Assuming this started as a 24x36mm full frame 35mm image the "remarkable
detail" you're referring to has an actual resolution of about 12.5 line
pairs/mm. A $10 disposable camera can probably resolve much more detail
than this. The 85/2 is probably capable of something closer to 50-60
line pairs/mm or more. My only point is, regardless of how nice the
image looks on screen, this particular image is a very far piece from
demonstrating the *resolution* capability of this lens. The original
image should show far more detail than does this downsized version. If
it didn't we'd all be wasting our money by buying DSLR's with more than
0.5 MP sensors.
Chuck Norcutt
ScottGee1 wrote:
> Hmmm . . . an interesting question that prompts others.
>
> I've always had issues with judging the absolute quality of a
> lens/sensor from a Web sized file. I mean, we're not seeing
> everything the file has to offer are we?
>
> That said, this image has remarkable detail in the bottom corners,
> especially on the right side and especially if it was shot "through
> plastic/glass". Can we assume an uncompressed version of the file
> will be even better? How about one without obstructions?
>
> ScottGee1
>
>
> On 1/19/07, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> C'mon , Paul. Nice shot but how are we supposed to evaluate
>> "resolution" given a 0.5 MP image?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> Paul Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a full frame digital example shot from the Coit Tower (through
>>> plastic/glass). Just look at the resolution, even in the extreme corners:
>>>
>>> http://www.imaginenature.com/sf_coit3.jpg
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
