philip_pj wrote:
I can't imagine shooting landscape with the R lenses going by their look.
I shot all except the 5 most recent and a couple of the oldest (the gallery is chronological newest->oldest : left->right) with the 19mm Elmarit-R, 35mm Summilux-R and 90mm APO-Summicron-R:
Too many great pics that I can list all those who deserve my congratulations. Definitely a great lens, in the right hands. I would love to see a comparison with the Voigtländer 125 and Zeiss 100, not in order to see which is "best", but in order to better assimilate the rendition and style differences. Who knows, I might even be convinced to stray away from Zeiss once in a while...:-)
Bifurcator wrote:
I hate to say it but my point and shoot competes well among the images posted here - at this size. ... my $200 P&S is competing almost directly with it (at these sizes)?
Maybe I need educating but where's the "hard to beat" part?
. . . and a bicycle, moped or Yugo "competes well" against a DeLorean or Ferrari for getting groceries from the corner market ... inferring you would need to be educated regarding why either of these vehicles' performance could be construed as "hard to beat" also.
Jon Bader wrote:
PS Bif - nice reality check, the manufacturers and expensive lens owners (like me) all hope the emperor looks fully clothed for a while longer!
You're too kind. I really am wondering tho! And the wonderment is with great sincerity.
philip_pj wrote:
That's a courageous post, Bif. I guess it must be a matter of taste, but most things Leica do not get my aesthetic appreciation going either, old HCB-style B&W excepted. I can't imagine shooting landscape with the R lenses going by their look.
Yeah, courageous or just stupid considering the amount of money these guys paid for that. But I hope no one is misunderstanding. I'm not saying these posted images are bad (although a few could be better!) nor do I think I'm playing at sour grapes by trying to pooh-pooh what I don't have. I really put these images next to my own expecting to see some real differences and ended up saying hooooold on a minute... Mine are as good and better. Huh?
philip_pj wrote:
Can't agree re your P&S comments however, and good luck with the incoming, hah hah...a thick skin/sense of humour helps if you want to dissent from the zeitgeist in this world of ours.
I've got the thick skin and humor thing covered but I can (and did before I posted) put flower pics side by side with theirs and come out equal or on top every time - at this size. So if I made a blind comparison for you I think you couldn't not agree with my P&S comments. Now I'm really wondering if Jon's naked emperor assessment isn't in fact the actuality.
telyt wrote:
You said it best. OTOH if web-sized images are all you're interested in, your P&S is all you need.
OK, agreed. But then why all the ooos and awes over web sized images if indeed a P&S can do exactly the same thing?
Bifurcator wrote:
Maybe I need educating but where's the "hard to beat" part?
thrice wrote: Here you go. 100%, wide open, unsharpened and unprocessed (import into lightroom, export as unresized 100 quality sRGB jpeg with no sharpening).
Any loss of per pixel sharpness is due to the blur filter (AA filter) in the 5D mark II, or the fact that I shot it handheld.
It is a lens without optical or mechanical weakness.
There's a lot my camera can't do for sure. It has a tiny little 2/3 sensor and the lens while AD, aspherical and achromatic, is not apochromatic. It's actually a 7.2mm ~ 50.8mm zoom which projected onto that tiny sensor is the 35mm equivalent of 28mm ~ 200mm. The sensor size as everyone here already knows affects DOF dramatically as well as tonal response curves, scene or image resolving power, and etc.. The RAW files are only 12 bpp so the colors band sooner than cameras which capture deeper RAWs - this usually isn't a problem though - especially for portraits and such. The fact that the lens is actually a 7.2mm ~ 50.8mm design has some advantages as well as disadvantages too. All said, it kinda sucks for stuff like celestial imaging and even far off mountains - but most of that is due to to the sensor.
And that's mostly what I'm seeing here. I think I'm mostly capable of determining which aspects are attributable to the sensor and which are of the lens. All I see in that 100% shot you posted are the attributes of lighting and the FF sensor of your 5D Mark II. My P&S lens is actually about the same or maybe a little sharper than that example image you linked to - given the same pixel to scene ratio (magnification level).
So put up or shut up right? Well, the flower images are way too easy, so lets do the 100% you posted. It's night-time here so I had to take an indoor shot with just a 500 watt work light and a lamp shade so the tone dynamics will need to be ignored. Also, all I had on hand was my grandson and he doesn't have the pours and stubble of an older man like in your shot so the comparisons won't be as direct and obvious right off. Also I wasn't sure what the cranberry sauce was all about so i didn't duplicate that either - to my grandson's delight I might add.
My image also has no post processing and no sharpening. The lens was set to 100 mm and it also was wide open - although wide open for it at 100mm (equiv) is only f/3.2. I framed the image so that the eyes were approximately the same distance apart as in your image when displayed at 100% (meaning the same pixel ratio or "magnification level"). The RAW file was brought into ACR with all the sliders zeroed and then opened in PS for the JPEG conversion and copy and paste comparisons all at 100%.
Respect & applaud the effort, a few questions (respectfully):
... the aperture used was ??
... camera to subject distance ??
... the actual focal length was appx. 25mm ??
... the file you compared with was shot at what aperture ??
... the file you compared with was shot at what camera to subject distance ??
... the file you compared with was on what sensor format ??
... the file you compared with had been cropped how much ??
