Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: Duck shots!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    grossly oversharpened, no contrast, noisy. thanks for making my point about the lens so visible. the rest of your post ? blah blah blah blah blah. a bunch of noise almost equal to your sensor. lol
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Well, I'm pretty new to this digital lark and I'm always willing to learn.
    I see what you mean so I redid it in light room and left the sharpening at default. The change to JPEG seems to accentuate it.

    As far as the lack of contrast etc, given the low light I think it's fair enough.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Peekayoh; 03-18-2009 at 05:56 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    peek, this wasnt a PP competition. this discussion was about OUTRIGHT lens performance, no PP. just sheer lens capability and grunt. that photo illustrates that the lens was exactly what i said it was...not particualrly good in context of what else is out there. you;re suggesting that the 20 year old minolta performs as well as something like the zeiss top end gear, (as the reviewer DOES try to suggst). well i gotta tell ya mate, smething has to give. either:

    1. the zeiss lens' are ordinary aswell
    2. you are wrong

    and i can assure you that having seen the results of the zeiss 24-70/2.8, its not option #1.

    wide open, fully extended in anything less that perfect conditions and the lens is exactly what i would expect from a lens at that cost of that vintage. ordinary. if ordinary is "great" in your book, then its a steal, be happy. to me ordinary isnt great..ordinary is...well...ordinary.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    You're right, it wasn't a PP competion or my lack of expertise in that direction.
    Neither did it start as a discussion about outright lens performance.
    It was all about your dismissal of all Elisha's kit .... "cos nothing in your sig is particularly good" and your claim that "BF is far more likely to be a lens issue".

    Would anybody get better results by replacing their Minolta 28-135mm with a Zeiss T24-70 f/2.8 Za, a Planar® T* 85mm or a Sonnar® T* 135mm f/1.8. Of course they would, but at what cost? In the real world that's not going to be a choice for most people on the upgrade path.

    If you are prepared to "trash" somebody's kit, you need to be specific on the why, compared to what and at what cost. I stand by my claim that the Mino 28-135mm is an excellent piece of glass especially for an 8x zoom. I doubt I'm alone.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Neither did it start as a discussion about outright lens performance.It was all about your dismissal of all Elisha's kit .... "cos nothing in your sig is particularly good"
    you are backtracking in your arguments again. the more you get proven wrogn and called out the more you regress and backtrack cos you're too stuborn to admit you are incorrect.

    your claim that "BF is far more likely to be a lens issue".
    its not a claim, its a common sense. explain this to me and try and use some form of logic. if otehr lens' are spot on as elisha has advised and one lens is NOT spot on, (BF), then HOW on earth can it be the cameras AF system ? if it was the cameras AF system then ALL of the lens' would be BF. so...you;re wrong. PERIOD.

    Would anybody get better results by replacing their Minolta 28-135mm with a Zeiss T24-70 f/2.8 Za, a Planar® T* 85mm or a Sonnar® T* 135mm f/1.8. Of course they would, but at what cost? In the real world that's not going to be a choice for most people on the upgrade path.
    yet more regression when you;re called out and backed into a corner. many people get annoyed that i'm continuing this discussion but i do it becasue i KNOW you are wrong and i'm not gonna just let it go.

    this is what you said about the minolta 28-135.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    In fact the 28-135mm is probably "G" quality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post

    I'd like it if you went here > http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=...id=9&Itemid=43 < and read the article paying particular attention to what the tester says about the 28-135mm. This was a test of all the six classical professional zooms from the Sony / Minolta system (3.5/17-35mm G, 2.8/24-70mm Zeiss, 2.8/28-70mm G, 4-4.5/28-135mm, 2.8/80-200mm APO, and 2.8/70-200mm SSM on a Sony A900 over a ten day period. I can point you to other reviews of the lens which draw similarly good opinions.
    so first of all you;re saying its G lens quality and is comparable to the top end and NOW you;re saying that you can expect better results from the top end glass. well which one is it ? i can tell you which one it is. its a BUDGET lens that performs in a BUDGET fashion which people should expect when they pay so LITTLE for it.

    the fastest, if not cheapest, way to get higher quality shots is better glass.

    If you are prepared to "trash" somebody's kit, you need to be specific on the why, compared to what and at what cost. I stand by my claim that the Mino 28-135mm is an excellent piece of glass especially for an 8x zoom. I doubt I'm alone.
    i'm not trashing anything. i just called it for what it is. it is NOT an excellent piece of glass at all. its a good budget lens and probably excellent value. end of story. stop talking out of your behind. if this lens is excellent then whats a 24-70G ? excellent plus ?

    here is what i said which is what tripped you off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    1. they arent the best at aquiring focus
    2. fully extended they are weak performers.
    this is 100% true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    we now talk about the performance of a 20 year old lens that sells used for around the $300 mark and you;re trying to tell me that this lens is on par with top quality glass.
    100% true.

    am i saying all old lens' are bad ? no. am i saying none of them are worth having ? no. am i saying that the difference in performance is needed by everyone ? no. am i saying that the ONLY way to get great photos is by using top end glass ? no. these are all straw men arguements you put forward. all i'm saying is that if you want top quality shots and get the most out of them, then put top quality glass in front of it. otherwise, be happy you didnt spend alot of money but dont complain and wonder why they arent turnign out as sharp or as good as you hoped.
    100% true again Rooz.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    "Sharpening" is a requirement of the digital process due to inadequacies of the sensor, it has absolutely nothing to do with any difference between "older" and "newer" glass, !
    this is complete and utter bullshit. who says its a "requirement" ? you ? why cos you have to do it on YOUR photos ? you wanna have a guess why that is ? cos you;re using ordinary glass and you're probably not getting the most out of your sensor. i dont HAVE to apply sharpening to my shots..and having been using the canon system with the 24-70L, 70-200/4L and 17-40/4 L recently, i can tell you that i didnt need to apply sharpening to them either.

    all this came about cos you have it in your head that i was bashing the sony/minolta product but you are too narrow minded and pig headed to to see it for what it was. i was just pointing out that to get great quality results, use great quality glass. otherwise, expect to sacrifice some image quality for the sake of saving the extra dollars to buy better glass.

    if someone posted a simialr thread in the nikon forum and was using a 24-85 nikkor from 1985 then i';d have responded the EXACT same way. "get better glass if you want better results"
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    chill guys.

    Rooz, the 28-135 is a super sharp lens or was on the a300. i would crop 100% and the text on the image would be very sharp.
    i seriously think it is the camera.
    all my lenses were spot on on the a300 and output was sharp. the a700 is not as sharp with similar setting. the raw files were sharper on the a300 too.
    i'll have to go to the shop and test with another body i think.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr®
    FLUIDR

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    I wasn't aware of "backtracking", I'm still saying what I said before.
    I think the 28-135mm is of "G" quality and remarkable for an 5x Zoom.
    I've never owned any Zeiss glass but, by all accounts, it's in a different league even to "G" glass.

    I say focussing issues are more likely to be the AF system and Camera because of the inaccuracies present in the system. You often hear the complaint that "some of my pictures are not sharp. I think my lens is back focussing" or similar. If a lens is out of kilter, it's permanent and should go back home to be put right.

    I'll repeat what I said about sharpening
    "Sharpening" is a requirement of the digital process due to inadequacies of the sensor, it has absolutely nothing to do with any difference between "older" and "newer" glass!
    It is not, as you claim "complete and utter bullshit".
    It's a technical fact that edges which cross pixels on the sensor are not accurately recorded as crisp edges. The second technical fact is that demosaicing and Beyer interpolation causes a loss of accutance along colour edges. These are facts, not opinions.
    If you shoot in JPEG mode the camera does the sharpening for you (you can adjust it on camera).
    If you shoot RAW then the program you use sets the sharpening (also adjustable).

