James Markus
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Doug, There is no sensor that out resolves a good lens. Some of the finest lens I ever used didn't even have lens coatings and are 80-90 years old. There are badly designed lens, and soft lens, and a host of other problems. However, I doubt we will ever reach a limit on an excellent or even good lenses ability to resolve details on bayer sensors. Rendering can be combinations of things that add a dreamy effect. Like sharp center focus with softening edge and corner sharpness. It can include distortions like pincushion, barrel distortion, light fall off, and other "flaws". A kind of magical rendering of three dimensions into two dimensions. I would use your MF lenses on your df and your Sony. YMMV
graytrekker wrote:
WARNING: PERSONAL COMMENTARY
Rendering?
I have been thinking about this word a lot lately. Just what is meant when someone discusses how a lens “renders” a scene, as in “I love the way this lens renders”. I have noticed that often this word is statistically associated with a lens that others have described as flawed – “not sharp at the edges”, “soft in the corners”, “bad coma”, and the like. Also, it is usually when discussing some vintage lenses being inferior to modern glass. This is often accompanied by statement such as, “modern hi res sensors show up the limitations of these older lenses – one needs modern lenses for the modern cameras to perform to their potential”. But I love the way that lens renders! So, is “rendering” a code word for a weak or flawed lens, and is someone trying to cover that up by saying they actually like its flaws?
This came to a head in my head with the recent announcement of the new Sony A7R IV and its 60+ MP FF sensor. The higher the resolution of the sensor, the more lenses have to keep pace. Look at the size, weight and price of modern lenses. However wonderful these hi res cameras are, for me, [and this is a personal opinion only], sometimes these photos look so clinically correct as to be lifeless and requires quite a bit of PP to add a compelling draw to them, other than curiosity to see how much detail I can see. Again – just my feelings only. I guess you could say I don’t like the way they "render"?
Concurrent with these thoughts, I am remembering some of my art classes from high school – a long, long time ago, when mastodons roamed the earth. I remember paintings typified by 15th Century artists, such, as Jan van Eyck. These paintings have incredible detail – to the point of requiring virtual “pixel peeping” with a magnifying glass. They are very “hi res”. A counterpoint to that is the Impressionist movement of the 19th Century. They usually have very blurred backgrounds (bokeh?), and even foreground can be somewhat ill defined (low res). At the time, many in the art community didn’t like the way these artists “rendered” their scenes. Of course now, they are recognized as great works of art. However, most would probably prefer to hang an impressionist painting on the wall at home over a van Eyck.
So in painting the world has moved from hi res to low res, but in photography, it has been the opposite. Is this art vs technology? In the end, I guess, let the modern day van Eycks out there chase the continuingly higher res sensors, and their exquisitely detailed representation of reality. That’s fine, I do not in the least begrudge them that. It is very valid. I will choose, however, to stay with my flawed vintage lenses and low res Df. I enjoy the experience so much more than my Sony that I want to keep using them, even though the Sony is higher res and produces technically better images. Therefore, I think I will try to develop a more “impressionistic” approach to photography. I am not sure that makes any sense or even just what that is yet, but I would certainly welcome a discussion on the matter with other like minded folks who “love the way these render”.
Thanks for your indulgence
Doug...Show more →
|
Thanks Colin 
