Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,415   Online: 1002
      
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 83
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11

    photodo site needs work

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Budding View Post
    Photodo tests will give info on resolution:

    http://www.photodo.com/products.html
    Carl the photodo site needs a lot of work. The lens finding capability is poor and so are other aspects of its site navigation.

    If you want Zeiss or Leitz lens resolution information, IMO, it is more effective to visit the Zeiss and Leitz websites.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  2. #22
    Anupam Basu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    504
    Images
    20
    Other things being equal - i.e. assuming you're not trying to shoot macro or telephoto with the RF and know how to take care of the sirror slap on the SLR etc - you'll see NO difference in the general quality of optics. At least no difference that matters outside photo forums! So, system choice should depend solely on other factors and goals.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Of course not.

    But that is an aesthetic issue, and not the question of this thread, is it?

    Sandy King






    Quote Originally Posted by NormanV View Post
    Does the "art" of making pictures rely on the sharpness (or whatever) of the lens, or on the mind of the photographer? I use quite good equipment and scan the negs, I don't care if I have the ultimate in "quality" but I definitely like the pictures that I produce.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arlington, Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Of course not.

    But that is an aesthetic issue, and not the question of this thread, is it?

    Sandy King
    That's why I referred the OP to photodo - seems the interest is technical. If I wanted more resolution or larger prints, I'd just go with a larger format myself.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    Ok let me put the question another way. If I wanted the best possible image resolution and sharpness from 35mm film, which 35mm film camera and lenses would you recommend and why.
    I would be tempted to use a newer Canon or Nikon with a macro lens or one of the super teles, such as a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8.

    ...but why set resolution and sharpness as the main points toward which to strive? How about timing and composition? The best lens in the world doesn't count for anything if you don't get the shot. This is not even bringing up "concept".

    My point is that while the super teles may be among the "best" lenses ever made, they are quite specialized, and thus rather restrictive.

    If we are talking the most sharp and highest resolving "normal" (or thereabouts) lens, I would make an offhand guess that it would be a macro lens, either around 50mm or around 100mm.

    That is just a guess, though.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell View Post
    Context is helpful to establish a meaningful answer. Photography is a system, changing one component has little influence on the outcome.
    Bullshit

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Canary Islands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    220
    Images
    33
    Bullshit
    Is that really necessary?
    Why not just I disagree?

  8. #28
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by micek View Post
    Is that really necessary?
    Why not just I disagree?
    Perhaps this is just Rob's way of gently reminding us of the need for etiquette, even on the internet. :rolleyes:

    Lee

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    Carl the photodo site needs a lot of work. The lens finding capability is poor and so are other aspects of its site navigation.

    If you want Zeiss or Leitz lens resolution information, IMO, it is more effective to visit the Zeiss and Leitz websites.
    I've already been through that process and the MTF's suggest that ZEISS ZM glass is way better than Leitz glass for resolution. But MTF's are only half the story and interpreting them really requires expert knowledge which I don't have.

  10. #30
    nsouto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    496
    Images
    59
    hmmmm, I've been using reasonable quality rf and slr systems for quite a while and still can't make up my mind which is better!

    Don't think it's possible to answer it in a simple way. You said: expansive landscape images with tripods. Yeah, I know: convention says a slr with a wide angle on a tripod works best.

    And yet this (click on thumbs to see larger): http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/S-for-sand-93569062 and this: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...aters-93569600 were taken handheld, late afternoon, with a mild tele - 90mm - on a ZM rangefinder, while this: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...-hall-93569290 was a "cheap" Ultron 28/1.8 on the same body, same hands.

    Not perfect, but good enough for me. Go figure?

    I guess if I had to chose between my beloved Nikon gear or the ZM and its glass, I'd probably go with the Nikon: been using it for decades, while the ZM is only with me since 2006.
    But one thing I do know: when it comes to low shutter speed handheld, the ZM is miles ahead: I simply can't hold slrs anywhere as steady.

    At what point then ultimate lens quality becomes the deciding factor is something I haven't yet established. Although of course: I'm having a heck of a lot of fun finding out!
    Cheers
    Noons (Nuno Souto)
    Gallery here



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin