thrice wrote:
My fuji f31fd is also sharper than my 5D Mark II was at the pixel level. No AA filter in that camera either. covering a small image circle is much easier in lens design, on-centre those little lenses tend to not have any fringing either,
Yup! Exactly true and accurate - those were the \"advantages\" I spoke of in my lens design/crop factor.
but if we look at corner crops the 100/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit will stomp all over it.
I\'m not sure about that. At least the GT lens on the A2 has exceptional corner sharpness. It\'s center sharpness and CA is generally not much better than the corners given a low contrast scene.
How about I resize the image to 12 megapixel? then we do a comparison? Can you link to the full frame of your shot?
Sure. That sounds like fun to me. I would be totally into it! I think we should start a new thread though because a few people here just turn it into a non-sensical monkey-zoo type ruckus of bizarre comments totally unrelated to anything of merit. It seems like I\'m being left with the blame for it too. Kinda sucks... So if we do it let\'s do it in a different thread. I think it\'s interesting. I know I\'ve learned a few things by doing this - even if others haven\'t.
Or not. I dunno. I suppose I can just not reply to anyone who isn\'t on track with the sub-topic here. I\'ll leave it up to you. I\'m OK either way.
12mp would be ok. 8mp would be better as the A2 is an 8MP camera. But does your camera sensor crop for lower pixel sizes or does it scale in camera? I think most cameras don\'t scale but I dunno the specs/engine of the 5D Mark II and things change all the time.
Anyway if it is a sensor crop there wouldn\'t be much point to it if indeed you can recognize the results already shown because as you were astute enough to recognize, this is what I essentially already did. The scene lighting was different of course but that can usually be recognized and rationalized. Additionally, the corner sharpness of your lens won\'t come into play if it\'s a sensor crop. But it would be a more accurate test if we could match scenes a little closer and this kinda thing (camera and lens comparisons) is pretty fun for me.
burningheart wrote:
Exif of alt lens don\'t necessarily give the correct information regarding aperture and focal length. Most chipped adapters are permanently programmed to give only 1 aperture reading and 1 focal length. These are used mainly for focus confirmaton.
I have a chipped adapter for Nikon lenses and any lens mounted on the camera with this adapter is always a 100mm F2. I can attach a Voigtlander 40, Zeiss ZF 21, Ageneiux 180, Nikon 105 UV and all will display in the EXIF as 100mm shot at F2.
My Rokkor that I got with an EF mount is permanently set at 58mm aperture F1.2, again no matter what aperture is actually used.
Yes you can get a programmable chip now and do some some programming to it while on the camera but most photographers will be more concerned on taking the shot vs fidgitting will the camera to program the chip to show the correct EXIF information.
Ah, right... Spaced that one off. Thanks! So his was shot at 2.8 then and not 2.0 assuming he used the Leica 100mm APO macro. My bad. Good catch tho! Thanks!
thrice wrote:
My fuji f31fd is also sharper than my 5D Mark II was at the pixel level. No AA filter in that camera either. covering a small image circle is much easier in lens design, on-centre those little lenses tend to not have any fringing either,
Yup! Exactly true and accurate - those were the \"advantages\" I spoke of in my lens design/crop factor.
but if we look at corner crops the 100/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit will stomp all over it.
I\'m not sure about that. At least the GT lens on the A2 has exceptional corner sharpness. It\'s center sharpness and CA is generally not much better than the corners given a low contrast scene.
How about I resize the image to 12 megapixel? then we do a comparison? Can you link to the full frame of your shot?
Sure. That sounds like fun to me. I would be totally into it! I think we should start a new thread though because a few people here just turn it into a non-sensical monkey-zoo type ruckus of bizarre comments totally unrelated to anything of merit. It seems like I\'m being left with the blame for it too. Kinda sucks... So if we do it let\'s do it in a different thread. I think it\'s interesting. I know I\'ve learned a few things by doing this - even if others haven\'t.
Or not. I dunno. I suppose I can just not reply to anyone who isn\'t on track with the sub-topic here. I\'ll leave it up to you. I\'m OK either way.
12mp would be ok. 8mp would be better as the A2 is an 8MP camera. But does your camera sensor crop for lower pixel sizes or does it scale in camera? I think most cameras don\'t scale but I dunno the specs/engine of the 5D Mark II and things change all the time.
Anyway if it is a sensor crop there wouldn\'t be much point to it if indeed you can recognize the results already shown because as you were astute enough to recognize, this is what I essentially already did. The scene lighting was different of course but that can usually be recognized and rationalized. Additionally, the corner sharpness of your lens won\'t come into play if it\'s a sensor crop. But it would be a more accurate test if we could match scenes a little closer and this kinda thing (camera and lens comparisons) is pretty fun for me.
burningheart wrote:
Exif of alt lens don\'t necessarily give the correct information regarding aperture and focal length. Most chipped adapters are permanently programmed to give only 1 aperture reading and 1 focal length. These are used mainly for focus confirmaton.
I have a chipped adapter for Nikon lenses and any lens mounted on the camera with this adapter is always a 100mm F2. I can attach a Voigtlander 40, Zeiss ZF 21, Ageneiux 180, Nikon 105 UV and all will display in the EXIF as 100mm shot at F2.
My Rokkor that I got with an EF mount is permanently set at 58mm aperture F1.2, again no matter what aperture is actually used.
Yes you can get a programmable chip now and do some some programming to it while on the camera but most photographers will be more concerned on taking the shot vs fidgitting will the camera to program the chip to show the correct EXIF information.
Ah, right... Spaced that one off. Thanks! So his was shot at 2.8 then and not 2.0 assuming he used the Leica 100mm APO macro. My bad. Good catch tho! Thanks!
Feb 07, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #8100839 « Leica 100mm APO macro - hard to beat »
