Hi Ken and all,
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Although I agree with Moose's point on principle, in actual practice >using
a
>digital camera (even a crop sensor) is a good way of identifying what a
>lens
>is capable of.
Sure. At least it could spot the "dogs" easily. I have tried/compared many
lenses this way.
>You might not be able to see the corners in the crop-sensor
>camera, but at least the center region is measurable.
And in many lenses performance would degrade progressively from center to
corner, so it's possible to figure a higher degradation with FF.
>Except: There are certain lenses which exceed the resolution >threshold of
>the sensors.
Anyway, you may re-test these lenses with film, or those which exhibit fine
corner performance within the crop, in order to see if they still perform
that great in full-frame...
>All films exhibit some form lateral-halation (not
>halitosis) and the blur is typically not just one or two pixels like
>digital, but up to 10 pixels in the scan. That, however, is very film
>specific.
Digital sensor may have their issues, too. Just don't use FP4 or HP5 :-) :-)
:-)
About the test you were commenting (I don't have the link at hand)... I'm
not very sure about its results, not because of the crop, but afraid of some
possible operator errors -- if the Tamron 300/2.8 was _that_ bad wide open
(and the picture looks _just_ out of focus; not soft of fuzzy as aberrations
would render), there's NO way adding a teleconverter would improve things!
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|