Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Image from prime vs. downsized image from zoom  (Read 3114 times)
allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2013, 02:43:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe just me, but the Hassy files look quite a bit better. Factor in the focus difference and it's even more impressive

But hey, it's your camera and your images...

Quote from: ErikKaffehr linktopic=85119.msg689601#msg689601 date=1387110075
Hi,

That is a small difference. Something like stopping down from f/5.6 to f/11 on the same lens. The great performance win of the Otus is at large apertures.
There is more to image quality than sharpness. Out of focus rendering is important, too.

I happen to shoot both MF and 135. P45+ (39 MP) with Zeiss lenses and Sony Alpha 99 (24 MP). Very clearly, achievable sharpness on the P45+ is better than on Alpha 99.

A couple of months ago I shot the same subject with the P45+ using my Sonnar 150/4 and Alpha 99 with my 70-400/4-5.6. Using the zoom I cropped tighter, and that essentially eliminated the MG advantage of the P45+. I made identical crops corresponding to 22x34" (57x86 cm) and printed on A4 paper. I cannot tell the prints apart except some detail near the edge where the P45+ wins.

Actual pixels crops from that image. Second crop was indistinguishable while the first crop was visible better on the P45+.

Best regards
Erik

Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 636


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2013, 05:07:26 PM »
ReplyReply

You might want to read the discussions about that new phone with the 40+ MP camera. The whole idea was that it would be better to crop a shot with a fixed lens and a lot of MP, than to stick with larger photosites and a traditional sensor arrangement. And it appears to work pretty well
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 796



« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2013, 08:34:03 PM »
ReplyReply

That Nokia phonecam shows (some of) the benefits of high photosite density. You can oversample for improved per-pixel quality at lower but still high enough resolutions...and at higher ISOs as well. Significant "digital zooming" still results in decent image quality, at least at lower ISOs...nice to have in a single-focal-length system.

I'd love to have something like a 100mp 35mm-format sensor designed specifically with downsampling and digital zooming in mind. Give me a 100/2 lens + 1.4 & 2x teleconverters, all specifically tuned to such a sensor, and I'd likely never use anything longer. In fact I could easily do everything I currently do with just three lenses: 24/25, 50 & 100mm.

-Dave-
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2013, 01:41:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I am not sure there is a focusing difference but there may be a focusing difference. On the Sony focusing was at live at 11X magnification while on the Hasselblad it was with optical viewfinder with a 3X monocular giving 9X magnification. Live view focusing is on the sensor itself, so it is as exact you can get. Focusing ground glass introduces tolerances.

The Hasselblad has an image size advantage, but the megapixel advantage was cropped away. The Hasselblad image is also a bit warmer.

As it turned out, I actually preferred the uncropped Hasselblad image, it was better balanced.

Best regards
Erik

Maybe just me, but the Hassy files look quite a bit better. Factor in the focus difference and it's even more impressive

But hey, it's your camera and your images...

Logged

luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1069



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2014, 11:30:28 AM »
ReplyReply

What a great discussion. I've shot with both zooms and primes over years. I started with primes with 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5, then moved to HQ zooms with the digital revolution. I loved the zooms for the travel photography I was doing. I didn't always have the opportunity to slow down and switch primes.

But now I'm back to primes for my serious work and have a zoom for snaps. The reasons:
  • for the price of a zoom of high enough quality and brightness, I could purchase a few primes;
  • three primes weigh less than the equivalent zoom;
  • zooms inherently have more distortion than primes (especially wide zooms which may be moot here as you are talking about cropping the middle out), distortion that is often more difficult to correct in post; and
  • Bottom Line for me: zooms made me compositionally lazy. What I thought was the "best" composition with a zoom was too often the result of convenience rather than working for the "perfect" composition - often a more dynamic composition - that matched what my mind was seeing. In an uncanny way, primes make me more "explorative" than do zooms.

So, while I have gone off on a tangent, I think it is important to look at the whole context of primes vs. zooms if one is basing this discussion on which to buy. Until one has really explored the advantages of each weighed against the type of photography one does, to limit the discussion to only one aspect of quality is useless. In the end, the pixel-level quality - which what the OP first asked about - is irrelevant if you aren't using gear that works for you in the way that you see and work.
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad