Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:17:28 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Graywolf wrote: > >My, how converts do preach (grin). > > But which is the convert? The JPG ... the TIF is original. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
on a typical trip when i am away to photograph, i will take anywhere from 5 to 10 rolls a day. luckily, the last few trips i have made have been mostly for family events and i both shot on the low end and only 3 days. Herb... - Original Message - From: "alex wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:32 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > If you are paying a lab for processing then the processing costs of > film can quickly add up too. Figure that a month long trip might > result in shooting 20 36 exposure rolls of film. You pay $5/roll for > the film and another $7/roll for proof shots from a decent minilab. > That is about $250 in processing. If you take a lot of photographs a > year of shooting can get you a D-SLR.
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
in my case, i shoot enough frames a year and my primary needs are digital editorial stock for local magazines that it costs less over a year with a good enough digital camera than shooting the same amount of film. i could have made do with my 5 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 5000 but the focal length choices are not enough. i still will shoot film, but only when i am on a focused trip with enough time to set up shots both on film and digital. shooting the scene first with digital also allows me to judge whether i have to do anything special on the film shots. the film shots i make are intended for large prints and fine art sales, although i haven't made any significant numbers of those, only to friends so far. Herb... - Original Message - From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:17 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > Conclusion: Initial dollar outlay is far higher to get great results with > digital. Time factors for good prints are similar and prices about the same. So > film cost is the only real disadvantage to the older technology, but film is the > reason a $200 camera can make the same quality image as a $2000 one.
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
- Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > to be really effective at using the new digital cameras as part of an entire > workflow, you have to spent time at it. doing it now when it's not bad means > you don't have to do it in a hurry later when it is really good and you need > it right now. > It seems to me that digital imaging is now well past second or third generation. CCD sensors have been around for close to twenty years on video cameras. It's just that all of a sudden we are seeing the technology applied to what we are interested in, and think it is something brand new. William Robb > > > But I also think some of us are entitled to want it to be better before > > dropping big bucks. I also believe in getting second/third generation.
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
to be really effective at using the new digital cameras as part of an entire workflow, you have to spent time at it. doing it now when it's not bad means you don't have to do it in a hurry later when it is really good and you need it right now. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:52 AM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > But I also think some of us are entitled to want it to be better before > dropping big bucks. I also believe in getting second/third generation.
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
read the paragraph you quoted. i increased the size. as far as sharpness is concerned, i have no problems making 12x18 prints without increasing the resolution. it's not as sharp as 35mm film, but not as far behind as you might think. scans from Provia 100F taken through the FA* 24 f2.0 are not orders of magnitude sharper than a 5 megapixel digital camera unsharpened. areter rezing up and sharpening, the 5 megapixel images have the sharpness and resolution of something close to a 10 megapixel sensor. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Dave Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > Herb > > How do you get a 5000 pixel image on one side from the *istD? According to > the review in Dpreview the max resolution of the 6.1megpixel sensor is 3008 > x 2008 which seems about right since my 4 megpixel P&S puts out a 2400 x > 1600 pixel image. I can believe you can get to the 5000 pixel mark with > 4000 dpi scanner as my Minolta Scan Dual III at 2820 dpi gives me a 3808 x > 2576 image on max resolution which is still higher then the *istD. If I use > hamricks software I can even get raw files from my scans. I just don't > think the 6.1 megpixel standard is high enough for landscape photography > work. However digital is wonderful for portraits as they are already > softened I would think. > > David > - Original Message - > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > i usually rez up my digital camera images to be > > about the same resolution as my 4000dpi scanner, so that means i end up > with > > digital image files of about 5000 pixels along the longest dimension no > > matter what my source. > > >
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
- Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > My, how converts do preach (grin). Just be glad I haven't converted to Christianity. William Robb
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
- Original Message - From: "tom" Subject: RE: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > Ok, lets say someone comes in and dumps their G5 onto your hard drive. > He shot large jpgs, lowest compression. > > Are his prints going to look much different than if he had shot 35mm? My experience so far is yes, with a caveate. The digital original will look sharper, smoother, and have more tonal range than the film based image, if both are printed on our digital printer. If the digital file is printed on the digital machine, and the film is printed on the optical machine, then they will still look different, but in this situation, one is not necessarily "better" than the other. The digital and film will have about the same level of "grain", presuming 4x6 prints and slower than 400 speed negative film. The digital print will probably be a bit sharper looking, but the film original will likely have better tonal range. This does presume certian things, such as equivalent quality lenses used for both cameras. Right now, scanning is what is killing film images. Scanned film doesn't look as good as a digital original, plain and simple. William Robb
RE: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
With my son's A70, saved as Fine (only does JPG - there is a Super Fine) with default settings (which add sharpening and a bit of saturation and contrast, I think). 5x7's, to a Epson 1200, look as good as a shot from a P&S camera in terms of resolution/"sharpness". A dump to PS and a print out with no adjustment yields better color than I see from just about any consumer film place. For normal people, those that don't view photographs with a microscope, the only difference between the G5 and 35mm is that the G5 will look better up to 8x10. BR From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ok, lets say someone comes in and dumps their G5 onto your hard drive. He shot large jpgs, lowest compression. Are his prints going to look much different than if he had shot 35mm?