    I've only owned a digial SLR since November, I'm still learning how to use it and I don't pretend to fully comprehend all the facets of sharpening an image, however I do know it's an imperative, regardless of the camera. Your images are being sharpened even if you don't know it.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    92
    Sharpening is always a big issue. I have used noise ninja and it is an amazing tool. It is very easy however to really over sharpen using it. No matter what I am using to sharpen now, I go to Lab Color and then go to channels and go to lightness to remove all color from the photo. Then I will do some sharpening, return the color to evaluate and move on from there. That way I am sharpening the subject not the color.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    I say focussing issues are more likely to be the AF system and Camera because of the inaccuracies present in the system. You often hear the complaint that "some of my pictures are not sharp. I think my lens is back focussing" or similar. If a lens is out of kilter, it's permanent and should go back home to be put right.
    if it was the BODY...how can 1 lens be out and all the rest spot on ? it doesnt make any sense.

    I'll repeat what I said about sharpening
    "Sharpening" is a requirement of the digital process due to inadequacies of the sensor, it has absolutely nothing to do with any difference between "older" and "newer" glass!
    It is not, as you claim "complete and utter bullshit".
    It's a technical fact that edges which cross pixels on the sensor are not accurately recorded as crisp edges. The second technical fact is that demosaicing and Beyer interpolation causes a loss of accutance along colour edges. These are facts, not opinions.
    If you shoot in JPEG mode the camera does the sharpening for you (you can adjust it on camera).
    If you shoot RAW then the program you use sets the sharpening (also adjustable).

    I've only owned a digial SLR since November, I'm still learning how to use it and I don't pretend to fully comprehend all the facets of sharpening an image, however I do know it's an imperative, regardless of the camera. Your images are being sharpened even if you don't know it.
    and again, the BODY and the processing in the sensor is a constant so its an irrelevant factor in this discussion cos the same processing would apply to ANY lens you mount. if you put the minolta lens on and then another much higher quality lens on, using the EXACT same in body settings then the minolta will be left for dead.

    why are you making this so difficult ? this is just such a no brainer its absurd.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    and again, the BODY and the processing in the sensor is a constant so its an irrelevant factor in this discussion cos the same processing would apply to ANY lens you mount. if you put the minolta lens on and then another much higher quality lens on, using the EXACT same in body settings then the minolta will be left for dead.
    Totally amazing.

    It was you who brought up the "sharpening" thing......
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    if peoples expectations of older, cheap glass is that they will perform really well unsharpened then they need a reality check.
    with that statement. When I point out that any glass, new or old, absolutely has to be sharpened out of the sensor, you respond with
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    this is complete and utter bullshit. who says its a "requirement" ? you ? why cos you have to do it on YOUR photos ? you wanna have a guess why that is ? cos you;re using ordinary glass and you're probably not getting the most out of your sensor. i dont HAVE to apply sharpening to my shots..and having been using the canon system with the 24-70L, 70-200/4L and 17-40/4 L recently, i can tell you that i didnt need to apply sharpening to them either.
    You are clearly under the impression that your shots are fine without sharpening. When I point out that the camera did the sharpening for you and give you sound technical reasons why all Digital images, including yours, absolutely have to be sharpened, your response is
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    if you put the minolta lens on and then another much higher quality lens on, using the EXACT same in body settings then the minolta will be left for dead.
    This answer is meaningless to all intents and purposes.
    It is self evident that a "higher quality" lens is better by definition, in just the same way as a "lower quality" lens would be worse. ??
    You totally ignore the discussions that went before and make yet another statement which fails to advance your argument and and in any case has no bearing on the current point under discussion, which was sharpening.

    BTW processing in the sensor is pretty limited and directed at collecting data. Predefined algorythms at processor level do the main work and these are not "constant" as you put it. They make different decisions as the exposure changes and with whatever variables the technicians chose to build into them. Manufacturers have developed their own algorythms to handle things like sharpening, luminance etc. and they are not the same. Because those pre-programmed decisions are not necessarily right, photographers grumbled, lobbied for and got the choice of RAW files out of the sensor.

    I'm reaching the conclusion that having a discussion with you is like trying to nail a water droplet to the wall and just as pointless.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •