Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-08-2016, 03:10 AM   #61
Pentaxian
Ed Hurst's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,022
I like a hearty debate with the best of them, but, erm... Well, is it just me, or has this (and a few other 'debates' recently) become a little, well, low on the value:bollocks ratio?

04-08-2016, 04:05 AM - 1 Like   #62
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 10,151
*munches on popcorn*

@MikeSF, you want some too?
04-08-2016, 04:09 AM   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,919
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
*munches on popcorn*

@MikeSF, you want some too?
Salted please.
04-08-2016, 04:50 AM   #64
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 130
QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
OSV, you said it, you said the priority is to get a lens that can take a landscape shot at a wider aperture.....

Any lens will perform better at F11 if it gives you the DOF that you need. There's no point having a sharp lens at f5.6 if you don't have the required depth of field.

I just don't see the point of your whole entire pitch here in this thread.


I don't think the case for better wide apertures was presented particularly well. OSV's statements assume facts not in evidence. The following may not be any better since I don't traffic in the jargon of photography much but I'll take a stab and is directed at the forum in general without a presumption of the level knowledge/expertise of each reader.


It is quite possible for a lens to be sharp across the frame wide open, even at f1.4. The Zeiss Otus series proves this and is famous for this. I was first introduced to wide open "landscape shooting" relatively recently (where "landscape shooting" presumes not only good sharpness from front to back but good sharpness across the frame into the corners and edges, the latter being a function of how well lens aberrations are handled by the designers) with the Canon 24-70 II which can be used at 24mm/ f2.8 (wide open) and produces acceptably sharp corners/edges. This lens was a huge eye-opener. If one's composition is at infinity distance across the frame (nature's flat wall), no DoF essentially, then such lenses can render such compositions sharp (in focus) across the frame. When objects are placed closer than infinity to the shooting position, then DoF comes into play and one must stop down to render this object "in focus". Obviously, how much one has to stop down is determined by how close that object(s) are placed to the shooting position (assuming one wants good front to back sharpness). What one does not want to do, if possible, is to stop down just to fix lens aberrations as in the case of compositions featuring infinity across the frame. Nothing about lens design demands that a lens' "sharpness" (in focus) must drop off in the corners at wider or wide open pertures other than meeting a price point and/or customer satisfaction.


Why is good corner/edge performance good? It avoids unnecessary stopping down to fix lens aberrations which, depending on how bad the aberration is, could force another issue, diffraction, upon the image. Diffraction is more of a concern for smaller sensors (where diffraction at f8 is visible during pixel peeping sessions). Amazingly, I have stopped down to f32 on the 645z without the visible softening associated with f16 on a FF system (impressionistic not scientifically derived)..

04-08-2016, 05:02 AM   #65
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,655
QuoteOriginally posted by rfkiii Quote
Why is good corner/edge performance good? It avoids unnecessary stopping down to fix lens aberrations which, depending on how bad the aberration is, could force another issue, diffraction, upon the image. Diffraction is more of a concern for smaller sensors (where diffraction at f8 is visible during pixel peeping sessions). Amazingly, I have stopped down to f32 on the 645z without the visible softening associated with f16 on a FF system (impressionistic not scientifically derived)..
Aberrations do not cause diffraction.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

As the opening becomes smaller, diffracted light becomes a larger percentage of the light collected by the sensor at each location. But it is true, the larger the sensor, the less affected it is by diffraction at a given ƒ-stop. However probably not when you equalize for depth of field.
04-08-2016, 05:44 AM - 1 Like   #66
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 130
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Aberrations do not cause diffraction.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

As the opening becomes smaller, diffracted light becomes a larger percentage of the light collected by the sensor at each location. But it is true, the larger the sensor, the less affected it is by diffraction at a given -stop. However probably not when you equalize for depth of field.


I wasn't suggesting a direct causal effect but there is an indirect effect. Stopping down has pros and cons. The pro for landscape being that stopping down brings objects into focus (including edges and corners rendered out of focus by lens aberrations) but stopping down can also bring on diffraction. If one's composition has no close objects and the only reason to stop down is to fix out of focus corners and edges, then a better designed (and more expensive ) lens would eliminate this need and as an extra benefit, avoid possible diffraction issues.
04-08-2016, 06:05 AM   #67
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,655
QuoteOriginally posted by rfkiii Quote
I wasn't suggesting a direct causal effect but there is an indirect effect. Stopping down has pros and cons. The pro for landscape being that stopping down brings objects into focus (including edges and corners rendered out of focus by lens aberrations) but stopping down can also bring on diffraction. If one's composition has no close objects and the only reason to stop down is to fix out of focus corners and edges, then a better designed (and more expensive ) lens would eliminate this need and as an extra benefit, avoid possible diffraction issues.
Exactly.
04-08-2016, 07:27 AM   #68
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,273
QuoteOriginally posted by itshimitis Quote
Salted please.
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
*munches on popcorn*

