[Poit]

is there any update on photokina 2014 and ff rumors?

Maybe this isn't a Canon at all....

Canon EOS 7D Mark II spotted at FIFA World Cup, mid-September release date

[akanarya]

Maybe this isn't a Canon at all....

Canon EOS 7D Mark II spotted at FIFA World Cup, mid-September release date

sure

[northcoastgreg]

I think you missed some nuance in his post. Back in the day, a great lens was, say, a '7' and a good lens was a '4'. Now a great lens is a 9 and a good lens is an 8.

No, I think you missed the nuance in mine. Even if the difference in lens quality was greater (which is debatable), it didn't matter much in the film days because large differences in lens quality wouldn't be noticed as much. Digital has made us far more susceptible to small differences in quality. It's also dramatically increased our standards I started out shooting the M 28 f2.8 and M 50 f2 on a K1000. Much later I bought a ZX-M with the A 35-80 f4-5.6. In the 35mm film I was shooting, I could not easily tell any significant differences between those primes and the zoom. But once I started shooting those lenses on digital, the differences were much easier to detect. You simply cannot compare ILC digital to 35mm film. If you were shooting film and you really cared about IQ, you definitely would want to move up medium or large format film.

You didn't quite follow my point I think, and it's in two parts:

I followed it, I just don't agree with it.

With regard to resolution, that's actually not true in many cases - the MTF scores are telling a different story, that you improve your resolution more by going with a higher-MP sensor

Now you're the one who's not following me. I never argued that the image from the smaller sensor might be better because it has more resolution. No, that's completely missing the point. I'm challenging the whole notion that equates IQ with resolution. Most lenses are sufficiently sharp; but that doesn't mean differences in lenses are no longer important. Rather, it means that differences in resolution are no longer as important. And that's true whether you're comparing lenses or sensor size. For the most part, resolution is no longer the primary problem. We have enough of it for most of our needs. Where it takes on importance is for big cropping and/or larger print size. Even in those instances, differences between lenses and sensor size (or MP counts) are not as significant as they're made out to be. The fact that this lens/sensor combo produces 20% more resolution is hardly significant. It's two inches greater print size in a 20" by 20" print. However, other characteristics of lenses do impact how an image look, particularly microcontrast and color rendition. These can be seen even in smaller print sizes. They have a greater aesthetic impact than mere resolution.

I know a photographer who shoots with the Olympus 12-60 lens on the OM-D EM-5. He sells large gallery wraps (~24 to 30 inches) at a local gallery. The images are rich, contrasty, detailed and stunning. If those same images had been shot with an FF camera, they might have been technically sharper. But adding sharpness to those gallery wraps wouldn't have improved them, because they were already more than sharp enough. But taking away the richness of the color, the contrast, the overall rendering would have had a devastating impact on those images.

Now I have enough experience with lenses, post-processing, and printing to know that the best sort of contrast and color comes, not from PP, but from the lens. Adding a little bit of contrast, a little bit sharpening, a little bit of saturation can improve nearly any image; but adding large doses of these things is usually detrimental to the aesthetic impact of a print.

High end lenses are contrasty lenses: they all feature excellent microcontrast and produce vivid images with a lot of pop and rich, aesthetically satisfying color. That's true of Zeiss lenses, of Pentax limiteds and star glass (and the DA 10-17), of Olympus HG and SHG lenses, of Canon L glass, etc. etc. Lower end glass is less contrasty, produces less pleasing colors. Since I like contrasty, richly colored images, I prefer shooting with higher end glass. I therefore conclude that contrast, color, and overall rendering are more important (within certain parameters) than mere resolution. Generally speaking, an image shot with an Olympus SHG lens on a four-thirds will look better and have greater aesthetic impact than an image shot with a consumer grade lens on an FF sensor.

For the quants among us

I'm certainly no quant, but a pragmatist. I made decisions on the basis of what images look like to human perception, not how they measure. Measurements are often used to give scientific and objective basis to the judgments that are really qualitative and aesthetic. After all, it is an aesthetic judgment to decide that a particular metric has any significance at all.

The problem with quants is, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[ElJamoquio]

No, I think you missed the nuance in mine. Even if the difference in lens quality was greater (which is debatable), it didn't matter much in the film days because large differences in lens quality wouldn't be noticed as much. Digital has made us far more susceptible to small differences in quality.

I didn't miss it, I ignored it, as I was considering the use case of printing (or even electronic display) rather than pixel peeping.

---------- Post added 07-23-14 at 02:30 PM ----------

I know a photographer who shoots with the Olympus 12-60 lens on the OM-D EM-5. He sells large gallery wraps (~24 to 30 inches) at a local gallery. The images are rich, contrasty, detailed and stunning. If those same images had been shot with an FF camera, they might have been technically sharper. But adding sharpness to those gallery wraps wouldn't have improved them, because they were already more than sharp enough. But taking away the richness of the color, the contrast, the overall rendering would have had a devastating impact on those images.

In my experience, finding a lens that has great color, contrast, and rendering is much easier on FF than on APS-C.

