sdQH & fp with the 40mm Art f/1.4 - Kitchen Table Comparison

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

I think it will have some of that Merrill detail in distant trees and be able to see through fog and mist better than the Quattros can too.

Looks like I've missed some prior discussion, Scott.

Is there a problem with the Quattros' rendition of foggy and misty images?

Well, if I remember correctly Ted, the Merrills could "see" through haze better than the Quattros and cameras with CFA sensors can. You participated in the discussion Ted.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62237097

-- hide signature --

what you got is not what you saw ...

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

I think it will have some of that Merrill detail in distant trees and be able to see through fog and mist better than the Quattros can too.

Looks like I've missed some prior discussion, Scott.

Is there a problem with the Quattros' rendition of foggy and misty images?

Well, if I remember correctly Ted, the Merrills could "see" through haze better than the Quattros and cameras with CFA sensors can. You participated in the discussion Ted.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62237097

Thanks for the reminder, Scott!

Here's your Merrill not cutting through the haze:

Sorry, no Quattro to compare ...

... but RT does quite a good job, LOL:

furtle wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

furtle wrote:

josepmg wrote:

furtle wrote:

If DPR had processed the Quattro's X3F files in SPP, the difference between the Quattro shots and the fp shots should have been even more obvious in favour of the Quattro. But in my two examples, that is simple not the case. It is a close run thing between the two images. It should be a home run for the Quattro but it's not. I could do a third test with another Art lens but I'm not sure I'll end up with a different result.ç

If you mask foveon's virtues with harsh processing, you'll barely notice the difference. To see them, a fine development must be carried out in SPP and the final processing in specialized software.

I process the X3F Quattro files in SPP. Pretty much all the settings are neutral / middle except maybe the exposure may need tweeking. I'm not sure this is considered harsh processing. The X3F becomes a tiff file with SPP and that tiff file goes to Light Room to convert to a jpeg. Again my LightRoom settings are all pretty much neutral. Maybe exposure and blacks/whites will get a bit of adjustment as will cropping. if needed. Maybe Light Room isn't specialised software.

Maybe I'm wrecking the Quattro images in some way?

You deffinitely are "wreckibg" the detail from your SD Quattro H if you use the middle noise reduction setting Steve.

I put the Detail button in the middle and also the chroma and luminance buttons in the middle. Sharpness is knocked back to - 1.0 but I re sharpen selectively in LR.

I tend to use standard rather than portrait mode.

What would you suggest I try?

Remember, I first bought a dp0Q when they produced horrible noisy and blotchy images with plenty of highlights clipping. Subsequent updates to firmware and SPP improved the Quattro’s images immensely.

I’m happy to try other settings because it ain’t right my sdQH and fp images look quite similar.

Well, depending on what I'm trying to do, and the ISO setting, of course, I normally don't use any noise reduction at all on my Quattro raw files. I set Sharpness to 0, -1 (for portraits), or -1.5 for photos I intend to sharpen in GIMP or RawTherapee (or some other program). I rarely use 0 on the Detail tool. I prefer to set that all the way ti the left, or maybe one or two dots from the left. I find Detail is a bit harsh. Landscape shots often get Landscape color mode, but I sometimes use Portrait or One of the unusual color modes on them, like Foveon Blue or Classic Yellow. When I use Landscape mode I will often pull back the saturation slightly.

Using the fringe correction and other lens correction tools will have a deleterious affect on the colors in an image sometimes, so I will sometimes use the color adjustment tool, or just make two versions of the image, and layer them in GIMP, erasing the "bad" areas from the visible layer, by revealing the layer beneath. I do selective sharpening this way too, sometimes, so as to avoid magnifying noise in blurred (out of focus) parts of an image.

furtle wrote:

josepmg wrote:

furtle wrote:

josepmg wrote:

furtle wrote:

If DPR had processed the Quattro's X3F files in SPP, the difference between the Quattro shots and the fp shots should have been even more obvious in favour of the Quattro. But in my two examples, that is simple not the case. It is a close run thing between the two images. It should be a home run for the Quattro but it's not. I could do a third test with another Art lens but I'm not sure I'll end up with a different result.ç

If you mask foveon's virtues with harsh processing, you'll barely notice the difference. To see them, a fine development must be carried out in SPP and the final processing in specialized software.

I process the X3F Quattro files in SPP. Pretty much all the settings are neutral / middle except maybe the exposure may need tweeking. I'm not sure this is considered harsh processing. The X3F becomes a tiff file with SPP and that tiff file goes to Light Room to convert to a jpeg. Again my LightRoom settings are all pretty much neutral. Maybe exposure and blacks/whites will get a bit of adjustment as will cropping. if needed. Maybe Light Room isn't specialised software.

Maybe I'm wrecking the Quattro images in some way?

I do not criticize your processing as such. I only comment that the differences would be more evident with a more delicate development. This is my opinion, which obviously does not have to coincide with yours.
If you compare the processing that I have uploaded here

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4702495?page=7

with yours, I hope you understand what I mean by "harsh".

I see from your link to my other 135mm comparison, you would put the Detail button at the far right which is the most ‘crispy’ and then use it Topaz Denoise. I’ll try this as I seem to have Topaz Denoise on my computer. No doubt I bought it when my dp0Q was producing horrid, noisy images.

I would only comment that putting the detail button at the far right, most crispy point may be considered to be quite a harsh move.

Definitely!

😯

xpatUSA wrote:

furtle wrote:

josepmg wrote:

furtle wrote:

josepmg wrote:

furtle wrote:

If DPR had processed the Quattro's X3F files in SPP, the difference between the Quattro shots and the fp shots should have been even more obvious in favour of the Quattro. But in my two examples, that is simple not the case. It is a close run thing between the two images. It should be a home run for the Quattro but it's not. I could do a third test with another Art lens but I'm not sure I'll end up with a different result.ç

If you mask foveon's virtues with harsh processing, you'll barely notice the difference. To see them, a fine development must be carried out in SPP and the final processing in specialized software.

I process the X3F Quattro files in SPP. Pretty much all the settings are neutral / middle except maybe the exposure may need tweeking. I'm not sure this is considered harsh processing. The X3F becomes a tiff file with SPP and that tiff file goes to Light Room to convert to a jpeg. Again my LightRoom settings are all pretty much neutral. Maybe exposure and blacks/whites will get a bit of adjustment as will cropping. if needed. Maybe Light Room isn't specialised software.

Maybe I'm wrecking the Quattro images in some way?

I do not criticize your processing as such. I only comment that the differences would be more evident with a more delicate development. This is my opinion, which obviously does not have to coincide with yours.
If you compare the processing that I have uploaded here

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4702495?page=7

with yours, I hope you understand what I mean by "harsh".

I see from your link to my other 135mm comparison, you would put the Detail button at the far right which is the most ‘crispy’ and then use it Topaz Denoise. I’ll try this as I seem to have Topaz Denoise on my computer. No doubt I bought it when my dp0Q was producing horrid, noisy images.

These kind of actions tend to bother me, especially when the adjustments are global - affecting the whole image. Another one is "I always set sharpness to -2.0 and sharpen it later in X".

What is "X" Ted? I've never heard of that application. Is that open source software?

😉

As if all scenes require exactly the same processing

They don't?!? 🤔

and as if all shot capture qualities (focus, etc.) are identical.

They're not?!? 😲

I would only comment that putting the detail button at the far right, most crispy point may be considered to be quite a harsh move.

Good one

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

furtle wrote:

I see from your link to my other 135mm comparison, you would put the Detail button at the far right which is the most ‘crispy’ and then use it Topaz Denoise. I’ll try this as I seem to have Topaz Denoise on my computer. No doubt I bought it when my dp0Q was producing horrid, noisy images.

These kind of actions tend to bother me, especially when the adjustments are global - affecting the whole image. Another one is "I always set sharpness to -2.0 and sharpen it later in X".

What is "X" Ted? I've never heard of that application. Is that open source software?

😉

As if all scenes require exactly the same processing

They don't?!? 🤔

and as if all shot capture qualities (focus, etc.) are identical.

