On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 22:46 -0400, Moose wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 11:31 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> > Oh, not this again. One would think with me actually being a four thirds
> > user, I should be able to discuss equivalence around here.
> >
> > This lens IS equivalent to a 30mm f/16 in 35mm terms, and can resolve no
> > more than what a 30mm at f/16 can.
>
> My problem was that the vast majority of photographers will understand
> unmodified comments about f-stops to refer to
> lens 'speed', and that's how I understood your comment.
That is however not what my comment said - I believe it was completely
unambiguous :-) You guys are just too used to bashing from 35mm
enthusiasts. Since both are miniature formats to me, I happily use them
both when required, and have no personal issues about them. Facts are
facts.
> If talking about the diffraction limited resolving power of a particular
> focal length and aperture on a particular
> film/sensor size, I believe you must more clearly explain if you don't want
> to be misunderstood.
>
> > Stop any lens on a digital sensor
> > down that far, and the output becomes quite a bit softer. Not a problem
> > for most images, but this is an indisputable fact.
>
> Even on an MF digital sensor? Isn't even generally true on the 5D, in my
> experience. Did you not mean to refer to sensor
> size, rather than film vs. digital?
I don't believe there is a rectangular sensor array on the market
anymore that is of such low resolution to render higher quality images
at f/16 than, say, at f/11, unless your lens *really* sucks.
I stand by my statements 100%.
Answering Dawid.
>
> Questioning 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/
|