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!
Capture Integration IQ180 + Schneider Lens Tests
- Thread starter dougpeterson
- Start date
Perhaps we need to accept that we have reached the limits of current manufacturing tolerances and plain old physics? Taking all the often-quoted numbers at face value:
1. +/–0.01mm is sufficient to affect focus (quoting Alpa).
2. Schneider and Rodenstock can only guarantee tolerances of +/–0.02mm (quoting Alpa again, but this has also been stated directly by Rodenstock and Schneider).
3. We now have the ability to look into (not "at" – a subtle distinction) our images at 100%.
4. Given the miniscule tolerances involved, T&S, temperature fluctuations etc are only going to compound these issues.
... etc etc ...
Personally I don't think any manufacturers (lens or camera systems) at this level have generally better or worse tolerances. I think the problem lies in the fact that some companies make tolerances the centre of their marketing efforts, which creates the expectation that we are guaranteed Perfection in our images, at least technically-speaking.
Yes, these systems cost a truckload of money. But theoretical Perfection is being limited by real-world considerations. Unless something is clearly out of tolerance (i.e. the proverbial "dog"), then I would argue we need to accept a certain level of cumulative error(s) in our respective systems.
The bottom line for me is the creation of compelling images. Without trying to sound trite: Engineers, manufacturers, physicists, software writers and my equipment are not the factors holding me back from my goal.
1. +/–0.01mm is sufficient to affect focus (quoting Alpa).
2. Schneider and Rodenstock can only guarantee tolerances of +/–0.02mm (quoting Alpa again, but this has also been stated directly by Rodenstock and Schneider).
3. We now have the ability to look into (not "at" – a subtle distinction) our images at 100%.
4. Given the miniscule tolerances involved, T&S, temperature fluctuations etc are only going to compound these issues.
... etc etc ...
Personally I don't think any manufacturers (lens or camera systems) at this level have generally better or worse tolerances. I think the problem lies in the fact that some companies make tolerances the centre of their marketing efforts, which creates the expectation that we are guaranteed Perfection in our images, at least technically-speaking.
Yes, these systems cost a truckload of money. But theoretical Perfection is being limited by real-world considerations. Unless something is clearly out of tolerance (i.e. the proverbial "dog"), then I would argue we need to accept a certain level of cumulative error(s) in our respective systems.
The bottom line for me is the creation of compelling images. Without trying to sound trite: Engineers, manufacturers, physicists, software writers and my equipment are not the factors holding me back from my goal.
Stefan Steib
Active member
@cng
"The bottom line for me is the creation of compelling images".
Now you hit the target. I am absolutely sure that an image which has structure, creative content and imagination is holding up for itself , even if one side of the image lacks 5 % micron sharpness at 100 % enlargement (which by the way at 80 Mpix equals something in the 2x3m size - and - needs to be looked at from half a meter away to mention it which is totally unnatural .
On the other hand, a technical perfect, supersharp and 16 bit devellopped HDR with every detail even in shadows and highlights which is plain boring will not become a one Iota better image by this perfection.
And - if I need to spend half an hour before I can take an image to set everything up and control all parameters for perfect sharpness etc.pp. this sucks completely........
just my 2 cents.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
"The bottom line for me is the creation of compelling images".
Now you hit the target. I am absolutely sure that an image which has structure, creative content and imagination is holding up for itself , even if one side of the image lacks 5 % micron sharpness at 100 % enlargement (which by the way at 80 Mpix equals something in the 2x3m size - and - needs to be looked at from half a meter away to mention it which is totally unnatural .
On the other hand, a technical perfect, supersharp and 16 bit devellopped HDR with every detail even in shadows and highlights which is plain boring will not become a one Iota better image by this perfection.
And - if I need to spend half an hour before I can take an image to set everything up and control all parameters for perfect sharpness etc.pp. this sucks completely........
just my 2 cents.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
as long as the lens is not faulty, with a T/S base, the focus plane issue is moot anyway, since that is the point of the T/S functionality.
ultimately, you have to see the image to see if you have the focus you want.
now if the lenses are not capable of bringing a plane into focus, that is a problem
ultimately, you have to see the image to see if you have the focus you want.
now if the lenses are not capable of bringing a plane into focus, that is a problem
You'll easily be able to test all of this for yourself. Maybe it was a fluke mistake by Doug...... although I have a lot of confidence in Mr. Peterson. Regardless if the lens has a defect then Cambo should stand behind it and I'm sure they will. This is just part of the exercise that some have to go through with some of this equipment. I also extend my thanks for your getting involved with this test..... it was very enlightening. I hope all of this works out for you.
Victor