They're not?!? 😲

Very funny ...

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

I think it will have some of that Merrill detail in distant trees and be able to see through fog and mist better than the Quattros can too.

Looks like I've missed some prior discussion, Scott.

Is there a problem with the Quattros' rendition of foggy and misty images?

Well, if I remember correctly Ted, the Merrills could "see" through haze better than the Quattros and cameras with CFA sensors can. You participated in the discussion Ted.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62237097

Thanks for the reminder, Scott!

Here's your Merrill not cutting through the haze:

Sorry, no Quattro to compare ...

... but RT does quite a good job, LOL:

Hmmm . . . I wonder what that shot would have looked like if you were shooting with a Quattro or an fp. I wonder how much difference there woukd be with a polarizing filter on the lens. I'll have to do some experiments.

furtle wrote:

Ok, folks. Another amateur comparison to tear apart. This time with the 40mm Art /1.4 lens.

I did wonder if my previous comparison may have been a bit muddled by the long 135mm lens and possibly getting the spot focus points a little different. It's pouring with rain here, so, this is an indoors comparison using a tripod. Much more accurate focus point picking (front of vase). I've framed the two cameras as accurately as I can by moving the tripod. Now the focus point is much closer to the camera than with my previous comparison. I've also cropped the essential bit in the centre of the frame.

I shot at f/5.6 and f/2.0.

My observation is the sdQH is better as I can easily read the small print on the back of the Marmite jar. With the fp, it's a little more difficult to read. Still, pretty close between the two cameras.

First the f/5.6 shots

sdQH

fp

Now the f/2 shots

sdQH

fp

According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation, so the fp must actually offer even better image quality than is shown here.

🤔

(Of course, I don't buy that. I think the test images show very well the difference between the fp and SD Quattro H imaging capabilities, though I suspect that setting noise reduction to minimum settings might reveal a bit more detail - possibly in the images from both cameras. I would also prefer to see the images processed with less "Sharpness" added, and a "Detail" setting to a minimum level. Of course I understand why the default settings were used in this post.)

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

I think it will have some of that Merrill detail in distant trees and be able to see through fog and mist better than the Quattros can too.

Looks like I've missed some prior discussion, Scott.

Is there a problem with the Quattros' rendition of foggy and misty images?

Well, if I remember correctly Ted, the Merrills could "see" through haze better than the Quattros and cameras with CFA sensors can. You participated in the discussion Ted.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62237097

Thanks for the reminder, Scott!

Here's your Merrill not cutting through the haze:

Sorry, no Quattro to compare ...

... but RT does quite a good job, LOL:

Hmmm . . . I wonder what that shot would have looked like if you were shooting with a Quattro or an fp. I wonder how much difference there woukd be with a polarizing filter on the lens. I'll have to do some experiments.

Looking forward to the results ...

Scottelly wrote:

furtle wrote:

Ok, folks. Another amateur comparison to tear apart. This time with the 40mm Art /1.4 lens.

I did wonder if my previous comparison may have been a bit muddled by the long 135mm lens and possibly getting the spot focus points a little different. It's pouring with rain here, so, this is an indoors comparison using a tripod. Much more accurate focus point picking (front of vase). I've framed the two cameras as accurately as I can by moving the tripod. Now the focus point is much closer to the camera than with my previous comparison. I've also cropped the essential bit in the centre of the frame.

I shot at f/5.6 and f/2.0.

My observation is the sdQH is better as I can easily read the small print on the back of the Marmite jar. With the fp, it's a little more difficult to read. Still, pretty close between the two cameras.

First the f/5.6 shots

sdQH

fp

Now the f/2 shots

sdQH

fp

According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation, so the fp must actually offer even better image quality than is shown here.

According to Args and Ted the world is round.

(Of course, I don't buy that...

…because anyone can see that it’s flat.

I think the test images show very well the difference between the fp and SD Quattro H imaging capabilities, though I suspect that setting noise reduction to minimum settings might reveal a bit more detail - possibly in the images from both cameras. I would also prefer to see the images processed with less "Sharpness" added, and a "Detail" setting to a minimum level. Of course I understand why the default settings were used in this post.)

