An article on why it's bad to be a pixel peeper these days

Raymond Lin

Raymond Lin

Raymond Lin

Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
77,285
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Have a read, it's quite interesting and to conclude, we should :-

Micro adjust our lenses if possible
£2,000 on a piece of glass is nothing...
Don't pixel peep too hard, if you look hard enough, you will find a fault.

And

Clean the lens mount, a bit of dust might be enough to shift it 0.002inch off.
 
Very interesting read, thanks :)

I think you're a bit more susceptible than most though, with your full-frame bodies and f/1.4 lenses. My 7D and f/2.8 is probably a bit more tolerant :)
 
I'm a sucker for doing it tbh. I take a shot view them and I'm happy. Then I hit the 100% button and start questioning my ability and the quality of the lens, then the tripod comes out and some test shots :D

I was very happy with my 17-55 2.8 until I got the 70-200 :D

I need to stop doing it.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Very interesting read, thanks :)

I think you're a bit more susceptible than most though, with your full-frame bodies and f/1.4 lenses. My 7D and f/2.8 is probably a bit more tolerant :)
Click to expand...

May be also why almost EVERYone says the Canon 24-105 is sharp, since it is F/4.0 so the depth of field is deeper, giving more tolerance to manufacture spec and limit.
 
Really interesting read. It makes a lot of sense to me! It makes you realise that the only reason we put our thoughts to lens quality is due to the fact that it's the weakest link, relative to resolution etc - because electronic manufacturing development is outpacing mechanical manufacturing.

So maybe we top out at 30mp and instead focus on ISO handling, and get that up to silly high levels until the manufacturing technologies improve on lenses. ISO 256,000 here we come! :)
 
Isn't it crazy that we might be shooting in the dark yet producing low-noise images, before we can build lenses that are worthy of a 30mp sensor?!?! :D
 
Good explanation on that tolerance issue with bodies and zooms and only being obvious when you have a particular combination.
 
Of course the microadjustment feature in newer bodies negates a lot of the need to have a lens "matched" with a body as you can do the calibration of the latter yourself to match each lens.

Of course with zooms, problems arise if the required adjustment isn't the same at all focal lengths. I think they generally recommend you do it at the long end or the length you use most often but still. Of course you could still have such a lens calibrated in isolation as, providing it's the same across the entire range, you can then dial in microadjustment on the body just as you'd do with a prime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom