Tom C. wrote: > Sorry, I'm not intending to argue or belabor the point.
Don't apologize! These are valuable things to discuss. They lead to better understanding. > But is that always the case (that quality is subjective)? Let's compare > theoretical lenses A and B. We run them through the same set of tests and > have measured results. Lets say lens B comes out on top. We claim lems B > is better, while lens A is inferior. We don't simply say they have > different qualities. We say one is of lesser or higher quality than the > other. And this is precisely what I have ALWAYS thought is total bullshit. To decide which lens is of "higher quality," we have to decide what parameters we're going to value. But scoring better in certain chosen parameters, whatever they are, DOESN'T help the lens make better pictures. It merely give it different qualities, which may be better for certain pictures and worse for others. One of the lenses I like best is the Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2 (which, by the bye, is reviewed in the next issue of _The 37th Frame_. Sorry for inserting the plug, but it's pertinent). This is because I tend to prefer lenses with very high large-structure contrast, say at 5 lp/mm, and microresolution doesn't matter a whit to me. Yet a noted Leica lens expert, Erwin Puts, once said of this very same lens that it is "not one of Leica's better efforts," I presume because he values ultimate fine-structure resolution in a lens. I also think that the various versions of the Pentax 50/1.4 are the very best 50/1.4's that money can buy, and, believe me, I've tried or tested a lot of the existing alternatives. Yet the Pentax lens seldom scores highest in various published lens tests. Why is that? It's because I value a variety of the qualities of that lens differently than the testers do, that's all. It's really all a matter of taste. > The point I'm making (or attempting to make <g>) probably boils down to > this. Correct me if I'm wrong. A 35mm film frame has the ability to record > more information than the same size CCD, given that one exists . The "data > density" is higher, among other things. And what metaphysics do you propose to demonstrate that more information makes for better pictures? I could make a very good case for the opposite being true (and if I did, neither of us would be entirely right). > As a general consumer item, as used by most consumers, digital cameras may > produce images that are just as good as film, in the eye of the one taking > the photos. But try to do those things that most consumers don't do, and > that I believe is where film wins out. Hmm. Purely playing devil's advocate, I might respond, "Is that why professional photographers are switching to digital in droves?" Penetration by digital is higher in the professional market than anywhere else. True, none of them are using 3-megapixel point-and-shoot digicams. Of course, to that response, you might simply say that I'm being argumentative, and you may be right. <s> > Same argument can be made for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF. The reason for using the > larger format is to record more information, to produce a better image at a > given print size. That's mostly what I was meaning by the word quality. Uh-huh. So does it always work? Are medium format pictures always better than small-format pictures? Are large format pictures always "better images" than medium format pictures? Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I would say it depends, as does everything else, on how well each photographer is able to apply his visual and artistic sensibilities, technical sensitivity, and shooting skills to create any given picture. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
