On 3/3/2011 4:45 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
Not just CAT lenses, but many sorts of low contrast images.
> Still MTF at lower spatial frequencies does predict the contrast of the lens.
OK so it predicts (or is it measures?) contrast. As long as it doesn't say
anything about how that contrast comes out in
the image; what it's characteristics are and how they may be used or altered,
it doesn't really add much that I find of use.
If I don't care about contrast within a wide range, why would I care about a
measure of it?
> <snip undoubtedly important stuff about DXOmark tests>.
> Still doesn't jive with the images.
Then what's the point? If I get a fancy laser measurer that can resolve to .001
inch, but is only accurate to an inch or
so, am I not better off with a tape measure? Better to just take some pictures,
I think. :-)
> 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%.
Sorry, I don't recall which I may have seen from that lens.
> I'm not picking a lens by one number, no matter how carefully measured and
> determined.
Between Zuiko 21/3.5 and Tamron 17-35/3.5-4.5, I feel no need for any other
coverage there.
> I guess I went off on a tangent.
;-)
> Thanks for the elegant post, Mike
Thanks for appreciating it.
A. Posted Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|