Herb, Are you looking at your results on equal size prints with the same field of view (8x10s from the results on film with say a 50mm vs a comparable 35mm on the DSLR?) or are you looking at a pixel for pixel display straight out of the camera and comparing that to ?? for the film camera?
The 16x24mm format of the digital camera should be obtaining the best part of any given lens' performance, but if you are expecting that a pixel for pixel inspection of the resulting image will be sharper straight out of the camera than the performance of the same lens in a 35mm print, I think the comparison is flawed. A good comparison would be to take a picture with the same lens on both film and digital, crop the film image to the same field of view as the digital camera, make a premium 10x print OPTICALLY from the negative and make a premium print to the same size from the digital camera. That provides a common basis for comparison without the notions of scanning the film or whatever acting to improve or degrade the image, and presuming that the digital image is to be post-processed to appear its best the same as the negative->print process should. If you then scan the resulting prints at 1200ppi, you can compare them at very high resolution on screen. BTW, it's really very difficult to compare film->wet lab print vs digital capture->digitally produced print without taking the trouble to do stuff like this. Godfrey --- Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > not sharp enough. the FA 24-90 is one example. shooting > Provia, it isn't > easily distinguishable from any other excellent prime or zoom > like the FA > 50/2.8 Macro or the FA* 80-200/2.8. with Velvia, with good > technique, it > shows a little less sharpness. on the *istD, the 1.5x crop > factor turns a > very good lens into an average one. that's not good enough and > i don't use > the FA 24-90 anymore except when i need a light set of 3 > lenses to cover > from 16 to 320mm. if weight is less of an issue, i would > rather carry the > FA* 28-70/2.8, or perhaps the set of 3 Limiteds and the FA* > 80-200/2.8 and > the FA* 400/5.6. the FA* 24/2, of course, has the chromatic > aberration i > don't like. i got rid of all my Sigma lenses, except the > 12-24, for > sharpness, bokeh, and chromatic aberration reasons. the 12-24 > shows all of > the above effects, but not to the degree of the other Sigmas. > if there were > a Pentax 12mm, whether prime or zoom, i would replace the > Sigma. the DA > 14/2.8 isn't sharp enough for my liking. > > none of these conclusions of mine are based more than seeing > the effect of > the 1.5x crop factor of the sensor. i don't have single > examples to show of > any of these. they are the results of observing my best lenses > on both film > and digital bodies and seeing which of my lenses are the worst > with each. > anything too much worse than my best, i put away, like the > 24-90, waiting > for the occasional roll of film i shoot, or for the day a full > frame digital > from Pentax finally arrives, or i sell. > > the FA 50/2.8 Macro, FA* 80-200/2.8, and the DA 16-45/4 are > my benchmarks. > if i can look at a 100% image from any other lens and can see > a sharpness > difference immediately, then it's not good enough. if i have > to compare > carefully to see a difference, then i keep the lens. wide open > performance > isn't as critical as f8-f11 performance. since i am almost > always on a good > tripod system, vibration movement isn't an issue. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 4:24 PM > Subject: Re: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD > > > > In what way aren't they acceptable? Can you provide an > example? > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