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
Graywolf wrote: >My, how converts do preach (grin). But which is the convert? Hehehehehehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, graywolf wrote: > This brings up an interesting comparisons that applies to serious > photographers who make their own prints. > > Digital: The more expensive the camera or scanner the better > results you get (by a large factor). The more expensive the > software you use the better the results you get. I agree for the most part on the hardware, but I don't agree on the software. Full Photoshop is expensive, but plenty of people are getting great results without using Photoshop. I personally do all of my work with Picture Window (about $50) and we've seen that many list members are using IrfanView. > Film: The more expensive the lenses you use the better the results > you get (nowhere near as large a factor as in digital). One thing that I'm finding with the *ist D is that lens speed isn't as important to me as it once was. I used to shoot with an MX and hated using lenses slower than f2.8 because they were painful to use in low light and the screen was dim with them too. The *ist D screen is still bright with f4 lenses (I don't have anything slower right now) and ISO 800 on it gives me pretty good results too. That is 3 stops faster than the ISO 100 slide film that I used to shoot with. > Both: The more knowledge and practice you have the better your > results. Yup. And folks with knowledge but less expensive equipment almost always take better photographs than those with the expensive equipment and no knowledge. > > Conclusion: Initial dollar outlay is far higher to get great > results with digital. Time factors for good prints are similar and > prices about the same. So film cost is the only real disadvantage > to the older technology, but film is the reason a $200 camera can > make the same quality image as a $2000 one. Digital is also a very valuable learning tool because digital cameras are very good meters (as long as they have the histogram feature). You can very quickly evaluate metering using the histogram and learn the situation where your camera's pre-exposure meter isn't so accurate. On the other hand the *ist D's meter is more accurate then anything I've used before, so I don't find myself compensating very much. If you are paying a lab for processing then the processing costs of film can quickly add up too. Figure that a month long trip might result in shooting 20 36 exposure rolls of film. You pay $5/roll for the film and another $7/roll for proof shots from a decent minilab. That is about $250 in processing. If you take a lot of photographs a year of shooting can get you a D-SLR. alex
RE: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
> -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - Original Message - > From: "tom" > Subject: RE: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > > > > > Theoretically, you can use a dlsr just like film camera - > shoot jpg's, > > upload the card at CVS or Walmart, let them do the work. > > > > Robb - do you have any idea how many of your customers do this? > > Most of them. > We are also seeing a hell of a lot of problems because > people either aren't > using their cameras correctly, or because their cameras are junk. > Files too small, or too compressed is very common. Ok, lets say someone comes in and dumps their G5 onto your hard drive. He shot large jpgs, lowest compression. Are his prints going to look much different than if he had shot 35mm? Most of us are going to fiddle with our files, because we're geeks. But to answer Marnie's question, just how different are a set of untouched digital files going to look from a set of 35mm in print? tv
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
My, how converts do preach (grin). -- William Robb wrote: The thing is, Marnie, at the moment, digital solves more problems than it creates. You want full control over yer photography? Shoot film, and go play in the dark. Wanna do colour? Lets not limit ourselves here. Devote a hundred and fifty square feet of your home to it, and go spend some money filling it with noisey equipment and smelly fluids. Some are even carcinogenic, and they come packaged with really cool chemicals that will take it into your body right through your skin. Sure, you can scan film, which gives you some control, but is a bastard solution at best, neither getting the best out of film, nor out of digitization. This ain't a Pentax issue, this is photography. Or whats left of it once the computers are done with it. William Robb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update Back in the old days, we had to drudge around in dank, dark rooms, inhaling rotten foul chemical fumes and bruising ourselves on things that go bump in the night. Having to make a few mouse clicks to an image file, and then complaining about how hard it is doesn't carry very well with me. William Robb I keep raising issues re DSLRs that some people may not like, but I feel they are issues that need to be raised. Or answered -- especially if I am seeking more knowledge. I have done a lot of work post processing to print the approx. 10 pics I have printed thus far (scanned from slides -- well, 10 pics framed and on the wall, forget how many rejected trials -- and don't know how many hours and hours, days). So don't get huffy. :-) I am also ignorant here, admitted it. But I wanted to know if one had to post process EVERYTHING, which would be extremely, extremely tedious. Bill said not, which was good to hear. And I am glad to hear there are batch processing methods, although I don't have PhotoShop, just Elements. Sorry, I am not going to turn into a mindless Pentax praiser. I am examining and being critical or semi-critical of all DSLRs. This is a new technology that may have a way to go yet until MOST of us are happy with it. And we have the right to critically examine new technology. And to hanker for more. And think about what we'd like to see develop. We are part of the process. A very important part. So, this "I used to walk ten miles to school through the snow" stuff doesn't carry very well with me either, sir. Marnie aka Doe You get huffy, so can I. ;-) -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
This brings up an interesting comparisons that applies to serious photographers who make their own prints. Digital: The more expensive the camera or scanner the better results you get (by a large factor). The more expensive the software you use the better the results you get. Film: The more expensive the lenses you use the better the results you get (nowhere near as large a factor as in digital). Both: The more knowledge and practice you have the better your results. Conclusion: Initial dollar outlay is far higher to get great results with digital. Time factors for good prints are similar and prices about the same. So film cost is the only real disadvantage to the older technology, but film is the reason a $200 camera can make the same quality image as a $2000 one. Note: the time to a viewable image is much quicker for digital, but the time to finished print is about the same. -- Herb Chong wrote: i don't take my images intending to process all of them. i want to leave open as many options as possible and so i shoot in RAW mode. the storage cost and write time are nothing compared to the cost of going back and trying to get the shot again under exactly the same lighting conditions. i seldom shoot action, so there isn't the possible missed moment of that kind. RAW gives a 12-bit/channel image and a 16-bit/channel file. every manipulation costs some slight posterization and running in 16-bit mode gives me all the chances possible to postpone the time when the posterization becomes visible. top that off with the fact that the Pentax *istD firmware is apparently able to put about 1 stop more headroom into an image in RAW mode than JPEG mode and there is no question that i will shoot in RAW mode. every stop additional dynamic range/latitude is gold. the *istD RAW images are also sharper than the JPEG images before manipulation. about 80% of my images just sit there and never get looked at again. 20% goes through basic cropping, sharpening, and color correction/adjustment. these are the ones that i will at least consider for my stock collection. this process is automated enough that i click once, decided if i like the results, choose from 1 of 4 or 5 presets if i don't like what came up to see if the image previews better, and either apply or cancel. usually, about half of them get placed into the stock pile. about 1/3 to 1/2 of the ones that get there get printed. that means about 3-5% of the images i shoot get printed. usually, my first set of adjustments are the only ones i ever make aside from cropping for a specific paper size's aspect ratio. it takes about 3-4 times a long to go through this process with a scan from slide as it does for a digital camera image. most of the time used to be spent scanning, but now because i run FocusFixer on a lot of my images, it takes most of the time. i usually rez up my digital camera images to be about the same resolution as my 4000dpi scanner, so that means i end up with digital image files of about 5000 pixels along the longest dimension no matter what my source. i have two expensive Photoshop color adjustment plugins that i like, trust, and can predict their effects. they make near perfect color adjustment usually an under 30 second task even with these large images. the rest of my system is color managed well enough that once i see what i like on the screen, i know what i am going to get on the printer and that it will be good enough not to need any work to print very well. putting the time in up front makes all this run smoothly. some of it is spending some money up front too. color adjustment with only the tools in Photoshop is much more time consuming. AutoColor and AutoLevels really aren't able to cope with anything complicated. doing it the hard way makes you appreciate how hard it is and also makes you learn what to do when even the really good automatic tools fail. i haven't had many failures with the tools i use though, and i have learned a few tricks since then to make those situations much easier to deal with. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:46 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update I have done a lot of work post processing to print the approx. 10 pics I have printed thus far (scanned from slides -- well, 10 pics framed and on the wall, forget how many rejected trials -- and don't know how many hours and hours, days). So don't get huffy. :-) I am also ignorant here, admitted it. But I wanted to know if one had to post process EVERYTHING, which would be extremely, extremely tedious. Bill said not, which was good to hear. And I am glad to hear there are batch processing methods, although I don't have PhotoShop, just Elements. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Dave Miers wrote: > Herb > > How do you get a 5000 pixel image on one side from the *istD? You have software interpolate data between pixels to make a larger file. Photoshop can do this, and there are dedicated programs (Genuine Fractals, etc) that supposedly do it better. This happens all the time in photojournalism because the current Nikon D1 series are 2.77 megapixel and that isn't enough for big pictures. The software really does a pretty good job in my experience. Why would you do this? Well, if you need 250 pixels/inch and you are making a 16x20 print then you either create enough data to get that resolution or you get pixelation in your print. Needless to say a digital original with 5000 pixels of REAL DATA on a side would be preferable, but there isn't such a thing in 35mm right now (Kodak N14 is 4500x3000). DJE
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
creates. You want full control over yer photography? Shoot film, and go play in the dark. Wanna do colour? Lets not limit ourselves here. Devote a hundred and fifty square feet of your home to it, and go spend some money filling it with noisey equipment and smelly fluids. Some are even carcinogenic, and they come packaged with really cool chemicals that will take it into your body right through your skin. Sure, you can scan film, which gives you some control, but is a bastard solution at best, neither getting the best out of film, nor out of digitization. This ain't a Pentax issue, this is photography. Or whats left of it once the computers are done with it. >William Robb Well, yeah, sure. And I've been a stronger supporter of digital for longer than you. But I also think some of us are entitled to want it to be better before dropping big bucks. I also believe in getting second/third generation. But I am not saying that it stinks now. :-) Home printing really does save a great deal of bother. At least one can get it the way one wants. And not having to scan, would mean no dust I presume. Which is a big headache. But post processing *could* become more of a burden than a boon. Really, William, us butting heads on this particular issue is amusing. Actually. Marnie aka Doe Hehehe. (Something bounced. Think it was this message, if not, and it appears twice, sorry.)
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
it takes about 3-4 times a long to go through this process with a scan from slide as it does for a digital camera image. most of the time used to be spent scanning, but now because i run FocusFixer on a lot of my images, it takes most of the time. i usually rez up my digital camera images to be about the same resolution as my 4000dpi scanner, so that means i end up with digital image files of about 5000 pixels along the longest dimension no matter what my source. i have two expensive Photoshop color adjustment plugins that i like, trust, and can predict their effects. they make near perfect color adjustment usually an under 30 second task even with these large images. the rest of my system is color managed well enough that once i see what i like on the screen, i know what i am going to get on the printer and that it will be good enough not to need any work to print very well. putting the time in up front makes all this run smoothly. some of it is spending some money up front too. color adjustment with only the tools in Photoshop is much more time consuming. AutoColor and AutoLevels really aren't able to cope with anything complicated. doing it the hard way makes you appreciate how hard it is and also makes you learn what to do when even the really good automatic tools fail. i haven't had many failures with the tools i use though, and i have learned a few tricks since then to make those situations much easier to deal with. >Herb Interesting. Thx. Also nice to know digital is, in a sense, faster than scanning. Marnie aka that Doe person
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
Herb How do you get a 5000 pixel image on one side from the *istD? According to the review in Dpreview the max resolution of the 6.1megpixel sensor is 3008 x 2008 which seems about right since my 4 megpixel P&S puts out a 2400 x 1600 pixel image. I can believe you can get to the 5000 pixel mark with 4000 dpi scanner as my Minolta Scan Dual III at 2820 dpi gives me a 3808 x 2576 image on max resolution which is still higher then the *istD. If I use hamricks software I can even get raw files from my scans. I just don't think the 6.1 megpixel standard is high enough for landscape photography work. However digital is wonderful for portraits as they are already softened I would think. David - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> i usually rez up my digital camera images to be > about the same resolution as my 4000dpi scanner, so that means i end up with > digital image files of about 5000 pixels along the longest dimension no > matter what my source.
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
The thing is, Marnie, at the moment, digital solves more problems than it creates. You want full control over yer photography? Shoot film, and go play in the dark. Wanna do colour? Lets not limit ourselves here. Devote a hundred and fifty square feet of your home to it, and go spend some money filling it with noisey equipment and smelly fluids. Some are even carcinogenic, and they come packaged with really cool chemicals that will take it into your body right through your skin. Sure, you can scan film, which gives you some control, but is a bastard solution at best, neither getting the best out of film, nor out of digitization. This ain't a Pentax issue, this is photography. Or whats left of it once the computers are done with it. William Robb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > >Back in the old days, we had to drudge around in dank, dark rooms, inhaling > rotten foul chemical fumes and bruising ourselves on things that go bump in > the night. > Having to make a few mouse clicks to an image file, and then complaining > about how hard it is doesn't carry very well with me. > > >William Robb > > I keep raising issues re DSLRs that some people may not like, but I feel they > are issues that need to be raised. Or answered -- especially if I am seeking > more knowledge. > > I have done a lot of work post processing to print the approx. 10 pics I have > printed thus far (scanned from slides -- well, 10 pics framed and on the > wall, forget how many rejected trials -- and don't know how many hours and hours, > days). > > So don't get huffy. :-) I am also ignorant here, admitted it. But I wanted to > know if one had to post process EVERYTHING, which would be extremely, > extremely tedious. Bill said not, which was good to hear. And I am glad to hear there > are batch processing methods, although I don't have PhotoShop, just Elements. > > Sorry, I am not going to turn into a mindless Pentax praiser. > > I am examining and being critical or semi-critical of all DSLRs. This is a > new technology that may have a way to go yet until MOST of us are happy with it. > And we have the right to critically examine new technology. And to hanker for > more. And think about what we'd like to see develop. We are part of the > process. A very important part. > > So, this "I used to walk ten miles to school through the snow" stuff doesn't > carry very well with me either, sir. > > Marnie aka Doe You get huffy, so can I. ;-) > > >
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
i don't take my images intending to process all of them. i want to leave open as many options as possible and so i shoot in RAW mode. the storage cost and write time are nothing compared to the cost of going back and trying to get the shot again under exactly the same lighting conditions. i seldom shoot action, so there isn't the possible missed moment of that kind. RAW gives a 12-bit/channel image and a 16-bit/channel file. every manipulation costs some slight posterization and running in 16-bit mode gives me all the chances possible to postpone the time when the posterization becomes visible. top that off with the fact that the Pentax *istD firmware is apparently able to put about 1 stop more headroom into an image in RAW mode than JPEG mode and there is no question that i will shoot in RAW mode. every stop additional dynamic range/latitude is gold. the *istD RAW images are also sharper than the JPEG images before manipulation. about 80% of my images just sit there and never get looked at again. 20% goes through basic cropping, sharpening, and color correction/adjustment. these are the ones that i will at least consider for my stock collection. this process is automated enough that i click once, decided if i like the results, choose from 1 of 4 or 5 presets if i don't like what came up to see if the image previews better, and either apply or cancel. usually, about half of them get placed into the stock pile. about 1/3 to 1/2 of the ones that get there get printed. that means about 3-5% of the images i shoot get printed. usually, my first set of adjustments are the only ones i ever make aside from cropping for a specific paper size's aspect ratio. it takes about 3-4 times a long to go through this process with a scan from slide as it does for a digital camera image. most of the time used to be spent scanning, but now because i run FocusFixer on a lot of my images, it takes most of the time. i usually rez up my digital camera images to be about the same resolution as my 4000dpi scanner, so that means i end up with digital image files of about 5000 pixels along the longest dimension no matter what my source. i have two expensive Photoshop color adjustment plugins that i like, trust, and can predict their effects. they make near perfect color adjustment usually an under 30 second task even with these large images. the rest of my system is color managed well enough that once i see what i like on the screen, i know what i am going to get on the printer and that it will be good enough not to need any work to print very well. putting the time in up front makes all this run smoothly. some of it is spending some money up front too. color adjustment with only the tools in Photoshop is much more time consuming. AutoColor and AutoLevels really aren't able to cope with anything complicated. doing it the hard way makes you appreciate how hard it is and also makes you learn what to do when even the really good automatic tools fail. i haven't had many failures with the tools i use though, and i have learned a few tricks since then to make those situations much easier to deal with. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:46 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > I have done a lot of work post processing to print the approx. 10 pics I have > printed thus far (scanned from slides -- well, 10 pics framed and on the > wall, forget how many rejected trials -- and don't know how many hours and hours, > days). > > So don't get huffy. :-) I am also ignorant here, admitted it. But I wanted to > know if one had to post process EVERYTHING, which would be extremely, > extremely tedious. Bill said not, which was good to hear. And I am glad to hear there > are batch processing methods, although I don't have PhotoShop, just Elements.
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On 6 Nov 2003 at 21:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So don't get huffy. :-) I am also ignorant here, admitted it. But I wanted to > know if one had to post process EVERYTHING, which would be extremely, extremely > tedious. Bill said not, which was good to hear. And I am glad to hear there are > batch processing methods, although I don't have PhotoShop, just Elements. Post process what you like but in all likelihood to make the best of any image requires a degree of manual post processing that would be extremely difficult to emulate under an automated system. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
>Back in the old days, we had to drudge around in dank, dark rooms, inhaling rotten foul chemical fumes and bruising ourselves on things that go bump in the night. Having to make a few mouse clicks to an image file, and then complaining about how hard it is doesn't carry very well with me. >William Robb I keep raising issues re DSLRs that some people may not like, but I feel they are issues that need to be raised. Or answered -- especially if I am seeking more knowledge. I have done a lot of work post processing to print the approx. 10 pics I have printed thus far (scanned from slides -- well, 10 pics framed and on the wall, forget how many rejected trials -- and don't know how many hours and hours, days). So don't get huffy. :-) I am also ignorant here, admitted it. But I wanted to know if one had to post process EVERYTHING, which would be extremely, extremely tedious. Bill said not, which was good to hear. And I am glad to hear there are batch processing methods, although I don't have PhotoShop, just Elements. Sorry, I am not going to turn into a mindless Pentax praiser. I am examining and being critical or semi-critical of all DSLRs. This is a new technology that may have a way to go yet until MOST of us are happy with it. And we have the right to critically examine new technology. And to hanker for more. And think about what we'd like to see develop. We are part of the process. A very important part. So, this "I used to walk ten miles to school through the snow" stuff doesn't carry very well with me either, sir. Marnie aka Doe You get huffy, so can I. ;-)
RE: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
> -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > A lot of these issues are resolved by people who use their > noggins for > something other than stuffing food into the biggest hole on it. Sometimes I use mine to hamg a hat on, but that's about it. Theoretically, you can use a dlsr just like film camera - shoot jpg's, upload the card at CVS or Walmart, let them do the work. Robb - do you have any idea how many of your customers do this? tv
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
> But I hope that something evolves so people don't have to post process every > image. Otherwise, well, might as well take all digital images to a lab -- or > spend hours and hours doing it one's self, which sort of negates some of the > gain of a DSLR. As I said elsewhere, in Photo-J we used to "post process" every image after scanning--unsharp, auto levels, etc. On the other hand, this can be automated with software if you don't want a tailored-to-the picture solution. We've got PS7 set up at work so it's two or three clicks to done for a good image (optional rotate, auto toning in curves, action that sizes and does other things for newspaper use) because I'm handling 100 images a week. Doing your own post-processing also means you are making "custom" prints every time, which is not cheaply done by a lab because you are paying for THEIR time. It's just like doing your own darkroom work, really, and many of us don't trust anyone else to do that for us. DJE
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > > But I hope that something evolves so people don't have to post process every > image. Otherwise, well, might as well take all digital images to a lab -- or > spend hours and hours doing it one's self, which sort of negates some of the > gain of a DSLR. > > At least for me. A lot of these issues are resolved by people who use their noggins for something other than stuffing food into the biggest hole on it. Both of my digital cameras have built in controls for sharpening, contrast and saturation. By using these three controls, I can get a picture that goes from flat and soft to too sharp and punchy. Do a little experimenting, find where you like these three controls set, and forget about them. Photoshop also has a little known feature called "actions". Using this particular feature, you can automate pretty much anything you do on a repetitive basis, and then batch process entire directories of image files while watching Seinfeld reruns. Back in the old days, we had to drudge around in dank, dark rooms, inhaling rotten foul chemical fumes and bruising ourselves on things that go bump in the night. Having to make a few mouse clicks to an image file, and then complaining about how hard it is doesn't carry very well with me. William Robb
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
- Original Message - From: "Butch Black" Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > > This begs a second question however. Why do people expect to do photography > these days and with no effort on their part and get professional results It's because people demand to be allowed to be stupid and lazy, but still operate on the pretext that they are doing something. The more successful products cater to this slothful indolence. William Robb
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
>This is easy to try, just download a full size *ist D file from somewhere (they are all over the net by now) and print one and see what you think. >alex Good idea! Marnie aka Doe
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
The problem with in-camera sharpening, Marie, is that for best quality you need to use different sharpening depending upon the final size of the image. Now on low-end cameras the designers can pretty much set that for 4x6 prints. But where should they set it on high-end cameras where the user may want 4x6 prints, or 8x12 prints, or 24x36 inch prints? And of course that same user probably will want all those sizes at different times. Pentax's solution is to use minimal in camera sharpening and let the user sharpen more if needed. That is to my way of thinking a pretty good idea. Some of the after-market sharpening plug-ins for Photo Shop like Nic Sharpener give you a pretty good effect by you just selecting the final print size. Careful custom sharpening is even better, but takes a certain amount of expertise. One size fits all is not even a remote possibility. Now think of this as you try to evaluate the sharpness of a lens from a test off of someones website. He set the sharpening for a image on a 15 inch monitor and you are looking at it on a 21 inch monitor, or vis versa (Diabolical grin). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do all *ist D users have access to NASA labs? That's fine! Dario You know I've been reading reviews of the 10D (and the *istD). Well, mainly studying the reviews at dpreview more. I hadn't really looked in depth yet. And complaints about the 10D images are the same. Too soft. Have to sharpen. I guess I am coming late into this, since I haven't been paying THAT much attention. (Since my DSLR purchase date is still off in the future.) So, sort of ignorant here. (Well, actually that's fairly common for me re photography, no matter the arena. :-)) But I don't want to have to do a lot of post processing. I.E. Have to sharpen every image I shoot. Some I'd just like, bang, shoot, open in Elements and print. I often do that now from scanning slides. I mean, sometimes I sharpen or edit, but not always. I don't know what the solution is, frankly. Maybe better sensors. Maybe better software. Don't know. But I hope that something evolves so people don't have to post process every image. Otherwise, well, might as well take all digital images to a lab -- or spend hours and hours doing it one's self, which sort of negates some of the gain of a DSLR. At least for me. Marnie aka Doe Awaiting developments/evolution. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
>With the camera set a +1 sharpness, I've been quite pleased without further sharpening. I import via PIM, crop to whatever size I'm printing, and print on an Epson 925 using the custom option of "no color adjustment". Prints come out very good with colors exactly the way the camera recorded them. >Bill That's very good to know thanks! (Got same printer, in fact.) Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Do all *ist D users have access to NASA labs? That's fine! > > > Dario > > You know I've been reading reviews of the 10D (and the *istD). > Well, mainly studying the reviews at dpreview more. I hadn't really > looked in depth yet. And complaints about the 10D images are the > same. Too soft. Have to sharpen. > > I guess I am coming late into this, since I haven't been paying THAT > much attention. (Since my DSLR purchase date is still off in the > future.) So, sort of ignorant here. (Well, actually that's fairly > common for me re photography, no matter the arena. :-)) > > But I don't want to have to do a lot of post processing. > > I.E. Have to sharpen every image I shoot. Some I'd just like, > bang, shoot, open in Elements and print. I often do that now from > scanning slides. I mean, sometimes I sharpen or edit, but not > always. I bet you would be happy doing the same thing with the *ist D. Scanned slides usually can benefit from a little sharpening too. This is easy to try, just download a full size *ist D file from somewhere (they are all over the net by now) and print one and see what you think. I think that people are more critical of CCD sharpness than film sharpness just because it is so trivial to look at a digital picture at 1:1 ratio. Many people never looked at their slides or negatives through a loupe, and even if they did it isn't as easy to see the grain as it would be digitally. alex
RE: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
You have a choice then: Buy a Foveon DSLR or set sharpening to +1 in camera. Another way would be to use IRFanView, set up a batch processing configuration which does whatever resizing you want for your 'thoughtless' printing and applies a standard USM at the same time. Then you would have absolutely zero processing to do in photoshop. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 November 2003 17:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > > > >Do all *ist D users have access to NASA labs? That's fine! > > >Dario > > You know I've been reading reviews of the 10D (and the > *istD). Well, mainly > studying the reviews at dpreview more. I hadn't really looked > in depth yet. And > complaints about the 10D images are the same. Too soft. Have > to sharpen. > > I guess I am coming late into this, since I haven't been > paying THAT much > attention. (Since my DSLR purchase date is still off in the > future.) So, sort of > ignorant here. (Well, actually that's fairly common for me re > photography, no > matter the arena. :-)) > > But I don't want to have to do a lot of post processing. > > I.E. Have to sharpen every image I shoot. Some I'd just like, > bang, shoot, > open in Elements and print. I often do that now from scanning > slides. I mean, > sometimes I sharpen or edit, but not always. > > I don't know what the solution is, frankly. Maybe better > sensors. Maybe > better software. Don't know. > > But I hope that something evolves so people don't have to > post process every > image. Otherwise, well, might as well take all digital images > to a lab -- or > spend hours and hours doing it one's self, which sort of > negates some of the > gain of a DSLR. > > At least for me. > > Marnie aka Doe Awaiting developments/evolution. > >
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
With the camera set a +1 sharpness, I've been quite pleased without further sharpening. I import via PIM, crop to whatever size I'm printing, and print on an Epson 925 using the custom option of "no color adjustment". Prints come out very good with colors exactly the way the camera recorded them. Bill - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > >Do all *ist D users have access to NASA labs? That's fine! > > >Dario > > You know I've been reading reviews of the 10D (and the *istD). Well, mainly > studying the reviews at dpreview more. I hadn't really looked in depth yet. And > complaints about the 10D images are the same. Too soft. Have to sharpen. > > I guess I am coming late into this, since I haven't been paying THAT much > attention. (Since my DSLR purchase date is still off in the future.) So, sort of > ignorant here. (Well, actually that's fairly common for me re photography, no > matter the arena. :-)) > > But I don't want to have to do a lot of post processing. > > I.E. Have to sharpen every image I shoot. Some I'd just like, bang, shoot, > open in Elements and print. I often do that now from scanning slides. I mean, > sometimes I sharpen or edit, but not always. > > I don't know what the solution is, frankly. Maybe better sensors. Maybe > better software. Don't know. > > But I hope that something evolves so people don't have to post process every > image. Otherwise, well, might as well take all digital images to a lab -- or > spend hours and hours doing it one's self, which sort of negates some of the > gain of a DSLR. > > At least for me. > > Marnie aka Doe Awaiting developments/evolution. > >
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
--Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >But I don't want to have to do a lot of post processing. > >I.E. Have to sharpen every image I shoot. Some I'd just like, bang, shoot, >open in Elements and print. I often do that now from scanning slides. I mean, >sometimes I sharpen or edit, but not always. > It is pretty easy, just set the sharpening level on +1 and you get sharper images right out of the camera. regards Rüdiger
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
So you were on topic after all. Thanks. Dario - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > and NASA software is public domain. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 4:26 AM > Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > > > > Do all *ist D users have access to NASA labs? Great! Is it enough to jump > > there and show the *ist D to get free access everywhere? > > > > (I mean: please don't split hairs on any given word. Try to get the > meaning > > and possibly keep on topic a bit.) > >
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On 5 Nov 2003 at 16:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > They are still not great compared to 50mm lenses. > Nikon's aren't either, nor are Canon's likely to be. It's just not as > easy to make a good 20mm as it is to make a good 50mm, and certainly not > easy to to it small and inexpensive (nikon's first 20mm took 72mm > filters!). Even the most modern, expensive ultrawides do not perform as > well in terms of distortion and corner sharpness as lenses in the 35-85mm > range. Well it's to be expected, compare the number of elements and the complexity of the optical faces in the 50/1.4 and 15/3.5 designs. One is near symmetrical the other is extremely asymmetrical and has many more optical elements. The brand of manufacture has little to do with it. > I've always wondered when I read one of those reviews that > says "great at all apertures" or "great lens" whether the reviewer means > that the performance is great in an absolute sense or simply relative to > other similar lenses. Relative, MTF diagrams which are an absolute measure of basic performance will bear this out. > Why does it affect the ultrawides more? It certainly seems to, since the > Nikkor 20-35 and Canon 17-35 have lousy reputations with respect to > chromatic aberration and such. I suspect that it has a lot to do with the angle that the light rays exit the lens. The more acute they exit then the more displaced the colour offsets due to chromatic aberrations will be and hence the less likely the rays will hit the appropriate cluster of pixels. The error will be worse the further from the central axis of the lens. > It does suggest that unless the Foveon technology succeeds in the market > and the Bayer grid disappears the lens-makers are going to have to try > to correct better for chromatic aberration in future lens designs. It would definitely be very educational to see the difference in aberrations produced by one lens design on both Foveon and Bayer sensor equipped bodies. > That 1/6th in each corner however is precisely where the ultrawides tend > to struggle, especially the aforementioned 20/4.5. The extreme edges and > corners of my 18/3.5 Nikkor show some really nasty distortion and lack of > 3-dimensionality that don't show in DSLR images. If you inspect the MTF of most wide lenses you'll find that the deterioration is progressive, it doesn't just get bad in the corners, the only general remark that would be true is that they are most sharp in the centre. > The corner performance of lenses is often tested presumably as a sort of > "worst case scenario" for the lens. Depending on how you shoot there may > not be anything important in those corners anyway. MTF tests