Compare & Contrast Moose writes:
>So for me, given other things equal, I'll take more resolution and
less
>contrast over the reverse. If it weren't a
>trade-off, I'd of course take both. But it is generally a trade-off,
under the
>optical "No Free Lunch" rule.
Wow, impressively illustrated post. Explains very nicely how CAT lens
images respond well to PP.
Still MTF at lower spatial frequencies does predict the contrast of the
lens.
> There is,
>of course that other trade-off, where one may buy a more optimal
combination of
>both for a great deal more money. Cases
>in point, some of the Leitz and Zeiss lenses and the Questars
Very very oddly, the Zeiss 21/2.8 didn't test so well in the DXOmark.
They are very careful about methodology and did learn from their
mistake of not insuring
precise focus--recall the detailed procedure they did moving the cam to
minimize the Blur index. Appears they changed the technique somewhat
now.
http://tinyurl.com/5vs9bkc
If you click on resolution, then field map one gets a better indication
of what they are measuring,rather than a single number.
Still doesn't jive with the images. Perhaps there is a tad of field
curvature so it doesn't test well in their scenario. Something is
just not right. You've seen Bob's wonderful large prints with it and
I've pixel peeped at a number of images at 100%.
I'm not picking a lens by one number, no matter how carefully measured
and determined.
I guess I went off on a tangent.
Thanks for the elegant post, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|