According to Scott they are all soft because they are not taken with the 135…

Get a room Scott…with yourself.

TN Args wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

furtle wrote:

Ok, folks. Another amateur comparison to tear apart. This time with the 40mm Art /1.4 lens.

I did wonder if my previous comparison may have been a bit muddled by the long 135mm lens and possibly getting the spot focus points a little different. It's pouring with rain here, so, this is an indoors comparison using a tripod. Much more accurate focus point picking (front of vase). I've framed the two cameras as accurately as I can by moving the tripod. Now the focus point is much closer to the camera than with my previous comparison. I've also cropped the essential bit in the centre of the frame.

I shot at f/5.6 and f/2.0.

My observation is the sdQH is better as I can easily read the small print on the back of the Marmite jar. With the fp, it's a little more difficult to read. Still, pretty close between the two cameras.

First the f/5.6 shots

sdQH

fp

Now the f/2 shots

sdQH

fp

According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation, so the fp must actually offer even better image quality than is shown here.

According to Args and Ted the world is round.

(Of course, I don't buy that...

…because anyone can see that it’s flat.

I think the test images show very well the difference between the fp and SD Quattro H imaging capabilities, though I suspect that setting noise reduction to minimum settings might reveal a bit more detail - possibly in the images from both cameras. I would also prefer to see the images processed with less "Sharpness" added, and a "Detail" setting to a minimum level. Of course I understand why the default settings were used in this post.)

According to Scott they are all soft because they are not taken with the 135…

Get a room Scott…with yourself.

Oh boy, someone's bent out of shape because I don't agree with him.

🤭

Scottelly wrote:

<>

Well, considering the 20 MP per layer resolution, I don't think we'll see much difference between the SD Quattro H and the FFF. <>

Quattro: about 110 lp/mm

FFF: about 77 lp/mm

Scottelly wrote:

... According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation  ...<>

Ted made no such simple statement, instead agreeing more with Cicala than Scottelly.

Cicala said:

... Although it doesn’t always work. Lloyd Chambers first reported years ago that with high-quality, wide-angle lenses you could detect very small misalignments in the camera-lens mount. Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image. Since then a lot of other people have confirmed the same thing.

So when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems.

Don’t get me wrong. Generally, they’re acceptable or people wouldn’t use them ...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

So, please discuss the above without putting words in my mouth.

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

<>

Well, considering the 20 MP per layer resolution, I don't think we'll see much difference between the SD Quattro H and the FFF. <>

Quattro: about 110 lp/mm

FFF: about 77 lp/mm

I was employing the SPV usage of the word "resolution" Ted.

I actually believe that in many (possibly most) instances the FFF will actually be an upgrade over the SD Quattro H for image quality Ted, even though the SD Quattro H makes "native" photos that are about 5 MP more than the FFF camera. I can tell you why, if you like.

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

... According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation ...<>

Ted made no such simple statement, instead agreeing more with Cicala than Scottelly.

Cicala said:

... Although it doesn’t always work. Lloyd Chambers first reported years ago that with high-quality, wide-angle lenses you could detect very small misalignments in the camera-lens mount. Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image.

What?!? BALDERDASH!

I can't agree with this statement: "Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image."

What was that in reference to? A microscope? There's no way . . . I repeat . . . NO WAY . . . that one tenth of a milimeter will make any noticeable difference to the image quality on an APS-C camera, let alone a full-frame camera. That statement seems totally absurd to me.

Do you actually believe that statement Ted?

Since then a lot of other people have confirmed the same thing.

So when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems.

Don’t get me wrong. Generally, they’re acceptable or people wouldn’t use them ...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

So, please discuss the above without putting words in my mouth.

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

... According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation ...<>

Ted made no such simple statement, instead agreeing more with Cicala than Scottelly.

Cicala said:

... Although it doesn’t always work. Lloyd Chambers first reported years ago that with high-quality, wide-angle lenses you could detect very small misalignments in the camera-lens mount. Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image.

What?!? BALDERDASH!

I can't agree with this statement: "Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image."

What was that in reference to? A microscope? There's no way . . . I repeat . . . NO WAY . . . that one tenth of a milimeter will make any noticeable difference to the image quality on an APS-C camera, let alone a full-frame camera. That statement seems totally absurd to me.

Do you actually believe that statement Ted?

Man, you are so deluded about optical realities. However, the world does look flat, so that’s the truest truth, no?

Since then a lot of other people have confirmed the same thing.

So when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems.

Don’t get me wrong. Generally, they’re acceptable or people wouldn’t use them ...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

So, please discuss the above without putting words in my mouth.

Ted, per the bold above, Cicala’s point being that they are acceptable in the same way as a nifty fifty is acceptable, but that’s not as good as a 50 Art.

Remember Ted, we are dealing with someone (Scott) who thinks the difference in sharpness between a 135 Art at ƒ/5.6 and a 50 Art at ƒ/5.6 is noticeable and significant and explains visual differences, but the difference between an Art lens and a nifty fifty equivalent (ie an Art lens on an adapter, as per Cicala’s charts and words) is not in any way possible to explain any differences.

Either someone gets it, or this goes on forever.

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

... According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation ...<>

Ted made no such simple statement, instead agreeing more with Cicala than Scottelly.

Cicala said:

... Although it doesn’t always work. Lloyd Chambers first reported years ago that with high-quality, wide-angle lenses you could detect very small misalignments in the camera-lens mount. Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image.

What?!? BALDERDASH!

I can't agree with this statement: "Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image."

What was that in reference to? A microscope?

Here Cicala tested a good few adapters:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

I won’t bore you with another 20 graphs that look pretty much like these. We tried Leica to NEX and Leica to Micro 4/3 adapters, Canon to NEX, etc. We tried different lenses on one adapter. It didn’t really matter. None of them would be acceptable for testing. Not one.

I’ll point out that we carry only name-brand, fairly expensive adapters, not eBay $29 adapters. All of them are tested frequently and used frequently and none of the ones I tested today had any problems. Still, not one of them would be acceptable for testing, so I guess I’m going to have to order those expensive lens mounts after all.

Maybe you should read the whole article.

There's no way . . . I repeat . . . NO WAY . . . that one tenth of a [millimeter] will make any noticeable difference to the image quality on an APS-C camera, let alone a full-frame camera. That statement seems totally absurd to me.

The resolution is so high on the Nikon D3x that the tiniest misalignment between lens mount and sensor and lens results in edge or corner blur. We’re talking 5-10 microns, an almost impossible manufacturing challenge. Why short focal lengths? Because the percentage error for any fixed alignment error is much larger.

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2009/20090802_1-UltraWideAlignment.html

Do you actually believe [Cicala's] statement Ted?

Yep, and no emotive response without credible references, such as yours, will change my mind.

Cicala knows his stuff and has all the test equipment and enough  gear samples to prove/disprove anything he wants to. Your lack of test equipment, test software, decent monitor, sample quantity and, dare I say, technical knowledge pales by comparison.

TN Args wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

... According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation ...<>

Ted made no such simple statement, instead agreeing more with Cicala than Scottelly.

Cicala said:

... Although it doesn’t always work. Lloyd Chambers first reported years ago that with high-quality, wide-angle lenses you could detect very small misalignments in the camera-lens mount. Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image.

What?!? BALDERDASH!

I can't agree with this statement: "Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image."

What was that in reference to? A microscope? There's no way . . . I repeat . . . NO WAY . . . that one tenth of a milimeter will make any noticeable difference to the image quality on an APS-C camera, let alone a full-frame camera. That statement seems totally absurd to me.

Do you actually believe that statement Ted?

Man, you are so deluded about optical realities. However, the world does look flat, so that’s the truest truth, no?

Since then a lot of other people have confirmed the same thing.

So when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems.

Don’t get me wrong. Generally, they’re acceptable or people wouldn’t use them ...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

So, please discuss the above without putting words in my mouth.

