Bifurcator wrote:
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.
You've got way too many variables in your comparison to draw any conclusion other than which particular photo is sharper at 100%. Says nothing about lens comparison, sensor comparison, or anything else. All you're comparing is two photos.
"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)."
The angle offsets are identical. Meaning the exact same amount of camera movement will cause the exact same amount of blur given the same SS and the same effective focal length. That's just math.
And then, you still misread the original messages. His was 1/180s and mine was 1/80s not the other way around as you presume.
Bifurcator,
It is rather difficult to take you seriously since you enjoy playing the role of habitual naysayer, or, more aptly, "non seer."
I can only conclude one of the following:
1. You enjoy arguing by your nature just to ruffle feathers.
2. You truly don't see a difference in ANY of the threads where you have voiced this and see youself as the only one who realized the Emperor has no clothes.
3. You lack the experience see for yourself and/or desire to learn other points of view (similar to #1 but with less premeditation).
4. You simply have a different and unshakable opinion of the way the world spins.
Not sure which of the four apply, or perhaps there is a category that I missed, but none of them provide much hope for reasonable (or reasoned) discourse.
From my experience, having shot film and digital for many years and probably dozens of different lenses and combinations of lenses and adapters, diopters, tubes, etc. from different vendors, I can say without reservation that the Leica 100 R is the best and most reliable that I have used among them all. Are their situations where a longer or shorter focal length or wider aperture work better? Of course, that is why I seldom bring just one lens when I go to shoot. However, when I do only have time, space, or desire to take a single lens to shoot close ups, this is it.
While AF on my former Canon 100 macro helped speed up the process - and good shots were certainly obtainable - the bokeh and tonal detail are on a different scale. What surprises me is the huge difference in sharpness and tonal separation visible on my modest 8MP sensor. I can only imagine how much wider the gap will be once I uprade.
Can perfectly good shots be had from P&S cameras? Of course, and the photographer has far more to do with overall success than the gear. I did quite well with my first digital camera, an Olympus C-5050. Only 5MP, but it had an f/1.8 lens that was quite sharp even wide open.
A butcher knife and a scalpel will both cut well, but if I had to go in for surgery, I know which I would want my doctor to use.
Jim
One the angle offsets are identical. Meaning the camera exact same amount of camera movement will cause the exact same amount of blur given the same SS and the same effective focal length. That's just math.
And then, you still misread the original messages. His was 1/180s and mine was 1/80s not the other way around as you presume.
Good try though.
By continuing this line of reasoning you are making a very convincing demonstration of your comparison skills.
Grenache wrote:
Bifurcator,
It is rather difficult to take you seriously since you enjoy playing the role of habitual naysayer, or, more aptly, "non seer."
I can only conclude one of the following:
1. You enjoy arguing by your nature just to ruffle feathers.
2. You truly don't see a difference in ANY of the threads where you have voiced this and see youself as the only one who realized the Emperor has no clothes.
3. You lack the experience see for yourself and/or desire to learn other points of view (similar to #1 but with less premeditation).
4. You simply have a different and unshakable opinion of the way the world spins.
Not sure which of the four apply, or perhaps there is a category that I missed, but none of them provide much hope for reasonable (or reasoned) discourse....Show more →
No. It's nothing like that. He laid out the challenge. Named the lens and called it "hard to beat". I took the challenge and beat it in at least two aspects. I'm not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES contending that it won't blow me away in every other aspect.
I know it will. I was just having some fun is all. If that wounds your pride or sense "reasoned discourse" there's nothing I can do about it (that's on you my brother) except maybe to offer the same advice as the master Marley himself would: "Be happy, don't worry".
And then, you still misread the original messages. His was 1/180s and mine was 1/80s not the other way around as you presume.
OIC ... I thought you had said they were the same (I 'assumed a typo on the 180 vs. 80). On re-read, I see that you were saying 'same' for hand held, i.e. not same for 1/80.
telyt wrote:
By continuing this line of reasoning you are making a very convincing demonstration of your comparison skills.
Well, if I'm getting something wrong please be kind enough to explain what it is and how to correct it.
RustyBug wrote:
OIC ... I thought you had said they were the same (I 'assumed a typo on the 180 vs. 80). On re-read, I see that you were saying 'same' for hand held, i.e. not same for 1/80.
So that makes the delta 3.2:1 vs. 1.8:1
Why would the shutter speed change the max aperture size? And it's 1:3.2 vs. 1:2. Huh? what are you talking about. Please explain.
BIF ... appreciate the concept of 'having fun' ... many enjoy a good quip & barb, here & there ... and most everyone can take a good ribbing.
BUT ... when it comes to pics, most people here are VERY SERIOUS (highly opinionated, but respectfully serious) about the medium. I speak for only myself, and respect your right to your own individuality, but you could probably serve yourself well by checking your 'I'm only having fun' at the door and not putting everyone through the ringer for the sake of your 'having fun'.
If you want to learn something ... just ask, these guys are world class at helping everyone grow, but quickly grow weary of having their 'chain jerked' ... my .02
Thanks for that. But it wasn't a chain jerking for those who could understand what was being talked about and compared. I think it was actually rather interesting to see myself. Maybe I'm just bored.
One the angle offsets are identical. Meaning the camera exact same amount of camera movement will cause the exact same amount of blur given the same SS and the same effective focal length. That's just math.
Handholding a long '3 lb' rig is little more challenging than handholding a short '12 ounce' rig ... that's just math also.
Probably a MAJOR reason why the consumer market uses the smaller format.
OK, could you please explain why some engineers have designed products that add weight in order to reduce shake then?
Isn't it actualy the other way around? Try holding 50 lbs. and see if it shakes and shimmies as much as one ounce would. Right? The "test by extremes" thing again. The laws of inertia would seem at least, to contradict you.
Can we stop this back and forth now and wait for some more cool images instead?
Agree ... there is a relationship between mass & steadiness, say on a tripod.
But when you are discussing muscle strength and weight (mass, gravity & angles) ... not to mention fatigue of working all day doing a shoot (as Thrice had been) vs. doing a single shot set-up for 10-20 minutes, these things matter and it's not as simple as it might otherwise appear ... wind, footing, terrain, shooting angle, etc. all come into play.
As for adding mass, that comes into play with dampening movement vibrations. In an SLR, you have the movement of the mirror, which causes significantly more vibration than the shutter. In your bridge / P & S (also rangefinders), there is no mirror (electronic viewfinder vs. parallax vs. optical viewfinder considerations), therefore no slap, therfore MUCH LESS vibration, therefore less need for dampening mass. So you see, it is not as simple as it looks on the surface.
Muscle stability vs. vibration dampening ... two very different animals that yield somewhat similar effects. Again, the P&S is less prone to such issues ... again, too many variables to be a meritable comp.
Bifurcator wrote:
No. It's nothing like that. He laid out the challenge. Named the lens and called it "hard to beat". I took the challenge and beat it in at least two aspects.
The 'he' was me, and nothing that you have posted or said touches the statement. A few crops of images do not address the rendering of the lens/camera. But then pointing that out to some one who thought that was the relevant proof is probably tilting at windmills.
Grenache wrote:
Granted, I have not shot with the Contax or Voit, but it would be hard for me to be happier than with this beauty. Perfect balance of sharp and smooth, contrasty and colorful.
Yes Jim I agree hard to beat. Of all my 100-105 lenses it is my favorite except:
1. When I need AF - then 100L
2. Lots of blues and greens - Zeiss 100 ZF
I don't compare it with the Voigtlander 125 for as the Voigit is 25% longer in reach.
I recently converted my Leica Rs to Leitax mount so I could maximize their use on all my camera bodies.
Nice shots you all have shared.
Bifurcator wrote:
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.
Are you referring to the Leica 100 APO? Wide open is F2.8. The Zeiss is F2.
My issue with this whole chain of conversation, in addition to the ridiculous premise, is that the result is that the thread of conversation about and images from this lens was disrupted and not for the better. Before someone points it out for me and I'm sure they will, I'll apologize for posting an image not taken with the APO 100. My bad on that but I was trying to be supportive not contentious.
Frankly, I've stopped reading a number of threads on here (the 3D thread comes to mind) either because of this nature of discussion or because there are a few on here who not only think they have all the answers but think they have to shout down anybody who isn't in line with their opinions. Life is too short and I learn absolutely nothing of value from a "conversation" of that sort. If someone is so bored that they feel the need to start something like this, why not pick up the camera and go shoot something instead? That, at least, would be a positive outlet for their energy and not waste other people's time who are trying to find something of value in the thread.
Sorry for the further interruption. Somebody please post some images with the APO 100 so we can get on with it.
Grenache wrote:
Bifurcator,
It is rather difficult to take you seriously since you enjoy playing the role of habitual naysayer, or, more aptly, "non seer."
I can only conclude one of the following:
1. You enjoy arguing by your nature just to ruffle feathers.
2. You truly don't see a difference in ANY of the threads where you have voiced this and see youself as the only one who realized the Emperor has no clothes.
3. You lack the experience see for yourself and/or desire to learn other points of view (similar to #1 but with less premeditation).
4. You simply have a different and unshakable opinion of the way the world spins.
Not sure which of the four apply, or perhaps there is a category that I missed, but none of them provide much hope for reasonable (or reasoned) discourse.
From my experience, having shot film and digital for many years and probably dozens of different lenses and combinations of lenses and adapters, diopters, tubes, etc. from different vendors, I can say without reservation that the Leica 100 R is the best and most reliable that I have used among them all. Are their situations where a longer or shorter focal length or wider aperture work better? Of course, that is why I seldom bring just one lens when I go to shoot. However, when I do only have time, space, or desire to take a single lens to shoot close ups, this is it.
While AF on my former Canon 100 macro helped speed up the process - and good shots were certainly obtainable - the bokeh and tonal detail are on a different scale. What surprises me is the huge difference in sharpness and tonal separation visible on my modest 8MP sensor. I can only imagine how much wider the gap will be once I uprade.
Can perfectly good shots be had from P&S cameras? Of course, and the photographer has far more to do with overall success than the gear. I did quite well with my first digital camera, an Olympus C-5050. Only 5MP, but it had an f/1.8 lens that was quite sharp even wide open.
A butcher knife and a scalpel will both cut well, but if I had to go in for surgery, I know which I would want my doctor to use.
Jim...Show more →
zombii wrote:
My issue with this whole chain of conversation, in addition to the ridiculous premise, is that the result is that the thread of conversation about and images from this lens was disrupted and not for the better. Before someone points it out for me and I'm sure they will, I'll apologize for posting an image not taken with the APO 100. My bad on that but I was trying to be supportive not contentious.
Frankly, I've stopped reading a number of threads on here (the 3D thread comes to mind) either because of this nature of discussion or because there are a few on here who not only think they have all the answers but think they have to shout down anybody who isn't in line with their opinions. Life is too short and I learn absolutely nothing of value from a "conversation" of that sort. If someone is so bored that they feel the need to start something like this, why not pick up the camera and go shoot something instead? That, at least, would be a positive outlet for their energy and not waste other people's time who are trying to find something of value in the thread.
Sorry for the further interruption. Somebody please post some images with the APO 100 so we can get on with it.
