Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I'm getting a headache.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
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!
I knew there was a reason why I liked Ansel, heck I even learned his Zone system. LOLI wholeheartedly agree Rob! Speaking of content, it is worth quoting Ansel Adams:
"... in discussing mechanical or optical issues we must not lose sight of the much greater importance of image content--emotional, aesthetic, or literal. I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!" The Negative, p. 73
Francois
Understood... but I do have my Betterlight, and it ain't too shabby when it comes to image quality albeit there are many cameras MFDB's included that can run circles around it for useability.:salute:Rob, that would be a shame and I am sure it wouldn't be his intention: one of his key arguments is that a lot of people are satisfied with less than optimal results from MFD because they haven't really grasped what it can do when used at its best.
Tim
Here, here!!!:clap::clap:...quoting Ansel Adams:
"... in discussing mechanical or optical issues we must not lose sight of the much greater importance of image content--emotional, aesthetic, or literal. I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!" The Negative, p. 73
Francois
I get your pointReally, if you can make high resolution 80"x60" fine art prints from 6x6 film that you would define as great then you have discovered the Holy Grail and should stick with it.
Personally I wouldn't take 5x4 sheet film up to that size, let alone anything that comes out of a roll film camera.
I tested my newly aquired HCD 4/28 this morning, took two images, or rather two views of the same subject. My heart sunk on viewing the first, it was a real disappointment, soft corners and weird distortions. The second was a revelation, sharp right across the frame and perfect perspective. The cause, well, user error.The Hassy guys will no doubt defend their 28mm lens but I have seen results from it that a Hassy dealer was very pleased with and they sucked in a low key way. Similar to the Phase/Mamiya 28D, possibly slightly worse.
David Grover from Hasselblad has posted some crops of corners from the HC28mm lens at: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33641&pid=276279&st=40&#entry276279.Tashley? Tim?, Apologies, I haven't a clue who you are, would you be suggesting that I'm mistaken, or that my eyes are deceiving me, or I don't know how to judge images, or I haven't enough experience in judging images, or even perhaps that I'm lying?
Tashley has suggested that all Mamiya and Hasselblad 28mm lenses have soft corners. I'm saying that mine hasn't.You seem to have said that about them...
Keith, I have no intention of accusing you of lying. I don't have the Hasselbald lens but I was sent an example of it's output as being a really good file and a ringing endorsment of its powers by someone from Hasselblad who was being extremely helpful. It was without any doubt soft in the corners. As have every example of every Mammy 28D I have ever seen been, whether taken by me or by anyone else.Tashley? Tim?, Apologies, I haven't a clue who you are, would you be suggesting that I'm mistaken, or that my eyes are deceiving me, or I don't know how to judge images, or I haven't enough experience in judging images, or even perhaps that I'm lying?
I'm making no friends here but I politely disagree: IMHO there's not much point shelling out an absolute fortune for a 39mp back and then putting glass on it that can't live up to what it does. Having seen the results from the 28D I did make the extra investment in a tech camera and glass and I do now get the results the back can deliver. This is exactly what Joe Holmes was talking about!(I guess the expected refutation will be that they are still soft, and NOT landscapes!)
Seriously, these are looking pretty darn good. I still think, as Ben has commented, if one is so nearly obsessive about the corners and still needs wide to go large for print, then shoot with good piece of less wide glass that is tack sharp to the corners and stitch a couple of frames. Expecting extreme sharpness in the corners of a 28mm lens on MF is pushing the limits.....unless you are prepared to spend a huge amount of money for a tech camera and lens, which is NOT the direction being discussed.
I totally agree that not all shots need it but the stuff I'm currently shooting does and as I've mentioned before, if I have to crop the soggy corners off I end up with a file not much larger than a FF DSLR, most of which have lenses available that can be brutally sharp to the corners. To put this in context, an M8 file shot at F5 with a 28 Cron will have sharper corners in an uncropped 20" wide print than any 28D file on a P45+. Sure there will be more resolution and detail such that I could crop heavily but hey, I framed it like I framed it. If I wanted a less wide view I'd but a less wide lens!One of the biggest advantages of shooting MF over say 35mm DSLR, is that you are getting a much larger image file to both deliver more detail and to permit cropping if needed. If the 28mm is tad soft in the corners, as Guy said, take a step or two back and crop the frame a tiny bit, or shoot a bit longer lens and stitch a couple of frames. While I appreciate the great desire to have corner to corner perfection, I am also realistic in what can be delivered for what cost and use. I would venture to say the most folks buying and shooting a 28mm are doing so to capture the broader perspective and setting, and are going to take care to eliminate "soft corners" by making sure the subjects in those corners are inconsequential to the image itself. (Oh wait, that gets into composition and subject matter.....my, my.)
Just a few thoughts after wending through this thread and wondering WTF!!!
LJ
I once posted a thread on LUF suggesting (proving in fact) that the 35 Lux has a tendency to back focus on the M8. Despite the fact that I had an email from Leica themselves stating that this was true, the denials ran to many hundreds of posts. That was when I learned that there really are miracle lenses out there!Tim,
Any chance of stopping this when it gets to a hundred posts?
Steve