@MikeSF, you want some too?
& butter

04-08-2016, 08:47 AM - 2 Likes   #69
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: throughout the US
Posts: 79
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead:
Or maybe it's just you.
Norm,

I've been thinking about what went wrong yesterday in the posting, and I realize the first mistake I made was unnecessarily taking personal offense at a statement, then overreacting and writing a response that was defensive, prideful, and snippy. I know better than that. I was wrong. No excuses. And I apologize to you.

I sent an apology to Bob L also (Bob, thank you for your gracious PM reply). To anyone else reading the thread that was offended by my immature attitude in those posts, I apologize as well.

Sincerely,
Ross
04-08-2016, 11:24 AM - 2 Likes   #70
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,857
These sorts of discussions tend to devolve into folks who focus on test charts/mtf scores/camera specs and those who are about the final image. There is probably a place for both, but to me the image is the goal.

When I look at the "Post Your MF Images" thread, I am constantly amazed, but truthfully, it isn't the camera or the glass that wows me, but the skill of the photographers -- both in capturing light and gently post processing it in a way that brings out the best in a given image. Not every photo is perfect, but overall they are at a higher level because of those who are using the cameras and not because of the cameras.

Changing number of megapixels could help when printing bigger, but I don't know that it really changes anything else. Personally, I want better pixels, not more of them, but each to his or her own.
04-08-2016, 11:25 AM - 1 Like   #71
osv
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by rfkiii Quote
It is quite possible for a lens to be sharp across the frame wide open, even at f1.4. The Zeiss Otus series proves this and is famous for this. I was first introduced to wide open "landscape shooting" relatively recently (where "landscape shooting" presumes not only good sharpness from front to back but good sharpness across the frame into the corners and edges, the latter being a function of how well lens aberrations are handled by the designers) with the Canon 24-70 II which can be used at 24mm/ f2.8 (wide open) and produces acceptably sharp corners/edges. This lens was a huge eye-opener. If one's composition is at infinity distance across the frame (nature's flat wall), no DoF essentially, then such lenses can render such compositions sharp (in focus) across the frame. When objects are placed closer than infinity to the shooting position, then DoF comes into play and one must stop down to render this object "in focus". Obviously, how much one has to stop down is determined by how close that object(s) are placed to the shooting position (assuming one wants good front to back sharpness). What one does not want to do, if possible, is to stop down just to fix lens aberrations as in the case of compositions featuring infinity across the frame. Nothing about lens design demands that a lens' "sharpness" (in focus) must drop off in the corners at wider or wide open pertures other than meeting a price point and/or customer satisfaction.
finally, someone gets it.

however, given that i already posted an f/2 example photo that had practically no field curvature characteristic, other than defects, it really shouldn't have been such a difficult concept for other people to understand

QuoteOriginally posted by rfkiii Quote
Amazingly, I have stopped down to f32 on the 645z without the visible softening associated with f16 on a FF system (impressionistic not scientifically derived)..
that's because, in part, the lower pixel density of the 645z makes diffraction less visible, but afaik, it doesn't change the amount of diffraction there is... now ask yourself what it'll look like with a 100mp mf camera.

---------- Post added 04-08-16 at 11:30 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by rfkiii Quote
I wasn't suggesting a direct causal effect but there is an indirect effect. Stopping down has pros and cons. The pro for landscape being that stopping down brings objects into focus (including edges and corners rendered out of focus by lens aberrations) but stopping down can also bring on diffraction. If one's composition has no close objects and the only reason to stop down is to fix out of focus corners and edges, then a better designed (and more expensive ) lens would eliminate this need and as an extra benefit, avoid possible diffraction issues.
that's it exactly.

---------- Post added 04-08-16 at 11:41 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
There is a big difference as to what a DOF calculator says will be acceptably sharp and what actually "IS" acceptably sharp in the real world. These calculators are well off in my experience.
i agree, yes they are off, the entire concept of dof is based on what is an acceptable amount of visual blur near the area of critical focus.

but the general differences will be accurate, be it two feet or three feet in the 28mm example... if someone is blindly stopping down to f/11, for no reason, it's a waste of expensive camera gear.

Last edited by osv; 04-08-2016 at 11:31 AM.
04-08-2016, 12:50 PM   #72
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 130
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Changing number of megapixels could help when printing bigger, but I don't know that it really changes anything else. Personally, I want better pixels, not more of them, but each to his or her own.

Increasing the number of pixels on the same size sensor always increases the resolution of detail captured all other things being equal. Folks who have the 645D and 645Z could demonstrate this principle of digital imaging quite easily. By "quite easily", I mean the methodology of producing a comparison. The difference in resolved detail may not be as dramatic as one might think from reading these threads, some posts more hyperbolic than others, but it will be there nonetheless especially at pixel peeping levels. What could outweigh any gross advantage of higher capture resolution in the aforementioned example of the 645D vs. the 645z among other things would be the rendering of the different sensors which I have read are visibly different.


To quantify resolution across the same size sensor or different sizes of sensors, look for the pixel density or the pixel size.


"Pixel Density is a calculation of the number of pixels on a sensor, divided by the imaging area of that sensor. It can be used to understand how closely packed a sensor is and helps when comparing two cameras with different sensor sizes or numbers of photosites (pixels). Because the light collecting area and efficiency of each photosite will vary between technologies and manufacturers, pixel density should not be used as a predictor for image quality but instead as a parameter to help understand the sensor. "
04-08-2016, 03:53 PM   #73
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,857
QuoteOriginally posted by rfkiii Quote
Increasing the number of pixels on the same size sensor always increases the resolution of detail captured all other things being equal. Folks who have the 645D and 645Z could demonstrate this principle of digital imaging quite easily. By "quite easily", I mean the methodology of producing a comparison. The difference in resolved detail may not be as dramatic as one might think from reading these threads, some posts more hyperbolic than others, but it will be there nonetheless especially at pixel peeping levels. What could outweigh any gross advantage of higher capture resolution in the aforementioned example of the 645D vs. the 645z among other things would be the rendering of the different sensors which I have read are visibly different.


To quantify resolution across the same size sensor or different sizes of sensors, look for the pixel density or the pixel size.


"Pixel Density is a calculation of the number of pixels on a sensor, divided by the imaging area of that sensor. It can be used to understand how closely packed a sensor is and helps when comparing two cameras with different sensor sizes or numbers of photosites (pixels). Because the light collecting area and efficiency of each photosite will vary between technologies and manufacturers, pixel density should not be used as a predictor for image quality but instead as a parameter to help understand the sensor. "
I think the 645Z has "better" pixels than the 645D (more dynamic range, more color depth), just like on a smaller level, the K5 had better pixels than the K7, even though absolute number of pixels was similar. On the other hand, the K3 has more pixels, but less dynamic range at base iso. This is the sort of trade off that is more difficult to take. My feeling is that there must be a sweet spot and if you drop pixel size below a certain amount, your photon wells shrink and your dynamic range will begin to drop.

But since I don't know much about the science behind it, I guess I should leave it to others to comment.
04-08-2016, 04:11 PM - 2 Likes   #74
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
unkipunki's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: South Lochaweside, Argyll
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 614
I'm plane too busy to focus on this thread, but I DOF my cap to the energy levels on show. On white balance I couldn't give a diffraction about most of it though.
04-09-2016, 06:20 AM   #75
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,816
QuoteOriginally posted by unkipunki Quote
I'm plane too busy to focus on this thread, but I DOF my cap to the energy levels on show. On white balance I couldn't give a diffraction about most of it though.
Perfectly stated for me, including the cringe inducing puns rhetorical twists.
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!
645d, 645z, aperture, camera, detail, dof, equivalent, f11, feet, ff, focus, frame, glass, landscapes, lens, lenses, love, medium format, print, prints, resolution, sensor, sony, source, switch
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You soon-to-be K-1 owners are getting a Rolls Royce of a camera... BigMackCam Pentax DSLR Discussion 27 03-21-2016 08:43 PM
Tethering coming to a 645Z near you. GarethC7 Pentax Medium Format 41 10-21-2014 04:10 AM
Calling 645Z owners - testing dark frame behaviour Ed Hurst Pentax Medium Format 50 07-31-2014 05:28 PM
K3 vs Sony A7: which one will you buy for the same price? yusuf Pentax K-3 23 06-15-2014 07:46 AM
will you switch to SDHC cards? barondla Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 11-22-2006 04:14 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:20 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