> And I think there is another aspect to the discussion - we don't talk about
> lenses because optical hardware no longer determines the end result - the
> focus (so to speak) has moved to the camera body. Not only do we not talk
> lenses, we (of course) don't talk about film. But we *do* talk about the
> in-camera image processing which influences the end result just as much as
> the choice of Velvia or Kodachrome did.
Not so much of that either. It's been determined that shoot RAW and
let Adobe do all the color research for us. Of course, I think this is
partially bunk, because some sensors literally see colors differently
than others. You CAN adjust in the conversion process to get
everything to match up (usually, but not always--and only to a
pigment-based color chart), but that involves bit-bending. Landscape
photographs taken with Canon cameras (even the latest/greatest) have a
distinct look to them when compared to photographs taken with
CCD-based sensors. Or, maybe, it's the CCD-sensored cameras that have
the distinct look. Whatever... The point is that in-camera processing
only counts if you are interested in in-camera results. In the case of
Fuji and Olympus, that's pretty much good enough for almost
everything. And even if it isn't, by shooting RAW+JPEG, you get a
guide file to work from when doing your Adobe conversion.
> Well, today's glass is pretty good, as a whole, and most of it certainly is
> good enough for 1000 pixel images posted on the web. Back in the day we made
> prints, and prints can tell the tale of a good lens--up to a point. (I know,
> Chuck, I know--lenses out resolve paper, but you know what I mean. <g>)
Shoot, even an E-1 is good enough for that application. But, to this
point, I would suggest that the rules of what makes a good lens have
changed. There is the microcontrast, color aberrations, etc., which
alter how an image looks in the end. Some of these are blatant optical
flaws. Some of the flaws create the illusion of sharpness at the
expense of actual measurable sharpness. The OM Zuikos definitely fell
into this category. Sharper lenses didn't always result in better
looking images. These days, with post-processing, the most important
thing (that seems to be the general consensus--Moose excepted), is to
have as close to a pure image to start with as possible and then build
all the effects in post that mimic the characteristics of the classic
lenses. This is not unlike in audio, having a digital audio processor
that takes the sound from a modern condenser microphone and makes it
sound like a classic tube microphone. Of course, any of us who have
been around the block more than once or twice knows that it's a fake.
Same with effects like LCE (Local Contrast Enhancement). Some lenses
and films are known to create this effect naturally, but for everybody
else, there is a slider for that. Unfortunately, the slider has a
resulting characteristic which gives itself away.
> It also may be that we've talked glass so much that it's not that
> interesting anymore because the glass that really stands out is glass most
> of us peasants can't or won't afford.
Olympus did that to us with the SHG lenses in Four-Thirds. But they
were well on the way with the OM 100/2, 35-80 and a couple other
examples of lenses that most mere mortals couldn't afford--much less
the "Big Whites".
> And then there's software. All the de-convoluting and USMing and chromatic
> correction and special plug-ins and perspective and distortion correction
> and such more than make up for a lot of lens flaws, at least in my humble
> opinion.
Agreed. Along with the evolution in software, is the evolution in the
photographer. Most of us are improving in our understanding on how to
process the files.
> But, alas, I believe it mostly is because these new lenses, particularly the
> micro-lenses, just aren't very sexy. They do the job but they don't show any
> style while they're doing it. Just not much there to talk about.
I think I'm going to kinda-sorta slightly disagree with you to some
extent. (how is that for a definitive statement?) Olympus has been
coming out with some primes which are REALLY sweet.
To draw a parallel in all this, let me talk about OM lenses for a
second: I have the 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2.8 wide-angle lenses as well as
the 35-80. I've also owned and been owned by the 35/shift. But in my
current harem, the 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 have largely been replaced in
active shooting by the 28/2. The 28/2 is an OUTSTANDING lens, but does
lack that Zuikoness that I've grown to love. When the 28/2 is
operating in its sweet spot I don't think there is anything better.
But it is not a forgiving lens. The 35/2.8 and 24/2.8 allow you to be
a bit sloppy and the Zuikoness carries the day for you.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|