Corner sharpness: Four Thirds vs 35mm (bandwidth warning)

Started Oct 27, 2007 | Discussions
joe mama Forum Pro • Posts: 12,623
Good info!

Do you know a lens that has it's best center sharpness wide open and
gets worse stopped down one stop?

Really? When I look at the PZ tests of any lens, it doesn't show this. Please explain more, if you don't mind.

PZ says their 28/2.8 does this.

I took another look:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28_28/index.htm

and it's sharper (very insignificantly so) at f / 4 compared to f / 2.8. However, interestingly, it's all downhill from there! I've never seen such a think on any of their other lenses. In fact, I took a look at a bunch of other lenses (including the 24 / 2.8 and 28 / 1.8) and this doesn't happen.

Also, look at the MTFs from Canon. 24-85 at 24mm takes a huge hit at
the edges.

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_24-85_35mft1.gif

28/1.8 does the double dip - gets worse moving out from the center,
then better again a little further out before taking the big dive at
the edge:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_28_18mtf.gif

28/2.8 does a similar double dip though less pronounced. Based on
MTF, it would be expected to have the best f/8 corners of the three.

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_28_28mtf.gif

Yes, yes -- they all take huge dips. That's why I qualified in previous posts that I wouldn't be surprised if FF corners were softer in the last 100 pixels or so.

At f/11, my 28/2.8 had better extreme corners than my 24-105L.

Hmmm.

Here's someone else's comparison against 13 other lenses at 28mm
tested on a 5D ->
http://www.shiftlenses.com/Shop/Application/OwnWebPage.php?Id=17

It will take me a while to go through those.

In any event, I would certainly wecome a test of zoom vs zoom: the
14-42 on 4/3 vs the 24-85 on FF. I think that's an ideal
comparison.

I think an even more ideal comparison would be the 14-42 on 4/3 vs
28-105 on 35mm or better yet, 28-90 II on 35mm.

All fair game in my book, but why? Price?

Remember, I have no agenda except the facts. If the facts invalidate
my theory, then I will change the theory to fit the facts. However,
as I see it, this test is exactly in line with what I would have
predicted. No surprises to me.

Do you agree that there is an appreciable sudden dropoff in the 5D
system image extreme corners relative to the rest of that photo
whereas the E-410 system shows worse global quality without the same
degree of dropoff in the corners relative to the rest of the photo?

Absolutely. I saw the same pics as you, right? : )

I thought that your predictions were at odds with that outcome.

Like I said above, I even agreed that in the extreme corners that smaller formats may hold an edge. Just in the same way I noted in my essay that for the same aperture (not f-ratio), the Sigma 30 / 1.4 on 1.6x does, in fact, vignette 1/8 stop less than the 50 / 1.4 on FF.

I know you always saw me as being overly dogmatic and absolute, but I never meant to say that every pixel of a FF image is a better pixel than a crop image. Nonetheless, I still maintain that the corners of 4/3 and FF are basically the same. Only in that last super-tiny patch does the 5D fall behind, and I certainly do not deny that.

Now that we have your sample (thanks again for the excellent comparison), anytime I make my claim, I'll link to your pics. If someone tells me that I'm full of it, I'll take it as a difference of opinion. I mean, I honestly believe that there is basically no difference in those corners, except that ultra small patch that I would never even notice, anyway.

Still, I totally grant you that my standards are not the same as others. As you may well know, I've been on the other side of the argument saying that my 100 / 2, as far as I was concerned, had "basically" the same IQ as the 135 / 2L, even though we both know that not to be true. It's just that the differences were so small to me as to be inconsequential, as with the corners of your pics.

I totally apologize for any misinterpretations on my position that I have given. Once again, I am not in disagreement with your tests, and think you've provided a valuable service to those considering different systems.

Amin Sabet
OP Amin Sabet Veteran Member • Posts: 6,763
And furthermore

I realize that MTFs don't tell the whole story. However, just as one would expect based on the MTF, my 28/2.8 has center sharpness that gets appreciably better when stopped down, not worse as PZ suggests. The assessment of the 28/2.8 over at the-digital-picture is also way off. Perhaps Canon has a QC problem with this lens.

 Amin Sabet's gear list:Amin Sabet's gear list
Sony a9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D500 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +16 more
joe mama Forum Pro • Posts: 12,623
Re: No need to be careful -- I'll accept the results.

I don't cherry pick examples between formats. If the 24-85 is at a
disadvantage, so be it, let the pics speak for themselves. Of
course, if the 24-85 did suck, I would suggest that we might not
compare the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 instead (basically the same range and
price). But I wouldn't discount the 24-85 test, either.

If the Oly lens sucked in the corners, would you suggest an
alternative or just add it to your essay? That's a rhetorical
question, as I'm pretty confident I know the real answer.

Why so combative? Yes, I would have just added to my essay all the same. Did I suggest in my essay that you should have used a better lens on the 5D? No. I merely presented the evidence as given. No nefarious agenda on my part -- I'm not sure what you're seeing.

Let's say you did another test with the 35-100 / 2 on an E3 and it killed the 70-200 / 4L IS on the 5D. Guess what? I'd include that, too, and change my essay to say that the glass has a huge impact. But let's say it went the other way. I'd just present another link in the evidence section, as it's basically as expected.

I'm just giving a theory, and supporting it with valid evidence (by "valid", I mean equivalent images). If the pics show something that invalidates the theory, I'll modify the theory to explain the evidence. Isn't that what the scientific method is all about?

Incidentally the Tamron is not strong at 28mm in the extreme corners.
IIRC you have a test gallery with the Tamron, so I suspect you can
verify this.

Yep, I'm well aware of that. My logic for suggesting the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 is that it's a much more common lens for use on the Canon system, crop or FF, and still a "budget" lens. That's why I thought your other test suggestions, the 28-105, 28-90 II, etc. were odd, as they're unusual lenses for people to own. At least, so far as I know.

joe mama Forum Pro • Posts: 12,623
Re: And furthermore

I realize that MTFs don't tell the whole story. However, just as one
would expect based on the MTF, my 28/2.8 has center sharpness that
gets appreciably better when stopped down, not worse as PZ suggests.
The assessment of the 28/2.8 over at the-digital-picture is also way
off. Perhaps Canon has a QC problem with this lens.

I don't think it's just that lens, mind you. This whole "QC" thing is puzzling to me. Maybe I've just been lucky, but with the exception of one lens ever (a 70-200 / 4L non-IS at 200mm, f / 4), I've never had an issue with any lens I've ever owned performing out of spec.

However, I did send my Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 in for calibration, since it was very soft at 28mm, f / 2.8, infinity focus (great everywhere else) and it came back perfect. However, I don't know if that counts as another QC issue or not. In any event, in the three months it was gone for service, I found I didn't miss it, so I sold it when it came back. : )

But, yeah, I know the MTFs are not the whole story. The reason I know this so well is that by the MTFs, the 50 / 1.4 should be amazing even wide open. Well, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. And since I owned three copies of the lens and all performed the same, I figured it wasn't QC.

Amin Sabet
OP Amin Sabet Veteran Member • Posts: 6,763
Re: Good info!

joe mama wrote:

That's why I qualified in
previous posts that I wouldn't be surprised if FF corners were softer
in the last 100 pixels or so.

I don't recall this, but I'll take your word for it.

I think an even more ideal comparison would be the 14-42 on 4/3 vs
28-105 on 35mm or better yet, 28-90 II on 35mm.

All fair game in my book, but why? Price?

Price and the fact that they start at 28mm, but that's pretty much nitpicking. As I said earlier, one would have to do a sh*tload of comparisons to get really good data.

Remember, I have no agenda except the facts. If the facts invalidate
my theory, then I will change the theory to fit the facts. However,
as I see it, this test is exactly in line with what I would have
predicted. No surprises to me.

I know you always saw me as being overly dogmatic and absolute

My issue with you has nothing to do with your being dogmatic and absolute.

It's just that the differences were so small to
me as to be inconsequential, as with the corners of your pics.

For the record, I couldn't possibly care less about the extreme corners of any pics, and I am very happy with the image quality on all four of my cameras.

 Amin Sabet's gear list:Amin Sabet's gear list
Sony a9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D500 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +16 more
Amin Sabet
OP Amin Sabet Veteran Member • Posts: 6,763
Re: No need to be careful -- I'll accept the results.

joe mama wrote:

Why so combative?

Yeah, well I guess I'm just feeling combative... gotta work on that.... but... I do think you have an agenda (and I'm not referring to "just the facts")

Incidentally the Tamron is not strong at 28mm in the extreme corners.
IIRC you have a test gallery with the Tamron, so I suspect you can
verify this.

Yep, I'm well aware of that. My logic for suggesting the Tamron
28-75 / 2.8 is that it's a much more common lens for use on the Canon
system, crop or FF, and still a "budget" lens. That's why I thought
your other test suggestions, the 28-105, 28-90 II, etc. were odd, as
they're unusual lenses for people to own. At least, so far as I know.

It's interesting that because the cost of 35mm digital has been high, the standard zooms most 35mm digital users have are pretty expensive. For film 35mm SLRs, I think those were both quite common lenses, with the 28-90 being the cheapy.

 Amin Sabet's gear list:Amin Sabet's gear list
Sony a9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D500 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +16 more
Charles Nguyen Senior Member • Posts: 1,068
Thanks Amin for the test - nt
n/t
Amin Sabet
OP Amin Sabet Veteran Member • Posts: 6,763
Re: Thanks Amin for the test - nt

Thanks Charles. I'll see what I can do about the other tests you mentioned. I don't own any zooms for the Canon, but I've got a lot of family with Canon zooms.

 Amin Sabet's gear list:Amin Sabet's gear list
Sony a9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D500 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +16 more
Amin Sabet
OP Amin Sabet Veteran Member • Posts: 6,763
Re: Something along those lines is possible.

fldspringer wrote:

You can click on the full frame tab to get a wonderful plot. Click
on that and you can adjust f-stop. There is a HUGE surprise in
stopping down the first stop at when it at its widest setting in the
crop camera.

Thanks for the link. Very cool system they have there for showing results dynamically. Odd that the behavior on the APS-C camera is so different from the behavior on the central portion of the 35mm image.

 Amin Sabet's gear list:Amin Sabet's gear list
Sony a9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D500 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +16 more
Chez Wimpy
Chez Wimpy Veteran Member • Posts: 9,038
wikipedia to the rescue

Amin Sabet wrote:

joe mama wrote:

Why so combative?

Yeah, well I guess I'm just feeling combative... gotta work on
that.... but... I do think you have an agenda (and I'm not referring
to "just the facts")

Amin, I think the term that best describes the issue is 'confirmation bias'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

-- hide signature --

-CW

 Chez Wimpy's gear list:Chez Wimpy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +28 more
joe mama Forum Pro • Posts: 12,623
Ah, Chez to the rescue.

Yeah, well I guess I'm just feeling combative... gotta work on
that.... but... I do think you have an agenda (and I'm not referring
to "just the facts")

Amin, I think the term that best describes the issue is 'confirmation
bias'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Nice to see you two teaming up again. What's it been? A month? Anyway, thanks for the link. For your next piece of research, find the test that I ignored because it didn't "confirm my preconceptions and avoided information, and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs."

I'd love to see that link test that I ignored out of hat. And while you're at it, since you're so good at psychoanalysis, explain to me the obsession that so many here have with comparing corners of images at different DOFs (not Amin, mind you), and why they disparage FF because the corners are "soft" at the same f-ratio. Hey! Maybe wikipedia has an entry for that, too! You can link me that one as well.

OK, just to recap so we don't get off topic: you "suggest" that I "search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs". So, my request to you is to go find where I have ignored evidence to the contrary.

Or did I completely misinterpret your post? Did you instead mean that to imply that my desire to compare images, especially corner sharpness, at the same DOF, and to dismiss tests for corner sharpness at different DOFs is an example of "confirmation bias". If so, my bad. Yeah, I'll own that one.

Oh, one more thing: as Amin, and also as you must know, I, too, do not give a squat about corner sharpness. Could not care less. But, I do care about people saying that the corners of FF suck, which they do all the time, because they compare at different DOFs. Why do I care? You got me on that. Even I'm puzzled by that one. Maybe you can use your skills at psychoanalysis to help me figure it out. But I think it's a moot point. Amin, with his wonderful test, may have pretty much silenced me (clearly, just not quite yet, as I'm still posting). All I've ever asked for is evidence, and now I have it. It's an easy thing for me to drop. If anyone asks about corners between FF and 4/3, I'll just shoot them a link to the test. If they ask about different lenses, I'll just say, "I don't know -- I haven't seen any other tests."

Chez Wimpy
Chez Wimpy Veteran Member • Posts: 9,038
Re: FF corner test using my primes

Amin Sabet wrote:

People see a critically
sharp center surrounded by a zone which is disappointing by
comparison, followed by the smearing in the extreme corners. Really
expensive lenses start to disappoint, and really really expensive
lenses become "necessities." I'm happily oblivious to that
particular obsession.

For the most part I think the point is moot because serious landscape work (for serious output sizes) begs for MF+. Every year my favorite office room calanders are filled with landscapes of Hokkaido, and they are indeed sharp to the edges. Truly breathtaking, but obviously from large format film. I would hate to be a landscape photographer dedicated to Canon FF - unless I were a genius at stitching. Of course if Canon intends to challenge that market with 40MP FF sensors (and why not? they are slowly going that way) they will have to do something about the problem. I saw another calander with aerial photography done in africa, and with that one the left halves of two of the images were horribly soft, clearly from a decentered lens. I guess publishers all have different standards

-- hide signature --

-CW

 Chez Wimpy's gear list:Chez Wimpy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +28 more
Chez Wimpy
Chez Wimpy Veteran Member • Posts: 9,038
Re: Ah, Chez to the rescue.

Hey, your post in the CSLR forum got me here in the first place!

joe mama wrote:

I'd love to see that link test that I ignored out of hat. And while
you're at it, since you're so good at psychoanalysis,

If I were any good at that, I would have pointed out confirmation bias and myside bias back when they were the main source of contention. I never took any psyche courses, nor statistics, and that was a term that I recently bumped into.

explain to me
the obsession that so many here have with comparing corners of images
at different DOFs (not Amin, mind you), and why they disparage FF
because the corners are "soft" at the same f-ratio.

Surely it goes both ways Joe. People on both sides of this equation are defensive about their gear. I'd rather leave the substantive fighting to those who are somewhat divested.

So, my request to you is to go find where
I have ignored evidence to the contrary.

Right, I think that is covered under polarization effect.

Or did I completely misinterpret your post? Did you instead mean
that to imply that my desire to compare images, especially corner
sharpness, at the same DOF, and to dismiss tests for corner sharpness
at different DOFs is an example of "confirmation bias". If so, my
bad. Yeah, I'll own that one.

It is best summarized by a post titled "Outfreakin'-standing!" in response to this thread.

Oh, one more thing: as Amin, and also as you must know, I, too, do
not give a squat about corner sharpness. Could not care less.

I personally don't care that much either, but I think moving forward it will become more important as Canon increases the pixel density of the sensors. I have resisted landscape work to this point mostly because of these two limitations (135mm stitched is about as serious as I can allow myself).

But,
I do care about people saying that the corners of FF suck, which they
do all the time, because they compare at different DOFs. Why do I
care? You got me on that. Even I'm puzzled by that one. Maybe you
can use your skills at psychoanalysis to help me figure it out.

You have a lot invested in your belief in the 5D, and by extension FF. Threats against this belief are threats against your worldview ect, ect... It goes without saying you have never treated your reviews/purchases as dispasionate dissertations on optics/systems. This is why Amin's points have weight, not only because of his ability to perform cross-format comparisons, but because of where he is writing from. You care because you feel personally involved, which makes your reviews very entertaining (and important to the art of photography), but your directed science is anything but objective.

-- hide signature --

-CW

 Chez Wimpy's gear list:Chez Wimpy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +28 more
joe mama Forum Pro • Posts: 12,623
Re: Ah, Chez to the rescue.

It is best summarized by a post titled "Outfreakin'-standing!" in
response to this thread.

Thanks for saying that. I'll take that as evidence of your "confirmation bias". Let me explain. Amin's test showed that 4/3 corners were sharper than FF's. But I congratulated him on the test, since it is the only test I know of where FF and 4/3 have been compared at the same DOF.

And yet, you take my praise of doing the test as evidence of my confirmation bias. Now, really, doesn't that seem a little odd?

You have a lot invested in your belief in the 5D, and by extension
FF. Threats against this belief are threats against your worldview
ect, ect... It goes without saying you have never treated your
reviews/purchases as dispasionate dissertations on optics/systems.

Oh, so now passion for my equipment works against me?

This is why Amin's points have weight, not only because of his
ability to perform cross-format comparisons, but because of where he
is writing from.

So when I pay homage to compacts:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=24929197

Praise the 85 / 1.8 on 1.6x:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23725308

Praise the 60 / 2.8 macro on 1.6x:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23292671

Praise the 200 / 2.8L across formats:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=25099461

Praise the 135 / 2L and 200 / 2.8L on 1.6x:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=21669121

Because, as you write:

You care because you feel personally involved,

That makes my:

...reviews very entertaining (and important to the art of photography), but
your directed science is anything but objective.

...because I now choose a 5D, 24 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, 100 / 2, and 150 / 2.8 macro over all those.

Because I have experience with those systems, because, for me, the 5D works the best, you presume that I say what works best for me works best for everyone and that I look down on people who own the equipment I once owned, and even worse, look down on people who use equipment I never owned.

What is it with you? Why can you not differentiate my passion for my photography with my distaste for people blasting my equipment without evidence to back up their claims?

For example, I don't think anyone has expressed their love of the 50 / 1.2L more than I. Have I ever said, or even implied the tiniest bit, that people who own the 50 / 1.4 suck? So why would anyone think that just because I have a 5D that I look down on other systems?

Can you find one post of mine ever where I disparaged anyone using a smaller format, using a zoom instead of a prime, using a consumer lens instead of an "L" lens?

Even once?

I don't know where you get your twisted notions. I don't know why you can't differentiate between my annoyance of people saying "FF WA sucks", "FF vignettes too much", "FF has too shallow of a DOF" and my passion for FF and request for those people slamming FF to put up or shut up.

Everytime I "lord my equipment over other people", it's in a direct response to them slamming my equipment. People say FF WA sucks, I post my 5D + 16-35 / 2.8L pics. People say FF macro sucks, I post my 5D + 150 / 2.8 macro pics. People say FF has soft edges, I post sharp edges. People say FF vignettes too much, I post wide open pics and ask where the problem with the vignetting is.

I am reacting to people bad mouthing FF. Now, I don't know why I take it so personally. Perhaps it's my passion for photography. You'll note I take the same vigor defending the 50 / 1.2L against the attacks it gets:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=25117450

So, what, am I an "L snob", too? How does that figure in with me choosing the 100 / 2 over the 135 / 2L?

But to say that I am biased because I am passionate, when all I ask for is evidence to people's claims is way off-base.

Rriley
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
reiterate the corner sharpness case

first, many thanks to Amin for a qualified test experience. I just knew your experience would be more than handy around here.

while i am reading, with agreeably just a tad of a smirk about how corner sharpness isnt of 'personal' concern, i feel i need to press the case where it is. Not that Im into landscape, but i just cant see why anything less than sharp corners would be acceptable in the majority of cases. However YMMV.

Yet more to my own field, corner sharpness, along with edges (which is what disappears next) is a critical value. It might/might not be so obvious in many views of nature, but within architecture it becomes very obvious. Where as you might expect with interiors in particular, all 4 corners may present this issue. The patterns and textures become awash, necessary detail is lost and to make matters worse; the more transient nature of mixed light sources of electrical lighting and daylight perhaps flash, vastly complicate a repair process.

Within the escape of architecture the congruence of heavy use of UWA and the requirement for consistent sharpness over the entire frame I strongly suspect that true UWA tests would be even more revealing than those witnessed here.

-- hide signature --

Riley

real men couldn't care less

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
Stu 5 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,277
Re: Corner sharpness: Four Thirds vs 35mm (bandwidth warning)

YellowBullet wrote:

Without tesing them at the same aperture setting the test is a
complete waste of time.

Couldn't disagree more. Testing them at the same f-stop would be a
complete waste of time, since these are two completely different

systems. DOF would be different, (That is why you use a lens testing chart. They are flat.) noise or shutter speed would be
different.

I think Amin did a great job here. 2 stops smaller aperture for the
FF system, 2 stops higher ISO for the FF system is the only way to
compare equivalent setups.

Lens choice should perhaps have been different though. Tamron 28-75
2.8 would be my choice for the Canon system.

Stu 5 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,277
Re: Corner sharpness: Four Thirds vs 35mm (bandwidth warning)

YellowBullet wrote:

Without tesing them at the same aperture setting the test is a
complete waste of time.

Couldn't disagree more. Testing them at the same f-stop would be a
complete waste of time, since these are two completely different
systems. DOF would be different, noise or shutter speed would be
different.

I think Amin did a great job here. 2 stops smaller aperture for the
FF system, 2 stops higher ISO for the FF system is the only way to
compare equivalent setups.

Lens choice should perhaps have been different though. Tamron 28-75
2.8 would be my choice for the Canon system.

That is why you use a lens testing chart....... they are flat so there are no D.O.F problems.

Xargo Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: center, mid, corners (to crop or not)

joe mama wrote:

It would be surprising to me to find that the 24-85 / 3.5-4.5
performed better than the 28 / 2.8 in the "corners" of 1.6x but worse
in the corners of 35mm FF. I can't think of any reason why the prime
should be sharper in the center, softer in the mid (corners of 1.6x),
and then sharper in the edges again. I know of no lens that exhibits
such behavior.

It's not at all impossible. Actually it's especially evident on fast wide angles. See for example here:

http://www.leica-camera.co.uk/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1877.pdf

Watch for the 40lp/mm (which characterizes rendering of fine detail). It start very nice, then dips a lot and rises to nice values again. So in practice the 28mm Elmarit-R would perform just as you described (and is 28mm F2.8 just like the C tested). Put the lens on 1.6crop sensor and you don't see the performance rise at the borders as they get cropped away.

BTW. I'd like to have 5D too, as my 35mm Summicron-R exhibits the same characteristics than 28mm Elmarit-R.

-- hide signature --

DMC-L1, E-330, 11-22mm, 14-50mm Vario-Elmarit-D, 25mm Summilux-D, 180mm Apo-Telyt-R, 250mm Telyt-R, 60mm Macro Elmarit-R, 135mm Elmarit-R, 90mm Elmarit-R, 35mm Summicron-R, FL36, EC-14, 2x Leica-R extender

Xargo Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: Then I messed up.

Amin Sabet wrote:

I won't use Master (have enough RAW processing apps as it is), and I
didn't want to use ACR because it applies a different amount of NR to
the different cameras at baseline. Your point is well taken though.
It seems I have done the E-410 a disservice. At any rate, the main
outcome I was looking at was smearing in the extreme corners, and I
think the results there are pretty clear for these two systems.

Yep, the results were clear in the first place and I'd like to thank you for the test.

I downloaded the RAWs and tried to process with the Master but it didn't really make difference worth posting the results. There was a bit more detail but not much. That said, I consider your test very informative. I was just a bit concerned at first as I have had bad experience in converting E-410 files to .dng (I had to use photorescue software to bring back the original .orfs as the .dng quality was so horrible). I use .dng all the time with E-330/L1 though. To me it seems like the NR-control just isn't implemented in .dng (yet?) and that causes problems with very finely detailed photos.

-- hide signature --

DMC-L1, E-330, 11-22mm, 14-50mm Vario-Elmarit-D, 25mm Summilux-D, 180mm Apo-Telyt-R, 250mm Telyt-R, 60mm Macro Elmarit-R, 135mm Elmarit-R, 90mm Elmarit-R, 35mm Summicron-R, FL36, EC-14, 2x Leica-R extender

Andy Hewitt Veteran Member • Posts: 3,914
Re: Corner sharpness: Four Thirds vs 35mm (bandwidth warning)

Hi Amin,

While I wouldn't want to criticise your efforts, I have to say that this test was rather useless, being perfectly honest.

You compared a Pro level SLR, using a prime lens, that had the aperture stopped down, with a prosumer level camera using a kit lens, that was used almost wide open.

It's not a surprise that the 5D came off better, if you'd tested the E410 against itself, and used the same lens and settings comparison, then you would likely have seen similar results.

I have done similar lens tests myself on my E500, and there are quite significant difference just between the lenses, and using different apertures.

To make this a valid test, you need to use cameras from the same level in the market, and use identical lenses, and identical settings.

Regards.

-- hide signature --

Andy Hewitt
E500, Mju500, FZ7

 Andy Hewitt's gear list:Andy Hewitt's gear list
Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Topaz Adjust +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads