Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: neverfinder on December 09, 2007, 12:54:57 pm
-
hello,
Now I finally got my Canon 1DsMk3 and I really like it. Here are a few sample shots from it and a very short test with my old Mark 2.
Everything shot on a Tripod, cable release, ML. Converted in Lightroom, Sharpening is the same for all files. All files are upsampled to 1DsMk3 level.
First image is an overview over the setup.
[attachment=4201:attachment]
The first three crops are from the BLUE area:
- First Leica M8 + Leica 21mm f8
- Second 1DsMk2 + Leica 28mm f8
- Third 1DsMk3 + Leica 28 f8
[attachment=4202:attachment]
[attachment=4203:attachment]
[attachment=4204:attachment]
The second pair of images is a from the Canon vs Leica lens. On the 1DsMk2 the differnece was there but not as huge. I mean it was always a debate between handling and quality.
With the Mark3 the difference got quite big so that I'm really that I own the Leica 28
First two images from the blue area second two from the red area:
- Fist 1DsMk3 + Canon 28mm @ f11 (24-105)
- Second 1DsMk3 + Leica 28 @ f11
[attachment=4205:attachment]
[attachment=4207:attachment]
red area:
- Fist 1DsMk3 + Canon 28mm @ f11 (24-105)
- Second 1DsMk3 + Leica 28 @ f11
[attachment=4206:attachment]
[attachment=4208:attachment]
The last image is just an example. I really love my Leica 19mm and I think the crops show why.
Overview:
[attachment=4209:attachment]
Green:
[attachment=4210:attachment]
Red:
[attachment=4212:attachment]
Blue:
[attachment=4211:attachment]
Some more comments:
I tested also the 70-200 f4 IS against my 70-200 f2.8 IS and my 135L.
I did not post any images because the difference is not that big and in print there is no real difference. I would say 135>70-200 f4 IS>70-200 f2.8 IS but the difference is REALLY small.
Another thing about stopping down, so many people were arguing about how far we can stop down before killing the image quality.
Canon:
More or less I would say everything from f4-11 is absolutly fine. Going up to f16 is still ok but you notice that the image is slowly getting softer. I would not use f22 on the Mark3 but it was quite the same on the Mark2 the image just is getting to soft,
Leica:
From f4-16 is really good and printed it is nearly impossible to see the difference. Also f22 is still quite good and IF I need to I would use it on the Leica glass.
I don't have enough to post examples of that topic but if I find some I will post tje, later.
I hope I coud give some useful information.
-
This is amazing. I would have never believed that the difference is that big. At the same time I never considered to get the 24-105 :-)
Thanks for your effort.
-
That IS a huge difference. Are you sure about the focus of the Canon lens?
-
Hi!
That IS a huge difference.
Unfortunately this seems to be the case except for the very best of Canon's lenses. It may be unfair to compare AF-zoom to MF-prime because it's probably very difficult to manufacture lens constructions which at the same time contain extremely tight tolerances yet there are easily movable and light weight lens elements for AF. Anyway, that does not change the fact that sample variation in most of today's AF-lenses are huge and if Canon does not do something to sort this problem really soon, many customers will increasingly start looking for other options especially in the wide angles. It's extremely welcome to have Nikon competing in the FF-market with full force and with some excellent new lenses.
You might also check: the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
Cheers,
J
-
I can't believe it. All good lenses are pretty similar at f11. The blurring of the 1Ds3 shot with the Canon lens looks like a case of mirror slap to me.
Whenever you get suspiciously incredible results like that, you should retake the shots and examine your methodology.
-
I can't believe it. All good lenses are pretty similar at f11. The blurring of the 1Ds3 shot with the Canon lens looks like a case of mirror slap to me.
Whenever you get suspiciously incredible results like that, you should retake the shots and examine your methodology.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
What is it that you can't believe? That most of Canon's WA-lenses are crap in the corners is no news to anyone. Check out 16-9.net just for one good example site with some eye-opening comparisons. The most recent is 5D with Nikon 14-24 vs 24L. The results are very much in line with other people's findings.
