Upload & Sell: On
| p.13 #6 · Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R Full Frame with no AA filter |
Skipped some of the dialogue for a while .. but, the issue of distant detail:
Isn't that going to be attributed to what distance the lens was optimized for vs. not for. It would seem that a single, general purpose lens is going to be optimized for mid-range distances more so than distant landscapes. Attributing the loss of distant detail to the sensor (instead of the lens) may be missing the mark at where the real culprit for soft distances is. People are quick to jump at the user when they use a lens @ mfd and say it is soft ... readily recognizing that the (non-macro) lens may not have been optimized for that distance. Same goes for portrait/street range (which I would expect the Sony to be optimized for) may not be optimized for infinty nor mfd.
Also, makes me wonder why some folks complain @ Fuji's new sensor array and some don't ... hmmm at which glass @ which distance vs. the sensor @ culprit.
Case in point ... my C/Y 80-200 (@ 150mm) performs better @ mfd and distance than my M645 150/2.8 A. But at portrait distances, the M645 150/2.8 A trumps the 80-200. It would seem the 80-200 was designed for broader usage, with the 150 A designed to mildly compromise near and far distances in order to excel at portrait range. Where did Sony put the distance optimization ... ... but I'm banking it wasn't at infinity or mfd.
We test lenses at apertures ad infinitum, but rarely do we give much credence to the distance a lens was optimized for, except when DXO shows a Zeiss tested poorly.
Edited on Aug 25, 2013 at 08:35 PM · View previous versions