[bigshot]

Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?

There is a LOT of unnecessary obfuscation in that article.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally, instead of more pixels, I hope for much more dynamic range instead. That way I don't need Cokin grad filters or the need to do HDR.

The problem is, dealing with extreme dynamics doesn't mean more dynamic range, it means compressing the dynamic range into a narrower band. In extreme cases, that will result in a better image. But in most cases, it just flattens everything out. It's better to do what camera manufacturers have been doing- instead of increasing the dynamic range, they are extending normal dynamics into lower light situations by increasing sensitivity. Shooting into the headlights should still look like shooting into the headlights. It isn't good to flatten all that out. I'm not a big fan of most HDR because of that.

 

[choka]

Are you thinking about outputting jpg directly?

When I say more dynamic range, I want more than 10 stops of info in the raw file, so I can play with the way I like it, not necessarily squeezing all the data into the visible range.

IMO most people doing HDR are doing it wrong. I don't like what's happening out there. Blindly flattening the curve squeezing everything into one photo is not the right way to do it. The thing I hate especially is gradient reversals at edges. A good HDR should have detail but still look natural.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I say more dynamic range, I want more than 10 stops of info in the raw file, so I can play with the way I like it, not necessarily squeezing all the data into the visible range.

If you have ten stops or more worth of dynamics in a single image between highlight and shadow detail, there is no way to display that on a computer screen or hard copy print without compressing the dynamics into a normal range or blowing out one end or the other. The only advantage of having RAW images with more than 10 stops of dynamic range would be if there was a normal range of dynamics but your exposure was just way off, or if you want to shoot wide open for a narrow depth of field and your shutter speed won't go high enough. (I don't think the latter could even be a problem with most DSLRs.) It seems to me, that the easy way to deal with that is to just set the exposure properly and let the extremes fall off normally.

It's kind of like music that is recorded to take full advantage of redbook dynamics (90-110 dB). That is no way to listen to music. There's a comfortable range, and it's best to stay within the sweet spot rather than try to encompass all of the extended dynamics.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif and comments like the Joe Wilson style, "LIES!!!" are rather unfounded.

^_^

In all seriousness though, I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens.

 

[choka]

Read again. I said I want more than 10 stops in the RAW file because I want to post process the pics like I am using a grad filter, but without having to actually carry one.

Are you now against the use of grad filters too? Are you saying Galen Rowell is not one of the best landscape photogs ever?

 

[bigshot]

Nothing against grad filters- I just wonder how useful that wide a dynamic range would actually be for the average photographer. It seems that the fundamental bases are already covered pretty well, and now we're worrying about ultrawide dynamics and super high ISO. These are features designed to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Rather than designing cameras to cope with terrible lighting conditions, perhaps we as photographers should be looking to create images using really well balanced lighting? Just a thought...

If I had my druthers, the dream camera of the future would be smaller, lighter, less expensive, and less conspicuous, with a user interface that is simple and intuitive. The real problem I find with cameras are the menu screens nested within each other, with each and every feature given the same hierarchical importance in the laundry lists of options. I'd like to be able to set the general settings and then hide them. All I want to see when I'm shooting is what I need when I'm shooting.

I also think it's time to rethink the form that cameras take. I have no objection to developing cameras that aren't based on the traditional film SLR model. It would be nice to have mirrorless designs that are able to smoothly incorporate video features. I think this is going to happen very soon.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In all seriousness though, I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens.

Pens aren't better than pencils and rakes aren't better than shovels. They just are better at different things. Your primes are better in low light situations and when a narrow depth of field is called for. Zooms are better for general shooting in good light. No matter what tool you use, you're playing to its strengths and making trade-offs with what it can't do as well. Every serious photographer should have a kit that incorporates the best of both worlds. Limiting yourself to just one type of tool is just hobbling yourself.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you have ten stops or more worth of dynamics in a single image between highlight and shadow detail, there is no way to display that on a computer screen or hard copy print without compressing the dynamics into a normal range or blowing out one end or the other.

I don't buy this at all. There are many a gorgeous print esp from the film days, in which there is a wide dynamic range all containing detail, and those prints are gorgeous. Hank Wessel almost always shoots in broad daylight, and develops his film to have have lower contrast (among other things) and his prints are velvety smooth and gorgeous, tone and detail from the darkest shadow to the brightest white.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rockwell just posted ...[/url]

I hope you're happy now.
8 pages of useless dribble was sure to follow just by saying that poor guys name, and it did.

How long will it keep going though, because I'm bored.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't buy this at all. There are many a gorgeous print esp from the film days, in which there is a wide dynamic range all containing detail, and those prints are gorgeous.

I know that the way I used to print was to compress the dynamics by dodging and burning to bring up detail in the shadows and highlights. Perhaps it might help to have more dynamics in the RAW file to be able to do that more than current DSLRs, but ultimately, the image has to flatten out to the range of the medium it's being viewed on. I think projected slides probably have the most potential for wide dynamics.

I just think about movies sometimes... those old film noir and epic movies from the thirties and forties had such beautifully balanced light. It would be great to focus on that sort of sophistication in still photography. Most of my own photography is spontaneous, but I dream of working out light and shadow using hot lights.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nothing against grad filters- I just wonder how useful that wide a dynamic range would actually be for the average photographer.

Back in late 70s early 80s, IBM was the biggest player in the computer market, before the proliferation of personal computers. By the end of the era, they are not any more. Why?

IBM Management just wonder how useful that a personal computer would actually be for the average human being.

They didn't care about this tiny market that is never going to make money, so they let Apple, Intel, Microsoft, etc to do whatever they want in that segment. Look at IBM now.

Does the average photographer want 20 stops of dynamic range? I DON'T KNOW for sure! I know I want it so that I can rescue my shots even if I messed up with my metering. I know I want it so I don't have to worry about a totally blown out sky and dark ground anymore. I know I want it so I can rescue a tiny little bit of texture in the shadows so the picture is not as boring when I see fit.

How are the average photographers going to use it? Do they need it? I bet it will be a useful feature. If they accidentally overexposed a shot, a camera can have this built-in function that detects the error and still present to the user a well-exposed picture, because that info is still captured, thanks to the super duper dynamic range. I'd say, USEFUL.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^_^ In all seriousness though, I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens.

Hey there guys. I did indeed take a few test shots to compare the 18-55mm at 35mm F/4.8 to my 35mm prime at F/4.8. All camera settings were the same. All exposure times are the same between comparison photos. WB was preset to daylight, iso fixed at 200ISO, It was a very sunny day with no clouds in the sky, so light level was very constant. Not a single bit of post processing was done. Both lenses were clean as a whistle, front and back.

Below are the comparison photos, 3 sets of 2.


Test 3: Flare/ghost test
35mm:

18-55mm:

Conclusions:
It's instantly obvious that the 18-55mm makes a milky cast over the photo. The prime has significantly more contrast with no flare. Looks like the kit lens suffers from flare. Also, even though they were at the same F stop, it's striking just how different the DOF's are. The prime DOF is MUCH tighter. The kit lens looks like it was a few stops smaller.... even hough it wasn't!
In this photo, I MUCH prefer the prime lens result. Don't forget, both lenses are clean as a whistle!


Test 2: closeup bokeh test
35mm:

18-55mm:

Conclusion:
The 35mm appears to be letting in a little more light (about a half a stop more). The kit lens is a little darker. The prime is sharper by an easily noticeable difference. The bokeh on the prime is much smoother, by a HUGE amount. The kit lens have a very noticeable spherical bokeh (for better or for worse, you decide). Also, the prime again is giving a tighter DOF with a more blurred out background. Colors on the kit lens seem to be a little greener, while the prime is a cooler color (in real life the colors were closest to the prime).
When viewing the image on the camera LCD it was clear that the prime was letting in more light. If I lowered the prime down by -1/2ev, they were very similar in terms of contrast, but the prime still gave different colors, sharper image, better bokeh, and tighter DOF with a creamier background.
In this case I MUCH prefer the prime lens.

Test 1: Random Photo
35mm:

18-55mm:

Conclusion:
Again, the kit lens is showing signs of flaring in the middle, even though the sun was behind me. I guess the light from the pool was causing the flaring. The colors are different just as in test #2, with the prime giving the most realistic results. There is more pileup in the shadows with the kit lens, whereas the prime's picture is more distributed throughout the dynamic range. I think I may have messed up the focusing a bit in this photo, but it doesn't look too noticeable thankfully.
I MUCH prefer the results from the prime lens in this test.



So, my closing thoughts? I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens. The 35mm being a prime example. ^_^
Bigshot, I really believe my prime gives noticeably better photos than the zoom 18-55mm!
My prime has a tighter DOF at the same F stop, Much better flare control, more accurate colors, sharper in-focus regions.............


Slightly unrelated, but the Nikkor 35mm F/2.0 prime is a FANTASTIC lens!

 

[bigshot]

Are any of those 100%? That fogginess on the first shot is very unusual. Are the back optics clean? Did you use hoods? Something is wrong there. A lens with small optics like that shouldn't have that problem. Also, is that the VR version of the 18-55? Where is the sharpening artifacting coming from? Is that from resizing?

 

[skyline889]

There are a host of problems with these shots: tripod not used, AE used for one and manual for the other on subjects 2 &3, differing EVs for exposure compensation on subjects 2 & 3, etc. I assume this is the original 18-55 and not the newer 18-55mm II or the 18-55mm VR as well. Bottom line for me, the 35mm excels in DOF and bokeh, which is of course expected. Contrast and saturation problems I chalk partially up to the user because of different settings. Is there a difference? Yes. As significant as shown? Not imo. No one here denied that the prime is the better lens but imo, the prime doesn't offer a significant enough difference to negate the lost flexibility and added price when compared to a properly used zoom. The prime to me is a supplement not a primary lens. This is of course all subjective and YMMV.

@Bigshot-I assume the milkiness is partly caused by veiled flaring which can of course could have been avoided by the OP if he so chose. Another difference seems to be that the 35mm in question seems to overexpose (Look at the highlights of the two) consistently relative to the 18-55mm, which of course affects the overall effect of brightness and contrast on the image.

I also don't mean to be a wet blanket but frankly, while that first shot looks good, if that's exactly how it came off the camera, I'm stunned. It seems overcontrasted; shadow detail is completely gone. I like contrasty images but I like to be able to add it at my discretion, not be stuck with it. Idk, maybe it's just that one shot.