The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with the Lumix/Leica 45 macro

Jonas

Active member
Sheesh - absolutes are always so dangerous, and absolute truths . . . doubly so!

I've used both in tandem, ever since the Kodak 14n appeared, and I'm very well aware that generalisations are just that, they aren't laws.
I like it on the edge. And physics is physics. There will always be people not wanting to understand each other, but that is another thing.

Hmmm, well, how do you measure 'sharpness'? - you can measure definition in terms of lpi, but sharpness isn't quite the same thing.
We can at least talk about "sharpness" in units possible to measure. Then some may prefer MTF50 values, other prefer to discuss esoteric details in MTF curves, some read USAF charts by experience - but surely "sharpness" can be measured and discussed from technical values. We just need to agree about the method.

Forgive me Jonas (and for spelling your name Jones in a previous post . . . ). I think that so much of this is subjective, and what really is measurable is only measurable for a particular image in a particular situation (apart, of course, from the fov effect of cropped sensors. . . . not that 4/3 is cropped of course :ROTFL::ROTFL:).

You called me Jones!! LOL, now I get upset!

regards,

/Jonas
 

Brian Mosley

New member
"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.
Sharpness and bokeh - yes, the balancing act is what I was talking about above, and no - I'm not yet convinced about the PL 45mm f2.8... but I'm looking to be convinced, asap! :talk028:

Cheers

Brian
 

jonoslack

Active member
I like it on the edge. And physics is physics.
But opinions are opinions and interpretation is interpretation, and that line has been used on internet forums to prove impossible so many things that have happened.

We can at least talk about "sharpness" in units possible to measure. Then some may prefer MTF50 values, other prefer to discuss esoteric details in MTF curves, some read USAF charts by experience - but surely "sharpness" can be measured and discussed from technical values. We just need to agree about the method.
First you'll have to define sharpness . . . you seem to be equating it to resolution here (very dodgy ground).
I'm also a scientist by training, and I understand only too well that most of these discussions are marred by a basic flaw in original definitions, long before one reaches anything to do with physics.

You called me Jones!! LOL, now I get upset!
Yes, I'm deeply sorry (typo rather than simply stupidity). I often get called Juno, and I know how bad it feels!

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sharpness and bokeh - yes, the balancing act is what I was talking about above, and no - I'm not yet convinced about the PL 45mm f2.8... but I'm looking to be convinced, asap! :talk028:

Cheers

Brian
HI Brian
Sorry - work and crap weather have got in the way of more testing. Incidentally - did you get my email about lens correction information? I'm relying on you!

all the best
 
V

Vivek

Guest
First you'll have to define sharpness . . . you seem to be equating it to resolution here (very dodgy ground).

Jono (difficult to mess up that spelling), Well said. :thumbup:


Apparent sharpness and actual sharpness often differ.

There is a chapter on this topic in this book.

Book: Image Clarity: High-resolution Photography
Author: John Williams
ISBN: 0240800338


I suspect the flare of this lens has a part to play with the results.

( I also suspect, given the complex design, the lens could have some internal flare )
 
Last edited:
G

greggebhardt

Guest
Well Thanks Jono. Images in this thread clinched it for me and my 45mm is on the way! Hope it make a decent portrait lens, too. Wsh it was f2 or better f1.7! <vbg>
 

Jonas

Active member
But opinions are opinions and interpretation is interpretation, and that line has been used on internet forums to prove impossible so many things that have happened.
Yes. But that doesn't mean everything you read on the Net is false.

First you'll have to define sharpness . . . you seem to be equating it to resolution here (very dodgy ground).
I'm also a scientist by training, and I understand only too well that most of these discussions are marred by a basic flaw in original definitions, long before one reaches anything to do with physics.
Yes, just as I said. You have to define what you are talking about, then you can measure it.
I didn't say "sharpness" is resolution. I mentioned MTFs and USAF charts interpreted by human beings. I usually think of "sharpness" as a combination of resolution and contrast, which is why I don't write sharpness. That is probably how clear, sharp and contrasty I can be on the subject.

===

Jono, I don't know what the problem here is. In an earlier post you said:

(...)
I think two things about the 45.

1. it probably isn't as sharp as the Zuiko 50 macro
2. it definitely has better bokeh.
You assumed something about how "sharp" the Panny Macro is, and declared something about the way it draws OOF areas. To that I replied

(...)
"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.
With that I meant "sharpness" can be expressed by numbers while bokeh definitely is about personal taste.

I didn't expect my reply to be perceived as a controversial one. I was wrong.

Now I don't feel the need to play a public tennis game over the topic. I am guilty of having done so but I find most of those games to be of little value and try to reserve them for the DPR forums. And I still like what I have seen from the Panasonic Macro this far.

kind regards,

/Jonas
 

Amin

Active member
IMO, there is no point to commenting on resolution, accutance, sharpness, or "bite" with these heavily resized images. Assuming the lens doesn't absolutely suck, the apparent sharpness of a web-sized image comes down to postprocessing, and I appreciate that Jono doesn't take a heavyhanded approach to sharpening for the web.

Here's hoping for some more photographs to get this thread back on track!
 
V

Vivek

Guest
IMO, there is no point to commenting on resolution, accutance, sharpness, or "bite" with these heavily resized images.
Oh, well. You seem to have skipped post #1 in this thread.
 

Amin

Active member
Not at all, Vivek. I don't think Jono's comments about sharpness in post #1 were informed by his review of the web-sized images he posted subsequently. The remainder of the comments seem to have been.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
In that case, Amin, what you are saying is that those who have not bought the lens should keep quiet.

How was I able to point to the apparent lack of "bite" compared to the images from Zuiko 50/2 (all from Jono, all web sized images) that Jono appear to agree to in his later post?

I think the lens' complex design is a problem when it comes to the performance. I have not seen any advantages of this ("reviews", Pana site, Leica site, anywhere) and any images that would support that design (and hence the price, eventually).

This discussion, I must emphasize, isn't about Jono's posts but about the lens.
 

Amin

Active member
In that case, Amin, what you are saying is that those who have not bought the lens should keep quiet.
Please do not misrepresent what I said. What I said was that I do not believe that sharpness, bite, etc, cannot be judged from these small, resized photos. I did not say that anyone should keep quiet. It is possible, for example, to begin to understand and discuss certain other lens performance characteristics (bokeh rendering, light falloff, gross aberrations, etc) from these resized images, and there are samples elsewhere from which to judge sharpness, etc.

How was I able to point to the apparent lack of "bite" compared to the images from Zuiko 50/2 (all from Jono, all web sized images) that Jono appear to agree to in his later post?
My guess is that your were able to point to this either from having seen high-res samples elsewhere or by random chance and that Jono is able to confirm based on high-res screen viewing or prints. Certainly the DPR testing and full-res samples suggest that this lens lacks the "bite" of the ZD 50 macro. I personally don't think that the same can be understood from Jono's resized images.

This discussion, I must emphasize, isn't about Jono's posts but about the lens.
Of course, and I never said anyone shouldn't discuss the lens sharpness or "bite" in this thread. There are samples available at DPR and elsewhere from which to reasonably judge these things.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
My guess is that your were able to point to this either from having seen high-res samples elsewhere or by random chance and that Jono is able to confirm based on high-res screen viewing or prints.
False guess and based on that a few misleading posts. :(
 

jonoslack

Active member
Amin, Vivek
I agree about the difficulty with pictures sized for the web. An additional problem is that these were processed in Lightroom 3 beta, which I'm not very familiar with. My normal poison is Aperture, and I understand it pretty well.

I'm not sure that there is very much to learn from the images themselves, especially if you add in my casual approach and a new converter . . . . except perhaps something about the bokeh. I understand your reservations Vivek.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Now I don't feel the need to play a public tennis game over the topic. I am guilty of having done so but I find most of those games to be of little value and try to reserve them for the DPR forums. And I still like what I have seen from the Panasonic Macro this far.

kind regards,

/Jonas
HI Jonas
I'm sorry if I've tampered with your hackles - we all have our sensitive spots (you got one of mine).

Let's leave it that we agree(ish) (I'm not sure we even need to agree to differ). Certainly about public tennis games! Probably also about the Panasonic macro.

All the very best
 

Diane B

New member
Amin, Vivek
I agree about the difficulty with pictures sized for the web. An additional problem is that these were processed in Lightroom 3 beta, which I'm not very familiar with. My normal poison is Aperture, and I understand it pretty well.

I'm not sure that there is very much to learn from the images themselves, especially if you add in my casual approach and a new converter . . . . except perhaps something about the bokeh. I understand your reservations Vivek.

all the best
I found your personal impressions more revealing than the images. I like to hear impressions from folks whose work I like (assuming then they know their way around their gear)--and know that web sized images aren't going to tell me as much.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I'm not sure that there is very much to learn from the images themselves, especially if you add in my casual approach and a new converter . . . . except perhaps something about the bokeh.
Jono, It is the casual approach that is useful. Thanks for that.:)

I know that you obliged with my request earlier using something Nikon and shot some brick walls :)ROTFL:). I won't put you in trouble again. :D
 

Amin

Active member
False guess and based on that a few misleading posts. :(
My post (post #48) was not aimed at you. It was my opinion regarding whether certain things can be learned from small, resized images, and no place did I ever say that I was talking about you.

I think we should just take a lesson from Jonas and Jono and simply drop it.
 
Top