo said:
(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)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
 
Ok... I've had it with this thread. I tried to jump in and point out we shouldn't dismiss the original post as being naive, out-to-lunch, etc. By pointing out that there IS some very new cutting-edge software that does improve the digital capture significantly (once again I'll link Michael Reichman's review of DxO Optics Pro)

I had to smile at some of the arguments advanced by those who seem to be in a great hurry to dismiss the original post and poster. The argument amounts to something like "Anything that happens in post processing is just mathematical manipulation of what is already there - you can't create data" etc.

Well folks, just what the heck do you think is happening inside the camera? Could it be mathematical manipulations of voltage information from the photodetector? Ever hear of Bayer Pattern Interpolation? Do you understand that every pixel of the 10D's 6 Megapixels only records 1 of the 3 primary colors and the camera's computer "guesses" at the other 2? How can mathematical computations inside a digital camera be any different than those done after? (particularly in the case of RAW captures?)

Many of you are way too quick to dismiss improvements done by "mathematical manipulations of pixels" in post processing as being capable of significantly enhancing the final result. Anyone that has ever used a "de-fisher" or "de-barrelizer" will know what I'm talking about.
Luminous Landscape Review of DxO Optics Pro:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/optics-pro.shtml
 
and see if they can get all the lenses there are currently selling.
Paul Sumi said:
For one thing, it doesn't work with every camera and lens
combination, just a limited selection as of May 2004 (see below).
So if you have lenses or bodies not covered, you're SOL.

Canon EOS 10D with:
Canon 16-35 'L' f/2.8
Canon 17-40 'L' f/4.0
Canon 85 f/1.2
Canon 24-70 'L' f/2.8
Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Canon 50 f/1.4
Canon 15mm Fish-eye

Canon Digital Rebel / 300D / Kiss Digital with:
Canon 18-55 Kit Lens
Canon 50 f/1.4
Sigma 15mm Fish-eye in Canon mount

Nikon D100 with:
Nikkor 18-35 'AF' f/3.5-4.5
Nikkor Zoom 12-24mm f/4 DX
Nikkor 50 f/1.4 D
Nikkor 85 f/1.4
Nikkor Zoom 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF

Nikon D70 Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5 Kit
Nikkor 50 f/1.4 D
Sigma 15mm Fish-eye in Nikon mount
Julio Trujillo said:
(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)
Click to expand...
--
Make photographs, not equipment lists!
Friends don't let friends measurebate
http://www.pbase.com/pauls/
Click to expand...
 
Joe Reilly said:
... down by the schoolyard. Always wanted to say that, as it
reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel. My best to Mama Pajama
[ sMiLe ]...
Click to expand...
There... fed you that one nicely... I'd make a great straight man :)
Joe Reilly129599 said:
All this said, if DxO can add a couple of lenses I care about and
perhaps knock the price down a smidge, I'm certain I'll bite.
Click to expand...
And adds RAW capabilities (coming later this year they say)
Joe Reilly129599 said:
Meloves to tinker and spend...
Click to expand...
Me too!
 
Julio Trujillo said:
argument amounts to something like "Anything that happens in post
processing is just mathematical manipulation of what is already
there - you can't create data" etc.
Well folks, just what the heck do you think is happening inside the
camera? Could it be mathematical manipulations of voltage
information from the photodetector? Ever hear of Bayer Pattern
Interpolation? Do you understand that every pixel of the 10D's 6
Megapixels only records 1 of the 3 primary colors and the camera's
computer "guesses" at the other 2? How can mathematical
computations inside a digital camera be any different than those
done after? (particularly in the case of RAW captures?)
Click to expand...
Hmm... The camera sensor is capturing real data, and post-processing is not. That's the difference. Maybe there is only 2MP worth of data in the image captured in the sensor, and in that case interpolating it to 6MP isn't any different than the post-processing. Is that what you mean? Then you're right... but you still can't create meaningful data that wasn't there. The image of the soccer player in this thread shows that pretty well, in MY opinion. The processed image just looks like a very unappealing oversharpened image (look at the hair band! sheesh!). Maybe some people like that look. But I sure don't think it will make high-quality lenses obsolete!
 
ALL the lenses? I think you're being overly optimistic, but it would be great if you were correct.
Carl Hoang said:
Paul Sumi said:
For one thing, it doesn't work with every camera and lens
combination, just a limited selection as of May 2004 (see below).
So if you have lenses or bodies not covered, you're SOL.

Canon EOS 10D with:
Canon 16-35 'L' f/2.8
Canon 17-40 'L' f/4.0
Canon 85 f/1.2
Canon 24-70 'L' f/2.8
Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Canon 50 f/1.4
Canon 15mm Fish-eye

Canon Digital Rebel / 300D / Kiss Digital with:
Canon 18-55 Kit Lens
Canon 50 f/1.4
Sigma 15mm Fish-eye in Canon mount

Nikon D100 with:
Nikkor 18-35 'AF' f/3.5-4.5
Nikkor Zoom 12-24mm f/4 DX
Nikkor 50 f/1.4 D
Nikkor 85 f/1.4
Nikkor Zoom 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF

Nikon D70 Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5 Kit
Nikkor 50 f/1.4 D
Sigma 15mm Fish-eye in Nikon mount
Julio Trujillo said:
(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)
Click to expand...
--
Make photographs, not equipment lists!
Friends don't let friends measurebate
http://www.pbase.com/pauls/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Make photographs, not equipment lists!
Friends don't let friends measurebate
http://www.pbase.com/pauls/
 
Julio,

Thanks for your aggressive response. What is it that I know obviously nothing about? Please explain what I am missing from this silly thread. no amount of technology can make a poor picture good regardless of the glass being used.

As far as my work and posting it? I don't have a website, nor do I have tons of time to make them, maintain them, or worry about posting my work on them. My images, like them or not, go to my clients, which gets me local press coverage, and pictures printed.

I'm sorry, to be "rude" but what picture of yours is going to be printed? The wax museum picture or the original soft one? If it's the soft one, then excellent, it's 100% better then the wax figure. If it's printed in the paper, who cares? The quality is so low you won't noticed it anyway.

I don't have 100% crops, what's the point. Nobody looks at an image 1 inch away and looks at the pixles...

But if you must judge, here are a few...

The hockey and baseball pictures are ISO 800, the rest, I'm not sure.

Hockey (80-200mm f/2.8 L)
http://www.pbase.com/image/27263104
http://www.pbase.com/image/27263354

Baseball (80-200mm f/2.8 L)
http://www.pbase.com/image/28520954

Others
http://www.pbase.com/image/27007468
http://www.pbase.com/image/26041973
http://www.pbase.com/image/26665073

--

Paul S.
Canon EOS 10D

'Friends don't let friends shoot Nikon.'
 
Phil Fortier said:
Hmm... The camera sensor is capturing real data, and
post-processing is not.
Click to expand...
The whole point is that the "real data" is NOT color pixels - it is voltage fluctuations. EVERYTHING that happens after that IS post-processing either done in the camea's computer or on a desktop computer - it makes no difference whatsoever. We're not dealing with analog images on film here, we're dealing with processed volatges :)

Granted, once you get the image into photoshop and start doing manipulation on top of manipulation you are continuously loosing quality and warping reality - sometimes for the better and sometimes not.
 
Please don't be offended, but I find the "improved" image garish and plastic, and to my eyes, definitely not an improvement on the original. If anything, your presentation is an arguement against the idea that all lenses can be made equal with software.

On the other hand, if you like the "corrected" image, and a potential buyer likes it, then all is fine.....until another photographer comes along with the same shot captured at top quality and needing no software enhancement.

--
Frank Weston - http://www.weston.smugmug.com
 
PalmsWestPhoto said:
i am sorry but this is a sorry try in oversharpening a useless OOF
photo. Yes of course you can sharpen it somewhat as the player isnt
totally OOF but it certainly doesnt mean it is focussed now. It
already looks totally ugly now print it as an 8x10 or larger and it
will look like ...
Click to expand...
I'm curious about all of what was done here? Looks like two completely different photos.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
Now if you sharpen the OOF background back to normal then i will
take my hat off to whoever wrote the software but it will not work.
Not with the data currently provided in a photograph. That data is
lost and cant be recovered properly.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I think a lens has to be both GOOD, and IN FOCUS.
--
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footsteps.
 
Steven Noyes said:
While this is a great example of what digital can do, your example
does not show any new details, it simple enhances he edges that are
already there. So, givin the choice, I would much rather get a
good capture to start with.
Click to expand...
And I'm sure it looks nicer in print. I think the "wow" between the before and after images comes from the color work, though, not the softness.
--
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footsteps.
 
Julio said:
Here's an (very rough and quick) example of adding monochromatic
gaussian noise, blurring that a bit and then embossing it slightly.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, this looks like you did exactly what you mentioned above. The embossing is probably the culprit here. This looks like the face of an 80 year old woman, covered with a layer of oatmeal. I'm sure it looks better at smaller magnifications, but at the size you've presented this, a properly focused sharp lens would do a much better job.
--
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footsteps.
 
Julio Trujillo said:
Phil Fortier said:
Hmm... The camera sensor is capturing real data, and
post-processing is not.
Click to expand...
The whole point is that the "real data" is NOT color pixels - it is
voltage fluctuations. EVERYTHING that happens after that IS
post-processing either done in the camea's computer or on a desktop
computer - it makes no difference whatsoever. We're not dealing
with analog images on film here, we're dealing with processed
volatges :)
Click to expand...
I don't see how film vs "processed voltages" is relevant. They both sample the light coming in, with the end result being an image that contains no more data than the sampling medium can handle (whether it is film or voltages on a CCD).

You seem to be suggesting that because digitals use voltages instead of chemical dyes, and thus need a computer to generate an image we can see, that somehow this is equivalent to generating perceived sharpness in post-processing. I don't understand that.
Julio said:
Granted, once you get the image into photoshop and start doing
manipulation on top of manipulation you are continuously loosing
quality and warping reality - sometimes for the better and
sometimes not.
Click to expand...
If you think these magic programs are going to enable you to make your image sharper, with as much detail as you would get by using a pro lens, I think you are fooling yourself. Of course I'd love to be proven wrong, but the laws of physics assure me I won't :-)
 
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