Cheers,
J
-
You're comparing a zoom (Canon 24-105) against a prime (Leica 28). Also, the 24-105 isn't considered Canon's sharpest by any means. So I guess your results aren't that surprising.
-
Mort: You can compare a Porsche to a Ferrari just as you can compare a Ford to a Ferrari.
I personally didn't expect such a HUGE difference because so many people talk about the 24-105 as if it was a godsend. I continue to be happy AND unhappy with the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L which can be very sharp one day in one setting and pretty unsatisfactory in another light. I used to love the 70-200 2.8L IS although it wasn't that sharp. But it was convinient. It was so useful before it suddenly started to backfocus on my 1Ds Mk2. I focussed at the front eye and the ears were sharp.
I understand that Canon glass (expensive L glass I'm talking about) can't be as good as some of the new digital MF glass. But the huge tolerance with Canon lenses is really annoying. They need to work on their quality (assurance) but probably a certain deviation is considered normal and keeps the pricepoint of the lenses "lower".
Cheers
Boris
You're comparing a zoom (Canon 24-105) against a prime (Leica 28). Also, the 24-105 isn't considered Canon's sharpest by any means. So I guess your results aren't that surprising.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Mort: You can compare a Porsche to a Ferrari just as you can compare a Ford to a Ferrari.
Most comments I've heard from owners of this lens are that it's soft. That said, I certainly wish Nikon had something like that, since it's a very versatile focal length range, and has IS (the Nikon 24-125 VR has an even worse repulation for softness, unfortunately, or else it would be a perfect walk around lens).
-
I can't believe it. All good lenses are pretty similar at f11. The blurring of the 1Ds3 shot with the Canon lens looks like a case of mirror slap to me.
Whenever you get suspiciously incredible results like that, you should retake the shots and examine your methodology.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's also some pretty large CA in the shot with the colorful books.
The difference is marked. I don't know that the 24-105 is one of Canon's sharpest lens by any means (also maybe not so fair to test a zoom against a prime), but those differences ARE huge.
-
My 24~105 is very sharp - I have confidence it would deliver considerably better results than those shown here. There is quality variance from one piece to the next over a range between their minimum acceptable standard and the best few percent they produce. With zooms I am given to understand the issue is generally the accuracy of the alignment. Zooms are much more complex lenses than primes, with much glass for the light to travel through, therefore comparing a zoom with a prime is rather pointless. Apart from this, very interesting set of comparisons.
-
Hi!
What is it that you can't believe? That most of Canon's WA-lenses are crap in the corners is no news to anyone. Check out 16-9.net just for one good example site with some eye-opening comparisons. The most recent is 5D with Nikon 14-24 vs 24L. The results are very much in line with other people's findings.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is what I can't believe.
[attachment=4277:attachment]
I can't find these books on the overview. It's not clear that the crop is from an extreme corner and it is surprising that this degree of difference should exist even at f11.
But again, how small a crop is that and how far into the corner?
-
This is what I can't believe.
[attachment=4277:attachment]
I can't find these books on the overview. It's not clear that the crop is from an extreme corner and it is surprising that this degree of difference should exist even at f11.
But again, how small a crop is that and how far into the corner?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, CSI reaches the Far East too. Mamma always told me not to believe everything I read or see...
Ciao - Rob C
-
This is what I can't believe.
[attachment=4277:attachment]
I can't find these books on the overview. It's not clear that the crop is from an extreme corner and it is surprising that this degree of difference should exist even at f11.
But again, how small a crop is that and how far into the corner?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
This is the crop marked in red in the upper edge, not a corner.
I know nothing about the methodology of aligning the camera used in this test (whether it was done carefully with a spirit-level and if MLU was used etc) but my point was simply that I find it rather depressing to be forced to test several lenses every time when bying a lens. I mean it should be the manufacturer's task to test the lens before attaching the price tag! It won't help Canon in the long run if customers start to associate the L with Lemon instead of Luxury.
Cheers,
J
-
Hi!
This is the crop marked in red in the upper edge, not a corner.
I know nothing about the methodology of aligning the camera used in this test (whether it was done carefully with a spirit-level and if MLU was used etc) but my point was simply that I find it rather depressing to be forced to test several lenses every time when bying a lens. I mean it should be the manufacturer's task to test the lens before attaching the price tag! It won't help Canon in the long run if customers start to associate the L with Lemon instead of Luxury.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No it's not. The crop I'm referring to and which you have repeated in the above post does not appear anywhere in the overview. The area highlighted with a red square is different.
I agree it's a PITA to have to test lenses before you buy. Furthermore, once you start doing that and you discover how much variability there can be, you become fearful of buying another lens ever without testing it first.
The last lens I bought without testing was a Canon 50/1.4, in Bangkok. When I got back to Australia and one day compared it with my Canon 50/1.8, a much cheaper and lighter lens, I found it wasn't as sharp. It's supposed to be marginally sharper.
I've been advocating for years a policy where ever lens is sold with an individual, real MTF chart (as opposed to a theoretical one) as a part of standardised quality control.
But no-one listens to me .
-
It's definitely in the overview. Top edge in center.
The 1st overview image highlights it correctly. In the 2nd overview the red square is moved off to the left.
-
It's definitely in the overview. Top edge in center.
The 1st overview image highlights it correctly. In the 2nd overview the red square is moved off to the left.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay! My apologies! I was concentrating more in the corners and missed it. Considering this comparison is far from the corner, it's a disgraceful result for Canon.
Extreme corners are the furthest from the centre, about 22mm maximum. The short edge of the frame, in the middle, is 18mm maximum. If this obvious lower resolution of the Canon lens at 28mm and f11 had been in the extreme corner, I would have been more forgiving.
-
So thanks for so many coments. I was gone for some days doing some shooting with my new baby and didn't have any access.
So here are some answeres.
-MLU was used on both cameras all the time. Both cameras were set on a tripod and were switched with L-brackets.
- The second pair of images is still from the first overview so sorry for that confusion.
- I know the leica is a prime and the Canon is a zoom, but this is the stuff I have and use. A few things you have to know. The 24-105 is/was a quite good lens on my 1DsMk2. I also have to admit after seeing the results I consider getting a 35 prime. Canon's tele zooms are really great, they just can't make anything wide ... don't ask me why ^^
- My 24-105 is certainly not the best out there, but the bnest I could find out of 5 tested lenses, so I think is quite ok. ON the other hand you really have to know that the Leica 28 IS really the best 28 lens out there. I have never seen anything close. I think it is one of the lenses which really gets very close to leicas M-lens line.
- The whole test is done for my own sake. I just wanted to share it with you. It is not made to show anything specific just the things I saw and the things I really was surprised.
-
Just to make one more thing clear, which totally sliped my mind. ( Thanks to the person pointing it out )
I was asked whether I had a posting history here or just new to the forum. I'm the same person as "neverfinder". I just did all the testing on my old workstation back home and there I was still logged in with my old user name. So I uploaded these tests with the wrong login name.
Christopher
-
Hi!
This is the crop marked in red in the upper edge, not a corner.
I know nothing about the methodology of aligning the camera used in this test (whether it was done carefully with a spirit-level and if MLU was used etc) but my point was simply that I find it rather depressing to be forced to test several lenses every time when bying a lens. I mean it should be the manufacturer's task to test the lens before attaching the price tag! It won't help Canon in the long run if customers start to associate the L with Lemon instead of Luxury.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No. It works like this. They have a minimum standard for the lens. Nothing with an L on it should leave the factory that doesn't meet the minimum standard for that lens. Above that minimum standard quality improves varying by the piece. But as long as the lens meets the minimum standard for an L lens, Canon is satisfied (doesn't mean the customer is) that the lens is fine. Now, if they were to raise the standard to only market quality at the top 10 percentile of what they now market, the price would be multiples of the price we now pay. So you can have absolutely the finest they can produce at very high prices, or you can have anything above their minimum standard for current prices. They've made that commercial decision.
