Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-23-2017, 09:04 AM - 2 Likes   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,383
The dude chart-ifies his opinions and suddenly there is legitimacy?

Lumping modern, digital-era glass into a singular classification about image-drawing is flat-out stupid and lazy, and occasionally an attempt at minor subversion by someone who wants to be someone and knows there is an audience who will buy into his "theory".

In other words, bunk.

I currently own only two digital-era lenses, though.

12-23-2017, 09:34 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,693
I'm not expert enough to fully appreciate the "pop" or rendering that people are talking about, unless maybe I see two images I can directly compare, but I think if enough data is in an image, it should be able to recreate any "look" in software. It's just a matter of capturing enough data and having a sufficiently intelligent algorithm, and I'm not saying the latter is trivial to develop. But it should really just come down to either having enough data to do what you want, or not. So at that point the purpose of the lens becomes to capture as much data as possible, to provide the greatest number of choices in output. As the algorithms can improve over time, the immediate objective for a lens should be to capture as much data as possible. So at some point shouldn't we able to have software that translates the rendering of any lens that provides enough data into output that would have come from any lens that provides less data?
12-23-2017, 09:41 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 4,966
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I'm not expert enough to fully appreciate the "pop" or rendering that people are talking about, unless maybe I see two images I can directly compare, but I think if enough data is in an image, it should be able to recreate any "look" in software. It's just a matter of capturing enough data and having a sufficiently intelligent algorithm, and I'm not saying the latter is trivial to develop. But it should really just come down to either having enough data to do what you want, or not. So at that point the purpose of the lens becomes to capture as much data as possible, to provide the greatest number of choices in output. As the algorithms can improve over time, the immediate objective for a lens should be to capture as much data as possible. So at some point shouldn't we able to have software that translates the rendering of any lens that provides enough data into output that would have come from any lens that provides less data?
I (a) suspect you're right
(b) find it an appalling thought - just another reason to spend more time in front of a screen fiddling with your options rather than out taking images.
12-23-2017, 09:45 AM - 6 Likes   #19
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,964
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
The dude chart-ifies his opinions and suddenly there is legitimacy?

Lumping modern, digital-era glass into a singular classification about image-drawing is flat-out stupid and lazy, and occasionally an attempt at minor subversion by someone who wants to be someone and knows there is an audience who will buy into his "theory".

In other words, bunk.

I currently own only two digital-era lenses, though.
Not any crazier than lumping all film era lenses into the same category. I wanted more range for my walk around zoom than the 35-80 afforded, but the rendering was excellent. If only it had been a bit more solid. The light weight plastic thing was too pronounced for comfort.

But I have always said, modern or film era has nothing to do with it. You have to go lens by lens. And many prefer the 31 to the Sigma 30 1.4. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. Only the salesmen claim we need all new glass. And that's his job. Almost everyone else has loved older lenses they wouldn't trade for anything.

OK, here's the thing I'd like to see. Images taken side by side where a bunch of people who don't know which is which. Then have those people rate the images. Until I see a test where people prefer images from a certain lens. I have done it a few times, based on around 80 responses, I can tell you 33% of folks prefer images taken with the SMC SUpertak 35 3.5 to 28% for the DA35 2.4. And 18% prefer the FA 35-80 @ 35mm thatI paid 50 bucks for. Only 3% prefer it pixel peeping but the other 15% prefer the rendering in web sized images but not in pixel peepers. There are just a pile of issues here never addressed in lens testing, the most important being "What do people like?"

So why is lens testing so narrow and not related at all to human responses? Imagine drug companies who said "this is great drug and should cure cancer" being allowed to sell without testing on humans. Yet we let camera companies proclaim their lenses to be the next great thing, without testing on humans.

That's easy, it wouldn't sell lenses. If marketers could produce human response testing proving their lenses are better than brand X lenses they would, but they can't. Testing 7 35mm lenses no lens got over 1/3 of the vote. That doesn't really work in a sales pitch.

There is nothing more frustrating than all the folks who repeat sales pitches that include no real data related to human viewing the final out put.

The goal of photography is to produce compelling images. What lens you use, modern or film era or whatever is irrelevant. All that counts is the image. Someone saying "I couldn't have taken this with another lens, well they don't seem to realize with any given image, they might have actually liked the image more were it taken with 35 supertak or even a cheap FA 35-80. There are so many areas where one lens might out perform another, certain ƒ-stops, certain distances at certain ƒ stops, out of focus arms at certain distances from the camera, etc. no one actually knows anything about the most important thing going. 'For this one shot, my dog in the park with a row of trees and a river behind him, 20 feet away from me, which lens will give me the image I like best, or the image even 33 people out of a hundred like best?" Then you still have to test, OK then if it's never going to be view on more than a 4k computer screen, which do I like best? If it's 20x30 print, which did I like best? People assume there might be one lens that is the best at everything. That has never been proven. Anyone who claims to know is simply full of it, unless they've done the actual testing and I don't know anyone else who's even done as much testing as I have. Of the seven 35mm lenses I've tested I know which ones I like. Add the Sigma 35 art, a couple of Canon and Nikon 35s, maybe even a Sony, and I can't even guess what lens would come out on top.

And that's what this kind of testing teaches you. Whatever lens you think is top of the heap, your best hope is it will be appreciated in the same way by 33% of the population and 67% will disagree with you.

The illusion perpetrated by those who have never run this kind of test is that they can tell whether or not a lens is right for them by test charts. Testing will prove to you, you don't know anything, you can't predict what a specific person is going to like. You can't predict which lens a group of people are going to like. All such pronunciations are nonsense. That's what testing shows you. People who think they know more are essentially ignorant. My advice to them would be run a few polls before you submit an opinion.

The only thing I want to know about your favourite lens would be, how many people out of a hundred with a test group of at least 5 similar lenses, like that lens, and if possible, what are their shooting preferences, a bit of insight to determine who might like the lens. If you don't have that, you have nothing. The rest is meaningless.

Even if I have that, I have to see the test myself to decide which lens I might like. With 7 lenses all of which recieve at least 1 vote none of which receive the majority of votes, I have no idea which of those 7 "groups" I fall into.

There's about a 3% chance I might agree with the guy who voted for the lens nobody else did. For me personally it wouldn't matter what the other 97% thought, for me, I would want the 3% lens, and it would probably save me pile of money not buying the popularly preferred lens.


Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-23-2017 at 11:01 AM. Reason: Keeping it friendly
12-23-2017, 09:54 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 109
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I'm not expert enough to fully appreciate the "pop" or rendering that people are talking about, unless maybe I see two images I can directly compare, but I think if enough data is in an image, it should be able to recreate any "look" in software. It's just a matter of capturing enough data and having a sufficiently intelligent algorithm, and I'm not saying the latter is trivial to develop. But it should really just come down to either having enough data to do what you want, or not. So at that point the purpose of the lens becomes to capture as much data as possible, to provide the greatest number of choices in output. As the algorithms can improve over time, the immediate objective for a lens should be to capture as much data as possible. So at some point shouldn't we able to have software that translates the rendering of any lens that provides enough data into output that would have come from any lens that provides less data?
Would be nice!
One superzoom and a "Donald Duck" lens brand-converting tool-pack for Photoshop/LR at 20$.

I suppose I'll use that very lens needed to get it more exact, cause - I can certainly not do it through software.
12-23-2017, 10:18 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,693
QuoteOriginally posted by Gutta Perka Quote
Would be nice!
One superzoom and a "Donald Duck" lens brand-converting tool-pack for Photoshop/LR at 20$.

I suppose I'll use that very lens needed to get it more exact, cause - I can certainly not do it through software.
Ah, but a superzoom might not produce enough data, unless maybe your target lens is the original 43-86mm Nikkor. Alas, you'll need some serious glass to convert your output to match that DFA*50/1.4 you're going to buy next year.
12-23-2017, 11:07 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 109
Original Poster
OK folks!

It's Christmas - let's make use of our lenses.
Most shops are closed anyway.

If it works - no lens is hopeless!

Happy holidays!
12-23-2017, 11:37 AM - 4 Likes   #23
Pentaxian
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 964
I dunno, this has both 'pop' and 'character' to me...DA 40mm F2.8 'Pancake', handheld at iso 3200, available light...



Cheers,
Cameron

12-23-2017, 11:47 AM   #24
Pentaxian At Large
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,372
The 40 mm pancake is awonder of a lens, I never tire of using it, great in almost any situation
12-23-2017, 02:22 PM   #25
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,457
My 43ltd would just like the pixel peepers to take field curvature into account when measuring corner sharpness. Is it that hard to refocus in the corners!

I also prefer the DA*16-50/2.8 over all other equivalent options (including the K1 + 24-70) because it does render out of focus areas so much nicer despite it obvious flaws.

The DFA* 70-200 does show you can produce both rendering and pixel peeping performance in on package given the right design and enough glass so it is possible. Iím hoping the DFA* primes are the same.
12-23-2017, 05:15 PM - 1 Like   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,231
QuoteOriginally posted by Gutta Perka Quote
Now I know my love for the M50/1.7 K28/3.5 etc etc etc. and understand, I believe, why.

I pixel-peeped and have bought the other new lens after the other and COULD see the pixels - I wanted to be in line.
Prints perfectly sharp etc .... however I had lost something - for sure. Hard to explain.

There are many words lost on how I could not explain it .

But let us call it RENDERING!!! (You might have a better world for it?) The self-explained NATURALISM.
With the multi-glas digital lenses there are something lost.
There are some great older lenses, for sure, but some absolute dogs too. Same with newer lenses. Of course, what I consider to be good or bad might be appreciated differently by you or any of our other members. That's the thing - lens performance and rendering is highly subjective. It depends on the individual photographer's requirements, the type of scene being photographed, how they wish to express the subject matter and a whole bunch of other stuff.

It's great that you've found what works for you. Personally, I love vintage lenses too... Not all of them, but some. EMWV ("everyone's mileage will vary")
12-23-2017, 06:30 PM - 2 Likes   #27
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,440
As others have noted lens element count means almost nothing in terms of lens quality or rendering -- there's good and bad lenses of every element count.

But the article is pure poppy cock when it waxes poetic about about old lenses having pure glass (glass is never "pure") and lead crystal lenses. What's especially amusing is that lead glass is called "crystal" because it was actually used to imitate natural rock crystal and gemstones -- lead crystal is a fake knock-off of the natural material!

To me, lenses with character are wonderful but they are anything but natural. They actually impose the imperfections of their optical designs on the image. It's actually the clinical lens that creates the most objective and true image. Yet lenses with character are wonderful artistic tools because they enable the photographer to amplify the photographer's subjective view point.

Last edited by photoptimist; 12-24-2017 at 05:23 AM. Reason: typos
12-23-2017, 07:04 PM - 1 Like   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 2,515
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
As a result of LBA, which is in control now
Sure, just keep telling yourself that....

12-23-2017, 11:14 PM - 1 Like   #29
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 14
Its like fine wines. Its a matter of taste which may only reach consensus at the level of vinegar.


12-25-2017, 01:34 PM   #30
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,593
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
I dunno, this has both 'pop' and 'character' to me...DA 40mm F2.8 'Pancake', handheld at iso 3200, available light...
Cheers,
Cameron
Uh... that actually proves the point... the optical scheme is based on the SMC-M 40/2.8, as you can also see from the "User Reviews" section on this very website.
I dusted off mine yesterday and used it for these day's dinners & lunches... veeery nice...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
death, k-mount, lens, lenses, optics, pentax lens, slr lens, wrong
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DXO Optics Pro support coming in November. planteater Pentax K-70 8 11-28-2016 08:25 PM
DxO Optics Pro support for K-1 in September MJSfoto1956 Pentax K-1 9 09-18-2016 12:25 PM
DxO Optics Pro support for K-S2 MJSfoto1956 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 18 04-03-2016 10:11 AM
K-5 battery problem? camera problem? user problem? imtheguy Pentax K-5 39 11-03-2010 06:02 PM
Modern Media /Modern Minds seacapt General Talk 24 09-23-2010 03:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top