Re: Digital lenses
Well since we're only guessing I'd say the Pentax is sharper with better flair resistance while the sigma will have less distortion, if you can tell through fog. BTW the K 17mm looks like a nothing more than a 24mm with lots of barrel distortion. mapson wrote: I understand that nobody may have personal experience with all of the following lenses, but from what you know how would you rank (sharpness distortion) the following lenses? Sigma Digital 18-50mm F/3.5-5.6 Pentax SMCP-DA 16-45mm F4 ED-AL Also, we currently have Fisheye Zoom 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5 Would the digital lenses offer much less distorted picture than the 17-28 'analogue' ;-) lens? (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Digital lenses
That should have been, ...than a 24mm with lots of barrel distortion on an *ist-D. Peter J. Alling wrote: Well since we're only guessing I'd say the Pentax is sharper with better flair resistance while the sigma will have less distortion, if you can tell through fog. BTW the K 17mm looks like a nothing more than a 24mm with lots of barrel distortion. mapson wrote: I understand that nobody may have personal experience with all of the following lenses, but from what you know how would you rank (sharpness distortion) the following lenses? Sigma Digital 18-50mm F/3.5-5.6 Pentax SMCP-DA 16-45mm F4 ED-AL Also, we currently have Fisheye Zoom 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5 Would the digital lenses offer much less distorted picture than the 17-28 'analogue' ;-) lens? (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Digital lenses
On 28 Feb 2004 at 21:45, mapson wrote: Also, we currently have Fisheye Zoom 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5 Would the digital lenses offer much less distorted picture than the 17-28 'analogue' ;-) lens? Given that the new lens is a rectilinear design not a fisheye then yes it won't produce the classic fisheye distortion (fisheye distortion is predictable so can be corrected by electronic filtering to resemble a rectilinear view). They may suffer from other geometric distortions such as pin-cushion or barrel though. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Digital lenses
I understand that nobody may have personal experience with all of the following lenses, but from what you know how would you rank (sharpness distortion) the following lenses? Sigma Digital 18-50mm F/3.5-5.6 Pentax SMCP-DA 16-45mm F4 ED-AL Be guided by the price. Lenses are priced according to the image quality they are designed to deliver. I know that most of us have to watch our budgets. That includes me. Why, though, would you pay $1300-$1700 (U.S.) for the *ist D, then put a $100 lens on it? Your image quality will be dictated by the $100 lens. The DA 16-45 is a very fine lens optically, according to my tests. I haven't tried the Sigma, and probably never will. Joe
Re: Digital lenses (WAS: Re: FA-J lenses (WAS: Re: *ist))
At 03:44 PM 6/10/2003 +0200, Pål Jensen wrote: This could also be a factor behind why Pentax would limit 20+ year old lenses on the *ist D. Perhaps they aren't realy suited for a DSLR? Another matter is that there are probably other criterias in optical performance that is more important in a lens used for a CCD than for lens used with film. I wonder how the 'plastic' effect attributed to the limited lenses will render on a DSLR. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Digital lenses (WAS: Re: FA-J lenses (WAS: Re: *ist))
I believe digital lenses is Sigma marketing wording made up for certain lenses (particularly wide angles) designed to project parallel rays of light on the focus plane. Apparently the industry is close to overcome this restriction with sensors less sensitive to incident angle of light ray. And anyway, the Sigma initiative was not particularly successful so the term flopped. There's nothing wrong with old lenses on a digital body. Some exquisite primes will work just great, many others will fail with chromatic aberrations and heavy light fall-off. It'll be a natural selection, there's no need for manufacturer's intervention to preclude use of this or that lens. Besides, I doubt the early A lenses, or for that matter even some recent FA lenses were build with digital requirements in mind. It is Pentax's job to release lenses with better performance and - why not? - bearing new technologies like IS, USM, to convince the customer to buy new lenses. Servus,Alin Pål wrote: PJ In other words, lens quality is far more critical with eg. the PJ *ist D than with a Pentax 35mm slr. This could also be a factor PJ behind why Pentax would limit 20+ year old lenses on the *ist D. PJ Perhaps they aren't realy suited for a DSLR?
