Buying Lenses (Page 4): Why not just buy ONE camera with a 24-600 zoom. No worries about sensor dust or a bag full of lenses. And Plenty of lines resolution even at 600mm...

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Why not just buy ONE camera with a 24-600 zoom. No worries about sensor dust or a bag full of lenses.
And Plenty of lines resolution even at 600mm
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iii
-
Yeah - OK - so I still have my Canon 80D with a Tamron 10-24 (Canon 18-200 and others)
As a rabid hobbyist (Not a Pro), the 80D doesn't get much use any more.
And as I don't want to spend the bux, nor live with the lens changing limitations, of getting a Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 (the Sony is f/2.4-4) for the 80D to take shots at the upcoming air show in Oshkosh, this RX10 iii will be my forever travel camera. The Sigma lens alone costs more than I paid (eBay, excellent, used) for the RX10 iii.
I am NOT a Sony fanboy - in fact I hate to like sony due to their predatory attempts to launch their memory stick takeover some decades ago - but I'll take the RX10 iii

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

jerryc41 wrote:

The general advice is to spend your money buying g... (show quote)

Seeing that even kit lenses today are sharp, I understand that we have been given the sweet fruit that many photographers expectations have become impossible if not snob.

My personal choice would be to use a lens matched to the camera.
Buying the sharpest lens on a low resolution body is just wasting money.
Using an average lens on a high resolution body is the same argument.

To be clear, I do not mean average = cheap lens = bad lens.
Sharp cheap lenses do exist.

The point here is matching the lenses' circle of confusion to the sensors pixel size,
the lens & cameras focus speed to frames per second & other variables that need to work together.

A racing car works best with a racing driver on the wheel.

On a second note, I'd rather have an average lens that would cover a need than not have the photo.
This is me coming from the film days when many photos are not really that sharp.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

And that proves nothing. Those are exactly the kind of results I would expect if you were testing lenses on the same sensor. As the resolution increased some lenses didn’t fare as well as others, even though they did on lower resolution sensors. But at no point did you mention comparing the same lens on different sensor resolutions. If you had we would have seen that those lenses performed just as well on the higher resolution sensors.

I described testing each lens on two different full frame sensor resolutions, 24MP and 45.7MP. The higher resolution sensor made it easier to see if the lens was weak. I should have added that the testing was done on a tripod at the same ISO using the same target and that I compared the lens performance throughout its range from wide open to stopped all the way down.

You don't even agree with yourself? "As the resolution increased some lenses didn’t fare as well as others ... we would have seen that those lenses performed just as well on the higher resolution sensors."

Your post makes no sense.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Wallen wrote:

The point here is matching the lenses' circle of confusion to the sensors pixel size.

The circle of confusion can contain many pixels. For more information see The Circle of Confusion in the Print

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

selmslie wrote:

The circle of confusion can contain many pixels. For more information see The Circle of Confusion in the Print

The more pixels a circle of confusion falls on, the more visible it will breakdown (as we zoom in or crop), and the less sharper the image will look.
In simplified terms, the circle of confusion on a pixel is akin to a blur effect around a shadow falling on floor tiles.
If the shadow and blur falls within a single tile, then we get a positive difference between that tile and the one beside it. If the shadow falls on a tile and the blur on another tile beside it, then we get a blending or steps, instead of a sharp difference.

If everything is printed at the same postcard size, CoC would not be an issue. But with the advent of digital photography with cropping and zooming readily available, the more pixels we have, the more we zoom in and crop. Hence we need sharper lenses for those sensors to make full use of their capability.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Wallen wrote:

The more pixels a circle of confusion falls on, the more visible it will breakdown (as we zoom in or crop), and the less sharper the image will look. ...

The circle of confusion is an order or magnitude larger than a pixel when viewing an entire image from a normal distance.

Pixel peeping leads us to spend more money than necessary on cameras and lenses. It is counterproductive. It does not improve our images.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

selmslie wrote:

...Pixel peeping leads us to spend more money than necessary on cameras and lenses. It is counterproductive. It does not improve our images.

Regardless of where one might stand on the topic of this discussion, this statement is, and will remain, true. While it can be fun to an extent, pixel peeping, the GAS it leads to, and the almost inevitable expenditure that results, only leads to sharper images with no heart and no story.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

larryepage wrote:

Regardless of where one might stand on the topic of this discussion, this statement is, and will remain, true. While it can be fun to an extent, pixel peeping, the GAS it leads to, and the almost inevitable expenditure that results, only leads to sharper images with no heart and no story.

It’s also a clue that the pixel peeper has the wrong priorities.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

selmslie wrote:

The circle of confusion is an order or magnitude larger than a pixel when viewing an entire image from a normal distance.

Which would not matter if the times have not changed. The digital images are viewed in 55" screens, zoomed, cropped and generally judged with nearly impossible expectations.
But CoC is only a part of the equation, as aforementioned, the crux of the matter is matching the right lens to the right body to fully achieve its capability and not be a waste of money.

Quote:

Pixel peeping leads us to spend more money than necessary on cameras and lenses.
It is counterproductive. It does not improve our images.

I believe you are talking about the snobs I aformentioned

Again I say; "I'd rather have an average lens that would cover a need than not have the photo".
Even then, to those who really needs the minutia, I support their pixel peeping.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

selmslie wrote:

I described testing each lens on two different ful... (show quote)

Totally missed my point. You mentioned testing all your lenses on each camera as you got it and comparing those lenses against each other. You never mentioned comparing the same lens on different cameras. I’m just saying that a lens isn’t going to perform worse on a higher resolution camera than it does on the lower resolution. It may not perform as well as other lenses on the high resolution camera. I agree that you won’t be getting the benefit of the higher resolution sensor but it will be at least equal to what you got at the lower resolution.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

selmslie wrote:

It’s also a clue that the pixel peeper has the wrong priorities.

Kind of ironic after reading about all your lens testing. I just try shooting with the lens and if I’m not happy with the results I don’t use it.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

Felixgrundy wrote:

New tires and windshield wipers are so comforting to me. Simple pleasure is key.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Wallen wrote:

Which would not matter if the times have not changed. The digital images are viewed in 55" screens, zoomed, cropped and generally judged with nearly impossible expectations.

A 55" display is only twice as wide as my 2K and 4K monitors. To see the entire image on my monitor I need to about two feet from it.

To see it all on a 55" display I would need to back up to about four feet. But what's the point of looking at the image on a 55" screen if it can't display any more pixels than a 2k or 4k monitor.

My 35x20" HD screen (40.3" diagonal) has a CoC of 0.03" (0.68mm) when viewed from about three feet.

But zooming and cropping an image is just like pixel peeping. It totally nukes the CoC assumptions and changes the DoF.

It's a lot easier to judge the images on one of my monitors.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Totally missed my point. You mentioned testing all your lenses on each camera as you got it and comparing those lenses against each other. You never mentioned comparing the same lens on different cameras. I’m just saying that a lens isn’t going to perform worse on a higher resolution camera than it does on the lower resolution. It may not perform as well as other lenses on the high resolution camera.

Go back to my posts and read them more carefully:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-779767-3.html#14028193 (see the the system resolution calculations in the first article)
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-779767-3.html#14028309

I never said that I compared the lenses to each other. I looked at how each lens performed on two different cameras. I could see quality issues with the higher resolution sensor that were not apparent on the lower resolution camera.

I have used those lenses with 35mm film and 16MP crop and full frame sensors. They were fine at those resolutions but some of them did not do as well at 24MP and 45.7MP.

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I agree that you won’t be getting the benefit of the higher resolution sensor but it will be at least equal to what you got at the lower resolution.

Why would I want images from a higher resolution camera that are no better than what I was already getting at a lower resolution?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Kind of ironic after reading about all your lens testing. I just try shooting with the lens and if I’m not happy with the results I don’t use it.

The testing tells me if the reason I'm not happy with the result is the fault of the lens or because of something else.

If I'm not going to use lens it goes to KEH.