If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses
"It is not only a philosophical issue to reflect on the question whether the
level of quality consciousness has been lowered during the last twenty years. Even a simple $100+ bread and butter lens as the EF 28-105mm or the current so-called kit lenses that are offered for a price below $100 can simply not be good! The design is quite complicated with seven and more lenses, fully glued together in plastic mounts by robots and with a low level of quality control. Still most persons love the results and are quite happy and if that is the case, why should we adopt more stringent criteria." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses
Jeremy wrote:
"It is not only a philosophical issue to reflect on the question whether the level of quality consciousness has been lowered during the last twenty years. Even a simple $100+ bread and butter lens as the EF 28-105mm or the current so-called kit lenses that are offered for a price below $100 can simply not be good! The design is quite complicated with seven and more lenses, fully glued together in plastic mounts by robots and with a low level of quality control. Still most persons love the results and are quite happy and if that is the case, why should we adopt more stringent criteria." But digital is *magic*: Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results - despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film", "as good as MF" and even "approaching the quality of LF". It's like discussing theology with a religious fanatic... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses
"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:Ro2kg.6039$h46.3481@trnddc07... "It is not only a philosophical issue to reflect on the question whether the level of quality consciousness has been lowered during the last twenty years. Even a simple $100+ bread and butter lens as the EF 28-105mm or the current so-called kit lenses that are offered for a price below $100 can simply not be good! The design is quite complicated with seven and more lenses, fully glued together in plastic mounts by robots and with a low level of quality control. Still most persons love the results and are quite happy and if that is the case, why should we adopt more stringent criteria." I have probably the cheapest of the EF 28-105 lenses Erwin refers to, and on slide film checked randomly using a decent lupe, I was quite pleased with the results. (It's a very light lens and does cover a useful range, after all.) Fortunately, before trusting it for use on a very weight limited holiday with my EOS 5D, I ran some checks with it on my 5D - like printing to A3. It stayed at home, and instead I took my original EF 28-80 f3.5-5.6 USM, and I wasn't let down. (Anyway, who's Erwin? Is it the Putz (Puts) guy? and who's he anyway?) -- M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Digital Photography
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
... But digital is *magic*: Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results - despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film", "as good as MF" and even "approaching the quality of LF". It's like discussing theology with a religious fanatic... Puts does admit, with some degree of resignation, that digital is here to stay. But I found his comments to have much insight--certainly a lot deeper than the typical "Film vs. Digital" arguments that have been going on Ad Nauseum on USENET. At least he says that it's time for everyone to get over the debating and recognize that each domain has its own strengths and weaknesses. See Below: "The transition from chemical (film-based) photography to digital imaging is a fact. We may deplore this phenomenon, but progress cannot be halted. The technical quality and impact of photographs is still superior to the results that can be generated form the digital process. But the margins are thin and are nullified by the convenience and real time experiences of the digital way of making pictures. It is best to stop the current debate raging on all internetforums and in the press about the advantages and disadvantages of analogue versus digital. Professionals and consumers have overwhelmingly chosen the digital route. Signs of the time are the selling of the Agfa film business to a group of investors, the feeble position of Ilford, once the masthead of B&W film technology and the innovation stop at Kodak with respect to film. The announcement that Technical Pan will be killed, will no doubt not be the last we will hear form Kodak. The traditional B&W worker will occupy a very tiny niche were a few small firms will produce high quality goods and make a decent profit. I hope we will see this happen quite soon, as it will indicate a healthy state of the business. As it is now, analogue products are the legacy products of companies that want to survive in the digital world. And these products are very vulnerable because no one has any interest in continuation of production as soon as profit margins are shrinking. The choice for film-based B&W photography is nowadays a deliberate choice for an enchanting medium, a certain style of work and a cultivated approach to picture taking. You go for analogue photography because you like the technique and the results. The endless and useless comparison to digital imagery should be evaded. It is a medium in itself and with a certain philosophy. 'Picture taking' has a very different connotation than 'image making' and these words indicate in a nutshell the difference in approach. Drawing, painting and photography have always been dissected in two big parts, the artistic and the technical. From the beginning any artist has made a choice: depict reality as it is (technical) or as it appears to the viewer/artist (artistically). Photography started its life as a tool to depict reality as it is. The early photographs were instrumental in aiding the artist to recreate reality as it is. A major industry in the beginning was the accurate reproduction of nude models for the artists who could afford themselves a real life model to pose for them. The relationship with today's glamour photography is quite evident. The early travelers and discoverers were very excited about the photographic instruments. These tools allowed them to reproduce buildings and scenes of interest without being expert craftsmen in drawing and painting. The journalistic tradition stems from these origins. And photography has always provided the tools and means to reproduce the reality as closely as possible. Optical and mechanical and chemical techniques worked together to provide the optimal images that reproduced the world in front of the camera. The Leica camera and the celluloid film cooperated to produce the best possible results. In our days, the digital imagery is tending in the other direction. Digital photography has more affinity to painting than to reproduction. The growing importance of digital photography reflects the trend to self-expression and the visual diary of the box camera. Here we see a technological evolution that is merely reproducing the trends of older days: the simple recording of memorable events as a visual diary. In my view, photography is a craft that tries to reproduce reality as honestly as possible and the best means to do this is the film based photography. I accept and agree that digital imagery has its advantages." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Digital Photography
"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:yTdkg.26707$X02.24788@trnddc02... "Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... [SNIP] Puts does admit, with some degree of resignation, that digital is here to stay. But I found his comments to have much insight--certainly a lot deeper than the typical "Film vs. Digital" arguments that have been going on Ad Nauseum on USENET. At least he says that it's time for everyone to get over the debating and recognize that each domain has its own strengths and weaknesses. See Below: "The transition from chemical (film-based) photography to digital imaging is a fact. We may deplore this phenomenon, but progress cannot be halted. The technical quality and impact of photographs is still superior to the results that can be generated form the digital process. But the margins are thin and are nullified by the convenience and real time experiences of the digital way of making pictures. This is well said. Acrylic paint is (can be) faster in use than oil, and can produce very similar results. At one time people thought it might replace oil, but it hasn't because they are _similar_ but not the same - some painters prefer oil and don't mind the slower drying times etc. No one now suggests that oils are dead, though there are certainly fewer painters using them relative to those who choose acrylics (and alkyds). It will be nice if the film/digital debate eventually reaches this position and people can see them as two different picture making routes, not rivals or potential replacements for one another. Peter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses
Chris Loffredo wrote: But digital is *magic*: Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results - despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film It really does not take much of a lens to have the limit of detail be the film and not the lens. Scott |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses
"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com... Chris Loffredo wrote: But digital is *magic*: Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results - despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film It really does not take much of a lens to have the limit of detail be the film and not the lens. Scott Resolution is a system: ie. the end result is a function of the resolving power of every step (lens, stability of camera, accuracy of focusing, film, enlarging lens or scanner, printing paper or digital printer...) NOT simply delimited by the lowest resolution of any step in the chain. Thus it does still help (considerably) to have a lens that has more resolving power than the film/sensor - assuming one is also making the effort with all the other steps in the chain. Peter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Digital Photography
"Bandicoot" wrote in message
It will be nice if the film/digital debate eventually reaches this position and people can see them as two different picture making routes, not rivals or potential replacements for one another. What is wearisome is that so may amateurs have become so insistent that they have the Ultimate Truth, and that film must be dead (and don't date try telling them otherwise!) Puts hits the nail on the head when he suggests that the major difference is that digital photographers create images--with the digital camera being only one step in the chain--while film photographers "take pictures." The practice of first taking the photo on film, then digitizing and digitally-manipulating the resulting image, blurs the distinction that Puts makes. But he at least shifts the focus away from the adversarial arguments and attempts to remind us that, although there is some degree of overlap, the two domains do have mutually exclusive uses. When amateurs say that "Film Is Dead," what they are really saying is that film is dead for THEIR particular applications. Some of the classic portraiture results from custom labs look darned good as prints made from film, and there is the distinct possibility that people will one day see digital prints as the "same ole' same ole', and just might revisit the unique qualities of prints made from film cameras and classic lenses. Wouldn't it be something if Carl Zeiss, for example, became the premiere manufacturer of top-shelf lenses for film cameras--whose optical properties were distinctively different from that of digital cameras? As one example, consider digital point & shoots. I have one, along with virtually every consumer that owns a digital camera. Depth-of-field is so deep that EVERYTHING is in focus, virtually all of the time. That can be a real bummer, because the prints are always "busy," and the viewer's attention is constantly shifting from the foreground to the background objects. Those p&s models have "consumer" stamped all over them. Heck, a K-1000 and a normal lens offer so many opportunities to creatively utilize defocus. But the consumer only notices that his digicam has a ZOOM LENS! There was an article some months back in the NY Times, where a photographer commented that everybody in the business was using the same three or four lenses, and that the images all had the same look about them. He did some photos on a Speed Graphic that really impressed people, mainly because they looked different. So buy up those mechanical cameras and classic lenses before the public realize that they are tools that enable their users to breakaway from the digital fold.. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses
Bandicoot wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message ups.com... Chris Loffredo wrote: But digital is *magic*: Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results - despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film It really does not take much of a lens to have the limit of detail be the film and not the lens. Scott Resolution is a system: ie. the end result is a function of the resolving power of every step (lens, stability of camera, accuracy of focusing, film, enlarging lens or scanner, printing paper or digital printer...) NOT simply delimited by the lowest resolution of any step in the chain. Thus it does still help (considerably) to have a lens that has more resolving power than the film/sensor - assuming one is also making the effort with all the other steps in the chain. This is true to some extent but not as much as you might think. Blur circles do not add as you might think, if the film blurs by say 0.015mm and the lens by 0.05 the combination is not 0.020 but rather 0.0158 mm. The larger factor tends to dominate the over all performance of the system. Note this is not to say that a poor lens or camera shake, can't degrade the final image, but it does say you will run into the limits of film pretty fast. Unless you use something like gigabit film, which has fantastic resolution. To me this photo shows what a 35mm camera can do, if the film is not the limiting factor. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis..._crop_1000.jpg That is a photo and scan by Max Perl and is by far the sharpest scan that I have seen. Compare that scan to one that Max did using Velvia, which is one of the higher resolution color films. Here again Max's scan if one of the best that I have seen for color but does not come even close to the resolution of his Gigabit scan. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis..._crop_1000.jpg Max went to pretty extreme lengths to get the color image so I don't think it limited resolution can be an issue of technique. Chris seems to feel that image are more limited by the lens then the film and feels that if he is using a really good lens there is no way a digital camera using a lesser lens (say his prime against a Zoom on the digital) can produce a better image. This is not a simple comparison to make since resolution is only one part of what maked a good image. Just about anyone who compares large prints make for a 20D and a film like Velvia will like the 20D print better, even though the Velvia print will have some more visible detail. When looking at the same areas a camera like the 20D way out resolves any color film that I have seen. The 20D has a pixel spacing that is very close to 4000ppi (3955 ppi) so you can pretty much compare a 4000 ppi scan of film directly with the pixel from the 20D. In doing this you will see just how much detail the lens if capable of producing but that film just can capture. By far the biggest limit in color 35mm film photography is the film. Scott |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Erwin Puts On Digital Photography
Jeremy wrote: "Bandicoot" wrote in message It will be nice if the film/digital debate eventually reaches this position and people can see them as two different picture making routes, not rivals or potential replacements for one another. What is wearisome is that so may amateurs have become so insistent that they have the Ultimate Truth, and that film must be dead (and don't date try telling them otherwise!) Puts hits the nail on the head when he suggests that the major difference is that digital photographers create images--with the digital camera being only one step in the chain--while film photographers "take pictures." This is where I disagree with Erwin. One could indeed use a D-SLR to "take pictures". Just because the image could be manipulated or adjusted in a computer does not mean it needs to be done that way. The approach to imaging could be exactly the same using both technologies. The practice of first taking the photo on film, then digitizing and digitally-manipulating the resulting image, blurs the distinction that Puts makes. Depends a bit upon the level of manipulation. At a certain point, it goes away from being photography to become photo-illustration, or design. Those are not bad things, nor are they lesser things, just different from photography. . . . . .. Wouldn't it be something if Carl Zeiss, for example, became the premiere manufacturer of top-shelf lenses for film cameras--whose optical properties were distinctively different from that of digital cameras? I would state Schneider, or maybe Rodenstock (Linos), though definitely Zeiss do some great design work. Shame they got out of large format, though maybe they will head back in that direction at some point. Not to be too critical, the large format offerings of Nikon, Fuji, and Cooke have also been quite good, and tougher to find bad choices amongst any of these companies. In small format lenses, Zeiss and Leica have been more consistent than other companies. This also does not mean other companies cannot make great lenses; we can find nice choices amongst most 35mm manufacturers. . . . . . . . . . . There was an article some months back in the NY Times, where a photographer commented that everybody in the business was using the same three or four lenses, and that the images all had the same look about them. He did some photos on a Speed Graphic that really impressed people, mainly because they looked different. This argument has been used by many pros, those mostly a statement of many photojournalists using Canon gear. David Burnett has been the guy with the Speed Graphic at news events. Many would find his images are different, or just stand out, regardless of what camera he chose to use. So buy up those mechanical cameras and classic lenses before the public realize that they are tools that enable their users to breakaway from the digital fold.. Shhh . . . you're going to drive the prices up. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Analogue Lenses on Digital Body | CJB | Digital Photography | 76 | December 25th 05 09:22 AM |
For Sale: PRICES HAVE BEEN REDUCED! 6 Nikon lenses + 8x10 papers + some accessories. | Henry Peña | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 12th 04 10:47 PM |
For Sale: 7 Nikon lenses + 8x10 papers + some accessories. | Henry Peña | General Equipment For Sale | 2 | April 11th 04 03:02 AM |
(PRICES REDUCED!) For Sale: 7 Nikon lenses + 8x10 papers + some accessories. | Henry Peña | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 9th 04 03:18 PM |