Image Quality of Lenses...

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for passing along your experience, Dan. Very helpful. You make me feel good about my decision to use prosumer gear rather than pro gear. My wife especially likes that decision.

[jprzybyla]

While this is generally true and while you posted this thread with a specific comparison, lest inexperienced people read too much into this, I feel compelled to chime in.

Joe, it is ironic that you posted this thread. Because IMO you are currently equipment limited. Your field, equipment , and PP skills far exceed the capability of your equipment. And if that is by conscious decision, there is nothing wrong with that. If you get what you need out of your gear that's what it is all about. Though even a relatively inexpensive AF-S 300mm f4 would do wonders for you.

In the context of a learning forum, there does come a time when equipment becomes a limit. Usually not as soon as many people think. But for anyone who thinks they might be there I suggest renting some pro level gear for a few days. Renting is a relatively inexpensive way to find out. If you shoot high end gear for a few days and don't see a marked improvement in IQ, then you've still got work to do on your technique.

People who make a living at photography don't pay for high end gear because they have money to burn. There is a return on the investment.

Hi Dan, I agree with all you write. In ways my equipment is limiting but the check book is also limiting. My photography is a hobby/pastime not a business, it gets me outdoors, keeps me walking and enjoying what I see and photograph. At 71 years old that is important and light weight gear is also important.

[NorthernFocus]

Hi Dan, I agree with all you write. In ways my equipment is limiting but the check book is also limiting. My photography is a hobby/pastime not a business, it gets me outdoors, keeps me walking and enjoying what I see and photograph. At 71 years old that is important and light weight gear is also important.

Much of my reasoning for taking the plunge into pro level gear is because I'm not too long from fitting the same description. Plus my time is Alaska is limited and I'd regret it the rest of my life if I didn't take advantage of it while it lasts. Though I have established a business and am selling a bit of my work, to-date it doesn't come close to justifying my gear. As a matter of fact, much of what I sell are dog agility photos or pet portraits which are 8x10 or smaller and don't require high end lenses.

Frankly I can't definitively say whether the investment in better gear or simply ongoing experience have improved my images the most in the past couple of years. Certainly both contribute but in what proportion?

The bottom line is that in the VAST majority of cases, your original premis holds. MOST people are much better served improving their technique/technical skills than by spending on better gear.

[ajohnw]

I can't find a site I like that does a good test type review of both the 70-300mm and the 55-300mm. The one I can find suggests it's a bit of a mixed bag. The 55-300mm is a more modern design and has fairly even performance across the frame. The 70-300mm is some what wilder but may well offer better central resolution at 300mm. Used on an crop camera the results are surprising but it was probably designed for lower pixel count sensors.

For what they are worth - not a lot in my view as there isn't that much difference

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ni...s-review-14570

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ni...s-review-16679

Pro lens? One is crop and the other full frame. The only company that makes Pro lenses is Olympus. States that on the lens so it must be.

John
-

[chauncey]

There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use.

I continue to agree with Joe when he said that. I do wonder why no one has mentioned lens/camera sensor resolution as in this rather dated treatise...http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml

[jprzybyla]

Thanks Dan and Chauncey. My premise when making this statement ( There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use. ) was that if you give a good photographer any camera and lens, even a smartphone, he/she will take a good photograph. I do not think it is equipment teaches one how to use light, paying attention to what type, bright sun, overcast etc.. I do not think better equipment magically makes all backgrounds pleasing, one learns to find angles where the background is not distracting, to use apertures to the best advantage, deciding what is in focus and what is not. I do not think better equipment makes all the head angles in bird images automatically ideal.
I do not think better equipment impacts composition so the image is shown in a pleasing manner, capturing peoples attention.
I believe there is so much to learn that equipment has no impact on,

This reminds me when I used to play golf (made some money, lost some money) but I loved the game. There were those who had to have new clubs when their game went bad. Had to have the newest and best. That was going to make them play better. What they really suffered from was L.O.F.T. ( lack of F******g talent). The same can be true for photography. Learn the basics, pay attention to small details. Like how is the light hitting the subject, are there shadows, where are the shadows, is the head angle right (for birds and nature), what will the background be, is there a better angle to use the light and get a pleasing background... on and on these thoughts go through my brain before I capture an image. Is the shutter speed and aperture correct for the image? One read that the formula for minimum shutter speed is 1 x the focal length of the lens ( for crop cameras it is 1 x focal length x the crop factor ) but that only deal with camera shake. What about bird movement? What about wind blowing the bird if perched? etc. etc.

