----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Quack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:18 AM Subject: Re: EOS Which lenses with a D60?
> > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:28:27 -0200 > > From: "Nelson Ricciardi" > > Subject: Re: EOS Which lenses with a D60? > > > > Check this > > http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html > > But note that this link is about a test performed with > film! The problem is the very small sensor structure > which exceeds the capabilities of the lens, which can > also be seen in the Photodo MTF curves (40 lp/mm is the > thing to look at). The difference is much more pronounced > with the D60 than it possibly can be with film. > > On the other hand that counts for a number of lenses, > an ideal lens for digital would have all light hit the > sensor perpendicular to it. Some lenses that perform > brilliant with film (where perpendicularity is of almost > no concern) will perform different with DSLRs. > > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:44:47 -0800 > > From: "Skip Middleton" > > Subject: Re: EOS Which lenses with a D60? > > > I wasn't sure, since your apparent experience is so counter > > to that of others, including myself. Possibly there is > > something wrong with your lens? > > No, the lens is fully okay. > > > I have tack sharp 11x14 enlargements using Plus-X and that lens, > > Bingo. You used it with film. > The chip is much less forgiving on fine details. > Plus the fact that the tack sharp thing in prints from film > can as well be film grain, which mustn't be image information > at the same time. > > > so what you are basically saying is that the D60, at 6mp, will > > outperform Plus-X, XP-2 and APX 100, all films that I have > > used the lens with and with great success, right? > > In relation to the sensor size - yes. Film has an edge for > the bigger imaging area, but cropped to DSLR sensor size, > the difference starts to show, and it shows very much in > higher frequencies, where a lens like the 28-135 is noticably > softer than e.g. the 2.5/50 mm macro or the 1.2/85 mm L. > > You just don't notice the difference as much on film > since 1) you see sharp film grain, which is not necessarily > image detail and 2) digital works like a bandpass, where > with increasing chip resolution the point of failure > "pops out" on some lenses. > > So, in the end the 28-135 is not a bad lens, in fact > it might be better than many others, certainly better > than the usual set zooms, but not good enough to make > up with what the sensor of the D60 can do. > > Which is also the reason that I see no point in going > over 11 or 14 megapixels in DSLRs, as Kodak and Canon > now have in their portfolios. > > -- > Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick any two of the three. > Except the larger sensor size of the newly announced Kodak and Canon bodies would be less sensitive, and therefore more compatible with the same lenses as film cameras? I'm trying to follow and expand on your logic, here. I'm not sure I get it. Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
