Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 09:52:52 pm

Title: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 09:52:52 pm
Hi,

A small experiment, inspired by "Chrismuc" on the MF thread.

I recently compared three lenses:

A brand new Sony Alpha 70-400/4-5.6 zoom
A 25 year old Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO
A Sonnar 150/4 for Hasselblad from the 70-ies? It's a black T* coated lens

Test was done on APS-C camera with 24 MPixels, (pitch 3.9 micron), corresponds to 54MP on full frame DSLR, so it is pretty demanding. Landscape sharpening on all.

I could make the test with a full frame camera but any difference would be less visible as there is no 54MP full frame camera.

Would you be interested, the article describing the test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/73-sonnar-150-cb-on-dslr-using-arax-tilt-adapter

I would be interested if anyone sees any differences?

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: hsteeves on December 30, 2012, 10:09:50 pm
considering the lenses, I would be interested is seeing how they perform on a full frame body.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2012, 10:12:48 pm
considering the lenses, I would be interested is seeing how they perform on a full frame body.

The same.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: K.C. on December 30, 2012, 10:22:35 pm
The same.

The APS-C is using the center of the lens so we have no idea what the a full frame body would reveal for each lens.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 10:59:41 pm
Yes,

And there is no full frame 135 camera with 54 MP digital sensor.

Best regards
Erik

The APS-C is using the center of the lens so we have no idea what the a full frame body would reveal for each lens.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2012, 11:40:30 pm
The APS-C is using the center of the lens so we have no idea what the a full frame body would reveal for each lens.

In which case the question should be "how they perform in the corners on a full frame body."
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 11:56:43 pm
Hi,

I did not make it clear. The image is a pretty central crop at actual pixels.

I'll make a comparison at full frame and also have a corner crop, in a few days.

Best regards
Erik

In which case the question should be "how they perform in the corners on a full frame body."
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: BarbaraArmstrong on December 31, 2012, 12:24:41 am
I like the texture of the peel in the first one, but would choose the third for the combination of rendering of the immediate subject (good definition and contrast in the peel) and much deeper depth of field (focus).  For a landscape photographer, that combination is powerful.  I don't pretend to be any kind of expert reviewer, but that's how I see it.  --Barbara
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 31, 2012, 12:54:05 am
Thanks a lot!

All comments are much appreciated.

Best regards
Erik


I like the texture of the peel in the first one, but would choose the third for the combination of rendering of the immediate subject (good definition and contrast in the peel) and much deeper depth of field (focus).  For a landscape photographer, that combination is powerful.  I don't pretend to be any kind of expert reviewer, but that's how I see it.  --Barbara
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: Fine_Art on December 31, 2012, 01:43:03 am
For me the oranges look more or less the same. The difference is in the bokeh of the book lettering. The first one has a smooth Gaussian blur. The others are starting to form hard lines.

IMO that is the traditional advantage of medium format, the longer FL for a bigger lens gives smoother OOF. F8 on a hassy lens is not the same as f8 on a 135 lens.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 31, 2012, 01:58:26 am
... IMO that is the traditional advantage of medium format, the longer FL for a bigger lens gives smoother OOF. F8 on a hassy lens is not the same as f8 on a 135 lens.

How is it longer? I assume all shots were done at 150mm. Also, how's is f/8 not the same if all lenses are at 150 mm and the sensor size is the same?
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 31, 2012, 02:32:56 am
Hi,

I agree with Slobodan. One of the images was taken at 140 (according to EXIF) the others at 150mm nominally. Same nominal aperture was used on all. Exposure was by electronic flash and all exposures were pretty close. Depth of field also depends on "pupil magnification", but this test was done at 3.8 meters distance, and I think pupil magnification can be ignored.

Best regards
Erik

How is it longer? I assume all shots were done at 150mm. Also, how's is f/8 not the same if all lenses are at 150 mm and the sensor size is the same?
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: Fine_Art on December 31, 2012, 04:10:29 am
How is it longer? I assume all shots were done at 150mm. Also, how's is f/8 not the same if all lenses are at 150 mm and the sensor size is the same?

You are right, I am thinking of the registration distance from the back of the lens.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: stamper on December 31, 2012, 04:20:55 am
>Exposure was by electronic flash and all exposures were pretty close.<

Would it be better if the images weren't done using flash? Flash changes the merit's of an image for better or worse.

Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 31, 2012, 04:25:01 am
Can you explain?

I sort of like flash as illumination for testing.

Best regards
Erik

>Exposure was by electronic flash and all exposures were pretty close.<

Would it be better if the images weren't done using flash? Flash changes the merit's of an image for better or worse.


Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: stamper on December 31, 2012, 05:02:32 am
Unless the thrust of a test is about using flash - and it's merits and demerit's - then I suspect that most people undertaking a test about equipment would avoid their use because it skewers the outcome?
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 31, 2012, 05:08:32 am
Hi,

In what way does it skew the outcome? Can you explain? You are thinking spectral characteristics?

Best regards
Erik




Unless the thrust of a test is about using flash - and it's merits and demerit's - then I suspect that most people undertaking a test about equipment would avoid their use because it skewers the outcome?
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: stamper on December 31, 2012, 05:40:27 am
In my limited experience it changes the colour balance? Take an image of something under natural lighting and immediately take the another with flash and there will be differences between the two? The thrust of what I am saying is that testers won't use flash unless they have to and you are saying it is the norm for you? I am surprised nobody else has picked up on this but they may do once their Christmas hangovers wear off. :)
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: RFPhotography on December 31, 2012, 07:28:22 am
If the lighting is consistent for all shots then the source of the light is immaterial.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: allegretto on December 31, 2012, 07:38:47 am
just an amateur, but the texture of that orange in  its mid-body and navel look different between 1 and 3

secondly, again just my opinion but I think I know which camera you used and having owned one myself was never sure I liked its rendering ability, even without comparisons. I think that generation of that brand falls flat for me. Of course YMMV...
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: stamper on December 31, 2012, 07:42:04 am
If the lighting is consistent for all shots then the source of the light is immaterial.


Even if it is the "wrong" light?
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: stamper on December 31, 2012, 07:50:39 am
just an amateur, but the texture of that orange in  its mid-body and navel look different between 1 and 3

secondly, again just my opinion but I think I know which camera you used and having owned one myself was never sure I liked its rendering ability, even without comparisons. I think that generation of that brand falls flat for me. Of course YMMV...

You can tell the type of camera despite flash being used. Three different lenses have been utilized and into the bargain the images  have been converted to sRGB?
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 31, 2012, 07:58:31 am
Hi,

Camera is Sony Alpha SLT. Let's put it this way. The orange is the same orange and it has not moved, so if you see a difference in texture it's either difference in lens or difference in processing. Regarding processing I tried to keep it constant (adjusting white balance to color checker and same exposure on white square on CC):

Best regards
Erik

just an amateur, but the texture of that orange in  its mid-body and navel look different between 1 and 3

secondly, again just my opinion but I think I know which camera you used and having owned one myself was never sure I liked its rendering ability, even without comparisons. I think that generation of that brand falls flat for me. Of course YMMV...
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: allegretto on December 31, 2012, 08:28:13 am
Oh yes Erik, I understand that the only difference is the lens, and from my perspective the Sony out-resolves the Hassy

Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: jeremypayne on December 31, 2012, 08:28:49 am

Even if it is the "wrong" light?

What is "wrong" with a flash?
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 31, 2012, 08:44:11 am
Hi,

The reason I posted the images was to have some reactions. Most posters seem to prefer the Sonnar (Hasselblad lens) image. But that can change.

Best regards
Erik

Oh yes Erik, I understand that the only difference is the lens, and from my perspective the Sony out-resolves the Hassy


Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: RFPhotography on December 31, 2012, 09:10:30 am

Even if it is the "wrong" light?

How is it the  'wrong' light?  Are you suggesting that the use of flash would alter the colour balance of the orange, or other parts of the scene?  That may be the case in a situation of mixed light where the white balance is set for one or the other, or set as an average of the two. From Erik's description it seems he balanced for the flash light source.  But, given what he's doing, it doesn't matter.  All that's required is that the light is consistent between the shots, and it is.  Flash or not doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: stamper on December 31, 2012, 09:45:40 am
Hi,

Camera is Sony Alpha SLT. Let's put it this way. The orange is the same orange and it has not moved, so if you see a difference in texture it's either difference in lens or difference in processing. Regarding processing I tried to keep it constant (adjusting white balance to color checker and same exposure on white square on CC):

Best regards
Erik


Erik. the fact that you have processed the images and I assume you have converted to sRGB sort of invalidates any comparison? Instead of using flash would daylight balanced lights for illumination and no processing be a valid way of making a comparison. I haven't used flash on oranges but I am thinking that the flash and the prominent orange colour would give you problems.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: Hening Bettermann on December 31, 2012, 01:41:06 pm
The only significant difference I can see is the larger DOF of the Sony, which is why I would prefer it for landscape.
Title: Re: Can you see the difference?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 31, 2012, 01:49:07 pm
Hi,

I reshot the images with a new color checker passport. Here are the imatest evaluations. Processing was grey balance, +0.25 exposure, black level -1 saturation -12, I believe, report exact values next year.

OK, here is the rest of the story:

I measured the actual orange using my Color Munki Spectrometer and found out the LAB coordinates. I took the corresponding part of the image and smeared it out using a large diamater Gaussian. Converted it to Lab and checked L. Created a selection and filled with "ab" values read by Color Munki but using L value from photograph and got a virtual match. End of story.


Best regards
Erik

Erik. the fact that you have processed the images and I assume you have converted to sRGB sort of invalidates any comparison? Instead of using flash would daylight balanced lights for illumination and no processing be a valid way of making a comparison. I haven't used flash on oranges but I am thinking that the flash and the prominent orange colour would give you problems.