I am rambling so I will cease but these all must be considered and handled well for an image to be good. Something else to think about... a good image can improve with post processing, a great image can be ruined with poor post processing.

[rtbaum]

For the last two years you have critiqued my bird photography, as well as others. You have told me that I needed to get closer, that I needed to increase my shutter speed, that I needed to stabilize my camera!!

Thank you, you make me a better photographer.

[chauncey]

Thank you, you make me a better photographer

Randy...we all have those lumps on our head from those beatings and grateful for them.

[NorthernFocus]

...One read that the formula for minimum shutter speed is 1 x the focal length of the lens ( for crop cameras it is 1 x focal length x the crop factor )...

I'm afraid that formula is woefully out of date. That number is fine for the previously mentioned web posted images or small prints. But with today's high rez sensors and home printers capable of printing 13x19in. prints, the formula should now be min.ss = 2 x focal length x crop factor.

[Mike Buckley]

But with today's high rez sensors and home printers capable of printing 13x19in. prints, the formula should now be min.ss = 2 x focal length x crop factor.

That's interesting, Dan. When I upgraded my camera two generations from the Nikon D80 to the D7000 years ago, I began using something only slightly less than your revised formula. That's because I wasn't getting sharp images before doing so. I initially thought that was needed mostly because of my failing technique and increased critique of sharpness. When I discussed the issue on another forum before I had heard of CiC, I learned that many people were also having to increase the shutter speed and some of us surmised that the higher-resolution sensors were at least part of the issue.

For those who are new to this stuff, when using an image-stabilization system such high shutter speeds are not necessary.

[Manfred M]

The difference is apparent under critical analysis with the medium of choice. But if by "on your monitor" you mean reduced to typical web resolution, then the differences pretty much go away. By all means if one only produces images for posting at typical web resolution or printing no larger than 8x10/8x12in, the expense of high end gear is not warranted.

Dan, I agree with you to a point, but that discounts some of the other advantages pro glass have over the mid-range lenses:

1. Pro glass is faster than the mid-range lenses, so getting that extra stop or two gives you both low light and shallow depth of field advantages.

2. Pro glass on zoom lenses provides a constant maximum aperture across the entire zoom range, whereas less with expensive lenses you lose a few stops along the way. Again an advantage over and above higher image quality.

Primarily, one will only notice a difference in image quality if the photographer executes well. One can get an out of focus or blurred images just as well as with lower quality glass. Good shooting techniques including the use of a good, sturdy tripod cannot be discounted in this discussion.

[rtbaum]

I thought this was an interesting little article

http://photographylife.com/which-to-...-gear-or-skill

[Manfred M]

I'm afraid that formula is woefully out of date. That number is fine for the previously mentioned web posted images or small prints. But with today's high rez sensors and home printers capable of printing 13x19in. prints, the formula should now be min.ss = 2 x focal length x crop factor.

I can't quite agree with you you've written Dan, but understand why you (and others are saying this)

The old rule of thumb was really based on the assumption of holding an 8" x 10" print at "proper" normal viewing distance. Proper viewing distance was defined as being the diagonal of the print, so for the 8 x 10, one would view the print at around 13" (30cm). The 13" x 19" should be viewed from no nearer than 23", etc.

As prints get larger, the normal viewing distance gets larger too. This means that our eyes cannot resolve the image as well, so a drop in absolute resolution is fine in a larger image, so to some extent the old rule of thumb still holds today. However, we don't view and judge our prints that way, but rather view them at 100% on our computer screen (which results in a much higher magnification than we get when we print the image).

Unfortunately, today, everyone is a pixel peeper and is not satisfied unless the shot is tack sharp when holding one's nose to the image....

[NorthernFocus]

...For those who are new to this stuff, when using an image-stabilization system such high shutter speeds are not necessary.

