Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX

Unless one is into extreme enlargements, relatively speaking, it
probably doesn't matter too much which way one goes. I am basing my
comment on the ideas expressed in the following thread, particularly
the last reply in that thread.

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en...du%26rnum%3D12

Further comments would be appreciated.

Charles Kinghorn

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:07:31 +0100, "Duncan J Murray"

wrote:


"Charles Kinghorn" wrote in message
.. .
Two comments on your Photoshop technique:

1. Pulling out the top is what I tend to do as well, because it seems
to be the natural thing to do. Another posting some time ago, however,
pointed out that in doing this, you are spreading your fixed amount of
information over more pixels, thereby losing detail. I try now to
remember to push the bottom in instead.

Hmm.. interesting. The only thing is that pulling out the top maintains
total information content, whereas pushing in the bottom results in
information lost straight away. Detail might be reduced, but then all you
need to do is to size the image down so that the larger edge is reduced to
whatever information per pixel level you require.


2. Even with stretching there is still some distortion of the image
when compared to a photograph with the verticals corrected in the
camera. I do a lot of vertical correction in available-light shots
with people in them and am always concerned that the people will end
up with larger or smaller heads on their bodies, depending on the
method and extent of vertical correction.

The circle idea is a good one. Also, as I wrote the earlier reply, I
realized that half a pull-out on top and half a push-in on the bottom
may keep things in perspective! I'll have to try it.

Charles

"Pål Jensen" wrote in message
...
"Tony Polson" skrev i melding
...

The 43mm is a "Limited Edition" autofocus FA* lens, but it looks
more like a manual focus lens. There are also 31mm and 77mm
"Limited Edition" lenses. I have tried them all and don't
particularly like them, because the designers have given the
sharpness at the expense of bokeh.


...and this is what Mike Johnston say about it: "A nearly ideal short
tele, the 77mm Limited is superb - contrasty, excellent for portraits
wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the
almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There
are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an
AF SLR short tele I'd put above it."


I like all three of the Limited lenses, but I think I know why Tony doesn't.
I like their bokeh very much - smooth and creamy OoF areas - and also note
that their coma is very good, making them a good choice for night scenes
with in-focus points of light. However, they do have a rather marked
reaction to OoF highlights - the general out of focus behaviour is
wonderful, but they do tend to make defocused specular highlights and light
sources a little too prominent. This seems to be what Tony has complained
of.

Now, I don't shoot a lot of pictures where this would be a problem, and when
I do, I use a different lens - not an issue, and for me worthwhile because
these lenses are _so_ very great the vast majority of the time. However,
if you shot a lot of stuff with defocused highlights - silhouetted couples
on the beach with the sun's path sparkling on the sea behind them, anyone?
(ugh) - then I would suggest a different lens.

Maybe we're so used to computer designed lenses that do everything 'pretty
much' well enough, that we have forgotten that optics is about balancing
irreconcilable goals, and so choosing the right set of compromises. The
Pentax Limiteds have gone all out to be the very best for the vast majority
of shooting situations, and the result of this no compromise approach is
that there is a minority of situations that they just simply aren't so well
suited for. I can live with that, because of what I shoot - I don't know
Tony's style, but I'm guessing it's very different from mine.


Peter

"Pål Jensen" wrote in message
...
"Tony Polson" skrev i melding
...

The 43mm is a "Limited Edition" autofocus FA* lens, but it looks
more like a manual focus lens. There are also 31mm and 77mm
"Limited Edition" lenses. I have tried them all and don't
particularly like them, because the designers have given the
sharpness at the expense of bokeh.


...and this is what Mike Johnston say about it: "A nearly ideal short
tele, the 77mm Limited is superb - contrasty, excellent for portraits
wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the
almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There
are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an
AF SLR short tele I'd put above it."


I like all three of the Limited lenses, but I think I know why Tony doesn't.
I like their bokeh very much - smooth and creamy OoF areas - and also note
that their coma is very good, making them a good choice for night scenes
with in-focus points of light. However, they do have a rather marked
reaction to OoF highlights - the general out of focus behaviour is
wonderful, but they do tend to make defocused specular highlights and light
sources a little too prominent. This seems to be what Tony has complained
of.

Now, I don't shoot a lot of pictures where this would be a problem, and when
I do, I use a different lens - not an issue, and for me worthwhile because
these lenses are _so_ very great the vast majority of the time. However,
if you shot a lot of stuff with defocused highlights - silhouetted couples
on the beach with the sun's path sparkling on the sea behind them, anyone?
(ugh) - then I would suggest a different lens.

Maybe we're so used to computer designed lenses that do everything 'pretty
much' well enough, that we have forgotten that optics is about balancing
irreconcilable goals, and so choosing the right set of compromises. The
Pentax Limiteds have gone all out to be the very best for the vast majority
of shooting situations, and the result of this no compromise approach is
that there is a minority of situations that they just simply aren't so well
suited for. I can live with that, because of what I shoot - I don't know
Tony's style, but I'm guessing it's very different from mine.


Peter

Ok, I've heard enough about this lens.

Can anyone show me any photos so I can see the 3d effect myself?

Thankyou!
Duncan.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Pål Jensen" wrote in message
...
"Tony Polson" skrev i melding
...

The 43mm is a "Limited Edition" autofocus FA* lens, but it looks
more like a manual focus lens. There are also 31mm and 77mm
"Limited Edition" lenses. I have tried them all and don't
particularly like them, because the designers have given the
sharpness at the expense of bokeh.


...and this is what Mike Johnston say about it: "A nearly ideal short
tele, the 77mm Limited is superb - contrasty, excellent for portraits
wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the
almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There
are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an
AF SLR short tele I'd put above it."


I like all three of the Limited lenses, but I think I know why Tony
doesn't.
I like their bokeh very much - smooth and creamy OoF areas - and also note
that their coma is very good, making them a good choice for night scenes
with in-focus points of light. However, they do have a rather marked
reaction to OoF highlights - the general out of focus behaviour is
wonderful, but they do tend to make defocused specular highlights and
light
sources a little too prominent. This seems to be what Tony has complained
of.

Now, I don't shoot a lot of pictures where this would be a problem, and
when
I do, I use a different lens - not an issue, and for me worthwhile because
these lenses are _so_ very great the vast majority of the time.
However,
if you shot a lot of stuff with defocused highlights - silhouetted couples
on the beach with the sun's path sparkling on the sea behind them, anyone?
(ugh) - then I would suggest a different lens.

Maybe we're so used to computer designed lenses that do everything 'pretty
much' well enough, that we have forgotten that optics is about balancing
irreconcilable goals, and so choosing the right set of compromises. The
Pentax Limiteds have gone all out to be the very best for the vast
majority
of shooting situations, and the result of this no compromise approach is
that there is a minority of situations that they just simply aren't so
well
suited for. I can live with that, because of what I shoot - I don't know
Tony's style, but I'm guessing it's very different from mine.


Peter

Ok, I've heard enough about this lens.

Can anyone show me any photos so I can see the 3d effect myself?

Thankyou!
Duncan.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Pål Jensen" wrote in message
...
"Tony Polson" skrev i melding
...

The 43mm is a "Limited Edition" autofocus FA* lens, but it looks
more like a manual focus lens. There are also 31mm and 77mm
"Limited Edition" lenses. I have tried them all and don't
particularly like them, because the designers have given the
sharpness at the expense of bokeh.


...and this is what Mike Johnston say about it: "A nearly ideal short
tele, the 77mm Limited is superb - contrasty, excellent for portraits
wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the
almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There
are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an
AF SLR short tele I'd put above it."


I like all three of the Limited lenses, but I think I know why Tony
doesn't.
I like their bokeh very much - smooth and creamy OoF areas - and also note
that their coma is very good, making them a good choice for night scenes
with in-focus points of light. However, they do have a rather marked
reaction to OoF highlights - the general out of focus behaviour is
wonderful, but they do tend to make defocused specular highlights and
light
sources a little too prominent. This seems to be what Tony has complained
of.

Now, I don't shoot a lot of pictures where this would be a problem, and
when
I do, I use a different lens - not an issue, and for me worthwhile because
these lenses are _so_ very great the vast majority of the time.
However,
if you shot a lot of stuff with defocused highlights - silhouetted couples
on the beach with the sun's path sparkling on the sea behind them, anyone?
(ugh) - then I would suggest a different lens.

Maybe we're so used to computer designed lenses that do everything 'pretty
much' well enough, that we have forgotten that optics is about balancing
irreconcilable goals, and so choosing the right set of compromises. The
Pentax Limiteds have gone all out to be the very best for the vast
majority
of shooting situations, and the result of this no compromise approach is
that there is a minority of situations that they just simply aren't so
well
suited for. I can live with that, because of what I shoot - I don't know
Tony's style, but I'm guessing it's very different from mine.


Peter

"Bandicoot" wrote:

I like all three of the Limited lenses, but I think I know why Tony doesn't.
I like their bokeh very much - smooth and creamy OoF areas - and also note
that their coma is very good, making them a good choice for night scenes
with in-focus points of light. However, they do have a rather marked
reaction to OoF highlights - the general out of focus behaviour is
wonderful, but they do tend to make defocused specular highlights and light
sources a little too prominent. This seems to be what Tony has complained
of.

Peter,

You seem to have managed to articulate my concerns well. ;-)

In Pentax glass I much prefer the "look" of the 85mm f/1.4 A* to that
of the 77mm Limited, the "look" of the 50mm f/1.4 A (my favourite
Pentax FFL lens) to that of the 42mm Limited and the "look" of the
28mm f/2.8 A to that of the 31mm Limited. I would have expressed my
concerns in more subjective, general terms, but quite probably it is
OOF highlights that are of particular concern.

In general, I am not a fan of lenses that are optimised for high MTF.
In my opinion, lens designers have (ab)used MTF to optimise sharpness
to the point where they no longer render images in a manner that I
would describe as realistic. I like lenses that offer what is
(subjectively) a recognisably realistic rendition of the scene, and
the Limiteds don't do that for me. They appear too sharp. Perhaps I
would describe them as over-sharp, because the designers have gone
beyond a level of sharpness that I am comfortable with. It is very
similar to the effect of an over-enthusiastic use of USM in Photoshop,
which most people would identify as being unrealistic.

Moving away from Pentax for a moment, with my Leica M gear I invested
in three of the latest ASPH lenses in 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 90mm
f/2. They are superbly sharp, probably among the sharpest lenses that
have ever been made in those focal lengths. But something has been
lost, and I think it is realism.

I have exchanged the 35mm and 90mm for the latest pre-ASPH versions,
and am now much happier with the results. The classic Leica "look" is
back again.

[There wasn't a 24mm pre-ASPH lens, but OOF is not really an issue
with such a wide angle lens, so I have kept the ASPH in that focal
length.]

I am far from being alone in these views. A great many Leica owners
have upgraded to ASPH lenses, then sold them and returned to earlier
versions. I wonder if part of Leica's current suffering is a result
of so many people being so unimpressed with the latest lenses. Yet
the MTF figures are probably something stupendous.

The conclusion I draw is that optimising lens designs for high MTF can
actually turn people off.

Now, I don't shoot a lot of pictures where this would be a problem, and when
I do, I use a different lens - not an issue, and for me worthwhile because
these lenses are _so_ very great the vast majority of the time. However,
if you shot a lot of stuff with defocused highlights - silhouetted couples
on the beach with the sun's path sparkling on the sea behind them, anyone?
(ugh) - then I would suggest a different lens.

Ironically, if I ever was shooting such a scene (very 1970s!) I would
probably want a lens that gave a prominent rendering of the
highlights. Harsh OOF bokeh would actually be of benefit here.

Of the three Limited lenses I have tried, I liked the 77mm the most,
because its look is the least objectionable, but still strongly prefer
the 85mm f.1.4 A*, probably the best portrait lens I have ever used.
I am indifferent about the 31mm. To me, it cannot match the 28mm
f/2.8 A for realistic rendering, so why buy it?

The one I really dislike is the 43mm. It has the least satisfying
bokeh of the three. Compare it with the 50mm f/1.4 A "bokehmeister",
which is also sharp, or the very sharp 50mm f/1.7 A, which also has
very good OOF, and then try to find a reason to choose the 43mm.

There isn't one, unless you have an unquenchable desire to own the
latest Pentax lens, or are seduced by the words "Limited Edition".

[Needing AF is just an excuse, because the FA versions of my favourite
A lenses are at least as good optically.]

So why do I feel so strongly that OOF performance is so important?
Simple. In many of my shots, I either cannot choose the background or
have a limited choice of backgrounds. Using a large aperture to limit
DOF is a must, and the lenses I use must have a smooth rendering of
OOF areas of the background (foreground bokeh is not an issue). Major
problems occur when the background includes unavoidable strong
highlights, and I cannot afford to use lenses that cannot render them
unobtrusively. So there are no "Limited Edition" lenses in my outfit,
and no ASPH Leica glass either, apart from the 24mm for the reasons I
mentioned.

The 35mm lens range that I believe strikes the best overall balance
between high MTF and realistic rendering is not the Pentax range, nor
even the Leica M range. It is the Carl Zeiss range of lenses for
Contax 35mm SLRs. Alas, thanks to the commercial failure of the
Contax N Digital and associated N series of film cameras, this range
is effectively dead.

"Bandicoot" wrote:

I like all three of the Limited lenses, but I think I know why Tony doesn't.
I like their bokeh very much - smooth and creamy OoF areas - and also note
that their coma is very good, making them a good choice for night scenes
with in-focus points of light. However, they do have a rather marked
reaction to OoF highlights - the general out of focus behaviour is
wonderful, but they do tend to make defocused specular highlights and light
sources a little too prominent. This seems to be what Tony has complained
of.