-
... if they were to raise the standard to only market quality at the top 10 percentile of what they now market, the price would be multiples of the price we now pay. So you can have absolutely the finest they can produce at very high prices, or you can have anything above their minimum standard for current prices. They've made that commercial decision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For those who are shocked at the prices Leica charges, this can explain the difference. Leica does the testing, not the purchaser.
-
No. It works like this. They have a minimum standard for the lens. Nothing with an L on it should leave the factory that doesn't meet the minimum standard for that lens. Above that minimum standard quality improves varying by the piece. But as long as the lens meets the minimum standard for an L lens, Canon is satisfied (doesn't mean the customer is) that the lens is fine. Now, if they were to raise the standard to only market quality at the top 10 percentile of what they now market, the price would be multiples of the price we now pay. So you can have absolutely the finest they can produce at very high prices, or you can have anything above their minimum standard for current prices. They've made that commercial decision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is of course true and the whole topic has been discussed numerous times before. And although it's complete waste of time to cry on a forum about Canon's current commercial strategy and quality control, it makes many people sad that a company with such huge potential and with very competitive line of camera bodies hasn't adapted to the increased quality requirements of digital capture. Just to give an example: of the last 9 Canon lenses bought by me and my friend, 4 have had some kind of defect (in our eyes). 2 WA-lenses had misaligned elements (soft edge), one zoom was unacceptably soft in the long end, 200L had a hole in the front element.
As I indicated earlier, it might pay back in the long run for Canon to improve their tolerances and thus create more loyal customers. But I guess that's never gonna happen.
And yes, there is a difference in price between Leica asph-lenses and Canon's offerings and in the digital age it seems more justified than ever.
Cheers,
J
-
I've been advocating for years a policy where ever lens is sold with an individual, real MTF chart (as opposed to a theoretical one) as a part of standardised quality control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In the early eighties I used to carry out MTF testing for a camera shop in central London. Charts were supplied for each lens sold but of course the cost of doing this had to be borne somewhere. In that increasingly competitive time the testing was finally abandoned for a variety of reasons and whilst the shop still exists, neither it nor any other that I know of now offers what would undoubtedly be an expensive service, presumably because no-one considers it to be an viably economic proposition.
I use both Canons with L series fixed focals and an M8. My own experience is that it is much easier to get sharper images out of the M8 - due to a number of factors I'm sure - but the lack of a mirror is most certainly one of them!
-
In the early eighties I used to carry out MTF testing for a camera shop in central London. Charts were supplied for each lens sold but of course the cost of doing this had to be borne somewhere. In that increasingly competitive time the testing was finally abandoned for a variety of reasons and whilst the shop still exists, neither it nor any other that I know of now offers what would undoubtedly be an expensive service, presumably because no-one considers it to be an viably economic proposition.
I use both Canons with L series fixed focals and an M8. My own experience is that it is much easier to get sharper images out of the M8 - due to a number of factors I'm sure - but the lack of a mirror is most certainly one of them!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I hear many excuses for not carrying out individual MTF tests and they all usually boil down to cost.
If the public doesn't want to pay for the service, they have no right to complain. Unfortunately, we are in a bit of a bind here because some lenses which happen to be really excellent, although expensive, might be able to be adapted to Canon bodies but usually with loss of certain significant features such as autofocus for one.
The market is really wide open here to an enterprising country like China where the entire MFT testing procedure could possibly be automated. In conjunction with low wages, the additional cost would be minimal.
However, such an endeavour could not take place without Canon's co-operation because lenses would have to be re-badged and re-priced according to quality.
The top 5% of a particular model would have an ESP rating (Extra Special Performance), the next 10% SHG (Super High Grade), the third group, say 30% of all lenses, could be classified as simply HG, (High Grade) and the final category comprising perhaps 50% of all lenses of a particular model could be rated as D for Deluxe, to disguise the fact they are really crap.
Am I being too harsh?
Oh! I forgot to mention, the cost of such a precedure would be borne by the buyers of the ESP, SHG and HG grades. The price of the Deluxe versions would remain the same.
-
In the early eighties I used to carry out MTF testing for a camera shop in central London. Charts were supplied for each lens sold but of course the cost of doing this had to be borne somewhere. In that increasingly competitive time the testing was finally abandoned for a variety of reasons and whilst the shop still exists, neither it nor any other that I know of now offers what would undoubtedly be an expensive service, presumably because no-one considers it to be an viably economic proposition.
I use both Canons with L series fixed focals and an M8. My own experience is that it is much easier to get sharper images out of the M8 - due to a number of factors I'm sure - but the lack of a mirror is most certainly one of them!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul, I don't believe you would really know whether the lack of a mirror "is most certainly one of them" unless you performed a test on an appropriate subject, neutralizing ALL variables except for exposing with mirror lock-up versus exposing without mirror lock-up and comparing the results at 100% magnification on a high resolution display or in a large print at the raw file's native resolution. Have you done this?
There are quite a number of variables that differ between a Leica M8 and a Canon DSLR that could account for apparent differences of observable resolution - and they are not necessarily the lens alone, though that must clearly be high on the short-list of determinative factors. And when it comes to lenses one must really be very careful about what is being compared with what i.e. in terms of lens type, focal length and f/stop. One needs to be aware, but also really wary about this stuff.
-
'''''''''''''''''''''''
If the public doesn't want to pay for the service, they have no right to complain. ......................
The market is really wide open here to an enterprising country like China where the entire MFT testing procedure could possibly be automated. In conjunction with low wages, the additional cost would be minimal.
However, such an endeavour could not take place without Canon's co-operation because lenses would have to be re-badged and re-priced according to quality.
The top 5% of a particular model would have an ESP rating (Extra Special Performance), the next 10% SHG (Super High Grade), the third group, say 30% of all lenses, could be classified as simply HG, (High Grade) and the final category comprising perhaps 50% of all lenses of a particular model could be rated as D for Deluxe, to disguise the fact they are really crap.
Am I being too harsh?
...........................
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
I think reasonable people would naturally complain about buying a product which does not meet their expectations, because most of us have no idea how much is truly the right price for the quality we get.
Now the idea you are proposing would cut through that fog, and in that respect it makes a lot of technical sense. Whether it would make sense in terms of any corporation's commercial strategy is another issue altogether, and most likely the decisive factor.
Can you imagine a company like Canon giving up the arbitration of their quality standards to a company beyond their jurisdiction which they do not own and control? I can't see it - at the very least it would have to be a subsidiary of the manufacturer.
But even then, would they engage in such an enterprise? Again, I think not - firstly, they would be lifting the veil on closely held commercial information about the quality range of their output. This may be used to advantage, but it could also pose a substantial commercial risk to them. Secondly, they would be faced with the difficult and uncertain task of assigning price differentials to quality differentials for what is *nominally* the same item - in other words they would be creating new product differentials and this must always be approached ever so carefully. Thirdly, and related to the second, they would be faced with the commercial risk of getting these differentials accepted and monetized in the market place. I can readily see a considerable number of commercial photographers being willing to pay some kind of a premium for an ESP lens, but as you climb down the totem pole many others may not like the idea of *only* getting a Deluxe version - it sends a clear signal they are still paying a handsome price for the *low end* of the line. You see, when you openly create product differentiation of this kind, you are not only advertising that the good stuff is really good, but you are also advertising - in sweeter words - that the remaining 50%-75% of what you manufacture is inferior or downright crap. Prudent corporate managements may tend to view this as potentially suicidal in a competitive commercial environment.
-
Paul, I don't believe you would really know whether the lack of a mirror "is most certainly one of them" unless you performed a test on an appropriate subject, neutralizing ALL variables except for exposing with mirror lock-up versus exposing without mirror lock-up and comparing the results at 100% magnification on a high resolution display or in a large print at the raw file's native resolution. Have you done this?
There are quite a number of variables that differ between a Leica M8 and a Canon DSLR that could account for apparent differences of observable resolution - and they are not necessarily the lens alone, though that must clearly be high on the short-list of determinative factors. And when it comes to lenses one must really be very careful about what is being compared with what i.e. in terms of lens type, focal length and f/stop. One needs to be aware, but also really wary about this stuff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark
I really have shot enough images on my FF Canons to know how to extract the best from them, and locking the mirror up, using a self-timer to trigger, etc, etc. certainly helps, if the subject allows for it. But on the M8 there is no bulky mirror to cause slap, no aperture diaphragm being whipped in and out, etc, and the reality is that I can get very (actually I'd say surprisingly) sharp images hand held at lowish shutter speeds from the M8. Whilst I do shoot similar images on the Canon's, they often do not often deliver the same clarity of detail under similar conditions and using similar settings - this is clearly due to some degree of blurring caused by some form of motion. The very fact that a mirror lock-up feature is offered should tell us something about a camera's characteristics!
So no, I haven't done an absolute direct side by side test, but I have taken the empirical route and my comments above are based on the actual usage of both camera systems together with many years experience of both SLRs and rangefinders. If I'm totally honest about it, I'm not even actually bothered why the images should actually be sharper, because at the end of the day my M8 delivers the results that I want under the conditions that I am using it in. Its very easy to forget that photography relies on visual awareness and understanding how a particular tool reacts under certain conditions. No amount of testing and theorising can replace the experience of actually using the equipment and looking at the results. Both the M8 and Canon FFs have their srtehgths and weaknesses, mirror slap isn't one of the M8's!
-
Hi Mark
I really have shot enough images on my FF Canons to know how to extract the best from them, and locking the mirror up, using a self-timer to trigger, etc, etc. certainly helps, if the subject allows for it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul, my own tests and tests I've seen reported on the net suggests there's a fairly narrow range of slowish shutter speeds where MLU helps. Typically it's between 1 second and 1/60th. This might vary depending on balance of camera and lens and tripod used. I've also heard reports that shutter speeds as fast as 1/125th can still be a problem with certain long telephoto lenses without MLU enabled.
My 5D with 50/1.8 lens on my ultra-lightweight Manfrotto has a problem centred around 1/30th without MLU. By 1/60th and 1/15th it's virtually gone. My lighter 20D has no problem at all, with this lens on this tripod, without MLU enabled, at any shutter speed, but it might have a problem with another lens which creates more instability.
I guess these are the sorts of things one could test for oneself when the weather's bad or when one happens to be in the right mood.
-
I can readily see a considerable number of commercial photographers being willing to pay some kind of a premium for an ESP lens, but as you climb down the totem pole many others may not like the idea of *only* getting a Deluxe version - it sends a clear signal they are still paying a handsome price for the *low end* of the line. You see, when you openly create product differentiation of this kind, you are not only advertising that the good stuff is really good, but you are also advertising - in sweeter words - that the remaining 50%-75% of what you manufacture is inferior or downright crap. Prudent corporate managements may tend to view this as potentially suicidal in a competitive commercial environment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
I can understand that this could be a problem and there might be some strong resistance to such an idea in the marketing department, which is why I would recommend that a complete set of MTF charts be included with each lens so the customer knows exactly what she's getting. This would be putting into practice the often quoted adage, 'you get what you pay for'.
Such a policy would also send a strong message to the consumer that Canon is serious about quality control. They could boast in their advertisements that they are the only company to provide MTF charts with their lenses. I can already see the slogans on huge billboards across the country.
Canon... The company you can trust. The company that delivers. Every Canon lens is individually tested. Be sure you get the quality you paid for. Buy Canon. Blah, blah, blah.
-
Hi Mark
I really have shot enough images on my FF Canons to know how to extract the best from them, and locking the mirror up, using a self-timer to trigger, etc, etc. certainly helps, if the subject allows for it. But on the M8 there is no bulky mirror to cause slap, no aperture diaphragm being whipped in and out, etc, and the reality is that I can get very (actually I'd say surprisingly) sharp images hand held at lowish shutter speeds from the M8. Whilst I do shoot similar images on the Canon's, they often do not often deliver the same clarity of detail under similar conditions and using similar settings - this is clearly due to some degree of blurring caused by some form of motion. The very fact that a mirror lock-up feature is offered should tell us something about a camera's characteristics!