Though believing the manufacturers' claims is not safe either. VR/IS does a good job of damping out camera shake due to shakey hands, vehicle engines, etc. But it has its limitations and does not help with larger camera movements such as really shakey hand like mine. My own experience has been that VR gains me one stop with heavy equipment and two stops with smaller gear versus the three or four stops claimed by the lens maker. The most useful thing about VR in my case is that I can often get away with a monopod rather than using a tripod. Like many aspects of this craft, each individual has to figure out what works for their particular situation.

That last sentence in itself is a profound statement about this whole topic. Until a couple of years ago when I began to get really critical about my images AND began shooting high rez cameras, I NEVER used a tripod other than for extreme long ss such as blurring waterfalls. That's also around the time that I obtained a large format printer and started printing larger than 8x10in prints. Bottom line, high shutter speed is your friend

[NorthernFocus]

...Unfortunately, today, everyone is a pixel peeper and is not satisfied unless the shot is tack sharp when holding one's nose to the image....

There's a lot of truth in that. I started to mention digital processing as another factor in my prior post but was already long winded so skipped it. We are all much pickier than ever before. It's in my nature anyway. But many people who have learned with digital don't know any better.

With regard to viewing distance of printed images, one needs to be cognizant of it when producing the print. I frequently have people ask me about whether I recommend traditional print, canvas, or aluminum for a given image. Before making a recommendation I ask them about where it will be hung, viewing distance, lighting, etc. I also have some images with awesome content that aren't so sharp. In that case I may only offer the image printed on canvas or limited size. On the other hand, the traditional viewing rules of thumb that you pointed out go out the window if an image is to be hung in a gallery setting. People frequently view gallery hung images up close regardless of size, particularly if it has a lot of sharp detail.

But we all digress. Joe's original point still holds. Errors in technique can render all of the rest of this technical stuff moot

[ajohnw]

Though believing the manufacturers' claims is not safe either. VR/IS does a good job of damping out camera shake due to shakey hands, vehicle engines, etc. But it has its limitations and does not help with larger camera movements such as really shakey hand like mine. My own experience has been that VR gains me one stop with heavy equipment and two stops with smaller gear versus the three or four stops claimed by the lens maker. The most useful thing about VR in my case is that I can often get away with a monopod rather than using a tripod. Like many aspects of this craft, each individual has to figure out what works for their particular situation.

That last sentence in itself is a profound statement about this whole topic. Until a couple of years ago when I began to get really critical about my images AND began shooting high rez cameras, I NEVER used a tripod other than for extreme long ss such as blurring waterfalls. That's also around the time that I obtained a large format printer and started printing larger than 8x10in prints. Bottom line, high shutter speed is your friend

I reckon a good safe aim with IS is something like 1/2 the focal length. I seem to be usually able to cope with settings at 1/200 or above for macro up to around 2:1. Shooting position can mess this up. That even applies to 2x crop and 16mp. I'm not the steadiest of people either. In fact I am beginning to think some arm exorcise is in order.

Frankly I can't see the difference between large prints and 100% res views on a PC screen. In fact the PC screen at that size on modern cameras is more critical. Even more so if it's enlarged further. That can show that a certain famed lens produces perfectly pixelised detail on curved feature in a shot giving the impression that it's a very high res lens. Measurements on the one I am thinking about maximises at about 30 odd line pairs per mm. A good figure for a full frame lens is reckoned to be be around 40 -45 lp/mm. The only reason the lens copes with the curve so well is that it doesn't need the higher resolution to resolve the feature that has the curve. Debayering software looks after the rest. Give the lens even detail that meets 30 lp/mm on the sensor and contrast is only 50% of what it actually should be. That also means it wont be sharp. A bit of a mess in fact. This all goes to make bird photography hard on lenses.