Peter,

You seem to have managed to articulate my concerns well. ;-)

In Pentax glass I much prefer the "look" of the 85mm f/1.4 A* to that
of the 77mm Limited, the "look" of the 50mm f/1.4 A (my favourite
Pentax FFL lens) to that of the 42mm Limited and the "look" of the
28mm f/2.8 A to that of the 31mm Limited. I would have expressed my
concerns in more subjective, general terms, but quite probably it is
OOF highlights that are of particular concern.

In general, I am not a fan of lenses that are optimised for high MTF.
In my opinion, lens designers have (ab)used MTF to optimise sharpness
to the point where they no longer render images in a manner that I
would describe as realistic. I like lenses that offer what is
(subjectively) a recognisably realistic rendition of the scene, and
the Limiteds don't do that for me. They appear too sharp. Perhaps I
would describe them as over-sharp, because the designers have gone
beyond a level of sharpness that I am comfortable with. It is very
similar to the effect of an over-enthusiastic use of USM in Photoshop,
which most people would identify as being unrealistic.

Moving away from Pentax for a moment, with my Leica M gear I invested
in three of the latest ASPH lenses in 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 90mm
f/2. They are superbly sharp, probably among the sharpest lenses that
have ever been made in those focal lengths. But something has been
lost, and I think it is realism.

I have exchanged the 35mm and 90mm for the latest pre-ASPH versions,
and am now much happier with the results. The classic Leica "look" is
back again.

[There wasn't a 24mm pre-ASPH lens, but OOF is not really an issue
with such a wide angle lens, so I have kept the ASPH in that focal
length.]

I am far from being alone in these views. A great many Leica owners
have upgraded to ASPH lenses, then sold them and returned to earlier
versions. I wonder if part of Leica's current suffering is a result
of so many people being so unimpressed with the latest lenses. Yet
the MTF figures are probably something stupendous.

The conclusion I draw is that optimising lens designs for high MTF can
actually turn people off.

Now, I don't shoot a lot of pictures where this would be a problem, and when
I do, I use a different lens - not an issue, and for me worthwhile because
these lenses are _so_ very great the vast majority of the time. However,
if you shot a lot of stuff with defocused highlights - silhouetted couples
on the beach with the sun's path sparkling on the sea behind them, anyone?
(ugh) - then I would suggest a different lens.

Ironically, if I ever was shooting such a scene (very 1970s!) I would
probably want a lens that gave a prominent rendering of the
highlights. Harsh OOF bokeh would actually be of benefit here.

Of the three Limited lenses I have tried, I liked the 77mm the most,
because its look is the least objectionable, but still strongly prefer
the 85mm f.1.4 A*, probably the best portrait lens I have ever used.
I am indifferent about the 31mm. To me, it cannot match the 28mm
f/2.8 A for realistic rendering, so why buy it?

The one I really dislike is the 43mm. It has the least satisfying
bokeh of the three. Compare it with the 50mm f/1.4 A "bokehmeister",
which is also sharp, or the very sharp 50mm f/1.7 A, which also has
very good OOF, and then try to find a reason to choose the 43mm.

There isn't one, unless you have an unquenchable desire to own the
latest Pentax lens, or are seduced by the words "Limited Edition".

[Needing AF is just an excuse, because the FA versions of my favourite
A lenses are at least as good optically.]

So why do I feel so strongly that OOF performance is so important?
Simple. In many of my shots, I either cannot choose the background or
have a limited choice of backgrounds. Using a large aperture to limit
DOF is a must, and the lenses I use must have a smooth rendering of
OOF areas of the background (foreground bokeh is not an issue). Major
problems occur when the background includes unavoidable strong
highlights, and I cannot afford to use lenses that cannot render them
unobtrusively. So there are no "Limited Edition" lenses in my outfit,
and no ASPH Leica glass either, apart from the 24mm for the reasons I
mentioned.

The 35mm lens range that I believe strikes the best overall balance
between high MTF and realistic rendering is not the Pentax range, nor
even the Leica M range. It is the Carl Zeiss range of lenses for
Contax 35mm SLRs. Alas, thanks to the commercial failure of the
Contax N Digital and associated N series of film cameras, this range
is effectively dead.

This has been a great thread. It has not deviated too much. For awhile, I
was following along pretty good, but now I can see that the OM-4, LX, and
the entire Lieca line all have much in common.

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com

"Pat OBrien via PhotoKB.com" wrote:

This has been a great thread. It has not deviated too much. For awhile, I
was following along pretty good, but now I can see that the OM-4, LX, and
the entire Lieca line all have much in common.


Yes, they all accept 35mm film.

;-)

Yes, they even take the same kinds of film. but I'm looking for a
digital/film camera that shoots both formats simutaneously and instantly
teleports the image home leaving a hard copy in the camera. In all
fairness this setup ought to function with any lens of any brand with a
solar charged battery pack that can be quick charged by candle light. At
the very least it should operate intuitive with mind cammands.

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com