Ted, per the bold above, Cicala’s point being that they are acceptable in the same way as a nifty fifty is acceptable, but that’s not as good as a 50 Art.

Remember Ted, we are dealing with someone (Scott) who thinks the difference in sharpness between a 135 Art at ƒ/5.6 and a 50 Art at ƒ/5.6 is noticeable and significant

It's like you didn't even read my reply to you in that other thread about this.

and explains visual differences, but the difference between an Art lens and a nifty fifty equivalent (ie an Art lens on an adapter, as per Cicala’s charts and words) is not in any way possible to explain any differences.

Either someone gets it, or this goes on forever.

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

... According to Args and Ted, the adapter causes image quality degradation ...<>

Ted made no such simple statement, instead agreeing more with Cicala than Scottelly.

Cicala said:

... Although it doesn’t always work. Lloyd Chambers first reported years ago that with high-quality, wide-angle lenses you could detect very small misalignments in the camera-lens mount. Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image.

What?!? BALDERDASH!

I can't agree with this statement: "Misalignment of 10 microns from side-to-side was enough to cause blur on the sides of the image."

What was that in reference to? A microscope?

Here Cicala tested a good few adapters:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

I won’t bore you with another 20 graphs that look pretty much like these. We tried Leica to NEX and Leica to Micro 4/3 adapters, Canon to NEX, etc. We tried different lenses on one adapter. It didn’t really matter. None of them would be acceptable for testing. Not one.

I’ll point out that we carry only name-brand, fairly expensive adapters, not eBay $29 adapters. All of them are tested frequently and used frequently and none of the ones I tested today had any problems. Still, not one of them would be acceptable for testing, so I guess I’m going to have to order those expensive lens mounts after all.

Maybe you should read the whole article.

There's no way . . . I repeat . . . NO WAY . . . that one tenth of a [millimeter] will make any noticeable difference to the image quality on an APS-C camera, let alone a full-frame camera. That statement seems totally absurd to me.

The resolution is so high on the Nikon D3x that the tiniest misalignment between lens mount and sensor and lens results in edge or corner blur. We’re talking 5-10 microns, an almost impossible manufacturing challenge. Why short focal lengths? Because the percentage error for any fixed alignment error is much larger.

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2009/20090802_1-UltraWideAlignment.html

Do you actually believe [Cicala's] statement Ted?

Yep, and no emotive response without credible references, such as yours, will change my mind.

Ted, neither of them seem to be taking into account that when tilting a lens all that happens is the angle of the focal plane changes slightly, something simple to adjust for by slightly changing the angle of the camera, and when shifting a lens even that doesn't happen. One milimeter of shift is like nothing. Most tilt shift adapters will shift up to ten milimeters! Then there would be a noticeabke difference, but shifting the center point of the image the lens projects across the sensor by just one tenth of a milimeter ir even by a whole milimeter is not going to have any significant affect on the image quality. If you can't see how that woukd be the case, then I don't know how else to help you understand, other than to get a tilt-shift adapter for a Sony E mount camera, and show you the resukts of shifting my Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G over by 1 mm, and then shooting a comparison test shot. In fact, I've been planning to get just such an adapter, and I'll do this experiment for you, posting my resukts in the Adapted Lens Forum, so you can see for yourself. I'll even make shots with the lens shifter over 2 mm, so you can see the affect of a shift of twenty times what Roger Cicala claims is enough to make a lens "untestable."

Cicala knows his stuff and has all the test equipment and enough gear samples to prove/disprove anything he wants to.

Yeah, he surely does, which is why I can't understand why he would actually publish what he wrote.

Your lack of test equipment, test software, decent monitor, sample quantity and, dare I say, technical knowledge pales by comparison.

I guess I haven't earned your respect regarding my knowledge yet, and of course you're correct about my lack of test equipment. Still, I know enough to know that an image circle doesn't suddenly get blurry half a milimeter off the sensor. If it did, then the corners of my SD Quattro H photos that I shot at 10 mm with my 8-16mm lens woukd all be quite blurry, wouldn't they?