So no, I haven't done an absolute direct side by side test, but I have taken the empirical route and my comments above are based on the actual usage of both camera systems together with many years experience of both SLRs and rangefinders. If I'm totally honest about it, I'm not even actually bothered why the images should actually be sharper, because at the end of the day my M8 delivers the results that I want under the conditions that I am using it in. Its very easy to forget that photography relies on visual awareness and understanding how a particular tool reacts under certain conditions. No amount of testing and theorising can replace the experience of actually using the equipment and looking at the results. Both the M8 and Canon FFs have their srtehgths and weaknesses, mirror slap isn't one of the M8's!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul, OK not knowing all that background, I asked about the basis of your observation, and I respect what you are telling me. But you know, I have a generic question about this whole mirror lock-up business. It is this. I am under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that the mirror locks up before the shutter opens and it slaps back down after the shutter closes. Therefore the camera would still have to be vibrating from the mirror locking-up in order for the mirror to cause any kind of blur, and on a high-end DSLR one would have expected this to have been adequaately dampened in the basic design of the camera. But you are right - they do provide it for a reason; that reason may have more to do with the Nth degree of assurance (i.e. buying comfort) rather than significant technical necessity. One of these days I may get down to producing the side-by-side comparison I asked you about, and in that endevaour, Ray's observations about the conditions in which it could matter would be useful.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Mark,
I can understand that this could be a problem and there might be some strong resistance to such an idea in the marketing department, which is why I would recommend that a complete set of MTF charts be included with each lens so the customer knows exactly what she's getting. This would be putting into practice the often quoted adage, 'you get what you pay for'.
Such a policy would also send a strong message to the consumer that Canon is serious about quality control. They could boast in their advertisements that they are the only company to provide MTF charts with their lenses. I can already see the slogans on huge billboards across the country.
Canon... The company you can trust. The company that delivers. Every Canon lens is individually tested. Be sure you get the quality you paid for. Buy Canon. Blah, blah, blah.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hah Hah indeed!
-
They could boast in their advertisements that they are the only company to provide MTF charts with their lenses.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually Zeiss includes MTF charts with their lenses. Their MTFs also, as I understand, are actually measured as opposed to theoretical. But who knows for sure ...
-
Actually Zeiss includes MTF charts with their lenses. Their MTFs also, as I understand, are actually measured as opposed to theoretical. But who knows for sure ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, there you are. We're not sure if they are theoretical or not? Has anyone commented on variation between charts, because if they are individually tested the charts must all be slightly different, and if they are different, that would allow for some sort of cherry picking without even testing the lenses before buying.
The idea of classifying the Canon lenses into say 4 groups of varying quality, is that the cherry-picking has already been done. There would be so little variation between the charts for lenses in a particular group, it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle for the customer to pour over the data for a number of lenses trying to get the best one out of a particular group
Are the Zeiss charts comprehensive like Photodo's? With digital cameras like the 40D and 1Ds3 we now need charts that provide an MTF response at even higher frequencies than 40 lp/mm. These cameras can resolve beyonf 60 lp/mm, and the pixel count is likely to get even higher.
-
Has anyone commented on variation between charts, because if they are individually tested the charts must all be slightly different, and if they are different, that would allow for some sort of cherry picking without even testing the lenses before buying.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I meant to say that they actually measured a sample lens for the one chart they provide, as opposed to calculating it from the theoretical design, which I understand is how most lens makers create their charts. I could be wrong there, but that's what I've read.
-
Sorry, I meant to say that they actually measured a sample lens for the one chart they provide, as opposed to calculating it from the theoretical design, which I understand is how most lens makers create their charts. I could be wrong there, but that's what I've read.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So this is a big opportunity for Canon to steal a march on its competitors.
We are the first lens manufacturer to provide individual MTF charts for each and every lens we offer to the public. Buy Canon lenses with confidence!.
-
So this is a big opportunity for Canon to steal a march on its competitors.
