[Nicolas06]

There are a lot of components to a really good photo that need to line up to make it "good". Composition is always number one. No matter how sharp a lens is or how great a 100% crop of a a section of the shot looks, a badly composed shot is just going to look exactly what it is, bad. The light you are shooting in is important. Good focus is important. Using the proper aperture to obtain the right bokeh is important. Get a good composition and get the technical stuff right and a shot from a K10D and the kit lens will look just a s good as one from a K3 and a Limited.

Actually light is typically as important as composition. A portrait in a studio look gorgous while with the head in the shadow in a pub it look terrible. A landscape that look boring can shine after a storn or at sunset...

Sharpness is not important as long there enougth. Most lenses achieve that.

Still from what I can see people that might not care of sharpness and so on tend to still prefer shots taken by an FAltd. People see the ability to make the subject pop, even people that don't care about pictures.

But yes, compared to the compo/lighting this is far less important.

[reeftool]

I certainly won't deny that a sharp, crisp photo looks really good. I own some Limiteds and won't deny their value. I will also admit that I have the ability to take some really crappy photos with them. The rules to getting a good photo are the same regardless of the camera or lens and when you do it right, people will notice.

Actually light is typically as important as composition. A portrait in a studio look gorgous while with the head in the shadow in a pub it look terrible. A landscape that look boring can shine after a storn or at sunset...

Yes, light is very important. It's the skill of the photographer to get the shot at just the right moment. The problem is, we don't always have the light we would prefer. Event photographers and wedding photographers have to crank out good results with whatever the day throws at them. That's when having really good lenses is so important. You also have to know what kind of light you are dealing with, the problems it causes and how to get the most of that lens. The camera manufacturers have caused a lot of these problems with their marketing. They play up all the new features on cameras and lenses and try to sell us on the idea that everything is so advanced that we can just walk around and shoot away and every shot will be a masterpiece. In reality, these newer high resolution sensors are going to make our mistakes and bad habits look even worse.

[Just1MoreDave]

There are a lot of components to a really good photo that need to line up to make it "good". Composition is always number one. No matter how sharp a lens is or how great a 100% crop of a a section of the shot looks, a badly composed shot is just going to look exactly what it is, bad. The light you are shooting in is important. Good focus is important. Using the proper aperture to obtain the right bokeh is important. Get a good composition and get the technical stuff right and a shot from a K10D and the kit lens will look just a s good as one from a K3 and a Limited...

This is why I ultimately agree with the point in the first post. The images prove the point to me in a roundabout way. Sure, they were not rigidly controlled for every variable except resolution. That type of experiment would be interesting if someone wants to try. But just the fact that you'd have to have identical composition, light and focus, and present the images to viewers in a way that normal people would never view them to see the resolution, shows me that resolution is the last thing to worry about. The experiment would never make it to journal publication but the conclusion was correct.

A thought experiment: you are out in the real world and you see something to photograph. Your camera has your most ordinary lens mounted. In your bag, you have a macro lens that is the exact right focal length for the shot. How often do you switch lenses? How likely is it that while switching lenses, you miss the moment? No right answer, just something to consider. (I'd probably take the shot with the ordinary lens first, then try to switch.)

[Nicolas06]

This is why I ultimately agree with the point in the first post. The images prove the point to me in a roundabout way. Sure, they were not rigidly controlled for every variable except resolution. That type of experiment would be interesting if someone wants to try. But just the fact that you'd have to have identical composition, light and focus, and present the images to viewers in a way that normal people would never view them to see the resolution, shows me that resolution is the last thing to worry about. The experiment would never make it to journal publication but the conclusion was correct.

That sharpness is not important as long as it is sharp enough? Yes.

But the conclusion on the best lens is not valid. One can't conclude with different exact focussing point and lighting conditons. As norm explained himself, if you take a burst of picture of the same subject some will look better than others... You simply may got more lucky with some lenses than others... Like benefiting of better lighting in this very example. Problem is if a cloud is there for 10 minutes, whatever number of picture within theses 10 minutes, you take they will not have the same light as if the cloud was not here.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-21-2016 at 12:00 AM.

[Rondec]

I think everyone has certain things about a photo that they like and sharpness just tends to be down the list a little bit. A truly soft image is generally not going to be appreciate by most people. But we create presets in Lightroom (or whatever software you choose to edit with) that bumps saturation or contrast or clarity or warms the white balance a little, all in an attempt to improve the out of camera image.

I do agree with Nicolas, that the quality of light changes dramatically over short periods of time and if you are shooting with available light, you need to take advantage of it quickly. Quality of light is far more important than lens or camera used.

[reeftool]

A thought experiment: you are out in the real world and you see something to photograph. Your camera has your most ordinary lens mounted. In your bag, you have a macro lens that is the exact right focal length for the shot. How often do you switch lenses? How likely is it that while switching lenses, you miss the moment? No right answer, just something to consider. (I'd probably take the shot with the ordinary lens first, then try to switch.)

My walk around lens is a Sigma 17-70c and more often than not, I will use it rather than switch lenses, especially if the risk of missing the shot is high. I would do the same, switch lenses AFTER getting a couple of shots with my zoom. The Sigma is a pretty good piece of glass but I would likely do the same with the 18-55 kit lens too. I have had many good shots from the kit lens through the years.

[normhead]

A truly soft image is generally not going to be appreciate by most people.

I've said it a number of times, but sigh, I'll say it again. I have images blown up to 20x30 taken with 10 MP cameras, that look sharp. We are not talking about looking sharp and looking soft. Much of the time we are not even talking looking sharp and looking sharper, we are talking about "I can't tell the difference." Up to at least 20x30, because that's as large as I print, 24 MP or 36MP doesn't matter, you can't tell the difference and if you can, the sharper image may not come out being the best in the comparison.

But no one here is pushing for "soft" images.... it's a bit insulting that you even suggested it.

Ever since the first days of photography, it's always been light , light and light. Extraordinary light produces extraordinary photos. When it got to be "resolution resolution resolution" I don't know.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

A lot of what is important that doesn't get discussed is how you get to a photo that looks great. If I have some confidence issues with a lens, then I'm less likely to get a great shot with it.

For instance, I have the DA 50. It might be the sharpest K-mount lens I own. The plastic mount and overall feel doesn't bother me one bit. The contrast is amazing (but possibly not very realistic looking, IMHO). Bokeh is very good. The lens shows very little CA. It happens to be one of my least favorite lenses because it often hunts like crazy even in decent light, tends to just miss focus (all depending on where the hunting lands), it tends to overexpose in difficult situations, and although screw drive noise rarely bothers me - on this one the whine and hunt grunts really are annoying. Bottom line, I tend to hesitate every time I put it on the camera - and that isn't conducive to making good photos.

The 40xs is almost too small, slower aperture, somewhat poorer bokeh (but not bad at all), and not as sharp in the center. I like the lens a lot more than the DA 50, though. It nails exposure and AF pretty darn near 100%, quietly, and it has a very nice, consistent 3D look across the entire frame (much like the FA 35). I look forward to shooting with it.

[normhead]

A lot of what is important that doesn't get discussed is how you get to a photo that looks great. If I have some confidence issues with a lens, then I'm less likely to get a great shot with it.

For instance, I have the DA 50. It might be the sharpest K-mount lens I own. The plastic mount and overall feel doesn't bother me one bit. The contrast is amazing (but possibly not very realistic looking, IMHO). Bokeh is very good. The lens shows very little CA. It happens to be one of my least favorite lenses because it often hunts like crazy even in decent light, tends to just miss focus (all depending on where the hunting lands), it tends to overexpose in difficult situations, and although screw drive noise rarely bothers me - on this one the whine and hunt grunts really are annoying. Bottom line, I tend to hesitate every time I put it on the camera - and that isn't conducive to making good photos.

The 40xs is almost too small, slower aperture, somewhat poorer bokeh (but not bad at all), and not as sharp in the center. I like the lens a lot more than the DA 50, though. It nails exposure and AF pretty darn near 100%, quietly, and it has a very nice, consistent 3D look across the entire frame (much like the FA 35). I look forward to shooting with it.

Weird , I've done almost the same thing with my FA 50 1.7 and the 40XS. The 40 XS is smaller, and I like both shooting with it, and the images more. The 40XS goes almost everywhere, the 50 1.7 on special occasions.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Norm, I do think (based on images, discussion, and having handled many MF 50/1.7s that share the same optical design as the FA) that the concerns are much less with your fast lens compared to the DA 50 - assuming it is in good shape. But, yes, why not carry the 40xs; the only concern would be losing sight of the little guy (or that crazy 27mm cap). I bought a big old slide over rounded 65mm cap for $5 covering the entire barrel, adding just the right amount of Velcro lining on the inside edge for a perfect fit.

