Pixel Lust

Pistach said:
4- I don't buy the outresolve argument. A nice thing of transfer functions is that they multiply. There are excellent prime vintage lenses like Leica R, Zeiss F, Minolta Af etc. Now suppose that at a certain point in a certain direction at a certain spatial frequency the lens has a tf=0.7. A poor sensor with say a tf 0.6 wil give a product 0.42, not ideal. A sensor with lot of megapixels may have a tf close to 1, with the result that the product is approximately 0.7, meaning that it will squeeze from the lens its maximum possible performance. I remember that I Leitz engineer, asked what sense does it make to put a fast film in a Leica, answered similarly, but of course with the role of the lens and sensor exchanged
Click to expand...


I agree. One of my pet peeves with my Ricoh GR2 images (whose lens resolution is of the same order of the sensor's resolution) is moiré, aliasing, and demosaicking artifacts. If a sensor resolution were an order of magnitude or so greater than that of the lens, these problems should be significantly reduced.
 
Yes, but the difference between 6 and 12 mp is pretty obvious and significant even to casual users at reasonable print sizes. Between 250 and 500, not so much for 99.9% of photographers/print viewers.
 
For me, cropping is the big advantage. There may be no need to carry around huge telephoto lenses going forward.
 
jsrockit said:
Except photos taken with a normal lens and cropped look different than those taken with a tele.
Click to expand...

Uh, no they don't. If you stand in the same place, there is absolutely no difference other than what might be seen between any two lenses - distortion and the like. Perspective does not change.
 
Corran said:
Uh, no they don't. If you stand in the same place, there is absolutely no difference other than what might be seen between any two lenses - distortion and the like. Perspective does not change.
Click to expand...

You forgot DOF, OOF and compression of space. Of course these relate to focal length.

While what you might "see" is the same the rendering will be very different.

Obviously the lens sees things you don't and renders them differently.

Cal
 
Of course, any two lenses, even two of the same focal length, may have different rendering. That's not what I'm talking about.

Put a 50mm lens on an FX and DX Nikon and take two photos, from the same position. Crop the FX to the same field of view as the DX. It's the same image. DOF is also the same. OOF is the same. Compression is the same.

Now, if instead of cropping in the FX, you took a few steps forward, that's a totally different scenario. But the statement was about cropping as opposed to changing lenses, and that's what I'm talking about.

Focal length doesn't change perspective.

I know you shoot with larger formats. If you shoot a larger and smaller format, with lenses that equate to the same field of view, and match their aperture size (actual physical size), you will still get the same DOF, same compression, and generally if the lens design is the same across the formats, they will be essentially identical in rendering. Try it.
 
nickthetasmaniac said:
- Lenses. I genuinely expected high-performance lenses would become more compact as computer design and fabrication improved. I've watched in amazement as the new generation of 50mm f1.4 lenses have come on to the market (Zeiss Otus, Sigma Art, Pentax D-FA*, Panasonic S Pro, etc...) - far heavier, bigger, more complex and more expensive than ever before (the Panasonic has 13 elements, weighs almost 1kg and costs $3.5k). I think this is largely due to the increased demands of designing for sensors that will probably exceed 100mp before long...
Click to expand...

Nick,

I own a SL. Take note that all the native primes are all APO (all Crons) except my 50 Lux.

At Photoville I was able to borrow the APO 35 Cron from John Kreider the Leica Technical Specialist for the Leica "S" and the SL.

This lens has 13 elements and 5 of the lenses are ASPH. APO corrected and is also a very highly corrected lens. The "L" mount has less design restrictions than a "M" mount. It is said that these APO lenses are built and designed for 4-5 generations out. Leica is even making the wides APO.

The Crons with a 67mm filter thread are big, and are not small lenses, but a lot smaller than my 50 Lux that utilizes an 82mm filter.

It does seem to exploit big MP count the glass gets scaled up. It will be interesting to me to see how my Leica 50 Lux-R "E60" performs on a SL2 with the rumored 48 MP sensor. It suffers no handicap on my 24 MP sensor currently, but will it hold up at 48 MP?

BTW the APO 35 Cron has given me mucho GAS. A remarkable lens. At this point I have more lust for the glass than the big MP count sensor.

Cal
 
I have delusions of Ansel, so I got the GFX50R. The detail and dynamic range is worth every penny of the price.
 
Corran said:
Focal length doesn't change perspective.
Click to expand...

Corran,

I own a Rollie Whiteface 3.5F with an 80mm lens.

At one time I also owned a TeleRolliflex with a 135mm lens.

But look at the excerp that I quoted.

The FOV is rendered by the same lens in the example you gave, and basically it is cropped due to sensor size or change of format.

Of course it looks the same: You did not change the focal length. You effectively cropped the image by a change of format (sensor size).

I went shooting to capture an iconic shot that required trespassing in a railyard at night to capture an iconic shot of the Empire State Building. I had both Rolliflexes with me, but I used the Telerollieflex for the explotation of compression of space.

I assure you that the two cameras recorded and rendered differently. The position was from the same spot using a tripod.

Cropping is cool, but it really isn't a substitute for focal length. Wides, normals, and teles all render differently.

Cal
 
Any difference between your Rollei and TeleRollei are due to the lens differences from design, not the focal length itself.

Compression doesn't change with focal length. This is a very, very common misconception. If you shot the same image with both cameras/lenses, the compression would be the same, you would just have more or less field of view between them. This misconception occurs because many people use a longer focal length in conjunction with getting farther away from a foreground subject, which does increase compression, but because of that change in camera distance.

I don't disagree that some rendering differences can occur, but only due to individual lens characteristics, just like, say, an older Rollei with 80mm Tessar will "render" differently than your newer Rollei with I assume a Xenotar or Planar lens.

Any change in compression is caused by getting closer or farther from a foreground subject compared to a background subject.
 
Darthfeeble said:
I have delusions of Ansel, so I got the GFX50R. The detail and dynamic range is worth every penny of the price.
Click to expand...

D,

I love large format, but I try to emulate it using small format digital.

In large format, shadow detail, and the midrange are most important, especially in larger prints.

In small prints not enough detail and tonality gets displayed. In big prints files open up.

Of course printing big gets expensive.

Know that I tend to shoot like a large format shooter as if trying to make/create a perfect negative as if for contact printing even though I'm making just a digital file.

I use a Helipan 2X yellow so I really don't need to boost contrast in post when using my Monochrom (18MP) and Post processing is minimized to limit digital artifacts.

Back when Leica first released the SL I took my 1975 SL2-MOT to PhotoPlusExpo to harass the guys in the Leica booth.

"Why would I buy a new SL when I have an old one that is still great," I said. I also mentioned that they could of come up with a fresh name.

So Richard Herzog was manning the Leica booth, who is a large format shooter and is somehow was affiliated with Phase One, asked me about my work and what I do.

I said I'll be right back, because earlier I had gifted Robert Rodriguez, the Canson Artist in Residence, a 13x17 print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg bridge. I went to borrow the print to show Richard back at the Leica booth.

So my small print kinda blew the guys at the Leica booth away. Richard Herzog asked, "Is this large format? Is this film?" This was a small 13x17 Piezography print and not a 20x30 on 24x36 sheet which is my big print size.

Even with only 18 MP there are some files that could use a 44 inch printer. I still own the MM with CCD sensor. A very primitive camera, and arguably the most unforgiving digital camera. No Bayer filter array, means no possibility of recovering blown highlights. I know the M246 is a much more advanced camera and better in every way, but I still love the unique rendering and the unscooped midrange, despite the warts and all.

Cal
 
Anyway, you can try it yourself. Here's a plush in front of my Speed Graphic, with a 55mm lens and cropped vs. a 200mm lens, not cropped. Compression is the same.

compression-55-200.jpg
 
Corran said:
Any difference between your Rollei and TeleRollei are due to the lens differences from design, not the focal length itself.

Compression doesn't change with focal length. This is a very, very common misconception. If you shot the same image with both cameras/lenses, the compression would be the same, you would just have more or less field of view between them. This misconception occurs because many people use a longer focal length in conjunction with getting farther away from a foreground subject, which does increase compression, but because of that change in camera distance.

I don't disagree that some rendering differences can occur, but only due to individual lens characteristics, just like, say, an older Rollei with 80mm Tessar will "render" differently than your newer Rollei with I assume a Xenotar or Planar lens.

Any change in compression is caused by getting closer or farther from a foreground subject compared to a background subject.
Click to expand...

Corran,

So you don't think say a 105/2.5 Nikon lens does not flatten (compress) a models features to flatter them, and that by cropping a 50 and using magnification the same compression can be formed?

Shot from the same distance of course.

Cal
 
Corran said:
Anyway, you can try it yourself. Here's a plush in front of my Speed Graphic, with a 55mm lens and cropped vs. a 200mm lens, not cropped. Compression is the same.

compression-55-200.jpg
Click to expand...

Corran,

Looks the same perspective to me. Pretty dramatic.

Thanks for posting this example.

You should know that I rarely crop in post, and when I do it is never to the extent where it approaches a change in focal length.

Interesting how and why I don't crop.

Cal
 
Cal, I'm not much of a cropper either, except occasionally to change aspect ratio or remove a slight annoyance on the edge of the frame. I certainly prefer to fill the frame with my intended image.

Of course I don't have every lens and camera and format with me at all times, so we do what we must! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom