This is by no means a definitive test, but it does demonstrate how well the DA 16-45 records detail. It's shot at f8, 1/45th with electronic flash in a reflector. There might be a tiny bit of ghosting from the relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588&size=lg
Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens can deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform at 10 megapixels remains to be seen. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553&size=lg Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I'll do some controlled detail pics when I have a chance. I would like > to see something definitive on this. > Paul > On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> There are at least two or three others on the list that feel as I do - >> that >> the lens is over rated. >> >> Shel >> >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Paul Stenquist >> >>> Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail >>> extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 >>> and >>> 11. >>> Paul >>> On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >>> >>>> I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over >>>> rated, >>>> especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, >>>> some >>>> landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine >>>> details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using >>>> it, >>>> i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used >>>> it >>>> wide >>>> open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant >>>> objects. >>>> >>>> Shel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> [Original Message] >>>>> From: Paul Stenquist >>>> >>>>> I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a >>>>> longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always >>>>> accurate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