RE: Digital lenses
Me no camera engineer, But doesn't the smaller size of the digital array sensor in the DSLRs compared to 35mm film mean that the array is only looking at the center portion of a normal lens's optical cone, normally the sweet spot? Kinda like using a medium format lens on a 35mm camera? Dumb 'ol Tom
Re: Digital lenses (WAS: Re: FA-J lenses (WAS: Re: *ist))
You're reaching, and you it's unbecoming. The argument about special digital lenses was disposed of long ago. At 03:44 PM 6/10/03 +0200, you wrote: Jens wrote: Hi Pål Speaking about digital phoitogrphy - isn't the limits to the possible resolution set be the CCD, rather than by the lens? Jens The final resolution is an interaction between medium (CCD or film) resolution and lens resolution. The lower resolution of the medium, the more imprortant the lens resolution as it costitutes more of the overall resolution. This is the main reason you get away with rotten lenses for medium and large format. Another issue is that images taken with not full frame DSLR using the 35mm suystem lenses needs to be enlarged more to reach the same final size as a 35mm image. This means that lens resolutiuon is being effectively reduced by a similar amount. In other words, lens quality is far more critical with eg. the *ist D than with a Pentax 35mm slr. This could also be a factor behind why Pentax would limit 20+ year old lenses on the *ist D. Perhaps they aren't realy suited for a DSLR? Another matter is that there are probably other criterias in optical performance that is more important in a lens used for a CCD than for lens used with film. Pål Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Digital lenses
From: Thomas Haller Sent: 10 June 2003 16:43 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Digital lenses Me no camera engineer, But doesn't the smaller size of the digital array sensor in the DSLRs compared to 35mm film mean that the array is only looking at the center portion of a normal lens's optical cone, normally the sweet spot? Kinda like using a medium format lens on a 35mm camera? Dumb 'ol Tom Or not so dumb Tom
Re: Digital lenses (WAS: Re: FA-J lenses (WAS: Re: *ist))
I can´t see why, but I haven´t been around long enough to remember the previous discussions. Contrast and even distortion is possible to fix by software, in the camera if the lens characteristics are stored there or in the lens CPU. Chromatic aberrations are more difficult to cope with, as well as the sensitivity to the incidence angle of the light on the sensor. Also, you can forget about resolutions better then the resolution of the resolution inherent to the sensor (taking the Bayer interpolation and Nyquist theorem into account). So why not make such specialized lenses. From some of the characteristics of the limited lenses I´ve been wondering if they were not constructed having the MZ-D in mind DagT På tirsdag, 10. juni 2003, kl. 17:50, skrev Peter Alling: You're reaching, and you it's unbecoming. The argument about special digital lenses was disposed of long ago. At 03:44 PM 6/10/03 +0200, you wrote: Jens wrote: Hi Pål Speaking about digital phoitogrphy - isn't the limits to the possible resolution set be the CCD, rather than by the lens? Jens The final resolution is an interaction between medium (CCD or film) resolution and lens resolution. The lower resolution of the medium, the more imprortant the lens resolution as it costitutes more of the overall resolution. This is the main reason you get away with rotten lenses for medium and large format. Another issue is that images taken with not full frame DSLR using the 35mm suystem lenses needs to be enlarged more to reach the same final size as a 35mm image. This means that lens resolutiuon is being effectively reduced by a similar amount. In other words, lens quality is far more critical with eg. the *ist D than with a Pentax 35mm slr. This could also be a factor behind why Pentax would limit 20+ year old lenses on the *ist D. Perhaps they aren't realy suited for a DSLR? Another matter is that there are probably other criterias in optical performance that is more important in a lens used for a CCD than for lens used with film. Pål Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Digital Lenses
Well, there you go, the EOS 1DS is as good as a Nikon Coolscan 8000. William Robb Same thing I thought. Lukasz --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Szukasz banku bez prowizji ? mBank - zaloz konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Digital Lenses
On 6 Mar 2003 at 13:38, Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: Well, there you go, the EOS 1DS is as good as a Nikon Coolscan 8000. William Robb Same thing I thought. Maybe their LS-8000 was misaligned :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
Re: Digital Lenses
Hi Cyril, I'd assume you translated that properly, but I didn't ask for another Nikon scanner test Feroze - Original Message - From: Cyril MARION [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Digital Lenses Rob wrote : Hi Cyril, May I ask how Réponses Photo managed to compare EOS1D output with a Hasselblad 500CM? I will bet that they didn't output the EOS1D file to a slide then compare them on a light table :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert Hello Rob, Here is the article; I do not think they output the EOS 1D file on a slide ! « L'EOS-1 Ds au niveau du moyen-format ? Nous l'avons vérifié ! Cette photo a été prise en mode Raw à la résolution maximale et nous l'avons agrandie à un format de 50x70 cm (objectif 16-35 mm f:2,8, mode sRVB). En moyen-format, nous avons utilisé un Hasselblad 500CM équipé d'un Zeiss 50 mm CFE (même champ angulaire horizontal que le 35 mm en 24x36 mm). Le film n b utilisé est la Fuji Accros 100 ISO, une référence en matière de définition d'image (200 l/mm). Nous avons scanné le négatif sur un Nikon CoolScan 8000 à la résolution maximale (4 000 dpi). Le verdict est clair, I'EOS-1 Ds enregistre autant de détails qu'un film 120 noir blanc pourtant réputé pour sa très haute définition. Les aiguilles de la pendule, les points du cadran, et la structure des tuiles du toit sont aussi bien rendus par l'appareil numérique qu'en moyen-format. Match nul donc, côté définition visuelle. Le numérique se distingue par une quasi-absence de grain. Le ciel est parfaitement lisse, là où la structure de grain du film n b (même en moyen-format !) commence à nettement se faire sentir. Conclusion : en pratique, I'EOS-1 Ds concurrence réellement le moyen-format et la même image en 24x36 (boîtier Nikon F100, obj : 35 mm f:2 et film 100 ISO) est loin derrière ! » A kind of bad translation of mine: The EOS 1Ds at the same level as the medium format ? We have verified that ! This pix has been taken in RAW mode with maximum resolution and have been enlarged to a 50cm x 70 cm print (16-35mm f/2,8 lens, sRVB mode). In medium format, we have used an Hasselblad 500CM fitted with a ZEISS 50mm (same horizontal field of view as 35mm lens in 24x36 format). The bw film used is FUJI Accros 100 ISO, considered as a reference as far as image definition is concerned (200 line per mm). We have scanned the negative film on a Nikon CoolScan 8000 at maximum resolution (4000 dpi). Conclusion is clear, the EOS 1Ds records as much details as a 120 bw film, althought this film has an excellent reputation for its very high definition. The clock needles (note: on the pictures which where used in the comparison), the points on the clock ring, the structure of the roof, are as well rendered by the digital equipment as by the medium format one. Even match, then, as far as visual definition is cocerned. The digital equipment distinguishes itself by its quasi-total absence of grain. Sky is perfectly smooth, where the film grain structure starts to be visible (even in medium format !). Conclusion : practically, the EOS 1Ds really competes with medium format and the same image in 24x36 (Nikon F100 + 35mm f/2 lens + 100 ISO film) is far behind ! Regards, Cyril www.pentaxiste.org --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
Re: Digital Lenses
Hi Tom, I'm trying to gather as much as I can. I prefer real world proof to lab tests any day. But before investing a sizeable chuck of money into a new format I really need to justify if comparing favourably is worth not only the investment in a DSLR but also all the sundries like CF cards, a decent printer, lots of batteries, probally a notebook etc, etc. Seems theres a lot of hidden costs in switching formats that is not discussed. Take for eg the tender I'm trying to get now. I have to shoot about 2000 varsity students on graduation night. How many cards would I need to keep the flow of work up without undue interruption while my assistant copies it to harddrive. I can shoot the entire event with the equipment I have now just by having enough film and batteries on me. Wheres the favourable comparison in that real world scenario? Feroze - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: RE: Digital Lenses You really shuld gather a little more information before you make your judgement. My experience has shown that a 6 meg sensor compares favorably to 35mm film. As always, the proof is in the prints. tv -Original Message- From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Lenses So at the moment I can have only have one, guess I rather prefer the grain too, pity the *istD looked good, a bit too small for me though. I hope the next one up is more like the MZS. Thanks Feroze - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses At 11:26 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, Feroze wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Hi Peter snip however the answer is no. I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an image than mere resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more important. I think that at the moment even though digital images seem to be brighter overall it still seems to lack a certain somethingIs it only my taste or do others feel this way? Many observers look at digital images and seem to prefer them because they are smoother, giving a creamy look to out of focus images and large expanses of uniform color without detail. Well like sky for instance. They are also very kind to skin tones in that they tend to remove blemishes. The built in algorithms used to remove artifacts in the captured image tend to also smooth out small details. Film in contrast looks well grainy. I like grain but that's just me. I'd prefer the detail, I can always remove the grain if it's a problem but I can't put the detail back if I've never seen it. Color is another issue. Under most circumstances digital gives good color often better than you get with color negative film from a mini-lab. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Digital Lenses
Some DSLRs allow tethered shooting, where you save the images directly to your computer over firewire, etc. -Ryan Feroze Kistan wrote: Hi Tom, I'm trying to gather as much as I can. I prefer real world proof to lab tests any day. But before investing a sizeable chuck of money into a new format I really need to justify if comparing favourably is worth not only the investment in a DSLR but also all the sundries like CF cards, a decent printer, lots of batteries, probally a notebook etc, etc. Seems theres a lot of hidden costs in switching formats that is not discussed. Take for eg the tender I'm trying to get now. I have to shoot about 2000 varsity students on graduation night. How many cards would I need to keep the flow of work up without undue interruption while my assistant copies it to harddrive. I can shoot the entire event with the equipment I have now just by having enough film and batteries on me. Wheres the favourable comparison in that real world scenario? Feroze - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: RE: Digital Lenses You really shuld gather a little more information before you make your judgement. My experience has shown that a 6 meg sensor compares favorably to 35mm film. As always, the proof is in the prints. tv -Original Message- From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Lenses So at the moment I can have only have one, guess I rather prefer the grain too, pity the *istD looked good, a bit too small for me though. I hope the next one up is more like the MZS. Thanks Feroze - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses At 11:26 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, Feroze wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Hi Peter snip however the answer is no. I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an image than mere resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more important. I think that at the moment even though digital images seem to be brighter overall it still seems to lack a certain somethingIs it only my taste or do others feel this way? Many observers look at digital images and seem to prefer them because they are smoother, giving a creamy look to out of focus images and large expanses of uniform color without detail. Well like sky for instance. They are also very kind to skin tones in that they tend to remove blemishes. The built in algorithms used to remove artifacts in the captured image tend to also smooth out small details. Film in contrast looks well grainy. I like grain but that's just me. I'd prefer the detail, I can always remove the grain if it's a problem but I can't put the detail back if I've never seen it. Color is another issue. Under most circumstances digital gives good color often better than you get with color negative film from a mini-lab. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Digital Lenses
Agreed, its still another $1500 for a decent notebook, can't see myself walking with my desktop :) How fast is firewire v/s USB2 Feroze - Original Message - From: Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Some DSLRs allow tethered shooting, where you save the images directly to your computer over firewire, etc. -Ryan Feroze Kistan wrote: Hi Tom, I'm trying to gather as much as I can. I prefer real world proof to lab tests any day. But before investing a sizeable chuck of money into a new format I really need to justify if comparing favourably is worth not only the investment in a DSLR but also all the sundries like CF cards, a decent printer, lots of batteries, probally a notebook etc, etc. Seems theres a lot of hidden costs in switching formats that is not discussed. Take for eg the tender I'm trying to get now. I have to shoot about 2000 varsity students on graduation night. How many cards would I need to keep the flow of work up without undue interruption while my assistant copies it to harddrive. I can shoot the entire event with the equipment I have now just by having enough film and batteries on me. Wheres the favourable comparison in that real world scenario? Feroze - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: RE: Digital Lenses You really shuld gather a little more information before you make your judgement. My experience has shown that a 6 meg sensor compares favorably to 35mm film. As always, the proof is in the prints. tv -Original Message- From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Lenses So at the moment I can have only have one, guess I rather prefer the grain too, pity the *istD looked good, a bit too small for me though. I hope the next one up is more like the MZS. Thanks Feroze - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses At 11:26 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, Feroze wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Hi Peter snip however the answer is no. I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an image than mere resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more important. I think that at the moment even though digital images seem to be brighter overall it still seems to lack a certain somethingIs it only my taste or do others feel this way? Many observers look at digital images and seem to prefer them because they are smoother, giving a creamy look to out of focus images and large expanses of uniform color without detail. Well like sky for instance. They are also very kind to skin tones in that they tend to remove blemishes. The built in algorithms used to remove artifacts in the captured image tend to also smooth out small details. Film in contrast looks well grainy. I like grain but that's just me. I'd prefer the detail, I can always remove the grain if it's a problem but I can't put the detail back if I've never seen it. Color is another issue. Under most circumstances digital gives good color often better than you get with color negative film from a mini-lab. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Digital Lenses
I don't know the stats but several times faster from my experience, at least on some things. At 11:20 PM 3/2/2017 +0200, you wrote: Agreed, its still another $1500 for a decent notebook, can't see myself walking with my desktop :) How fast is firewire v/s USB2 Feroze - Original Message - From: Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Some DSLRs allow tethered shooting, where you save the images directly to your computer over firewire, etc. -Ryan Feroze Kistan wrote: Hi Tom, I'm trying to gather as much as I can. I prefer real world proof to lab tests any day. But before investing a sizeable chuck of money into a new format I really need to justify if comparing favourably is worth not only the investment in a DSLR but also all the sundries like CF cards, a decent printer, lots of batteries, probally a notebook etc, etc. Seems theres a lot of hidden costs in switching formats that is not discussed. Take for eg the tender I'm trying to get now. I have to shoot about 2000 varsity students on graduation night. How many cards would I need to keep the flow of work up without undue interruption while my assistant copies it to harddrive. I can shoot the entire event with the equipment I have now just by having enough film and batteries on me. Wheres the favourable comparison in that real world scenario? Feroze - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: RE: Digital Lenses You really shuld gather a little more information before you make your judgement. My experience has shown that a 6 meg sensor compares favorably to 35mm film. As always, the proof is in the prints. tv -Original Message- From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Lenses So at the moment I can have only have one, guess I rather prefer the grain too, pity the *istD looked good, a bit too small for me though. I hope the next one up is more like the MZS. Thanks Feroze - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses At 11:26 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, Feroze wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Hi Peter snip however the answer is no. I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an image than mere resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more important. I think that at the moment even though digital images seem to be brighter overall it still seems to lack a certain somethingIs it only my taste or do others feel this way? Many observers look at digital images and seem to prefer them because they are smoother, giving a creamy look to out of focus images and large expanses of uniform color without detail. Well like sky for instance. They are also very kind to skin tones in that they tend to remove blemishes. The built in algorithms used to remove artifacts in the captured image tend to also smooth out small details. Film in contrast looks well grainy. I like grain but that's just me. I'd prefer the detail, I can always remove the grain if it's a problem but I can't put the detail back if I've never seen it. Color is another issue. Under most circumstances digital gives good color often better than you get with color negative film from a mini-lab. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Digital Lenses
-Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Say you do your homework, and you get all your camera settings *exactly* right. Digital labs will give you a discount for drop printing. This is where you send the scan, and they print it without correction. The savings on this is about 30-50%. Say your normal pic-a-pac sheet rate is $4. Now it's $3 (I'm being conservative). Out of your 2000 seniors, say 1000 order a pic-a-pac sheet. You $4000 lab bill is now $3000. Maybe I need to back off on this point. Pic-a-pac prices probably assume consistent lighting and exposure anyway, so maybe drop print prices aren't available. tv
Re: Digital Lenses
in burst mode, USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire. i don't have a USB 2.0 device to compare with my Firewire devices to see what the real speeds are. Herb - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 18:35 Subject: Re: Digital Lenses I don't know the stats but several times faster from my experience, at least on some things. At 11:20 PM 3/2/2017 +0200, you wrote: Agreed, its still another $1500 for a decent notebook, can't see myself walking with my desktop :) How fast is firewire v/s USB2
Re: Digital Lenses
JPEGs are not fragile at all. they are misused by the novice. every time you save a JPEF file from an image editing program, it recompresses the image. since JPEG is a lossy compress algorithm, that means each save throws away more of the image. i set my digital camera to capture at the least possible JPEG compression and anything that i decide worth working on gets converted to Photoshop format and stays that way. anybody that needs my files gets them as Photoshop or JPEG files created from the Photoshop original. i never alter the JPEG files from the camera. This is the most sensible piece of advice I have read here. This needs reiterating: you can shoot in high quality jpeg mode, convert to a native Photoshop file, and hey presto - print at 300 dpi, or save to CD. As a rule, I save all my camera originals to CD. Every one. I go through each batch straight from the camera and optimise the chosen 10% or so and save them as ready Photoshop files. You can shoot RAW if you like, but at 6MP you will be hard-pushed to notice a great big quality increase. I have had a RAW file and a large/fine jpeg of the same scene opened side-by-side, examining minute differences down to the individual pixel, and there's so little in it that I always shoot jpeg. HTH Cotty
Re: Digital Lenses
At 10:01 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, you wrote: I have been following the digital debate for some time now, but some of the things I don't understand are : 1] A DSLR needs a lens of a higher resolution capability than a film lens? Yes/No Either would benefit from a lens of higher resolution but once you are beyond the resolving power of the recording medium there's no real benefit to a higher resolution lens. (Ok that's simplified but...) 2] All else being equal a 11-14MP DSLR image equals or betters a 35mm scan in some instances? Yes/No It would depend on the scanner's resolution and what you are looking for in quality but, in my opinion no. Some 35mm films have twice the resolving power of a 14mp digital camera. 3] If you used a full frame lens designed for a DSLR than all else being equal the digital image would better the 35mm scan in most instances? Yes/No That would be a matter of taste. If you equate image quality with resolution however the answer is no. 4] What would, assuming the above are all true , be then the result of using a high resolution lens on a SLR eg a MZS with ISO 100 B W film, would the lens resolve too detail much for the film? That has nothing to do with the previous 3 questions. The lens could resolve more detail than you could record on the film. Not trying to start an argument BTW. Regards, Feroze Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Digital Lenses
- Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Hi Peter 2] All else being equal a 11-14MP DSLR image equals or betters a 35mm scan in some instances? Yes/No It would depend on the scanner's resolution and what you are looking for in quality but, in my opinion no. Some 35mm films have twice the resolving power of a 14mp digital camera. So its going to be some time before film is obsolete. 3] If you used a full frame lens designed for a DSLR than all else being equal the digital image would better the 35mm scan in most instances? Yes/No That would be a matter of taste. If you equate image quality with resolution however the answer is no. I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an image than mere resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more important. I think that at the moment even though digital images seem to be brighter overall it still seems to lack a certain somethingIs it only my taste or do others feel this way?
Re: Digital Lenses
At 11:26 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, Feroze wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Hi Peter snip however the answer is no. I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an image than mere resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more important. I think that at the moment even though digital images seem to be brighter overall it still seems to lack a certain somethingIs it only my taste or do others feel this way? Many observers look at digital images and seem to prefer them because they are smoother, giving a creamy look to out of focus images and large expanses of uniform color without detail. Well like sky for instance. They are also very kind to skin tones in that they tend to remove blemishes. The built in algorithms used to remove artifacts in the captured image tend to also smooth out small details. Film in contrast looks well grainy. I like grain but that's just me. I'd prefer the detail, I can always remove the grain if it's a problem but I can't put the detail back if I've never seen it. Color is another issue. Under most circumstances digital gives good color often better than you get with color negative film from a mini-lab. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Digital Lenses
Hello Feroze, I am not a profesionnal nor an expert, but from reading some photo magazines and because of my interrest in digital photography, I think I can put these personnal humble opinions to the community : 1] A DSLR needs a lens of a higher resolution capability than a film lens? YES, if the sensor has the same size as the film. Why ? because sensor is far much sensitive than film to lens performance decrease from optical axis to the angles. Decrease in resolution and luminousity in the angles of the image are more visible on an image shot with sensor than on a film image. NO, if the sensor is smaller than the film for which the lens has been made. Why . because in that case the image is taken by the sensor in the good part of the image circle, where differences between digital image and film image in resolution / luminousity / contrast are not be so remarquable. 2] All else being equal a 11-14MP DSLR image equals or betters a 35mm scan in some instances? YES, recent tests in Réponses Photo (dec. 2002) have proven that Canon EOS 1D images are sharper than 24x36 film images and are more comparable with 120 film (the equipment competing was : EOS1D + 16-35mm f/2.8 F100 + 35mm f/2 Hasselblad 500CM + Zeiss 50mm CFE). 3] If you used a full frame lens designed for a DSLR than all else being equal the digital image would better the 35mm scan in most instances? YES, assuming the DSLR is same size as film. Why ? because optimum digital image got from scan of a 24x36 slide is about 9 million pixel, while full frame 24x36 sensor gives more (at the date of today excepted Contax N digital). Aditionnaly common color film resolution reaches 120 to 150 l/mm, while 150 to 200 l/mm can be reached with top-of-the-range sensors. 4] What would, assuming the above are all true , be then the result of using a high resolution lens on a SLR eg a MZS with ISO 100 B W film, would the lens resolve too detail much for the film? Possibly YES, but if I'm not wrong, no lenses have been specifically designed, at the date of today, for full frame 11Mpix DSLRs. Facts have proven that specifically designed DSLR lenses (12-24mm from Nikon) are smaller in size, and size image, than SLR lenses, which leads to the unusability of such DSLR lenses on full frame SLRs. It would be interresting to test the first full frame DSLR lens on both DSLR and SLR bodies. I hope I have offended nobody, and if I have, I appologize in advance. Cyril www.pentaxiste.org --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
RE: Digital Lenses
On 5 Mar 2003 at 22:53, Cyril MARION wrote: 2] All else being equal a 11-14MP DSLR image equals or betters a 35mm scan in some instances? YES, recent tests in Réponses Photo (dec. 2002) have proven that Canon EOS 1D images are sharper than 24x36 film images and are more comparable with 120 film (the equipment competing was : EOS1D + 16-35mm f/2.8 F100 + 35mm f/2 Hasselblad 500CM + Zeiss 50mm CFE). Hi Cyril, May I ask how Réponses Photo managed to compare EOS1D output with a Hasselblad 500CM? I will bet that they didn't output the EOS1D file to a slide then compare them on a light table :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
Re: Digital Lenses
JPEG is a 8-bit/channel standard. JPEG2000 allows more color depth, though i don't know how much more. TIFF works at any bit depth, but i have not seen any applications produce more than 16-bits/channel. Herb - Original Message - From: Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 17:58 Subject: Re: Digital Lenses That is why on my wish list for features on the * ist-D is 16 bit color, at least in raw, preferably in tiff and highest quality jpeg also.
Re: Digital Lenses
I guess that those I really want to save I should move onto my H.D. and thence to something like Graphic Converter, and save immediately as TIFF files. Then I can manipulate them without degrading them... I'm really an amateur at all this, but do read horror stories about how 'fragile' JPEG files are... Keith Whaley Yeah, anything you really want to keep and think you might manipulate shouldn't be left in JPEG. If you have Photoshop or Elements you can save it in their native PSD format. I don't know about Elements, but in full Photoshop you can write an action to convert format and then batch a bunch together, saving a lot of time and effort. Does anyone know if actions are available on Elements? BTW, JPEG only degrades if you open, manipulate and save, so if you save your originals by burning a CD, and close the session, then the image on the CD itself can not be degraded. As far as PS only having JPEG. I would be more concerned with how much compression the highest grade has. Hopefully no more then 4:1, preferably 2.something:1. You can always convert it to a non-lossy format. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: Digital Lenses
If you want to compare image quality, then look at the details in the digital image on a computer monitor, zoom as much as you want, do whatever. For the film camera, use a good slide film and examine the details with a good loupe or microscope or whatever. Just don't print the digital or scan the slide. It balances the results in one direction or other. Anyone knows what procedure did Réponse Photo actually use ? Rob Studdert wrote: Hi Cyril, May I ask how Réponses Photo managed to compare EOS1D output with a Hasselblad 500CM? I will bet that they didn't output the EOS1D file to a slide then compare them on a light table :-)
Re: Digital Lenses
i don't know a lot about JPEG2000 yet other than it supports more than 24-bits. ExIF is an extension to JPEG that adds more data to the file in the form of headers, sound annotation, and thumbnails. the actual main image portion of the file is still 24-bits. Herb - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 21:20 Subject: Re: Digital Lenses How do JPEG2000 and JPEG (Exif 2.2), such as the OptioS stores it's images, compare? That's one not-so-good thing about the OptioS, or the Optio 450 or the 550, that there is no raw storage, nor any TIFF. It's only JPEG. Sighhh. Keith Whaley
Re: Digital Lenses
JPEGs are not fragile at all. they are misused by the novice. every time you save a JPEF file from an image editing program, it recompresses the image. since JPEG is a lossy compress algorithm, that means each save throws away more of the image. i set my digital camera to capture at the least possible JPEG compression and anything that i decide worth working on gets converted to Photoshop format and stays that way. anybody that needs my files gets them as Photoshop or JPEG files created from the Photoshop original. i never alter the JPEG files from the camera. Herb - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 21:54 Subject: Re: Digital Lenses I guess that those I really want to save I should move onto my H.D. and thence to something like Graphic Converter, and save immediately as TIFF files. Then I can manipulate them without degrading them... I'm really an amateur at all this, but do read horror stories about how 'fragile' JPEG files are... keith whaley
Re: Digital Lenses
neither 1.0 or 2.0 support actions. they support something called Recipes, which is Actions for Dummies. you can't create them without special tools not included with Photoshop Elements. Herb - Original Message - From: Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 23:20 Subject: Re: Digital Lenses Does anyone know if actions are available on Elements? BTW, JPEG only degrades if you open, manipulate and save, so if you save your originals by burning a CD, and close the session, then the image on the CD itself can not be degraded.
