Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: spotmeter on June 03, 2008, 12:25:21 am
-
In his article on noise and resolution, Mark Segal uses a Canon 24-105 zoom lens for a resolution test between the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds3, and finds very little apparent difference between the two cameras.
I wonder if that is a result of the limitations of the lens?
It seems to me that if you want to examine the resolution of different cameras, it would make more sense to use a prime lens that is well-known for its sharpness, such as the Canon 135L, Canon 200 2.8L II, or the new Zeiss ZF primes.
-
In his article on noise and resolution, Mark Segal uses a Canon 24-105 zoom lens for a resolution test between the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds3, and finds very little apparent difference between the two cameras.
I wonder if that is a result of the limitations of the lens?
It seems to me that if you want to examine the resolution of different cameras, it would make more sense to use a prime lens that is well-known for its sharpness, such as the Canon 135L, Canon 200 2.8L II, or the new Zeiss ZF primes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In principle you raise a good point, but my copy of this lens happens to be "tack-sharp". As well, the main interest here is a comparison between f/stops and cameras, hence under the circumstances seems to me eminently suitable for comparative purposes. The results are consistent with expectations - there is good technical discussion of this effect over at www.cambridgeincolour.com. I think these results should also be of practical interest to the many people who rely on such zoom lenses for much of their work.
-
In principle you raise a good point, but my copy of this lens happens to be "tack-sharp". As well, the main interest here is a comparison between f/stops and cameras, hence under the circumstances seems to me eminently suitable for comparative purposes. The results are consistent with expectations - there is good technical discussion of this effect over at www.cambridgeincolour.com. I think these results should also be of practical interest to the many people who rely on such zoom lenses for much of their work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you think shooting a persons face using dramatic light to dark lighting instead of a building would make a difference?
-
Doug - no I don't. Based on my experience using this camera since it first hit the market last November, photographing quite a range of subject matter including many images of my grandchildren, some under indoor lighting conditions, I think the test image I put-up in that article embeds a fair range of imaging conditions - I think the sky (if not too dark) and skin tend to display evidence of noise quite similarly if under-exposed. Also you know, a bit of noise in sky and skin is very easily handled with a mild dose of selective noise reduction. One reduces noise selectively in Noise Ninja using the brush, or in Noiseware by noise-reducing a duplicate image layer, adding an inverted layer mask and using the paint brush set for white to reveal only those noise-reduced areas you wish.