Darren,
I have to admit I couldn't stand mr. Rockwells way of putting things. I
stopped reading about half-way, thinking that he's worse at opinionating
than all of us here put together. In my humble opinion. :-)
A few examples that I found, well, let's say awkward:
"Sales and marketing departments fuel this misconception because it scares
people into buying new lenses."
Scares? Isn't that an odd postulate?
When he then continues to build his case, he does so by using negativisms.
He goes out of his way to tell us what sharpness _isn't_. He also do it in
such a way that the reader is constantly reminded of mr. Rockwells
impeccable understanding of the issue:
"Even when I started with 35mm as a kid in the 1970s, I knew that you had to
print at 20 x30" (50x75cm) in order to see any lens limitations. "
IIRC, some have called mr. Rockwell the Chuck Norris of photography.
Statements like the above doesn't help mr. Rockwells case, I think.
He rhetorically classify people as idiots if they hit a dent in their
learning curve and state their frustration:
"Only idiots find something's limits, and let themselves get stuck there
complaining about it."
By the time I gave up, I thought the article was just dressed up in sharp
language to cover the author's imprecise understanding of sharpness. He
claims, for example that:
"Most lens makers' sharpest lenses are their 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm
f/4 and 600mm f/4 ED and L series lenses. Look at their MTF graphs, and they
really do have virtually perfect performance."
Last time I looked, normal primes have higher MTFs.
He claims that lenses today are
-Not that I could explain it better myself, but I think I'll seek other
sources for information that are more about the subject and less about other
things.
Jostein
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Addy" <[email protected]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:15 PM
Subject: Please educate me (Kenny Boy)
Alright. I had a Ranger IPA and let the desire to unsubscribe pass. My
Quality of Life Index stinks bad enough right now without cutting
myself off from PDML (you see, I clearly have masochistic tendencies).
: \
I realize that "Kenny Boy" is a widely reviled character here on PDML
(and beyond), and I'm not clear if this is because his information or
conclusion is (often?) wrong, or if he is just hated as a Pontificator
(or worse, Nikon Fanboy).
: )
If I may, I would like to ask you to please "hold your noses" and tell
me, specifically, what you disagree with in the following Kenny Boy
essay on the subject of lens sharpness:
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm Please think of this as
a weekend diversion, should you not have time for it today. In
addition, if you have a link to share that you think discusses this
subject (lens sharpness) more lucidly, please pass that along.
I'd also like to add one more layer of complexity to the discussion,
but that will (hopefully) come later. I don't want to "muddy the
waters" with it right now.
I realize that the bottom line (cop-out answer) that one can't argue
with is "don't worry about it... just take pictures with what you've
got" and while I agree with that sentiment, it doesn't make my desire
to understand all of the variables to obtaining a good image go away.
Thanks in advance for any opinions you care to share.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