... the file you compared with had previously been compressed how much ??
RustyBug wrote:
Respect & applaud the effort, a couple questions:
... and the aperture used was ??
... and the file you compared with was shot at what aperture ??
... and the file you compared with was on what sensor format ??
... and the file you compared with had previously been compressed how much ??
Mine was shot hand-held (as was his) at 1/80s shutter speed.
His was ISO 250 and mine was ISO 64 - actually comparable given the two cameras.
His was shot using a shutter speed of 1/180s.
PS: Actually all he said was "wide open" but if you looked up that lens as I did you'll know that means f/2.
Your P&S looks pretty good in this comparison, and if all you want to compare is thrice's photo (probably not made for comparison purposes) and your test photo then be happy. If you wish to believe the emperor has no clothes then go ahead & knock yourself out.
IMHO a more generally-applicable comparison would include side-by-side photos under a variety of test conditions, side-by-side photos under real-world conditions, and real-world photos made where each camera system shows its strengths and weaknesses.
Does your camera have an AA filter, if so what amount of blur does it apply?
There is a vast difference between f2 on a 100mm lens FF ... than there is of 3.2 on a 25mm lens on a 2/3.
Despite the concept of effective focal length (consumer lingo) ... the fact remains that you were hand holding a 25mm lens @ 3 times the shutter speed of the FL. Thrice was handholding at appx 1:1 (1/80 vs. 100mm).
Good snaps & effort ... but entirely too many variables and assumptions regarding the format delta to warrant a judgment.
telyt wrote:
Your P&S looks pretty good in this comparison, and if all you want to compare is thrice's photo (probably not made for comparison purposes) and your test photo then be happy. If you wish to believe the emperor has no clothes then go ahead & knock yourself out.
IMHO a more generally-applicable comparison would include side-by-side photos under a variety of test conditions, side-by-side photos under real-world conditions, and real-world photos made where each camera system shows its strengths and weaknesses.
Oh for sure. I would indeed trade mine for his... any day! I'll take the tonal qualities, sensitivities, and dynamic range of his system over the sharpness (on a 2/3 sensor) of mine any day. Not to mention the resale price! His is the better system. But the sharpness of his lens though? On a FF sensor I suppose it's good. Put in on a 2/3 sensor though and ... well, you see the results here. At least I think I did them correctly.
RustyBug wrote:
Does your camera have an AA filter, if so what amount of blur does it apply?
Ummm, I'm not really sure. There is nothing in the menus about AA (I assume this is anti-aliasing?) and I shot RAW so wouldn't AA only apply to JPEGs? I've never investigated AA on a camera. This is a 6 year "bridge" camera called the dIMAGE A2. You can read about it here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A2/A2P.HTM or just read about the lens at the same site here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A2/A2A5.HTM But I can tell you that while it's "pretty good" it's nothing too special. Especially considering some of the "bridge" models that have been released since.
When a camera has one, it typically resides between the lens and the sensor, so all images are affected by the degree of the AA filter, regardless of whether you are shooting in RAW or jpg mode.
The processing required to contend with AA filter is either done in camera by using the jpg mode or must be done in Post Processing.
I do not know the degree of AA in the 5D MK II or in yours ... but I do know that Canon has been known to use a heavy handed AA filter in different models, while other mfr's opt for something different. I have some great glass, but the AA filter produces some heavy blur that must be sharpened out in post (or let the camera do it in jpg). So while one might think that RAW vs. RAW will compare the lenses ... only if shot on the same model (ideally same camera). I specifically spent the $$ to go from a MK II to a MK II N for this very reason after a lengthy search as to why my RAW images were softer than what others were getting with the same glass.
Odd as it may seem, pro grade cameras can have some of the heaviest AA filters (relates to the amount of control available for the printing industry for publications, according to Canon), while consumer oriented cameras aren't resolving to the capability that generates a strong moire, thereby less likely to have strong AA ... and consumer products don't generally want the additional effort required to masterfully sharpen a RAW file, again probably either no AA or a weak AA.
Accordingly, any criticism of the sharpness of a handheld RAW file regarding the lens, does not necessarily hold true. If the image had been shot tripod, timer, MLU on a Kodak SLR/c (no AA filter) ... then we could make some better evaluations regarding the lens mounted to it. Unfortunately, the AA filter in RAW varies widely between models (& likely even more so between formats). On the surface, your argument presents better than one might have anticipated, but there are still too many issues in play for it to be meritable.
The word "Aliasing" doesn't appear in any of the in-depth reviews I've read on the A2 and "AA" only appears in reference to battery grip batteries, so I assume it doesn't have it. <shrug> Were there AA filters on cameras 6 years ago? It might help to know that.
So, anyway unless there are some other direct questions or requests I think I should stop hijacking the thread and look at some more nice 100mm APO images - even if they are softer at 100% of 8MP.
1:1 scale pixel ratio at 100%. Checking primarily for sharpness and resolving power of the two lenses. I took the "hard to beat" in the thread title literally.
Unfortunately, this effort is unable to make that determination, due to the intervening variables.
The combination of small sensors & short FL's are designed to cover a multitude of sins (particularly handheld), which is why the consumer P&S / Bridge market makes them that way. I've got a great Fuji bridge camera with nice glass (for a bridge) ... not a snowball's chance in Australia (right now), that I'd use it for any critical work.
