Shooting wide open in harsh sunlight.

fdigital said:
I hear this all the time, but I actually believe you can tell a lot about how sharp a lens is from web pictures. The original argument was that web images can only be viewed at 72dpi
Click to expand...

I think the original argument is that when any and all structures smaller than a 5x5 square get jammed into a single pixel, a lot of things seem sharper than they are in print.

It's a very similar reason to why small prints are more forgiving sharpness-wise than large ones.

I think the sharpness of lenses basically cannot be evaluated on screen (without zooming in, which then again creates another unrealistic viewing scenario). The only thing that is even less suitable for on-screen evaluation is microcontrast.
 
rxmd said:
I think the original argument is that when any and all structures smaller than a 5x5 square get jammed into a single pixel, a lot of things seem sharper than they are in print.

It's a very similar reason to why small prints are more forgiving sharpness-wise than large ones.

I think the sharpness of lenses basically cannot be evaluated on screen (without zooming in, which then again creates another unrealistic viewing scenario). The only thing that is even less suitable for on-screen evaluation is microcontrast.
Click to expand...

Well, all I can say is that I disagree, in my experience it's more a myth than anything.
 
I think the "soft" at F/2.0 is really a myth more than anything else. Yet, there's a possible explanation. At close focusing distances (less than about 1 meter) it is kind of soft, mostly due to various aberrations. At "normal" distances I find this thing more than acceptably sharp, even compared to my near optically perfect macros.

However, even the softness and various optical imperfections at short focusing distances can be funny to play around with...

F/2.0 at a focus distance of 20-30 cm probably.

x100_floral_01.jpg


Mac
 
M4cr0s, sharpness definitely varies with focal length with a lot of lenses - the Zeiss ze/zf SLR 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 planars are both quite soft at closer distances wide open, but become much better at longer distances. Zeiss even mentions this in the official brochures!

Nothing wrong with that flower pic though, lovely rendering for such a little digital cam!
 
fdigital said:
M4cr0s, sharpness definitely varies with focal length with a lot of lenses - the Zeiss ze/zf SLR 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 planars are both quite soft at closer distances wide open, but become much better at longer distances. Zeiss even mentions this in the official brochures!

Nothing wrong with that flower pic though, lovely rendering for such a little digital cam!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've observed this firsthand myself with several lenses which tend to have a "sweet" range. I'm however impressed by modern dedicated macro lenses that tend to be amazing, at least in cold, clinical sharpness and flatness of field from one end of the focus range to the other. They are however quite large and have very complicated optical designs with floating elements and such. That the little Fujinon performs as well as it does seemingly without a lot of post processing trickery (like m4/3) is quite a feat I think.

Mac
 
I've no idea if one can appreciate sharpness on the interweb but,,, I do find the OP's photo, actually, looks a bit odd, a bit like wearing someone else's glasses to read the menu ... the subject looks fine but the rest of the restaurant looks strangely blurry; not to my taste, sorry
 
Sparrow said:
I've no idea if one can appreciate sharpness on the interweb but,,, I do find the OP's photo, actually, looks a bit odd, a bit like wearing someone else's glasses to read the menu ... the subject looks fine but the rest of the restaurant looks strangely blurry; not to my taste, sorry
Click to expand...

interesting...i like that effect...
 
Something I forgot to mention was that because I had the camera in silent mode none of the people in the pics knew I was taking photos. They assumed I was just playing with my new camera. As you can tell from the pics I was very close to them. Talk about stealth!
 
cellison said:
Something I forgot to mention was that because I had the camera in silent mode none of the people in the pics knew I was taking photos. They assumed I was just playing with my new camera. As you can tell from the pics I was very close to them. Talk about stealth!
Click to expand...

Were you shooting with the LCD or viewfinder then? Cause if you had it up to the eye, the viewfinder, I think most people would assume that you actually intend to take a photo?

Also, where in the world was it...?
 
I was holding it up to my eye but since I had just told them I'd had it less than 2 days and never took it from my eye during all the shots they assumed I was just enjoying the hybrid viewfinder. If anyone had heard even one shutter click I think things would have been different.

One of the guys even said "you should take her picture" after the waitress left.
 
cellison said:
I was holding it up to my eye but since I had just told them I'd had it less than 2 days and never took it from my eye during all the shots they assumed I was just enjoying the hybrid viewfinder. If anyone had heard even one shutter click I think things would have been different.

One of the guys even said "you should take her picture" after the waitress left.
Click to expand...

To which you could have replied, 'oh darn, you're right. But did you know that this camera does time travel too?' Then show them the pictures.

Is the X100 really that quiet? How quiet is it compared with compact digicams? The Ricoh GXR is fantastic but the focusing and shutter sounds are surprisingly distinct. The quietest camera I've ever used is, surprisingly, the Canon G10, closely followed by the Sigma DP1. I've taken photos of shop assistants right in front of them at the counter and they never heard a thing, lens extension and all.
 
This thread has become another reason why I need to get my hands on the X100. Both the sharpness and the dynamic range sell it to me.
 
M4cr0s said:
I think the "soft" at F/2.0 is really a myth more than anything else. Yet, there's a possible explanation. At close focusing distances (less than about 1 meter) it is kind of soft, mostly due to various aberrations. At "normal" distances I find this thing more than acceptably sharp, even compared to my near optically perfect macros.
Click to expand...

I agree with this completely. I never hesistate to use it wide open and it is certainly sharper than my 35mm summicron V2 wide open at normal rangefinder distances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom