PDA

View Full Version : Lens cap 15mm v 14-42 2R


Pistnbroke
14th June 2018, 08:08 AM
Tested both at 15mm f8 and f 4.5 . Nothing in it both just as furry.
Fine for general holiday pics if you don't need to crop.

Now all have a nice day

AMc
14th June 2018, 08:28 AM
Surprising result - any chance you could load some examples?

Pistnbroke
14th June 2018, 08:48 AM
will have a go. Three images 15mmcap 15mm on 14-42 at f8 and f 4.5.
I then tried the super sharp Samyang 14mm about the same ...so I put it down to the sensor . results very similar to using a 16MP D7000

Zuiko
14th June 2018, 09:29 AM
Fury or furry? I guess furry.

Thanks for posting some practical examples to back up your findings, it's most appreciated. You're right, there doesn't appear to be much in it - although you'd really need 100% crops to be conclusive. If results are similar to a D7000 I'd say that was pretty good!

There, you see? It appears we can have a sensible discussion and I thank you for that. *chr

Pistnbroke
14th June 2018, 09:42 AM
I always have a sensible discussion . Its just when people butt in who have not read the post and have no experience of the lens "contribute" I sold the D7000 many years ago, good for its time but compared to the modern cameras it was junk. ( 16 MP with low pass filter does not cut it in 2018)

Zuiko
14th June 2018, 09:49 AM
I always have a sensible discussion . Its just when people butt in who have not read the post and have no experience of the lens "contribute" I sold the D7000 many years ago, good for its time but compared to the modern cameras it was junk. ( 16 MP with low pass filter does not cut it in 2018)

In your opinion, what is the minimum number of pixels required to cut it in 2018?

crimbo
14th June 2018, 11:06 AM
I would happily live with 10MP as they would love low light...

pdk42
14th June 2018, 11:25 AM
I always have a sensible discussion . Its just when people butt in who have not read the post and have no experience of the lens "contribute" I sold the D7000 many years ago, good for its time but compared to the modern cameras it was junk. ( 16 MP with low pass filter does not cut it in 2018)

I looked on Flickr and there are 174 million images there taken with the D7000 - it's the second most popular Nikon model in terms of total images and the fourth in terms of current posting frequency. The gallery of images taken with it has lots of super imagery. Far from junk IMHO.

https://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d7000/

Ricoh
14th June 2018, 11:38 AM
Fury or furry? I guess furry.

Thanks for posting some practical examples to back up your findings, it's most appreciated. You're right, there doesn't appear to be much in it - although you'd really need 100% crops to be conclusive. If results are similar to a D7000 I'd say that was pretty good!

There, you see? It appears we can have a sensible discussion and I thank you for that. *chr
Someone mention Fury? Here he is:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1741/42075052304_348f57eeda_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2772Dbh)Billy Fury Head-On by -Steve Ricoh- (https://flic.kr/p/2772Dbh)

Ricoh
14th June 2018, 11:39 AM
But, then again:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1745/42075237644_dde2dc2f86_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2773AgN)Billy Fury in Profile by -Steve Ricoh- (https://flic.kr/p/2773AgN)

pdk42
14th June 2018, 11:40 AM
I would happily live with 10MP as they would love low light...

There's good evidence to show that fewer pixels is not necessarily better for low light. For instance, the Sony A7sii (12Mp) is no better than the A7rii (42Mp) when looking at the overall noise on images at the same magnification. The noise per pixel will be lower in the A7s, but the A7r's pixels will be downsized to generate an image of the same size which reduces the SNR overall.

pdk42
14th June 2018, 11:41 AM
Fury or furry? I guess furry.

Thanks for posting some practical examples to back up your findings, it's most appreciated. You're right, there doesn't appear to be much in it - although you'd really need 100% crops to be conclusive. If results are similar to a D7000 I'd say that was pretty good!

There, you see? It appears we can have a sensible discussion and I thank you for that. *chr

At that magnification in that light and with a "SOOC" jpeg, I'm sure a picture taken with my 4 year old Samsung Android phone would look the same.

Ricoh
14th June 2018, 11:46 AM
Mega Pixels, what Mega Pixels, just Pound land Agfa Vista. Hasty la Vista, baby!

