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."

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...

"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

"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."

"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

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

"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

"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..

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

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