People talk about reach. If a lens resolves 40 lp/mm it does just that. Sensor size doesn't have any effect on it. That just means that if a longer lens that also resolves 40 lp/mm is used on a full frame camera there will be more "lines" so for the same framing higher resolution is possible. The main gain with crop sensors really is lighter, cheaoer gear but to achieve that it really needs to be a lens specifically designed for a crop camera. If a full frame lens is used only camera weight and cost is saved. Sadly full frame lenses often given better results on crop bodies because the crop lenses are often not that good really. M 4/3 might change this. Unlike 4/3 they seem to be trying to design lenses that can cope with the resolution. Cheaper primes reaching 50 odd lp/mm are about. In many cases this means this format can match the results from the usual crop dslr's. Maybe even exceed them at some point. This might make the manufacturers change there general attitude to crop lenses at some point. On the other hand high end m 4/3 lenses will be expensive if they are to have the performance levels they need. Olympus for instance might price the forthcoming 300mm F4 on the basis of 600mm F4 lense when clearly it can't really compared that simply.

It's a funny old world in respect to bird photography. Say a super dooper lens resolves 40 lp/mm and the bird only fills 1/3 of the frame what ever size the sensor it is and some heap of crap that can only manage 30 lp/mm can double the size of the image on the sensor. It's pretty easy to see which is likely to give the best result providing quality levels at this resolution are similar. Makes me wonder for instance would it be better to buy say a Tamrom 150-600mm and forget too 300mm all together. Mind you it's probably not all that good at 600mm just like too 300mm aren't at that end either. Neither are likely to reach 30 lp/mm either really. Also wish that the Tamron did 200-600mm but they had to out do Sigma I suppose. The other answer is to get closer with the better lens and make the image twice as big, or close enough to match the crappy lens in resolution terms.

Forget the numbers used the main thing is that they are relative and it doesn't matter what they really are only the comparison. M 4/3 50 odd lp/mm, yes wide open. Another problem but the increased dof helps or does it really. But that of course is based on 10x8 prints. or larger ones at an increased viewing distance. It's also really not a good idea to work out theoretical sensor capabilities on the basis of pixel size either even accounting for colour by using 2 blocks of 4. People might conclude that all lenses are crap. PP can only restore detail so far and 45 lp/mm on long full frame lenses is really really good. Probably unbelievably so. That's why a real one only does 30 but in practice is probably in need of an update but as it's better then cheaper but still expensive zooms .................? Why bother.

I suppose few will read this. Pity really as it's a dose of reality.

John
-

[FrankMi]

The practicality is that if I could capture images as good as Joe's, I could do it with the same level of equipment that Joe uses. Could Joe make better images with better lenses? I'm certain he could, but would increasing the lens cost by double make the images twice as good?

As I have basically the same lenses (but a lower cost body) would love to have the skill to capture the consistently outstanding images that Joe does, but as this thread points out, I know I can't blame my lack of results on not having more expensive glass. LOL!

Certainly in my case ........"There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use."

[FrankMi]

I thought this was an interesting little article

http://photographylife.com/which-to-...-gear-or-skill

Thanks Randy! A very interesting article indeed. For anyone that is following this thread, this article is well worth taking a minute to look at.

[NorthernFocus]

That was a good article if somewhat repetitious of others. Relative to the theme, I've always maintained that it is much easier for an artist to master the technology than for the technically inclined to learn the art. I'm not even sure that art can be learned or whether it is innate. In the past I've managed to produce a few images that others have described as "artistic". But I have never and don't consider myself artistic at all. To me photography is a technical process. Over time I've learned what is pleasing to viewers compositionally etc, but in my mind that is just another technical aspect of producing an image. Different lenses, higher resolution bodies, wider DR sensors, etc. improve the technical tools available and make the task easier or more doable. But by all means, content rules. As demonstrated by the shots that Joe chose for the OP of this thread.

[chauncey]

Unfortunately, today, everyone is a pixel peeper and is not satisfied unless the shot is tack sharp when holding one's nose to the image....

I plead guilty to that...but why is it a sin? But did ya ever consider the reason behind that "sin"?
Randy's link provides the reasoning, in a somewhat roundabout way.

Having a tack sharp image is something over which I have control, due to that anal retentive left brain.
Whereas, the talents alluded to in the link may as well be on the other side of the moon, as my communication with the requisite right brain is virtually nonexistent.

The ability of one to utilize the right brain is the , sometimes fuzzy, line between an artist and a photographer.