We are the first lens manufacturer to provide individual MTF charts for each and every lens we offer to the public. Buy Canon lenses with confidence!.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes sure. Perhaps in 2050
-
Has anyone commented on variation between charts, because if they are individually tested the charts must all be slightly different, and if they are different, that would allow for some sort of cherry picking without even testing the lenses before buying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray
When I tested lenses there was variation. Some was undoubtedly operator caused (it was a painstaking process relying on accurate alignment, etc) and some was clearly variation in the lenses. And you are right, the problem with any testing proceedure is that it allows for cherry picking. It also causes a substantial problem in as much as there is always the question of what to do with the poorest lenses (which may still be within an 'acceptable' tolerance - who will buy a lens known to be at the bottom of its performance acceptability??? From memory I recall that it was accepted that a 10% difference in the trace was probably not visible on film (don't forget I'm talking early 80s), but where would you start today. Offering such a service today (especially when many lens buyers are not fully aware of the implication of an MTF chart related to their output requirements (I think that I put that fairly diplomatically) would be fraught with potential problems to say nothing of financial implications.
I haven't looked into this, but I suspect that there are businesses that offer MTF testing albeit at a price - it is after all somewhat specialised - so there is probably nothing to stop someone really interested in checking out a lens having it actually tested. Except the cost, so we are back to economics!
Its actually a great deal easier to go out and try it out and see if it delivers the required results, which is what I do today myself!
-
Its actually a great deal easier to go out and try it out and see if it delivers the required results, which is what I do today myself!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is it? Don't you find it a bit tedious after a while? I tried 3 different copies of the EF-S 10-22 in three different countries, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia before I found one that was nearly as sharp as my Sigma 15-30 at 15mm.
The first one I tried, in Australia, wouldn't autofocus accurately at close distances. I never got around to checking its sharpness. I returned it and didn't have time to wait for another copy to come in, because I had my flight booked.
The second copy in Singapore was clearly inferior to my Sigma. I demonstrated to the store owner on my laptop how noticeably less sharp the 10-22 images were, which had him scratching his head in perplexity.
After going through the procedure a third time in Kuala Lumpur, I was very undecided whether I should accept the lens. Would I have to try a fourth lens and a fifth and a sixth. Maybe there were not any EF-S 10-22 lenses in existence anywhere that were as sharp as my Sigma. Perhaps I was just wasting my time, so I accepted the lens but with some reservation.
This experience has highlighted the problem of not having a standard. Without an MTF chart, where is the standard. I'd like to get the Canon 70-200/4 IS. Do I find a store that has 3 copies; test them all and take the best, or take any one of them if they happen to be all very similar? How do I know whether they are all the remainders of cherry picking if it's not obvious? I need some other standard with which to compare the lens and for me that's usually another lens I'm familiar with, which in this case will have to be the Canon 100-400 IS and the 24-105 IS which together cover the range of the 70-200. I'd expect the new lens to outperform the other two at all focal lengths I test.
This is not something I'm looking forward to. I don't want such hassles.
-
Ray, notwithstanding the head-scratching I've done in this thread about the practical and strategic implications, the fact is that as long as there is significant slack within a quality range, your basic idea that consumers need some kind of standardized methodology for distinguishing the quality of individual copies makes perfectly good sense in principle. Apart from the logistic hassles that you in particular have faced given how you travel, the fact is that in many places there simply are not the kind of retailers who stock enough copies of any individual item and offer consumers the try and return privileges necessary to - as you put it - "cherry-pick" the best item. It's not like buying oranges and bananas in the supermarket. I wish there were a practical, commercially acceptable way of pulling this off, but whatever is done, there will be an incremental cost. If it were a very reasonable one, I would be prepared to pay it.
-
Neverfinder, could you just clarify exactly which Leica 28 that is? I assume it's the 28/2.0 or the 28/2.8 in the M system, but not sure which. It looks fantastic. Thanks in advance.
-
Neverfinder, could you just clarify exactly which Leica 28 that is? I assume it's the 28/2.0 or the 28/2.8 in the M system, but not sure which. It looks fantastic. Thanks in advance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is the Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8. It is the second version.