a person knows more than me anyways (which is usually the case,
hence me not handing out advice very often!).
Ok, going back into my black hole of technical oblivion now...
the fairymeister.
-Original Message-
From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 11 March
l.com
-Original Message-
From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:24 PM
To: pentax-discuss
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
Jens,
Interesting result. As you mentioned in your text, your scanner may be the
limiting f
Jens,
Interesting result. As you mentioned in your text, your scanner may be the
limiting factor for your MZ-S => Fuji Superia => Epson 3200 flow. The
imaging system in the scanner probably isn't sharp enough to capture all of
the detail in the film. I have an Epson 2450 (the older version
And she takes good shots without knowing what she wants to know.
I think we probably agree more than not, Rob.
Rob Studdert wrote:
Strangely Tan seems quite interested in the technicalities, at least that's the
impression I got during our conversations, am I right Tan?
And that is perfectly all right. There are some that are more interested in
having one of everything Pentax ever made, that is all right too. If I had the
money I would probably own hundreds of cameras, but I would not take a lot more
photos than I would now if I had the money. And again that is
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D s
On 10 Mar 2004 at 8:58, Gonz wrote:
> Not proven, but there is some empirical evidence. Some of those P&S
> digitals have very tiny sensors, but lenses to match the proper image
> circle. If you calculate the resolution of those lenses, then they come
> out quite high.
Getting back to DA len
It's quite hard to go out and take photos on a mailing list. Personally
I'd choose to take photos in the real world and discuss technical issues
online. :-)
S
Bill Owens wrote:
Oh yes, the technical issues are much more important that actually going out
and taking photos.
x27;Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
> --
--
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: *i
Oh yes, the technical issues are much more important
that actually going out and taking photos.
Bill
Well, the is the "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" as opposed to the
"Photography-Discuss Mail List" :-)
Seriously, your point is well taken. Besides, many of us lens-heads enjoy
discussing the min
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
> If you dont mind the technical stuff your just a "point 'n
shooter"!
Wrongo me boy.
It's not so simple as that.
There is not giving a rats fart a
Hi Rob,
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:43:12 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
>Has anyone here proven that DA lenses are designed to be sharper than their FF
>35mm equivalents? My take on the DA lens revolution was that they are designed
>to only cover an APS sensor (and secondarily designed to extract more
ttp://jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
On 10 Mar 2004 at 7:41, Bill Owens wrote:
> Oh yes, the technical issues are much more
On 10 Mar 2004 at 7:41, Bill Owens wrote:
> Oh yes, the technical issues are much more important that actually going out and
> taking photos.
If you sort out the technical issue before you go out taking photos you'll be
in for less of a surprise/disappointment when you come back :-)
Cheers,
R
Oh yes, the technical issues are much more important that actually going out
and taking photos.
Bill
> JC,
>
> Thanks for backing up your assertions with
> your modeling approach and assumptions. Now we
> can debate the merits of technical issues rather
> than point fingers and talk past each o
On 10 Mar 2004 at 10:37, John Forbes wrote:
> I would agree that, in practice, the necessity to blow up a *ist D image
> may not matter if you are using a lens with very high resolution.
> However, not all lenses, especially zooms, exhibit superb resolution, and
> in such cases I am sure that
I would agree that, in practice, the necessity to blow up a *ist D image
may not matter if you are using a lens with very high resolution.
However, not all lenses, especially zooms, exhibit superb resolution, and
in such cases I am sure that the difference will be observable.
The only way to r
JC,
Thanks for backing up your assertions with
your modeling approach and assumptions. Now we
can debate the merits of technical issues rather
than point fingers and talk past each other.
--Mark
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> Usually if not specified otherwise lpmm of a
> lens (Arial) is 50% MT
/jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
could be because they are stuck with the 45.5mm flange
registration and they are designing even short
ginal Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
>
. An
-
From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:54 PM
To: pentax-discuss
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
JC,
Read Rob's and my messages again. Pay particular attention to words like
"significant," "insigificant," and
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
>
. And as a consequence of the limited image
> circle the lenses can be designed to be physically much smaller.
That would account for the platter (I think it was 77mm)
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Erickson"
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
> I would be really interested to find out if, in practice, the *ist
D sensor
> is the limiting component with, say, a 50mm prime. Norman Koren's
MTF
> mea
The question is who, at least amongst folks doing photographic work, has a 72
ppi monitor anymore. Mine is closer to 100 ppi, and I am not using the highest
res my system is capable of. 72 ppi is a Postscript to type size figure. It
would be more properly called picas (or points per inch, though
but isn't
horribly wrong either.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
> I invite a look at:
> http://medf
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
> There are no digital lenses that are the required
> 50% sharper for digital that I know of. And besides
> that, there are real world diffraction limits.
One of
ED]
Subject: Re: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
On 9 Mar 2004 at 18:24, Gonz wrote:
> But if the 33mm lens was made for digital, then you would have a higher
> lpmm for it and the effective sharpness would be the same.
Has anyone here proven that DA lenses are designed to be sharp
JC,
Read Rob's and my messages again. Pay particular attention to words like
"significant," "insigificant," and "negligable." A camera is a signal
processing system. In such a system, many different components (e.g., lens,
film or sensor, physical body, tripod) may significantly influence
l.com
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
On 9 Mar 2004 at 19:46, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> how ca
On 9 Mar 2004 at 18:24, Gonz wrote:
> But if the 33mm lens was made for digital, then you would have a higher
> lpmm for it and the effective sharpness would be the same.
Has anyone here proven that DA lenses are designed to be sharper than their FF
35mm equivalents? My take on the DA lens revo
On 10 Mar 2004 at 0:42, John Forbes wrote:
> I agree that film resolution also comes into play, but you cannot ignore
> the limits of lens resolution, as your argument suggests. If so, why
> would we talk about "sharpness" or have lens resolution tests.
Having executed resolution tests using m
On 9 Mar 2004 at 19:46, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> how can you use the same lens when there is a 1.5 crop factor?
> It's only fair to use a lens 1.5 times longer with film and then
> compare. Maybe a good zoom?
Can't we just forget the crop factor and compare the inside area of the 35mm
frame to t
marts 2004 00:48
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
I dont know about your last statement, the higher the density
(smaller the circuits) the more defects will occur in MFG,
and hense lower yield/higher cost for a much denser chip o
On 9 Mar 2004 at 18:48, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I dont know about your last statement, the higher the density
> (smaller the circuits) the more defects will occur in MFG,
> and hense lower yield/higher cost for a much denser chip of the
> same area.
What was alluding to was that the size of impe
heres a repost of the data on a 6Mp FF sensor
vs a 6MP APS sensor vs. lens resolution.
-
lens% more TOTAL RESOLUTION
lp/mm of FF Sensor vs. APS Sensor
200 4.877246795
190 5.41301
180 6.034483302
170 6.76054889
160 7.61545148
15
nnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm
On 9 Mar 2004 at 18:24, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> give me a lpmm figure, and I will post the difference a FF sensor will make. I
> only calculated data for a 6Mp sensor so far, so let's assume that.
Sorry I can't help, I've never seen any aerial resolution tests for any Pentax
lenses. Practically
> Bottom line is a FF is better than
> APS sensor, both sharper and less noiser, assuming Mp and lens
> resolution remains the same.
Sure but by what practical degree?
like I said, quote me a lpmm figure and I will post
the resolution improvement by going
On 9 Mar 2004 at 18:24, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Oh no, very mistaken! Yes of course a 14mp FF sensor will be better than
> a 6Mp FF sensor in terms of resolution, but a 6MP FF sensor is DEFINATELY better
> than a 6MP APS sensor, not only will the image be sharper due to lens
> limitations,
> the
On 9 Mar 2004 at 18:16, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I dont understand why you guys cant see that with a given,
> fixed, lpmm of resolution, even the very best primes, unless it
> is infinity, the cropped APS image will be less detailed than
> the FF image. Very simple. And as the sensor's Mp gets big
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
On 9 Mar 2004 at 17:59, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> wrong,
>
> I posted data on this about a month ago. Even with a 6Mp sensor
> a FF sensor will ALWAYS yeild higher total resolution image than
> a APS sensor as long as the le
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:00 PM
To: pentax-discuss
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On 9 Mar 2004 at 16:29, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>> I agree with John on this. It is very obviou
On 9 Mar 2004 at 17:59, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> wrong,
>
> I posted data on this about a month ago. Even with a 6Mp sensor
> a FF sensor will ALWAYS yeild higher total resolution image than
> a APS sensor as long as the lens resolution is not infinite and
> it never is. The WILL be an ABSOLUTE d
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2004 at 16:29, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I agree with John on this. It is very obvious that unless you have
lenses with infinite resolution (and you dont), that capturing
ALL of the image from a 50mm lens is going to be sharper than
capturing a cent
: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
On 9 Mar 2004 at 16:29, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I agree with John on this. It is very obvious that unless you have
> lenses with inf
On 9 Mar 2004 at 16:29, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I agree with John on this. It is very obvious that unless you have
> lenses with infinite resolution (and you dont), that capturing
> ALL of the image from a 50mm lens is going to be sharper than
> capturing a center crop from a 33mm lens. ( 1.5 cro
ssage-
From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 4:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
Surely this is quite simple. With the *ist D you are getting a crop of
the normal image that you would get with a 35mm film c
Surely this is quite simple. With the *ist D you are getting a crop of
the normal image that you would get with a 35mm film camera. Therefore,
to view the image at the same size, you have to blow it up more, and
thereby lose effective resolution.
John
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:40:13 -0500, gray
There are two opposing things that control lens resolution. There are laws of
physics involved that give a maximum theoretical capability that any lens can have.
Basically those two things are diffraction, and aberrations. They are opposing
because closing a lens down increases diffraction, and
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Lovern"
Subject: *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
I think Rob figured the sensor resolution to be around 45 lpmm. This
is pretty close to what a good lens will resolve, and also fairly
close to what film will resolve under normal picture taking
situ
On 8 Mar 2004 at 23:54, Greg Lovern wrote:
> Does
> it follow that a 35mm film lens' resolution, when used on the *ist D, will
> be 43% of its resolution on a 35mm film camera? (And conversely, that its
> resolution on a 35mm film camera would be 234% of its resolution on the
> *ist D?)
Lens reso
51 matches
Mail list logo
