11-30-2010, 02:06 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291020288' post='4563']
When using a wide to ultra-wide for a landscape scene I don't really care about the center. Frankly the center is always sort of Okayish at least.
[/quote]
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I mentioned this exact reasoning in the write up. It is quite sensible but the point I'm trying to make is that the critical 8.5-15.4mm region shouldn't be ignored... which is what most people do when doing tests and reading them. And haven't we all heard how some people bash artificial lens tests saying they don't mean much in the real world? Maybe they're right after all... most people aren't doing/reading the tests properly.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291045889' post='4570']
Interesting perspective... But I didn't understand the drastic drop after 18mm.[/quote]
Good point... I updated the original article with more visualisation:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/5207301499
![[Image: 5207301499_ed6d40dd74_t.jpg]](http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5207301499_ed6d40dd74_t.jpg)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291045889' post='4570']
Anyway, what I think is: the pixels beyond 18mm are too pixels like their brothers luckily staying in the 8-15mm range. If the corners are not sharp in a landscape shot, I can't just ignore them (as they are stying in the low pixel populated area) and focus my eyes in the midrange... But again, very interesting quantitative approach I must say...[/quote]
Glad you found it interesting, Serkan... yes, all pixels are important. The article is just trying to show how that middle radius segment is important because 50% of the pixels are in there... but most of us don't think about that part when reading MTFs or lens tests. For example, we should watch out for lenses showing this kind of behaviour <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts...loader.htm
GTW
When using a wide to ultra-wide for a landscape scene I don't really care about the center. Frankly the center is always sort of Okayish at least.
[/quote]
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I mentioned this exact reasoning in the write up. It is quite sensible but the point I'm trying to make is that the critical 8.5-15.4mm region shouldn't be ignored... which is what most people do when doing tests and reading them. And haven't we all heard how some people bash artificial lens tests saying they don't mean much in the real world? Maybe they're right after all... most people aren't doing/reading the tests properly.[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291045889' post='4570']
Interesting perspective... But I didn't understand the drastic drop after 18mm.[/quote]
Good point... I updated the original article with more visualisation:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/5207301499
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291045889' post='4570']
Anyway, what I think is: the pixels beyond 18mm are too pixels like their brothers luckily staying in the 8-15mm range. If the corners are not sharp in a landscape shot, I can't just ignore them (as they are stying in the low pixel populated area) and focus my eyes in the midrange... But again, very interesting quantitative approach I must say...[/quote]
Glad you found it interesting, Serkan... yes, all pixels are important. The article is just trying to show how that middle radius segment is important because 50% of the pixels are in there... but most of us don't think about that part when reading MTFs or lens tests. For example, we should watch out for lenses showing this kind of behaviour <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts...loader.htm
GTW