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
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
It doesn't look like it, but one test of it I saw shows it to be pretty
mediocre. For a camera with 10 megapixels, the user would be well-advised to get something better. Maybe the Zeiss alternative is out for it? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
RichA wrote:
It doesn't look like it, but one test of it I saw shows it to be pretty mediocre. For a camera with 10 megapixels, the user would be well-advised to get something better. Maybe the Zeiss alternative is out for it? It's much improved mechanicallty (smoothness, firmness) over the KM version, but still essentially a cheap Chinese kit optic. At 18mm, it's about as good as any kit lens gets. At 70mm it's fairly soft. I now have two of them, one KM one Sony. Earlier in the week I was at a business meeting and was suddenly asked to shoot two or three still lifes, four book and video covers, and a PR shot live in an office. I had no flash, and was not intending to do any photography, just a KM 7D with the 18-70mm slung in the car with with. The 18-70mm did fine, perfectly. The book cover shots needed a tiny barrel distortion correction in ACR. The PR shot was amazingly crisp and what should have been rubbish lighting actually made a very attractive final shot. I would be hard put to have found any other lens in my kit which could have done better. But I don't have a 16-80mm Zeiss yet :-) David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ... RichA wrote: "cover shots needed a tiny barrel distortion correction" We live in a different photographic world now. A predictable level of barrel distortion is not a deal killer for a lens because of sophisticated image processing programs. Most dSLR lenses in the 11-20mm range, regardless of their overall zoom range, have significant linear distortion that would be hard to accept for in a film and wet print world but can be reasonably corrected with some simple image processing in the brave new digital world. Does that mean lens quality is declining or overall photographic options are increasing? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
bmoag wrote:
but can be reasonably corrected with some simple image processing in the brave new digital world. But doing this causes a loss of image quality and sharpness so it still is a problem. -- Stacey |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
In article .com,
RichA wrote: It doesn't look like it, but one test of it I saw shows it to be pretty mediocre. For a camera with 10 megapixels, the user would be well-advised to get something better. Maybe the Zeiss alternative is out for it? Why don't you actually buy a camera and then tell us all about it? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
Randall Ainsworth wrote: In article .com, RichA wrote: It doesn't look like it, but one test of it I saw shows it to be pretty mediocre. For a camera with 10 megapixels, the user would be well-advised to get something better. Maybe the Zeiss alternative is out for it? Why don't you actually buy a camera and then tell us all about it? Do you have a camera? Lets see some shots. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
Stacey wrote:
bmoag wrote: [barrel distortion] can be reasonably corrected with some simple image processing in the brave new digital world. But doing this causes a loss of image quality and sharpness so it still is a problem. Well, that depends. You have to do raw conversion anyway, so you can do the distortion correction at the same time, at high resolution. Will this lose quality over not doing any geometric correction at all? A little, but will it be visible? In the end it's all about cost and weight. Is it cheaper to make a sharp zoom lens with some barrel distortion than one without? And is the resulting digitally corrected lens quality better value for money (and weight) than one without any digital correction? I suspect that if you have, say, $500 to spend on a lens, you're going to get better quality by a combination of lens design and digital correction than the best lens design can possibly do in its own. Andrew. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
Andrew Haley wrote:
Stacey wrote: bmoag wrote: [barrel distortion] can be reasonably corrected with some simple image processing in the brave new digital world. But doing this causes a loss of image quality and sharpness so it still is a problem. Well, that depends. You have to do raw conversion anyway, so you can do the distortion correction at the same time, at high resolution. Will this lose quality over not doing any geometric correction at all? A little, but will it be visible? Will the distortion be visible? In the end it's all about cost and weight. Is it cheaper to make a sharp zoom lens with some barrel distortion than one without? And is the resulting digitally corrected lens quality better value for money (and weight) than one without any digital correction? I suspect that if you have, say, $500 to spend on a lens, you're going to get better quality by a combination of lens design and digital correction than the best lens design can possibly do in its own. I can't see where digital correction is going to improve noticeably on the less than 0.01 percent distortion of the $259 50mm Sigma macro. Further, most zooms have a sweet spot with very low distortion, the trick is finding it and using it if low distortion is needed for a particular shot. Andrew. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
J. Clarke wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote: Stacey wrote: bmoag wrote: [barrel distortion] can be reasonably corrected with some simple image processing in the brave new digital world. But doing this causes a loss of image quality and sharpness so it still is a problem. Well, that depends. You have to do raw conversion anyway, so you can do the distortion correction at the same time, at high resolution. Will this lose quality over not doing any geometric correction at all? A little, but will it be visible? Will the distortion be visible? Yes. In the end it's all about cost and weight. Is it cheaper to make a sharp zoom lens with some barrel distortion than one without? And is the resulting digitally corrected lens quality better value for money (and weight) than one without any digital correction? I suspect that if you have, say, $500 to spend on a lens, you're going to get better quality by a combination of lens design and digital correction than the best lens design can possibly do in its own. I can't see where digital correction is going to improve noticeably on the less than 0.01 percent distortion of the $259 50mm Sigma macro. I think there has been a loss of context here. We're talking about midrange zoom lenses, as the subject line suggests. Further, most zooms have a sweet spot with very low distortion, the trick is finding it and using it if low distortion is needed for a particular shot. As long as that's the focal length you need. Andrew. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?
Andrew Haley wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: Andrew Haley wrote: Stacey wrote: bmoag wrote: [barrel distortion] can be reasonably corrected with some simple image processing in the brave new digital world. But doing this causes a loss of image quality and sharpness so it still is a problem. Well, that depends. You have to do raw conversion anyway, so you can do the distortion correction at the same time, at high resolution. Will this lose quality over not doing any geometric correction at all? A little, but will it be visible? Will the distortion be visible? Yes. ..005 % distortion will be visible? You're sure about that? Your problem is that you're assuming that every lens has a huge amount of distortion at every focal length but is so incredibly sharp that any imaginable loss of sharpness will be acceptable. It ain't so on either count. In the end it's all about cost and weight. Is it cheaper to make a sharp zoom lens with some barrel distortion than one without? And is the resulting digitally corrected lens quality better value for money (and weight) than one without any digital correction? I suspect that if you have, say, $500 to spend on a lens, you're going to get better quality by a combination of lens design and digital correction than the best lens design can possibly do in its own. I can't see where digital correction is going to improve noticeably on the less than 0.01 percent distortion of the $259 50mm Sigma macro. I think there has been a loss of context here. We're talking about midrange zoom lenses, as the subject line suggests. Further, most zooms have a sweet spot with very low distortion, the trick is finding it and using it if low distortion is needed for a particular shot. As long as that's the focal length you need. Andrew. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lens Hoods | Larry Stoter | Digital SLR Cameras | 26 | August 6th 06 11:37 PM |
New Sigma lense, maybe good for portraits? | Neil Harrington | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | July 24th 06 10:09 PM |
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! | Bill Gillooly | General Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 20th 05 07:43 AM |
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! | Bill Gillooly | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 20th 05 07:43 AM |
perspective w/ 35mm lenses? | PrincePete01 | Digital Photography | 373 | August 10th 04 02:21 PM |