One BIG disappointment

jsrockit said:
I make photos of a lot of store fronts and windows... where there is a lot of info edge to edge... a lot of text mostly on the same plane. Most lenses are fine for this for my needs (especially Zeiss C-Biogon and Planar), however, a few haven't been (Perar). Some lenses the soft corners go way out into the frame (Elmar).

Not everyone photographs the same way and people's needs vary. Just because one person thinks that soft corners are no big deal, other's may disagree.
Click to expand...

I concur. I'm not saying that "just because I don't need them doesn't mean others don't"; I am saying that other than landscape or architecture photographers who else WOULD need corner to corner sharpness.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I concur. I'm not saying that "just because I don't need them doesn't mean others don't"; I am saying that other than landscape or architecture photographers who else WOULD need corner to corner sharpness.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

I understand, but I don't consider myself a landscape or architecture photographer and I like to have corner to corner sharpness. However, I have plenty of photos that don't have that kind of sharpness and still use them.

There are no doubt pixel peepers who don't need edge to edge sharpness that will complain. However, you cannot take stats and specification junkie seriously...because their priorities regarding photography are not, IMO, in the right place.
 
jsrockit said:
I make photos of a lot of store fronts and windows... where there is a lot of info edge to edge... a lot of text mostly on the same plane.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're doing with those photos and hence whether that edge-to-edge precision is something you need or merely something you like (a.k.a. pixel peeping). If I were to photograph that sort of thing and needed the precision for whatever reason, I'd presume that precise framing would matter too. Hence a camera with an optical viewfinder wouldn't be the first thing I'm thinking of. Classic SLR job in my book. Also I'd presume that holding the camera perpendicular to the store front would matter too, which calls for a three-way spirit level in the accessory shoe and probably at least a monopod.
 
dcsang said:
not up in one corner or the other, so to me, corners don't seem to be that important yet I continue to see people complain or bemoan the fact that "corners are soft" and immediately dismiss a lens (or in this case a camera) because of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing the camera because of corners, the worst case area of the sensor. Lots of lens/camera combos do poorly in the corners.

No, I'm talking about edges, and not just the extremes, but astigmatic smearing of detail noticeable progressively out from the centre with some lens / focal length / aperture combinations, to the point where the outer 1/4 to 1/3 of the long edge of the frame is noticeably impacted and can be visible at normal viewing image sizes.

The effect is of course more pronounced the shorter the focal length and wider open the aperture. Some lenses never fully clean up the edges even when stopped down to where diffraction takes its toll.

No doubt some will be able to work around this limitation. Others won't.

I'm sure many of us who do shoot wider lenses can think of images where losing detail over 1/2 to 2/3 of the horizontal dimension of the frame would be a problem.

Those that shoot a 50 f/<2.0 wide open all the time and up close probably won't even realize there is a problem.
 
Corner to corner sharpness has become a technical criteria enthroned on camera discussion boards, such as dpreview, where the gear, rather than the image, is for all practical purposes the exclusive concern.

At the same time, some one might very well like to have a small highly portable digital camera with good corner to corner sharpness in order to document buildings or street layouts . . . for presentations for example. There is no particular reason why that person should be required to carry heavy gear to get these results.

On the other hand, for more "impressionistic" shooting corner to corner sharpness is a hindrance. Depends on what you're doing. Of course in this case you are better off with a film camera anyway.
 
dcsang said:
I don't see, as of yet, for those that do not shoot landscapes or architecture a compelling argument why corner sharpness must be critical.
Click to expand...
Corner sharpness may be unimportant in many cases, but I find edge-to-edge sharpness fairly important. The resulting photograph will anyway show the effects of both the lens and the sensor.
 
traveler_101 said:
At the same time, some one might very well like to have a small highly portable digital camera with good corner to corner sharpness in order to document buildings or street layouts . . . for presentations for example. There is no particular reason why that person should be required to carry heavy gear to get these results.
Click to expand...

It's been a long time since I've given or seen a presentation that requires a level of detail beyond the equivalent of more than 1-2 megapixels. I agree that in principle it's nice to be able to blow up every pixel to poster size, but a necessity it's not.

I think corner to corner sharpness is more of a Top Trumps sort of thing.
 
sorry to chime in, but the corner to corner sharpeness thing is imo only a marketing bulb and completely overrated, good only for the spec-sheet wars, olympus has been doing this for years (with mixed succes) all their 43rds lenses were and are telecentric and overenginnered, and due to the small sensor deliver near perfect edge to edge sharpness, but they never had a sensor to do the glass justice. all you get from smaller sensor is sharp corners, and files with that dead digital and clinical look.

I'm surprised that this topic pops up always again once in a while though,

i'll take any FF camera anyday despite some shadows in the corners which imo 1. add to the picture, 2. can be corrected with one click in PP.
 
rxmd said:
I don't know what you're doing with those photos and hence whether that edge-to-edge precision is something you need or merely something you like (a.k.a. pixel peeping). If I were to photograph that sort of thing and needed the precision for whatever reason, I'd presume that precise framing would matter too. Hence a camera with an optical viewfinder wouldn't be the first thing I'm thinking of. Classic SLR job in my book. Also I'd presume that holding the camera perpendicular to the store front would matter too, which calls for a three-way spirit level in the accessory shoe and probably at least a monopod.
Click to expand...

You are correct technically speaking. However, I do perfectly fine without a SLR and a three-way spirit level. I know my framelines and how they react. I can see my results in the LCD too remember. I'm a lot looser than you are thinking as well. More street still life. I'm not making large format style photos of store fronts. People who know my work, know that what I do works with the equipment I use (for my needs).

So, do I need it? No. Do I want it? Yes. AND there is nothing wrong with just wanting it especially when Zeiss lenses and a M9 can deliver.

By the way, make large prints with a lens that has very soft corners and many will find that they do not like it either.

The bottom line is that this is a subjective topic and what you or I believe may not be what the next guy believes. No one is wrong either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom