cogitech wrote: hans98ko wrote:
Since when did I ever question the benefits of large aperture lenses?
You didn\'t. The DxO head scientist did, in his article (did you read the article?) I never inferred that you said this.
You seems to put a lot of words in my statements that I never wrote.
I certainly have not done so. You did a fine job with all your words in your first post.
You need to read my very first post on this subject, I specifically stated that for those who used the AIS 50mm f1.2 (still own a couple of those) on film cameras is a different story.
Your first post is what I take issue with. There are numerous statements in that post which are simply ridiculous. I answered each statement before, so I fail to see the benefit of repeating myself. If you think that large aperture lenses only maintain their benefits on a film camera, you are mistaken, and it is because you still think the only benefit of such lenses is light gathering (which is apparently the same mistake that the DxO scientist is making).
You see on film cameras it is not as easy to push/boost the iso unless you exposed the whole roll of film with the same number of stops and tell the developer to compensate for it. Or owns the overhead projector like I used to do and selectively over expose the area with hands or cards over the area you do not want to be exposed.
And you still think that the only benefit of the larger aperture is light gathering, which makes it much more crucial on film, because it is more difficult to push in post. From this you extrapolate to the conclusion that f1.2 is a gimmick on digital. I disagree.
On digital it is either done within the camera without your knowledge as HerbChong had indicated or post process with softwares with just a few simple key strokes. Remember we are talking about 1 stop or less which can easily be done.
You have effectively explained that the light loss issue on digital with large aperture lenses is irrelevant because it is so easy to correct. I agree 100%, but I encourage you once again to consider your earlier statements.
Perhaps an example will help. The following three photos were taken with three different normal (50mm-ish) prime lenses at their max apertures. Can you see a difference?
Contax 50mm f1.7:
Canon FDn 50mm f1.4:
Minolta MC 58mm f1.2:
The differences are obvious and I am not speaking of anything measurable in a lab. If you find this \"invalid\" then I really am wasting my time here. If you can admit (even just to yourself) that you do see the difference then I encourage you to return to your first post and reconsider your statements.
If you were to perform the same sort of experiment with the EF 50/1.8, EF 50/1.4 and EF 50/1.2L, the results would be quite similar.
In light of this, I maintain my position that while it is true that the light gathering ability of large aperture lenses is not utilized as well on dSLRs as with film (due to light loss at the sensor), this is not a reason to question the benefits of large aperture lenses on dSLRs (as the DxO scientist did) or to make statements such as you did in your original post. Such statements illustrate only that the viewer is fixated on measurable aspects of lens performance and either cannot (or refuses) to see the other benefits of large aperture lenses, which are just as valid on digital as on film.
I can\'t stop laughing after looking at the 3 pictures you posted.
Yes! I do see the difference among the 3 lenses.
The contrast are different, the color are different, the sharpness are different.
And that is no scientific feat knowing very well that different lenses perform differently.
The most interest thing is that the picture taken by the Contax 50mm f1.7 is the best with the best contrast, color and sharpness (of course it is sharper due to the smaller aperture or what we call DOF). And the picture taken by the Minolta MC 58mm f1.2 is the softest around the corners (of course it is softer due to the wider aperture or what we call shallow DOF).
So what did your own test conclude?
Dec 15, 2010 at 08:40 AM
Previous versions of hans98ko's message #9130052 « T-stop depends on sensor design »