AMc
14th June 2018, 12:09 PM
will have a go. Three images 15mmcap 15mm on 14-42 at f8 and f 4.5.
I then tried the super sharp Samyang 14mm about the same ...so I put it down to the sensor . results very similar to using a 16MP D7000


Interesting though it's tough to see much detail in those reduced images.
I picked up the 9mm bodycap a couple of months ago. It can do some great things but there is quite a lot of purple fringing which is obviously less apparent if you shrink down to 800x600 ;)


It can produce some great images in good conditions.


https://farm1.staticflickr.com/910/27999623098_3869612478_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/JEeoso)
Kinkaku-ji Buddhist Temple - Fisheye (https://flic.kr/p/JEeoso) by AMcUK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/amcuk/), on Flickr


A few more here...
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmhpgcS6


For a walkabout I would still choose the 17mm f2.8 or the 14-42mm EZ pancake but it's interesting that the 15mm body cap is capable *chr

Zuiko
14th June 2018, 02:34 PM
I looked on Flickr and there are 174 million images there taken with the D7000 - it's the second most popular Nikon model in terms of total images and the fourth in terms of current posting frequency. The gallery of images taken with it has lots of super imagery. Far from junk IMHO.

https://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d7000/

Any camera can produce junk if in the wrong hands. :)

Zuiko
14th June 2018, 02:56 PM
Personally, I think a 16mp sensor on M43 is the optimum size because it is capable of making 16 x 12 prints at 288 ppi and that is enough for me. Cramming many more pixels on the sensor will only increase the possibility of diffraction limitation at larger apertures.

pdk42
14th June 2018, 03:06 PM
Personally, I think a 16mp sensor on M43 is the optimum size because it is capable of making 16 x 12 prints at 288 ppi and that is enough for me. Cramming many more pixels on the sensor will only increase the possibility of diffraction limitation at larger apertures.

John - there is no correlation between pixel density and diffraction effects so long as you're talking about an image of the same output size. Diffraction effects will increase the spreading out of a point source (or edge) in geometrical terms. No matter how many pixels you place on that spreadout it's still the same amount of spreadout. Of couse, if you go viewing at 100%, then the image size increases as the MP go up, but then you're looking at a larger magnification.

As to whether 16Mp is optimum or not... as the owner of a 20Mp m43 camera I can definitely say that there is a slight improvement in terms of distinguishing fine detail and also some slight improvement in DR and tonality. These latter two are probably more about the sensor tech than the Mp count though. In overall terms though the improvements are very small and I wouldn't lose sleep if I had to live without them.

Pistnbroke
14th June 2018, 08:17 PM
There you go Zuiko everyone has answered the question you asked me...….
Why do forum members feel they must answer a question directed at me?
Just verbal diarrhoea.
None of it relates to what I would have said but that's this forum …

pdk42
14th June 2018, 08:48 PM
There you go Zuiko everyone has answered the question you asked me...….
Why do forum members feel they must answer a question directed at me?
Just verbal diarrhoea.
None of it relates to what I would have said but that's this forum …

You need to read this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0091906814)

Ricoh
14th June 2018, 09:26 PM
You need to read this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0091906814)
I met someone (from a camera club, so no surprise) who claimed to have taught the concepts - he was one royal pain in the neck. I remember making a mental note 'How am I going to distance myself from this loser?'

Why do photographers prize detail so highly? Personally I find less is more in many areas, and that includes photographs. Pin-hole for example is quite hazy, but generally more engaging because it forces the viewer to ask more questions.
Your mpg will definitely vary.

Zuiko
15th June 2018, 07:55 AM
There you go Zuiko everyone has answered the question you asked me....
Why do forum members feel they must answer a question directed at me?
Just verbal diarrhoea.
None of it relates to what I would have said but that's this forum

Yes, my question was directed at you but we are in a public part of the forum and other members are welcome to comment. Had I wanted your views only I would have sent a private message. You really do seem to have a problem with forum etiquette.

MJ224
15th June 2018, 08:29 AM
Very good point Steve, we hunger for sharpness and detail, but really should be reading the story that the photo tells....

pdk42
15th June 2018, 08:57 AM
Very good point Steve, we hunger for sharpness and detail, but really should be reading the story that the photo tells....

As Cartier-Bresson famously said "sharpness is a bourgeois concept".

pdk42
15th June 2018, 09:18 AM
Lots more Cartier-Bresson quotes here:

https://www.theinspiredeye.net/photography-quotes/henri-cartier-bresson/

Ricoh
15th June 2018, 10:06 AM
Very good point Steve, we hunger for sharpness and detail, but really should be reading the story that the photo tells....
In years to come people looking at your images won't say, 'gosh that looks sharp, he must have had a great sensor'. No, they'll look at your images and say, 'that's great, he captured the moment well, I can see what he was thinking about'.
Images / photos that provide insight are worth so much more than a tack-sharp soul-less image that happened to be in front of the lens when you clicked.

Jim Ford
15th June 2018, 08:45 PM
Capture as much detail as possible - you can always throw as much as you want away in PP. You can't do anything with detail you haven't captured in the first place.

Jim