Why new lenses doesn't have "fidelity" aka they are s***!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, leaving aside the copy / paste ness - I genuinely from a personal perspective, don't see how using photographs of different people at different times from different angles all shot at what looks like a very large aperture in different lighting demonstrates anything about lens fidelity / "line of realism". I also don't see the world with everything out of focus in the background unless I take my glasses off.
 
Last edited:
As an exercise in justifying an opinion I suppose it sort of works if you're predisposed to be convinced.

I have... a few old lenses and they all have at least a slightly different look at wide apertures and some of them certainly have character whilst others when stopped down tend more towards what I'd call a more modern look.

I also have had and still have a few more modern lenses which I suppose could be described as being less characterful and more clinical however I know which I think record the world more accurately and it's the better modern lens every time.

Also, if I want to create a look which I'd be more likely to get from an older lens I suppose if I had the required filters or processing skills I might be able to get that look from a modern lens but I'm pretty sure that it'd be a lot more difficult to do the opposite and create a picture taken with an old lens which is sharp across the frame at wide aperture and largely lacking distortion, CA and other things that would perhaps normally show up in the old lens picture.

I do agree with the idea of buying lenses and indeed other kit that gets you the look you want and as a hobbyist I'm free to do that but others who need to generate an income from photography might run into a client or three who is less happy with a picture that could have been taken, for example, with my Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 in 1975.

Is this similar to saying that we should ignore the Honda Civic (or whatever the latest thing is) and buy a 1975 Ford Escort?

Things move on and I do think that although best is sometimes difficult to define I'd often take it as meaning the best technically and in that case and to introduce another metaphor I'd say that the better new lenses very likely win that fight by a knockout, round one.
 
Last edited:
There is always another want to be guru. If you just ignore them they fade away.
 
What utter b******t is this. A few minutes of my life I wont get back. Some people have too much time on their hands
 
But he does post some lovely pictures of triangles. Must be inspired by the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt. Now hopefully picture of teeth and their structure! NOT. I see he comes from Essex, that may explain everything.


my lenses must be well out then

OoKjcb7.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't think the lenses used have anything to do with the those noses looking big 3D. :D
 
F/1.4 said:
What utter b******t is this. A few minutes of my life I wont get back. Some people have too much time on their hands
Click to expand...

What? you read it all!? :D I knew from the off this was going to wreck my head a bit - just back to see if anyone else figured it out :D
 
I had some friends that came up with some right old rubbish when they had a smoke.

Actually the ice cream van going round at midnight made more sense.
Idea being once the kids were awake they weren't going back to sleep without an ice cream
Plus you could flog the parents drink and weed when they came out to buy the 99's
 
I dont think it's a case of lens not being as good or different. It's a case of different cameras and digital viewing.
For the most part back in film days people printed 10x8 or up to 20x16. Not many (non printers) printed bigger than in the real world. People looked at a 20x16 from three or six foot away. Today we are looking at 60+ inch images from 18 inches away on our huge high-res screens. Of course we see things we didnt before, maybe noticing how soft something is.
Modern cameras are pushing the glass to it's limits.
 
What he is attributing to lens quality, should better be attributed to lighting and viewpoint.
The Bokeh however does depend on the lens design and shape of the aperture. The more circular the better.
While depth of field depends on relative aperture. and is not a "Quality" issue.
Undoubtedly, residual lens aberrations contribute to the character of a lens. but not necessarily for the better.

For most purposes the flatter and more perfect the image is over the entire field, the better.
Specialist soft focus and other lenses have their place.
but in general, specific qualities can always be adjusted after capture, by introducing imperfections.
perfection can rarely be achieved if it is not there to start with.
 
I have to say that's the most interesting thing I've scan read for a while.

That said, I only have a Tesco express receipt with me.
 
DemiLion said:
Has the concept of copyright completely pass you by?
Click to expand...

a simple link would have been fine. posting the article wholesale has just earned them a short forum holiday. I've now removed the offending cut/paste and left a link to the original article in case anyone actually can be arsed to wade through the whole tedious lot.

juggler said:
Post reported for copyright infringement.
Click to expand...

yeah, sorry it's taken me a while to sort this, I didn't fancy trying to edit/delete posts and give points while on my mobile in my 5 minute break from the office...
 
DemiLion said:
Lazy sod!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

yeah, i'd better hand back my moderators salary for the few hours this afternoon... oh, hang on... :)

(seriously though, at the moment I'm working in a "data secure" section of our organisation, and, basically, personal mobiles are switched off and in the team leaders desk safe for the duration, so I actually don't have access to this place through the day, didn't get to take a break through the day as i was covering someone on sick leave, and then by the time I'd have edited things on my phone, sat in the carpark at the end of the shift, i was home and on a proper system anyway...)
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
yeah, i'd better hand back my moderators salary for the few hours this afternoon... oh, hang on... :)

(seriously though, at the moment I'm working in a "data secure" section of our organisation, and, basically, personal mobiles are switched off and in the team leaders desk safe for the duration, so I actually don't have access to this place through the day, didn't get to take a break through the day as i was covering someone on sick leave, and then by the time I'd have edited things on my phone, sat in the carpark at the end of the shift, i was home and on a proper system anyway...)
Click to expand...


Have a 25% raise...
 
3 year old article...
 
TheBigYin said:
yeah, i'd better hand back my moderators salary for the few hours this afternoon... oh, hang on... :)

(seriously though, at the moment I'm working in a "data secure" section of our organisation, and, basically, personal mobiles are switched off and in the team leaders desk safe for the duration, so I actually don't have access to this place through the day, didn't get to take a break through the day as i was covering someone on sick leave, and then by the time I'd have edited things on my phone, sat in the car park at the end of the shift, i was home and on a proper system anyway...)
Click to expand...

I had managers that were next to useless when with BT. Best thing I did was get out and ran my own business. Being able to choose what when and where each day was so much nicer and stress free. Both my sons work for themselves as well
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
I dont think it's a case of lens not being as good or different. It's a case of different cameras and digital viewing.
For the most part back in film days people printed 10x8 or up to 20x16. Not many (non printers) printed bigger than in the real world. People looked at a 20x16 from three or six foot away. Today we are looking at 60+ inch images from 18 inches away on our huge high-res screens. Of course we see things we didnt before, maybe noticing how soft something is.
Modern cameras are pushing the glass to it's limits.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the hyperbole for a moment, (60+", 18" viewing), you do realise that all viewing monitor resolution is basically sh*te? Even a 4k monitor (3840×2160) can only provide the resolution roughly of a 10" x 8" print @ 300dpi, or a 6"x4" @ 600 dpi ? Not saying it doesn't look good, but it's worth remembering your comparison is a little specious. (remembering always that 35mm film can be roughly the equivalent of a 100Megapixel sensor, let's not talk about 6x6....)
 
Last edited:
Ham said:
(remembering always that 35mm film can be roughly the equivalent of a 100Megapixel sensor
Click to expand...
Really? In my experience Pan F doesn't get as far as 10MB and FP4 is closer to 6MB.
 
Ham said:
Ignoring the hyperbole for a moment, (60+", 18" viewing), you do realise that all viewing monitor resolution is basically sh*te? Even a 4k monitor (3840×2160) can only provide the resolution roughly of a 10" x 8" print @ 300dpi, or a 6"x4" @ 600 dpi ? Not saying it doesn't look good, but it's worth remembering your comparison is a little specious. (remembering always that 35mm film can be roughly the equivalent of a 100Megapixel sensor, let's not talk about 6x6....)
Click to expand...
Dont know where you got that from but I used to print big a lot from film and thats nowhere near. Any decent full fame digital will blow 35mm away at 20x16 and I print that size a lot.
I've got a 20x30 shot at 2500 iso thats better than most 20x16 film shots shot at low iso.
I'm guessing you got that from Ken Rockwell?
 
haha you blocked my id for days ?
copyright with link to source and name writer doesn't have issue.
even I use " " marks !!!!!!
 
light is energy, every time pass glass it become weaker, doesn't matter X nano coat on one side of lens and... it lose its character.
those they didn't study there are books about.
basically glass is like a capacitor and damage the wavelength.
less glass more fidelity, every pass of light through, losing more character....
thats why today lenses with +16 element have sharpness but they photo is ironed, it like process food.



fidelity /fɪˈdɛlɪti/
noun
  1. 1. faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support.
    "his fidelity to liberal ideals"
    synonyms:loyalty, allegiance, obedience, constancy, fealty, homage; More



  2. 2.the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.
 
ChrisF15 said:
And what’s wrong with Essex??
Click to expand...
jealousy is poor mistress :d

realspeed said:
But he does post some lovely pictures of triangles. Must be inspired by the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt. Now hopefully picture of teeth and their structure! NOT. I see he comes from Essex, that may explain everything.
Click to expand...

In since when they want to make 3 variable graph in 2D it will be shape triangular :)
http://photographerclubs.com/index.php/portfolio-2/basics/exposure-triangle
 
dentist said:
light is energy, every time pass glass it become weaker, doesn't matter X nano coat on one side of lens and... it lose its character.
those they didn't study there are books about.
basically glass is like a capacitor and damage the wavelength.
less glass more fidelity, every pass of light through, losing more character....
thats why today lenses with +16 element have sharpness but they photo is ironed, it like process food.



fidelity /fɪˈdɛlɪti/
noun
  1. 1. faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support.
    "his fidelity to liberal ideals"
    synonyms:loyalty, allegiance, obedience, constancy, fealty, homage; More



  2. 2.the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.
Click to expand...
The article you posted is utter nonsense. If you want to believe it, then fine - but that just means you'll be ridiculed.

The 'character' of light is oft misunderstood.
Learn about light - not lenses, it'll make you a better photographer and somewhat less gullible.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Really? In my experience Pan F doesn't get as far as 10MB and FP4 is closer to 6MB.
Click to expand...

I remember when the Canon 50D came out, 10mp I think? and I remember a review at Luminous Landscape saying that they were seeing the detail they'd expect from film for the first time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top