Ultimate test of sharpness (Page 4): It's about "GIGO" or "garbage in, garbage out." Lens quality, just like in film, is critical in digital. I was pleasantly surprised, for example...

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

It's about "GIGO" or "garbage in, garbage out." Lens quality, just like in film, is critical in digital. I was pleasantly surprised, for example, when I found my tiny, C-mount 6mm wide angle wipes the floor of my $2000+ high end wide angle zoom in sharpness. The sample image I see here looks unfocused, or at the lens' limit TO focus. This would account for the longer transition between tones. Further, was the lens at its optimum aperture?

Real world tests are much more valuable. How does the sensor and the camera's software handle gradients? This has been a vexing issue, as are high contrast 45 degree lines.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

bobbennett wrote:

This is a simple fix. Call 1-800-getalife :lol:

Your reply is exactly why I don't ask questions anymore on the UHH forum. Somebody will have a problem with it and say "getalife" or something to that affect. Looks to me like you need to getalife and.....leave people alone that wants to, maybe, learn something without.....a bunch of BS.

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

Marionsho wrote:

Your reply is exactly why I don't ask questions anymore on the UHH forum. Somebody will have a problem with it and say "getalife" or something to that affect. Looks to me like you need to getalife and.....leave people alone that wants to, maybe, learn something without.....a bunch of BS.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

jimni2001 wrote:

Some of you people really get your knickers in a k... (show quote)

Speaking strictly for myself, I can learn more about how my camera and lens performs in an hour of making photographs than I could in a whole day of photographing wall charts and pouring over pixel counts. We all have opinions on this subject, and one is as valid as the others.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

RWR wrote:

We all have opinions on this subject, and one is as valid as the others.

Not true though. Opinions vary from totally worthless to very useful.

The usual distinction is how much technical knowledge is behind the opinion. (That can often translate fairly directly to just how much pixel peeping has a person actually done!)

Uneducated opinions are not as valid as educated opinions.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

jimni2001 wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Thanks for the thumbsups.
I just find it exciting to see discussions like this.
I took a class years ago. The instructors talked about the 'new' digital cameras and how they will NEVER compete with film. The fact that the resolution will never show individual hairs on a persons head (the flyaway hairs) and other minute details that make film so wonderful.
How far we have come. :thumbup: :-) :thumbup:

skiman Loc: Ventura, CA

Moxiesmom wrote:

Great answer :thumbup:

Snoopy told me I could get 20% off on my life insurance. 😄😬😄

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Apaflo wrote:

Not true though. Opinions vary from totally worthless to very useful.

The usual distinction is how much technical knowledge is behind the opinion. (That can often translate fairly directly to just how much pixel peeping has a person actually done!)

Uneducated opinions are not as valid as educated opinions.

"We all have an opinion" would have been a better choice of words, meaning, of course, that we either think it is or is not a meaningful test of lens/sensor quality.