RantMode=On
Does it bug anyone else that so many of these tests are run at small
apertures? Too few are at f/5.6 or f/8 where a typical good prime is at
its best. It's not like subjects hundreds of feet away need f/16 for DOF,
so the lenses are needlessly handicapped by diffraction.
First of all, I wouldn't consider the test to be valid bearing teh huge
gap in lens qualities.
You'apparently putting Hasselblad's lens (i.e. Zeiss ine, even though
zoom) against this all-in-one kind 28-300 Tamron turist's orineted
zoom. I think to provide correct base under your estimation, you
Norm,
Although both of the below sites compare the 1DS
(similar to your SLR/n) with a Rollei and a Mamiya 7
(more sq. mm than your Hassy), I found the sites to be
informative and ran tests much better than I could
hope to do.
http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html
Norm,
I think you're on target with the what works approach but will echo
the comments about the Tamron 28-300. I have the 28-200, which is fine
but a friends 28-300 is disapointingly soft. If memory serves, that was
also noted in reviews of the lens (and photography mags tend only to
damn with
He apparently doesn't realize that Tamron and Tokina make privately branded
lenses for a number of camera mfg. I've always found both brands to be very
satisfactory. Which is how they test out, also.
on 7/14/04 8:48 PM, Norm Carver at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the
new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test,
just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half bw with the end product
in books
Hi!
My suggestion would be:
- Scan at highest resolution on the Multi Pro (3200 PPI for 120 format)
- Decide on a given print size, like 70x50 cm and a given resolution like 300
DPI.
- Crop the pictures to corresponding format in Photoshop (or whatever you use)
- Scale the image to your format