See: B+W #300 65mm Push-On Lens Cap 65-069707 B&H Photo Video

[Nicolas06]

I've said it a number of times, but sigh, I'll say it again. I have images blown up to 20x30 taken with 10 MP cameras, that look sharp. We are not talking about looking sharp and looking soft. Much of the time we are not even talking looking sharp and looking sharper, we are talking about "I can't tell the difference." Up to at least 20x30, because that's as large as I print, 24 MP or 36MP doesn't matter, you can't tell the difference and if you can, the sharper image may not come out being the best in the comparison.

But no one here is pushing for "soft" images.... it's a bit insulting that you even suggested it.

Ever since the first days of photography, it's always been light , light and light. Extraordinary light produces extraordinary photos. When it got to be "resolution resolution resolution" I don't know.

10MP is enough for most uses There no need for much very high resolution and fine details sharpness at 100% crop from a 36MP if you don't plan to crop !

[whojammyflip]

I never once suggested lighting must be studio controlled. That is a straw man argument. Secondly, it is not my responsibility to provide data, it is YOUR responsibility to provide valid data when presenting a claim. You did not provide test subjects identical images from which they could make subjective choices. Therefore, you introduced several variables beyond the scope of your testing hypothesis that could effect the results. That is faulty methodology and I need not produce contradictory data as part of the review process. You may very well have a valid hypothesis, but the burden of proof lies with the claimant. You espouse your results as empirical, and given your response to my questioning, irrefutable. But It is one thing to present a theory and ask us to consider your theory, it is another to attack one who might question your conclusions.

If you wish only praise and validation, perhaps an open forum is not the place to present ideas. With your background in education, I though perhaps you were introducing a mental exercise to challenge us to think of things differently than perhaps we do. However, based on your response, it appears you are not open for debate and discussion, but rather wish to bludgeon others into accepting your philosophy as writ.

I take even greater exception to THAT approach, than I do your faulty testing methodologies or your derisive comments.

Pentaxforums has stepped up a gear. I note that the original poster is on my ignore list, having logged in.

Something piqued my interest here, its a real flame war thread I think.

My two penneth worth would be that the factors you have mentioned such as light and composition are being conflated with the difference in resolution. If a shot has been taken hand held at close range, neither lens will be limited by resolution thanks to camera shake, which impacts shots even at 1/500.

[LensBeginner]

First one is more saturated, among other things
That, in my opinion, helps it pop more, and that might have contributed to the result.

Then, how can you notice an increment or decrement in "sharpness", "resolution" at pixel level when viewing a 1000px image?
It's obvious that a sub-3-pixel difference (for 6MP total, 3000 to 1000 on the long side) will get lost, whatever the cause (shake, diffraction, glass quality etc.), and that it will only be visible in a large print or hi-res monitor.

[normhead]

I have a pretty standard response to this type of post. if you think you can do a better test, do it. Be my guest. But from my perspective, data is better than speculation, which is all you've provided. Prove that any of the things you've mentioned would actually change the order of people's preferences. They might, they might not. You criticism might be valid it might not. The saturation and pop you refer to may be characteristics of the lenses. But, I'm going with these results until something better comes along. Same with your comment about what might happen with a high res monitor or large scale print. I might or might not change the result of the poll. But for right now, this is data. Speculation is speculation.

There is a lot of data out there that challenge peoples assumptions. That people respond with speculation about what might have been "if, if, if" doesn't really add anything much to the conversation. The only answer to poor data is better data. Not idle speculation.

Despite your objections to methodology, the conclusions have a better chance of being true than any objections raised without data. Conclusions supported by research always take precedence over assumptions made from the "common wisdom".

If I want to know something, I try to devise a test. If I want to disprove something, I also try to devise a test. If I want to know about something , I look at what others have done in terms of comparison images etc.. I don't pay much attention to the speculation of the opinionated, past tests have shown it to be extremely un-reliable.

Other factors besides common notions of "lens quality" are responsible for people's judging IQ to be superior.

[UncleVanya]

I will agree that contrast and lighting changes over the course of the shooting may have made a difference in people's selections. I participated, and I correctly picked the prime based mainly on the bokeh matching the bokeh in reviews of that lens. I didn't pick it on the basis of it looking best.

What strikes me most is the similarities between vastly different lens designs. Casually looking at these I think shows that most lenses are pretty capable. It really is true that the conditions of the light and composition are as likely or more likely to impact our aesthetic appreciation as the lens.

A follow up with different subjects at a different distance would be interesting. I doubt consistent results in line with this experiment would be found, but that is purely opinion. I certainly enjoyed the original effort.