RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
LBJ2 wrote:
"The takeaway, is that I can keep my shutter speed a bit higher, even if it means a certain amount of underexposure at capture. Then, when I get below a certain threshold ... it's either raise the ISO or break out the sticks. Mostly, I shoot base ISO."
Very similar approach to what I was thinking. In photography always more than one way get from point A to point B. Thanks for posting your experience.
On another topic. What are your thoughts about XCD lens MTFs and real world. I'm a bit spoilt with a few Full Frame excellent optics, so when I review the XCD MTF's I'm not pleasantly surprised. In my imagination, I associate Hasselblad to world class optics with that sensor, but maybe there is a priority on small size with the XCD series? OTOH, I read somewhere Medium Frame MTFs results should not be compared to Full Frame MTFs results...🤷🏽♂️
I'm thinking the XCD 55 would make a good one lens try-out kit with the 907x 100c. Just day-dreaming at the moment. ...Show more →
Well ... I owe myself a "test" comparison of my Leica FF glass vs. my Hassy glass, but haven't got around to it yet. In some regard, it's meaningless. By that, I simply mean ... I like what I'm getting out of my Hassy glass. So, what does it matter how it compares to my Leica glass? (Although, our minds do still want to know the diff's.)
Here's the thing though, the more collimated the optical projection, the more acute the resolution. Look at super-tele lenses vs. wide angle lenses to bear this out on a "same format" somewhat. You can't compare MTF's of teles vs. UWA's in an absolute manner. You can compare a pair of UWA's in a relative manner to one another, etc.
So ... having had my M645 glass (35/3.5 N, 45/2.8, 80/4 N, 150/2.8 A) on my SLR/C (et al), I know that the projection of the larger image circle, compared to a similar optic, designed for a smaller (FF) image circle, the smoothness of transitions are a bit different. That "smoother" transition is going to "read" on an mtf chart differently than an optic with a "tighter" image circle. Point being ... you can't compare the charts directly.
When I wanted a smoother transition, I'd pick up my M645 glass. When I wanted a more acute transition, I'd pick up my C/Y glass (FF image circle).
So, yeah ... don't get hung up on the MTF's of MF, not being "as good" as FF MTF's. It's like saying the top end horsepower of engine A isn't as much as the top end horsepower of engine B ... and yet, the torque band on engine A comes in immediately, down low and really pulls where you want it. Meanwhile you have to "wind out" engine B to get into it's torque band.
Going by horsepower metrics alone will "trick" you into not experiencing the joy of low end / full range torque. MF may not spank the MTF charts the same way that FF glass might, but it is the experience of how it handles things throughout the entire range that can be different. Some folks will prefer that high end, wind it out HP. Others, appreciate the torque coming in sooner, rather than HP later (count me in that group). Some folks want that last % of MTF resolution (which can be achieved at the expense of certain quid pro quo optical designs), while others want an optic that has fewer "quid pro quo's" and still produces a great image, never mind that last % of MTF.
Different animals, so yeah ... different benchmarks. Mountain Lion vs. Bobcat. Which one is quicker, which one is more powerful?
Gotta ask the right question, to get the right answer.
|