I'd be shocked if the color/contrast/rendering was better on that Olympus lens was better than the 'cheap, consumer' Nikon 24-85. But until we get side by side images, I doubt I'm going to convince you, and I know you aren't going to convince me.

[cali92rs]

I'd be shocked if the color/contrast/rendering was better on that Olympus lens was better than the 'cheap, consumer' Nikon 24-85. But until we get side by side images, I doubt I'm going to convince you, and I know you aren't going to convince me.

The placebo effect is able to cure diseases, make people run faster and do things they normally couldnt do...I have no doubt it can also cause addition of pixie dust to expensive lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

Hell the rendering on the 24-85 is better than the rendering on my beloved 15. I'd be surprised if any Olympus lens was better than the 15.

[jsherman999]

. I'm challenging the whole notion that equates IQ with resolution. .

No one is equating IQ with resolution alone, but after a speed increase (if there is one) many people upgrade their lenses from good to 'great' to get that extra resolution - probably most people, that's usually the reason for the upgrade, not a hope that there's subjectively better bokeh, or 'drawing'. I'd bet that the "I wanted better bokeh" folks are a distant third to "more speed" and "more resolution".

The point that was originally made was that those people may be wasting their money in some cases, because upgrading to a 'great' lens doesn't bring as large as an IQ improvement as upgrading the sensor - to more MP, or better yet, larger sensor with more MP. That's resolution - better DR and SNR also usually comes with a newer sensor, affecting IQ even more.

The pragmatist in you that hasn't been sublimated by LBA should see this. Upgrading your sensor gives more bang-buck than upgrading your 'good' lenses would in most cases - cheaper, better results = happier pragmatist/photographer.

This is coming from someone (me) who loves to try & buy lenses - much more than buying bodies.

[philbaum]

No one is equating IQ with resolution alone, but after a speed increase (if there is one) many people upgrade their lenses from good to 'great' to get that extra resolution - probably most people, that's usually the reason for the upgrade, not a hope that there's subjectively better bokeh, or 'drawing'. I'd bet that the "I wanted better bokeh" folks are a distant third to "more speed" and "more resolution".

The point that was originally made was that those people may be wasting their money in some cases, because upgrading to a 'great' lens doesn't bring as large as an IQ improvement as upgrading the sensor - to more MP, or better yet, larger sensor with more MP. That's resolution - better DR and SNR also usually comes with a newer sensor, affecting IQ even more.

The pragmatist in you that hasn't been sublimated by LBA should see this. Upgrading your sensor gives more bang-buck than upgrading your 'good' lenses would in most cases - cheaper, better results = happier pragmatist/photographer.

This is coming from someone (me) who loves to try & buy lenses - much more than buying bodies.

I'm a novice compared to many of you, but even i could see the benefits of newer sensors as they came off the Samsung line for the K20, and then the Sony factory for the K5 and on up.

I'm not sure what you mean by "speed", are you talking about the improvements in ISO range allowing one to shoot at higher shutter speeds? Because that has helped a lot in image quality. Its hard to get much quality out of an image if you've had to smear the image with a lot of NR processing :-( So i definitely think the higher iso ranges today have helped quality.

The manufacturing "quality" experts teach that "if you can't measure it, you can't improve it". So even in subjective areas, they do a lot of polling/surveying to get a number on what people think of your product. As to camera and lenses, i think photogs pay more attention to resolution, mp, and iso because it can be measured. Its hard to measure image quality, rendering, microcontrast. Also, many cameras, esp for jpg are doing a lot of processing in camera.

Its not that rendering is unimportant, but i would think it would be very difficult in anything but lab conditions to compare rendering between different lenses. PP can make a lot of difference to any image and how can one tell whether a poster hasn't done some better pp on photos from one lens than another, or whether one image was better focused than a test on a different image? Because better focusing doesn't just improve resolution, but it also improves rendering, IMO.

I think one could argue that mp increases also have improved IQ. Not just from resolution, but from more MP making the noise smaller in size and less objectionable. MP increases may have also improved composition. With the ability to crop more, folks are often coming up with a more artful cropping of the image in PP. At least thats my personal experience :-) What a great topic to debate because its so complex.

[mee]

I'm surprised no one with a foil hat has linked Adam selling his FF Nikon in the marketplace ( https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/268847-sal...d800-body.html ) with some notion that a Pentax FF is coming soon.

oh wait.. where did I put the foil..

[ChristianRock]

I'm sure Adam's going for the 810. That ship has sailed... he's got his FF system and it ain't Pentax.

[mee]

aww. *takes off the foil hat*

[RonHendriks1966]

Crop or Crap: Zack Arias Takes a Real-World Look at the Crop vs Full-Frame Debate

[philbaum]

Crop or Crap: Zack Arias Takes a Real-World Look at the Crop vs Full-Frame Debate

Thanks Ron, funny video and a good talk about the variety of formats over the years.

The message is: If you're not going to an 8" X 10" sensor, there's negligible difference

[RonHendriks1966]

Thanks Ron, funny video and a good talk about the variety of formats over the years.

The message is: If you're not going to an 8" X 10" sensor, there's negligible difference

we never get a FF

[Oldhand]

we never get a FF

Sure we do - 50.1 megapixels of glorious Pentax 645 ................