Hi! > I did the math with 220 dpi, because the max size my usual photo lab can > give is 60cm wide by whatever you want long... And in this particular > case it makes approx. 220 dpi.
:-) > As it is inkjet, with probably 5000+ dpi dot pitch and error diffusion > patterns, there is no real need to stick to the machine's hardware > resolution, like with digital minilabs based on DLP technology. I don't > seriously intend to print anything this size anyway! Oh, I see. I give my photos (very rarely I do so) for large prints to some kind of professional photo lab... They have their own guidelines which I have to follow. Sometimes they even ask to prepare the picture with 400 dpi... But, thankfully, they do a good job of printing. > Regarding your "panorama and frame game", actually/ /I did the opposite. > I shot the lighthouse alone first (earlier PESO visible here: > http://www.lacouture.nom.fr/gallery/v/PESO/2006-02-27-Cassis---23.jpg.html > or http://tinyurl.com/ffvpq) then wondered whether there would be a good > pano around it. > > I prefer the lighthouse alone, too. Good... So I did not offend you in anyway with my comment about the lighthouse ;-). > Your game idea is good, though. I keep it for my Photo Club sessions. > Nice exercise to train the newbies (and others!) eyes... I guess I should do the same really. > Regarding this Sigma lens, I've been very positively surprised with the > images it produces since I bought it a few months ago, especially for > the price (a bit below 300 EUR). As I post-process most images I shoot, > its major flaws are not a big issue for me (huge distorsion at 18mm, > vignetting at 18mm wide open, a bit of chromatic aberration - but not so > much compared with many lenses), and the sharpness is not ridiculous > given the 18-125mm range. Since I bought it, it only leaves by body to > be replaced by the SMC A 50 f/1.7. Fascinating. I had 28-135 (probably roughly similar to 18-125 back in non-digital era) which was reasonable. Yet I don't have it any more... In fact, I've grown to prefer exclusively prime lenses. > BTW, I left the UV filter on when shooting this pano. This must have > slightly decreased the image quality regarding sunlight. It depends on quality of the UV filter. Two out of my three limited lenses have Pentax SMC UV filter attached at all times. I did not notice any visible image deterioration. Yet I prefer to wipe the dust off the filter and not of the front element of rather expensive (to me at least) optic. > For those interested, I posted a "test" of my lenses at > http://www.lacouture.nom.fr/LensTest/. This 18-125mm stands surprising > well (of course, my 28-70 f/4 is broken and should not be taken into > account). > > These "tests" are not professional tests at all, and *do not* represent > only the intrinsic characteristics of these lenses. They just reasonably > represent what I can achieve with my gear by being a bit careful (tripod > + AF + mirror lock-up). I for one like this kind of tests. They feel "real" to me to that extent that you were testing for those properties that you were using in your day by day shooting. "Throwing lenses against brick walls" is much more theoretical... I so much miss my 28-70/4... It is one of the best zoom lenses I ever used. -- Boris