show resolution/contrast vs radial distance from the lens centre, much more informative. What it all comes down to however is knowing what the lens is capable of and using it to it's full potential. If the resolution hoovers in the corners then buy a better lens or move up format. Their 'aint much choice at the moment :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 5 Nov 2003 at 9:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Unfortunately most of the primes on this list are older optical designs, > > primarily because pentax hasn't made a lot of new ultrawides I assume. > > The 15/3.5 design apparently isn't great (nor is the equivalent Nikkor), > > the 20/4.5 is generally held to be not the best. > > Virtually all of the Pentax wide primes performed as well as if not better than > their competition of the day from other manufacturers. That is probably true. They are still not great compared to 50mm lenses. Nikon's aren't either, nor are Canon's likely to be. It's just not as easy to make a good 20mm as it is to make a good 50mm, and certainly not easy to to it small and inexpensive (nikon's first 20mm took 72mm filters!). Even the most modern, expensive ultrawides do not perform as well in terms of distortion and corner sharpness as lenses in the 35-85mm range. I'd love to find a 20mm screwmount lens that is faster than the 20/4.5 Takumar and performs at least as well, but I don't really expect that anyone made a better one back then. The Fujinon EBC and Zeiss Jena Flektogon are faster, but also damn near impossible to find. This was my point, in a way. I suspect that a critical examination might find that these ultrawides, indeed most ultrawides, don't perform well on FILM either. I've always wondered when I read one of those reviews that says "great at all apertures" or "great lens" whether the reviewer means that the performance is great in an absolute sense or simply relative to other similar lenses. > > I'm curious what is WRONG with the images delivered by these lenses on the > > *istD, especially compared to the images delivered by the same lenses on film? > > Sharpness and contrast? (The *istD is known to "undersharpen" its images > > electronically, and the sensor in it does appear to be less sharp by nature than > > the Canon and possibly the Fuji sensors). Distortion? > > Mix the existing subtle chromic aberrations with Bayer colour sensor matrix and > lenslets and you end up with exaggeration of the error, as we've seen in many > of the sample images presented thus far. Why does it affect the ultrawides more? It certainly seems to, since the Nikkor 20-35 and Canon 17-35 have lousy reputations with respect to chromatic aberration and such. The Nikkor 17-35 is apparently much better, presumably because Nikon saw what happened when the chromatic aberration hit the sensor of the D1. Presumably the newer Canon 16-35 is better too. The other question is whether the Pentax ultrawides would produce better results on the Fuji S2, or the Nikkor lenses on the *istD. Unfortunately, it is very hard to test this. How 'bout Sigma or somebody like that? They make the same lens in both mounts. Tamron makes a couple of ultrawides that you could presumably try the same lens on BOTH cameras with the right adaptall mount. Even if the lenses are mediocre it would show if the camera is to blame. It does suggest that unless the Foveon technology succeeds in the market and the Bayer grid disappears the lens-makers are going to have to try to correct better for chromatic aberration in future lens designs. > > I'd actually > > expect Pentax lenses to perform better on a digital camera than most > > because Pentax seems to optimize for center sharpness at the cost of > > corner sharpness and digital of course doesn't use the corners. > > Well a diagonal of AOV 28.4mm across the sensor for the *ist D can hardly be > deemed as "doesn't use the corners" (of the lenses projected image). The sensor > covers almost 66% of the diagonal compared to a standard 35mm film frame. That 1/6th in each corner however is precisely where the ultrawides tend to struggle, especially the aforementioned 20/4.5. The extreme edges and corners of my 18/3.5 Nikkor show some really nasty distortion and lack of 3-dimensionality that don't show in DSLR images. The corner performance of lenses is often tested presumably as a sort of "worst case scenario" for the lens. Depending on how you shoot there may not be anything important in those corners anyway. DJE
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
After shooting a lot of pictures with short focal length lenses on the *ist D today, I partially changed my mind, so I can correct myself here below. DJE wrote: > > 15/3.5 A > > 20/4.5 SMC Takumar > > 20/2.8 Zeiss Jena Flektogon > > 24/2.8 A > > 24/2 FA* > > 18-35 FAJ > > 24-90 FA > > 28-70/4 FA > > Unfortunately most of the primes on this list are older optical designs, > primarily because pentax hasn't made a lot of new ultrawides I assume. > The 15/3.5 design apparently isn't great (nor is the equivalent Nikkor), The 15/3.5 is great for angle coverage (interesting perspective) and excellent distortion correction (better than its competitors). Sharpness it's not its strongest point, even on film. > the 20/4.5 is generally held to be not the best. See: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p7e.htm > Kinda surprised that > the 24s don't perform better, but I've never tested a 24 (Pentax or Nikon) > that performs as well as longer lenses. Yes, they perform better then shorter ones. See: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p8e.htm > Don't know anything about the > Flektogon, other than that I'd like to have one if I could find one. On film, I like the Flektogon very much. On the *ist D it shows some problems. However, I'm not sure focus was perfect. > The zooms don't surprise me as mediocre performers at wide angles, as > zooms are always compromises and making a good one is more expensive than > pentax normally markets. (This is not to say that Pentax zooms are bad, > just that they aren't as good as the $1750 zooms from C and N) All this makes sense. However, I'm surprised that Pentax glass should have so much problems on a DLSR, while most C/N lenses seem to comply rather good with their respective DLSR's (even mid-price zooms). > I'm curious what is WRONG with the images delivered by these lenses on the > *istD, especially compared to the images delivered by the same lenses on > film? Sharpness and contrast? Actual resolution and sharpness. > (The *istD is known to "undersharpen" its > images electronically, I don't think this can be enough for explaining the difference. Add any sharpening in Photoshop and you still don't get resolution you've lost. > and the sensor in it does appear to be less sharp > by nature than the Canon and possibly the Fuji sensors). At long last, you told that! This cannot be overcome by any postprocessing means. > Distortion? > It's a real pity that you can't mount the same lenses on some other > digital and compare results to know if all the wides are bad or the camera > is bad. I agree that a final word when comparing digital cameras could only be told by using the same lens. However, I couldn't do that at time of my comparison test, so I assumed that a good performer (but not the best around) like the Sigma 15-30mm used on the S2 won't be so much better than any comparable lens used on the *ist D. Is there any good reason for thinking that any Pentax lens used on a DSLR body, including primes in the same focal length range, should be worse than an average Sigma zoom lens? > I have not found ultra-wides to be great performers on film, in any brand > and at any price range, when compared to standard lenses. I'd actually > expect Pentax lenses to perform better on a digital camera than most > because Pentax seems to optimize for center sharpness at the cost of > corner sharpness and digital of course doesn't use the corners. > > How does the *istD perform with a lens of known outstanding quality? > If it is fine there then the problem is the lenses, although I think > you'll find that nobody's ultra-wide glass is great. See my pages: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p7e.htm http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p8e.htm http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p9e.htm http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p10e.htm Is there any lens of outstanding quality among them? Can we assume that a lens of outstanding quality will be so on a digital camera? I've been told that the Nikkor 20mm is an excellent lens on film, and a mediocre lens on DLSR. I'm not sure if it's true, but could be. The problem is not just a bad lens on a digital camera, but a possible whole range of bad lenses on a (damn, partially!) compatible camera. Could this be the case with the *ist D? The Sigma 15-30 (or any other good performer on a competitor camera) will tell. Is there any owner of such a lens out there? Dario
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On 5 Nov 2003 at 9:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Unfortunately most of the primes on this list are older optical designs, > primarily because pentax hasn't made a lot of new ultrawides I assume. > The 15/3.5 design apparently isn't great (nor is the equivalent Nikkor), > the 20/4.5 is generally held to be not the best. Virtually all of the Pentax wide primes performed as well as if not better than their competition of the day from other manufacturers. > I'm curious what is WRONG with the images delivered by these lenses on the > *istD, especially compared to the images delivered by the same lenses on film? > Sharpness and contrast? (The *istD is known to "undersharpen" its images > electronically, and the sensor in it does appear to be less sharp by nature than > the Canon and possibly the Fuji sensors). Distortion? Mix the existing subtle chromic aberrations with Bayer colour sensor matrix and lenslets and you end up with exaggeration of the error, as we've seen in many of the sample images presented thus far. > I'd actually > expect Pentax lenses to perform better on a digital camera than most > because Pentax seems to optimize for center sharpness at the cost of > corner sharpness and digital of course doesn't use the corners. Well a diagonal of AOV 28.4mm across the sensor for the *ist D can hardly be deemed as "doesn't use the corners" (of the lenses projected image). The sensor covers almost 66% of the diagonal compared to a standard 35mm film frame. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
> I'm still convinced that the image quality delivered by the *ist D is not up > to my expectations, and that's a major issue, as the "electronic film" (aka > sensor) cannot be changed/improved over the time, as it happens with film > cameras. > So far, despite trying several lenses on the *ist D, none in the shorth > focal length field gives acceptable image quality (to my standard, of > course), and none shows great difference. > I've tried: > 15/3.5 A > 20/4.5 SMC Takumar > 20/2.8 Zeiss Jena Flektogon > 24/2.8 A > 24/2 FA* > 18-35 FAJ > 24-90 FA > 28-70/4 FA Unfortunately most of the primes on this list are older optical designs, primarily because pentax hasn't made a lot of new ultrawides I assume. The 15/3.5 design apparently isn't great (nor is the equivalent Nikkor), the 20/4.5 is generally held to be not the best. Kinda surprised that the 24s don't perform better, but I've never tested a 24 (Pentax or Nikon) that performs as well as longer lenses. Don't know anything about the Flektogon, other than that I'd like to have one if I could find one. The zooms don't surprise me as mediocre performers at wide angles, as zooms are always compromises and making a good one is more expensive than pentax normally markets. (This is not to say that Pentax zooms are bad, just that they aren't as good as the $1750 zooms from C and N) I'm curious what is WRONG with the images delivered by these lenses on the *istD, especially compared to the images delivered by the same lenses on film? Sharpness and contrast? (The *istD is known to "undersharpen" its images electronically, and the sensor in it does appear to be less sharp by nature than the Canon and possibly the Fuji sensors). Distortion? It's a real pity that you can't mount the same lenses on some other digital and compare results to know if all the wides are bad or the camera is bad. I have not found ultra-wides to be great performers on film, in any brand and at any price range, when compared to standard lenses. I'd actually expect Pentax lenses to perform better on a digital camera than most because Pentax seems to optimize for center sharpness at the cost of corner sharpness and digital of course doesn't use the corners. How does the *istD perform with a lens of known outstanding quality? If it is fine there then the problem is the lenses, although I think you'll find that nobody's ultra-wide glass is great. DJE
Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: > Hi all, > > I believe I've finished adding more and more pictures to my *ist D test, > including some (I believe) interesting comparison among lenses. Those shots > partially contradict some of my previous thoughts, where I was rather > convinced that you could find little difference among different lenses and > the bottleneck of image quality is the camera. Digital camera merchants would LOVE to have you believe that. With zoom lenses most people don't seem to be spending a lot of money on a system so the manufacturers have to get you to buy new cameras. With early digital cameras it might have been true because the quality and resolution was poor enough that it dragged all results down to the point where lens quality didn't matter. It is still the case that the upper limit of technical quality in a DSLR is dictated by the sensor (just as it is by film in a film camera) but the quality of digital is good enough now that lens performance differences certainly do show. Apparently as the individual elements in the sensors get smaller and closer together there is a real danger of exceeding the lines/mm resolution that the lenses can provide at some point in the future. > Trying more and more lenses, I could find some performing much better than > other ones. It is also interesting to notice that among the best ones, you > can find som old glories (both screw mount and M-series) Actually,the screw mounts work almost as well on the *istD as they do on any K-mount camera. What I'd rather see than a "non-crippled-mount" DSLR (pentax OR nikon) is a "Pentax Classic" re-issue line of some of their older, better optics. Fender guitars were at one point basically required to come out with a "classic re-issue" series because guitarists were buying the old ones used rather than buying the newer designs. My photo instructor once pointed out that a camera is a "box that lets in light" and not much more. The lens has the most effect on the technical image quality (assuming that the camera or photographer is technically competant) and the photographer of course controls the artistic quality of the picture. Now I've always paid for the "convenience" factors of a better camera (durability, exposure and focus accuracy, motor drive) but I've also always gotten the best lenses I could. I've always had to snicker at folks who buy a top-of-the-line camera and then put some cheesy third party zoom lens on it. Granted, for some people the "conveniences" of a good camera outweigh the performance of a good lens. For 3x5 prints, the quality difference probably doesn't show anyway. Of course it is perfectly possible to take great photos with mediocre gear, and vice versa. Most of us, however, are bothered when our great photo is compromised technically by an underperforming piece of glass. DJE
