Great Modern Lens Article!

[jcs]

Guys- if there is a real effect, it can be measured and clearly A/B demonstrated. Folks argued endlessly that the full frame look was real. After I did the A/B tests with backing math folks stopped arguing. Not one person presented a single counter example (this applies to medium and large format too). Folks argue that it's easier and cheaper (FF) to get shallow DOF with larger sensors, however everyone agrees with that point.

Caldwell designed the SpeedBooster...

No one is disputing that old/different lenses look different. Only that the article is pseudoscience...

[richg101]

5 hours ago, jcs said:

Folks argued endlessly that the full frame look was real. After I did the A/B tests with backing math folks stopped arguing.

 

Your test was stacked in favour of the smaller sensor and disregarded how available lenses for each format limit the ability for a smaller format to truly replicate the dof rolloff and overall image quality of a larger format when dof and fov are of utmost importance to a photographer. If there were indeed 25mm f1.0 lenses for aps-c to replicate a 35mm/1.4 lens on full frame the argument would be viable.  but there is no such lens.   I'm coming from a photographic point of view, where 42mpx sensors are available.  No APS-C sensor and lens combination will go anywhere near what a full frame sensor and a 35mm/1.4 sigma will deliver (for refined in focus areas, separation of in focus from out of focus areas, and field of view).  

 

I'm certain that the difference lies within what dictates hyperfocal distance of formats and focal lengths.  input 'equivalent' lenses into a hyperfocal distance calculator and the equivalent lenses have different hyperfocal distances.  This is directly responsible for the difference in dof rolloff between bigger and smaller sensors.   

[Nikkor]

I find it amusing that label themselfs as professionals (I guess if you get paid you can call yourself pro) don't see the difference. If you read articles about 65mm film on ASC you will hear real professionals talking about the differences and qualities.

Ever since I found the actual proof, I just lean back and laugh.

[richg101]

2 minutes ago, araucaria said:

I find it amusing that label themselfs as professionals (I guess if you get paid you can call yourself pro) don't see the difference. If you read articles about 65mm film on ASC you will hear real professionals talking about the differences and qualities.

Ever since I found the actual proof, I just lean back and laugh.

exactly.  if you could get the same look with an aps-c sensor no one would be investing mortgage worthy sums of money on medium format digital backs.  the Alexa65 would not have been developed. etc.

I've taken pictures with the aptus 10-ii (36mmx56mm sensor) and a 80mm/2.8 and I know the look would be impossible to replicate perfectly with smaller formats.  someone point me in the direction of a 35mm/1.4 for use on aps-c that will match the refinement of image that the 80mm/2.8 on medium format delivers and I'll give them a blowjob, AND SWALLOW!  

 

[richg101]

Please ignore exposure - the shutter speed on the medium format is limited to no faster than 1/500th and it was very bright, but pay special attention to the transition between the hair and the background, the refinement of detail on the hair, the amount of defocus blur, and the detail on the hairs on the back of his ear.  aps-c vs full frame is close, but the difference is there.  stepping up to a bigger format shows clearly the difference despite being 'equivalents' on paper.  this was from around 1.5m away.  the further away the subject, the more pronounced the difference will become.

 

 

[mercer]

Even the way the resolution of his wrinkles from aps-c to full frame to medium format is telling. 

Very interesting. 

I'm sure I'll get blasted for using non-quantifiable words, but the image is heavier or weightier the larger the format.

Pretty cool. 

[Brian Caldwell]

7 hours ago, richg101 said:

I have just read the article once again.  And only wish he'd written it a little more concisely.  We don't need mtf charts within a debate of this kind.  it's not about science.  It's about preference.  I prefer lenses designed and made before the digital era since they have been used to capture what I consider the best material.  i see most of what has been produced in the digital age to be far inferior to what was produced before.

One thing i do know is that if you take a picture of someone with a helios 44 or any 6 element 50mm prime from before the 1990's, then the same picture with the sigma art 50/1.4, the person will prefer the image taken with the older lens.  A Sigma Art lens is like the hobbit being filmed/delivered in 48fps.  Both defy a convention that's been built over decades.  24fps look like cinema.  older lenses render an image closer to the look of the proper hollywood days.

 

          

 

I certainly wouldn't argue that old lenses might not be preferable in certain circumstances.  After all, there are a number of cine rental houses that make tons of money from large inventories of vintage glass.  However, the author of the article in question should at least do careful comparisons to make his points, because it seems to me that lighting is the dominant effect that he's demonstrating, not lens differences.  And his attempts to appear scientific by making those ternary charts is just a complete joke.  I'm shocked that so many people on his blog and elsewhere just accept them as having some sort of meaning without questioning.

1 hour ago, richg101 said:

 

If there were indeed 25mm f1.0 lenses for aps-c to replicate a 35mm/1.4 lens on full frame the argument would be viable.  but there is no such lens.  

Any 35/1.4 FF SLR lens plus a 0.71x Speed Booster will give a 25/1.0 for aps-c.