Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Another useless MF-D800 comparison ;)  (Read 9894 times)
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2013, 04:10:09 PM »
ReplyReply

So you see the problem on wide angles but not on longer lenses?

Generally speaking: yes. Corner sharpness is more of a problem with wide angles than with longer focals.

Quote
What surprised me somewhat was that it was not just a corner fallof on the Nikon but the degradation of the image was obvious over a large part of the field.

Yes, that lens does that. Your Sony-Zeiss lenses (and mine) are uncommon in that they have a flatter response till the last 5% and get more fuzzy at the corner.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2013, 04:14:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah we should compare a stitched Nikon with stitched medium format....

You are welcome to stitch with an Hasselblad H camera. Hasselblad publishes the position of the entrance pupil of all their lenses.

As far as I know, they are the only ones to do that, actually.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2013, 08:45:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The tests seems interesting, but it probably mostly shows the degree to which the lens delivers a flat field at infinity. Which is obviously just one characteristic of a lens that is only relevant for some applications.

The 35mm f1.4 was designed to deliver a look and good quality when shot near wide open, it is clearly not a landscape lens designed to deliver flat field at infinity. I am pretty sure that many cheaper Nikon zoom lenses with a less ambitious aperture offer a flatter field at infinity and will therefore perform better in this test.

I am sorry, but I don't think this is a good indicator of the degree of image quality achievable with a D800 vs a Hassy H4D50.

As far as stiching goes, yes it is possible to stitch with MF cameras... but what is the value? There was a time when the quality of the pixels in terms of DR was higher with MF cameras... but it is now well established that this isn't the case anymore. So stitching with a D800 and a Hassy H4D50 will deliver the same image quality, you will just need a bit more frames with the nikon... at 1/6th of the price.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8028


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2013, 10:55:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bernard,

It would be interesting to see a test of a landscape shooters lens.

I would agree that f/1.4 lenses contain a lot of glass to achieve good performance at large aperture. At medium aperture less glass is probably preferable, for contrast but also because having fewer and smaller lens elements probably makes for more flexibility in positioning those lenses. The best lens I have for my Hasselblad V is the Sonnar 150/4, it contains just five element in three groups. It is very good, but have some color bookeh.

On the other hand, many lenses, also from Zeiss, seem to have rather weak corners.

Regarding stitching, I often stitch in MF, the main reason is that I have fixed focal lengths, but I can use stitching to get a wider view. Moving around is often not practical, and also changes perspective.

Best regards
Erik


The tests seems interesting, but it probably mostly shows the degree to which the lens delivers a flat field at infinity. Which is obviously just one characteristic of a lens that is only relevant for some applications.

The 35mm f1.4 was designed to deliver a look and good quality when shot near wide open, it is clearly not a landscape lens designed to deliver flat field at infinity. I am pretty sure that many cheaper Nikon zoom lenses with a less ambitious aperture offer a flatter field at infinity and will therefore perform better in this test.

I am sorry, but I don't think this is a good indicator of the degree of image quality achievable with a D800 vs a Hassy H4D50.

As far as stiching goes, yes it is possible to stitch with MF cameras... but what is the value? There was a time when the quality of the pixels in terms of DR was higher with MF cameras... but it is now well established that this isn't the case anymore. So stitching with a D800 and a Hassy H4D50 will deliver the same image quality, you will just need a bit more frames with the nikon... at 1/6th of the price.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2013, 12:39:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I would agree that f/1.4 lenses contain a lot of glass to achieve good performance at large aperture. At medium aperture less glass is probably preferable, for contrast but also because having fewer and smaller lens elements probably makes for more flexibility in positioning those lenses. The best lens I have for my Hasselblad V is the Sonnar 150/4, it contains just five element in three groups. It is very good, but have some color bookeh.

On the other hand, many lenses, also from Zeiss, seem to have rather weak corners.

Erik,

Weak corners is not really the point here. The point is the ability of the lens to render sharply a flat surface at infinity. Flat as opposed to spherical.

Many lenses optimized for good bokeh are also optimized for mid distance shooting where this is typically not relevant.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2013, 01:25:20 AM »
ReplyReply

The tests seems interesting, but it probably mostly shows the degree to which the lens delivers a flat field at infinity. Which is obviously just one characteristic of a lens that is only relevant for some applications.

Yes: landscape photography. I thought landscape photography was the subject of this web site.

Quote
I am pretty sure that many cheaper Nikon zoom lenses with a less ambitious aperture offer a flatter field at infinity and will therefore perform better in this test.

I am pretty sure that no other Nikon lens performs better at this particular test, since I have tested quite a few of them (the tests are on my flickr account). It is a very simple test, quite easy to set up. You are welcome to do your own test and prove me wrong.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2013, 01:28:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes: landscape photography. I thought landscape photography was the subject of this web site.

I am pretty sure that no other Nikon lens performs better at this particular test, since I have tested quite a few of them (the tests are on my flickr account). It is a very simple test, quite easy to set up. You are welcome to do your own test and prove me wrong.

I understand that landscape is a core concern of many users of this site, I am saying it was probably not one of those who designed the Nikkor 35mm f1.4.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8028


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2013, 01:48:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

This forums more about photography in general than landscape photography. Many of the poster are professionals doing studio works.

The test you did is interesting and I think I agree with your observation, based on the limited number of lenses I use. It seems many 135 lenses cut corners in corner sharpness.

Best regards
Erik

Yes: landscape photography. I thought landscape photography was the subject of this web site.

Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2013, 02:51:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The test you did is interesting and I think I agree with your observation, based on the limited number of lenses I use. It seems many 135 lenses cut corners in corner sharpness.

Can we at least measure at f7.1-f9? I know few people shooting landscape at f4.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4262



« Reply #29 on: October 22, 2013, 05:40:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Can we at least measure at f7.1-f9? I know few people shooting landscape at f4.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard,

 Nowadays at F9 you are approaching or into diffraction on something like the D800. You may flatten out your field and also get depth of field but the image will go soft.
 (I think).

http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/Depth_of_Field,_Diffraction_and_the_Nikon_D800___D800E.html

 Between flare and diffraction, curved fields and macro issues, and of course sensor speed, noise and metamerism, taking images is getting to be a real headache.

 This is why so many real photographers -non geeks- get sucked into the tech discussions here.         
 It seems assuming one core kit will do everything quite well is no longer possible.
 This assumption was the basis of the Nikon F system design and its success.

Edmund
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2013, 06:12:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Nowadays at F9 you are approaching or into diffraction on something like the D800. You may flatten out your field and also get depth of field but the image will go soft.

I know, f7.1 mostly doesn't, which is why I gave a range. Anyone can decide where to set the priority between better corners and lack of diffraction effects.

Most people doing landscape for images where corner quality is important will typically shoot at f11 or less anyway or use a T/S lens, right?

If you want more DoF, you can, and probably should, shoot with an APS camera anyway. I was saying it when I was using a D2x, I am still saying it now.

As far as I am concerned, I haven't used a lens wider than 50mm to shoot "serious" landscape for more than 8 years, corner quality is one of the key reasons for stitching wide scenes. Wink

Besides, globally it hasn't become more difficult to select the right shooting parameters, it just has become more challenging to tap into the higher resolution potential of our cameras.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2013, 11:15:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Can we at least measure at f7.1-f9? I know few people shooting landscape at f4.

I've seen that before: I post a test showing a simple, unsurprising result and the people who do not like the result start arguing about the test conditions. Here, I got the suggestion to try zoom lenses and other apertures. When I used a zoom lens in the previous test, people complained I should have used a prime. I suppose that if I had used a smaller aperture directly, people would have argued that diffraction was a problem.

It is a simple test and it shows two simple, unsurprising facts:
-that 50 mpix is more than 34.
-that MF lenses are generally designed for higher sharpness corner to corner than lenses for the 24x36 format.

Anyway, your requirement is easy enough to meet, since I have taken pictures between f/1.4 and f/16 on that day. The f/8 picture is here. You will have to rotate it yourself for a better comparison, it's quite easy to do in photoshop. Pictures between f/5.6 and f/16 are also available in the same stream.

Since I had tested various Nikon lenses last year, you are also welcome to have a look here for a similar "slanted horizon" test of various Nikon lenses, at diverse focal lengths and aperture. Tell me if you find a better lens than the 35mm f/1.4.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3909


« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2013, 11:46:11 AM »
ReplyReply

It is a simple test and it shows two simple, unsurprising facts:
-that 50 mpix is more than 34.

Agreed.

Quote
-that MF lenses are generally designed for higher sharpness corner to corner than lenses for the 24x36 format.

MF lenses are generally longer focal length, due to the requirement to cover a larger image circle, and therefore simpler to design/correct than a wider angle lens. This is amplified by lower maximum aperture designs.

The result is that they may have less sharpness fall-off, but I'm not sure if that is always the case. The lower magnification requirement towards a given output size also helps to lower the bar.

For a better visual comparison one would need to down-sample the larger pixel size dimension to a similar magnification factor and (vertical) field of view, which takes care of focal length and pixel dimension differences in one go.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2013, 12:42:58 PM »
ReplyReply

MF lenses are generally longer focal length, due to the requirement to cover a larger image circle, and therefore simpler to design/correct than a wider angle lens.

They are of a longer focal length, but they are not simpler to design due to the requirements of covering a larger image circle. If you scale a lens and its sensor, you get exactly the same results.

Quote
For a better visual comparison one would need to down-sample the larger pixel size dimension to a similar magnification factor and (vertical) field of view, which takes care of focal length and pixel dimension differences in one go.

You are welcome to do that yourself, but as I said once "if you design the test to reduce differences until the two cameras are equal on all measurable factors, you will find out that the cameras are indeed equal on all measurable factors". Part of the appeal of MF cameras is that they have more pixels.
Logged
ACH DIGITAL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 394



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2013, 12:57:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Is a mistake to do such comparison with autofocus. Should be manual focused.
Logged

Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8028


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2013, 01:02:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would suggest that we can see it the way that with a lens of similar quality an MFD camera has something like 2-3 times the information an FF camera can deliver. The FF camera needs to have a much better lens to compete. The sample the Jerome showed indicates (in my eyes) that the Nikon system keeps up quite well with the Hassy in the center but the corners are weak on the Nikon.

It is quite obvious that the Nikon has weak corners (and I guess also weak edges).

Bernard has a point on lenses normally be used stopped down for landscape, and I am a bit skeptical about fast lenses, not least because of focus shift. MF lenses often have apertures around f/2.8 - f/4 and those lenses seem to be of adequate quality.

I will repeat the experiment with my lenses.

Best regards
Erik


They are of a longer focal length, but they are not simpler to design due to the requirements of covering a larger image circle. If you scale a lens and its sensor, you get exactly the same results.

You are welcome to do that yourself, but as I said once "if you design the test to reduce differences until the two cameras are equal on all measurable factors, you will find out that the cameras are indeed equal on all measurable factors". Part of the appeal of MF cameras is that they have more pixels.
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2013, 01:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Is a mistake to do such comparison with autofocus. Should be manual focused.

The AF system of the Hasselblad and the AF live view system of the Nikon are more accurate than manual focus.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6302


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2013, 01:21:08 PM »
ReplyReply

The AF system of the Hasselblad and the AF live view system of the Nikon are more accurate than manual focus.

That is theoretically impossible.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4262



« Reply #38 on: October 22, 2013, 01:46:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The AF system of the Hasselblad and the AF live view system of the Nikon are more accurate than manual focus.

Live view, certainly is accurate, as it is applied directly to the sensor image.
The H AF system is only as accurate as the alignment of the AF optical path and parts, which means it is certainly less accurate than Liveview.
Liveview really has uses, it is time MF were dragged into the modern world.

Edmund
Logged
EricV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137


« Reply #39 on: October 22, 2013, 01:48:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Weak corners is not really the point here. The point is the ability of the lens to render sharply a flat surface at infinity. Flat as opposed to spherical.
This is likely correct, and it would be easy to test.  Focus manually on the corner(s).  Is the center then noticeably soft?  If field flatness is the problem, then a possible solution is focus stacking, as an alternative or addition to horizontal/vertical stitching.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad