Pondria wrote:
Another way to compensate for the crop factor diff is to use the same lens but changing the distance so that the frame will be the same. That's what I did.
Theoretically one can argue that the lens perform differently from different distance but it may be less different than using different lenses. Just my two cents ... sitting on the couch
Indeed Pondria, your method is what I use if I don't have different focal lenghts at diposal, but I found that if I change the distance the perspective is more different than using different FLs (indeed perspective is a function of distance to the subject).
In my R-D1 vs M8 test for instance, if I used the same lens I should have moved the M8 about 2-3 meters forward and the rounded building on the background would have probably been hidden by the wall of plants.
For distant subject also you'd need to move quite a bit to compensate
your test charts reminds me of dpreview.com testing. All scientific and all compltely irrelevant. I am a photographer. I want to know how it handles high contrast deep shadow situations, as in Guy's pictures from Arizona, how it depicts people and their skin colour. How does it handle landscapes etc? How easy is it to operate? How much postprocesing -something a analog photogrpher like me dreads- is necessary to get "good" pictures.
Lets move on to these topics rather than this never ending tit for tat. During the last 10-15 pages how much yada yada and how many real pictures have we seen
I don't have the Raw files anymore, but I saved the cropped sections in Tiff 16bit.
Let me know if you want them and your e-mail if the case, I could send 'em via yousendit.com
But please don't judge colors from those images, as I didn't have IR filter at the time and that M8 was one of the early units.
...we did everything in sight so leave that test out of your
Guy, I am not attacking your excellent and informative tests which you kindly shared with the rest of us. However, it has been a long time since I looked at a comparison between those two cameras, and sadly the pictures are mostly gone now. That's why I would be interested to see new examples of a test done along the lines of the test I just did. It needn't use JPEG - that's not the issue. I said in my test that I have to use JPEG for work, so that's why I tested that way. Nevertheless, I have never seen enormous, if any, real resolution difference between a camera's raw and best JPEG output. Processing can change many image parameters but it doesn't seem to make huge differences to ultimate resolution.
georgl wrote:
Another issue (as with the DMR) is the bad JPG-file-quality. But it is a professional camera and for professional quality you use RAW anway. Or has somebody of you thrown away his negatives when he got his prints?
The effects shown in this "comparison" just look like the images from the M8-screen, the same information-loss, artifacts...
Make a real comparison, under real-world-conditions: Don't just test the sensor, test the whole system (+lenses). Use the whole frame (also image height >10mm), make some shots at open apertures, make them RAW and make the best out of them in Photoshop - then print them. And then compare those prints regarding out-of-center resolution, colors, DR, contrast, flare - just the WHOLE IQ... ! ...Show more →
Quality of JPGs matters to a lot of photographers!
If you shoot weddings and such stuff you can save lots of time by using JPGs, even bettter if you can use them without any or only a bit of posttreatment as with some cameras. Clients will prefer a DVD/CD with their photos in jpg and look this as digital-negativ.
Question, can you use the M8 black nd white setting with DNG. I thought it was not possible to memorise b/w in that raw mode and you need to use jpg for this.
I think brainiac test was well done! Of course if you shoot on a sunny day with higher contrasts images will look better whatever camera you use.
Thanks Marco for these samples, you should post more as you seem to have better acceptance than others in this part of the forum.
shirozina wrote:
Any object or detail that is projected by the lens onto the sensor that is smaller than a pixel will be either rendered up to pixel size or not rendered at all - obviously the more pixels per area of sensor ( higher pixel count) the less this happens and more detail gets resolved and the more you can observe a definate focus plane with a gradual lessening of resolution away from it each side.
Well... everything is reflecting photons back through the lens and those photons accumulate in the sensors, so even sub-pixel objects get averaged into the pixel via a fractional amount of the total number of photons. They don't take over 100%, nor do they disappear.
Yes - I was wrong they dont don't disapear but everything under 1 pixel width be it 10% 50% or 90% will get represented as the same 1 pixel and this gives one of the resolution limits ( roughly speaking) with digital sensors.
I am planning to go for CV15, 28 Cron Asph, 50 Lux Asph, Apo-75 Cron or 75 Lux, 90 Macro and 135 Elmarit. I think that is more than enough, and the last two will probably stay at home except for special occasions. I might add a 21 Elmarit Asph later, if I find that there is a gap there after some time.
I think the 15/(21)/28/50/75/(90)/135 is a better spacing than other choices, and in the 24 vs. 28 battle, the Cron wins over the Elmarit, for me, because that extra stop will come in handy.
I'm intrigued by the 90 macro, mainly for casual closeup without the macro adapter, giving that the lens collapsed is so tiny and light that it would easily find a place in the bag.
But IMO if you have the 50 asph you won't find the 75 Apo much useful.
For outdoor the 90 macro would do fine and for nice bokeh at wide aperture I'd prefer the Summilux 75.
Having used the 135 Apo I don't think that it will see much use on my M8, too much trouble in focussing and framing.
If I didn't have an SLR I would keep it, but I don't find rangefinder a good choice for anything longer than 90mm.
Again the difference between the 28mm and 21mm isn't probably big enough to make me keep the 21, I almost always skip to the 15.
Maybe when the Tri-Elmar will be out I will change the CV 15 for it.
For now I think that CV15, 28/2, 50 asph and 90 Apo will do for me.
Marco, you said 75 Lux! Where is it? :) Add 75 Lux, and change Apo-90 to Macro 90, and I agree. The 21 will only come if I need it. I have the 135mm Elmarit, not the Apo-135, so this lens is cheap enough to keep, and the glasses help. This is my Zoo lens :)
Edited by carstenw on Dec 12, 2006 at 09:44 PM GMT
Guy, the 21mm lens is apparently almost exactly the size of the whole viewfinder, so maybe you can leave that external finder at home? And just sell that 24 and be happy with the 28mm Cron Asph. That extra stop makes this the right decision, I think, especially since the 24/28 have to replace the 35mm focal length (on film), which needs to be fast for the streets when it is dim or shady.
It's funny you know, I think we are approaching the same collection from opposite ends: me starting with nothing, and you starting with everything
The main difference is that I really want to end up with a main system of four lenses and one body, whereas I think you will end up with six lenses and two bodies. No matter.
This whole wide end of the rangefinder has me in a quandry, my eyesight in my right eye has always been weak and traditionaly I've always used my left eye with SLR's. Now with the M8 and the position of the finder forced me to get a +3 diopter which makes things a whole lot better, except I can now not see past the 24mm frame lines in the view finder due to the mag factor.
This kind of leaves my wide choices to either the 24mm which I can frame but not really wide enough or the more expensive 21mm and guess the outer frame. That 15mm CV looks so tempting just to zone focus and chimp afterwards, decisions decisions, and don't forget there are 2 new Zeiss lenses coming 18mm f/4 and 21 f/4.5 perhaps the 21 is too slow for that focal lenght and there is the Tri-Elmar 16/18/21 also in the mix.
Other than that, 2-3 lens setup, small bag or large pockets and it's a small light setup that you can carry all day long and not know it's even there.
