As years goes by, I value these charts less and less...shoot with this lenses, print big, and then you can spot real differences...many times you canīt...I suppose it would be so with these lenses...
vallejo wrote:
As years goes by, I value these charts less and less...shoot with this lenses, print big, and then you can spot real differences...many times you canīt...I suppose it would be so with these lenses...
I get your point, but I find it's more efficient for me to research reviews and charts in order to decide what to buy and then if it doesn't work out sell it. I don't have time to buy and test every lens I might consider.
douglasf13 wrote:
FWIW, the little Sony 16 actually has pretty low distortion for its size and focal length. It's the m4/3 lenses that have massive distortion that is corrected in software.
The 16 is .6% distortion. Maybe the pictures I remember posted a long time ago when NEX first came out, were maybe from the 18-55 which is 4% distortion at 18.
What is normal amount of CA for lenses people are using on their NEX?
This 24/1.8 has ~1 pixel which is higher than ZM 35/2.
Jeff Kott wrote:
I get your point, but I find it's more efficient for me to research reviews and charts in order to decide what to buy and then if it doesn't work out sell it. I don't have time to buy and test every lens I might consider.
It makes sense.What I would like to see these reviewers do, instead of comparing charts, would be comparing prints, properly sharpened and printed. That would be great. We, of course, are not in the position to do it, at least not with the lenses we still want to have...
Anyway,I guess we are all a bunch of pixel peepers, otherwise we would be elsewhere! (8-)))
It's too bad they did not have a NEX-7 around to test the lens on as I suppose all of their findings would be a little worse vs the NEX-5...worse CA and would "maximal sharpness is achieved at /4, where it's not quite tack-sharp, but for most purposes, it's close enough" still be close enough?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's too bad they did not have a NEX-7 around to test the lens on as I suppose all of their findings would be a little worse vs the NEX-5...worse CA and would "maximal sharpness is achieved at /4, where it's not quite tack-sharp, but for most purposes, it's close enough" still be close enough?
Yes, that's exactly what I got stuck on. I guess for most purposes would not include a landscape or architectural shot with a lot of detail printed at 16x24.
Another issue that is worth noting IMHO is that, because 24 ZA is a native E-mount, it is very likely that the NEX 7 has multiple in-cam lens corrections for it which are already visible in the menu of 5N...
Also, nobody commented on it, but MR showed a small pic of an angel, quality of which was mouth-watering.
philber wrote:
Another issue that is worth noting IMHO is that, because 24 ZA is a native E-mount, it is very likely that the NEX 7 has multiple in-cam lens corrections for it which are already visible in the menu of 5N...
.
But the in-cam lens correction only works on the jpegs, correct?
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
You could try to ask Sony about that. The question is if you'd get an honest answer
I know that I ended my statement with a question mark, but I don't see how Sony's lens corrections could possibly work on raw files unless the raw converter had the lens correction built in. It's likely Lightroom and ACR will at some point have lens profiles for the 24/1.8. As far as C1, who knows?
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
You could try to ask Sony about that. The question is if you'd get an honest answer
I doubt Sony does any corrections to the RAW files. If they're correcting the RAW files from the kit zoom, anyway, they're doing a pretty poor job of it.
When comparing the slrgear reviews of the Zeiss 24/1.8 and the Panasonic 20/1.7, the Panasonic seems to be equally sharp even at f/16, which should be way beyond diffraction limit for m4/3. This is surprising considering the huge price and size difference. It would be interesting to see if the Zeiss can resolve more detail on a NEX 7 than the Pana on a GH2. Somehow, I doubt it.
It seems to me that the lenses available from Sony in NEX mount are struggling with 24MP. If that is the case, the high pixel number is just a theoretical value for most people, those who cannot afford really top glass for the camera, which is also demonstrated in MR's review when he compares the Zeiss with the Summilux 24.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who would have preferred the 16MP sensor in the NEX 7. In real life use, the 24MP sensor seems to contribute with little other than larger files. One can always claim that 24MP will print larger, but without proper glass, they won't.
I found btw. that with files from my 7MP Panasonic L1 and the amazing PanaLeica kit zoom, I print comfortably up to A2 format (that's 23.4" x 16.5" for Americans) without any hint whatsoever that I'm overstretching the file, even when watching close up. A weak AA filter and a good lens seem to be the keys. I'm starting to believe that the guys at Olympus were right when they claimed a few years ago that there was no point going beyond 12MP for most photographic purposes.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
I found btw. that with files from my 7MP Panasonic L1 and the amazing PanaLeica kit zoom, I print comfortably up to A2 format (that's 23.4" x 16.5" for Americans) without any hint whatsoever that I'm overstretching the file, even when watching close up. A weak AA filter and a good lens seem to be the keys. I'm starting to believe that the guys at Olympus were right when they claimed a few years ago that there was no point going beyond 12MP for most photographic purposes.
You may be right, but many testers have said that when they print large they see smoother tonal transitions with the higher megapixel files irrespective of pure resolution gains. I've never seen this myself and don't know how I would test for this.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
I doubt Sony does any corrections to the RAW files. If they're correcting the RAW files from the kit zoom, anyway, they're doing a pretty poor job of it.
When it comes to Sony, my imagination isn't vivid enough to figure out what they will or will not do in their attempts to make a product look more attractive to the masses. Sometimes, they make great gadgets, but they have also been known to screw up epically on occasions.
Jeff Kott wrote:
You may be right, but many testers have said that when they print large they see smoother toner transitions with the higher megapixel files irrespective of pure resolution gains. I've never seen this myself and don't know how I would test for this.
If I don't see it, it doesn't exist
Edit: It's important also to remember that when it comes to print, the printer software and the printer itself as well as the inks and papers can have huge impact on the results. Most "normal" sized inkjet printers print at much higher resolution than the files from the camera, and a lot of computing is being performed to make those transitions smooth and usually smoother than the original files while still maintaining detail and sharpness.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
When it comes to Sony, my imagination isn't vivid enough to figure out what they will or will not do in their attempts to make a product look more attractive to the masses. Sometimes, they make great gadgets, but they have also been known to screw up epically on occasions.
I suppose -- but If they wanted to fool "the masses", they'd do it with the kit lenses. This particular conspiracy theory requires that Sony be both devious (to sneak hidden corrections into the RAW files) and really incompetent (because the corrections are so poorly done). I don't see it.
