accwai Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 1 hour ago, PeterSt said: It is infinitely more complicated than that; If the sharpness is rendered, say, too slow, you will be bothered by distortion and all you don't want to hear. The 17-40 can not present this sharpness in the first place, so you can't be bothered by the "side effects" of that, which happens downstream Oh yes, looks like there are a lot of unspoken subtitles behind the quoted lens comparison: There are 3 generations of 16-35/2.8L. Which generation is in the comparison is unspecified. The 17-40 photo says 16mm. I would assume it's 17? The 17-40 costs like 1/4 of the more expensive lenses. Who in their right mind would shoot it wide open at its widest focal length for real? Side question: Is this item good value or not? In fact, who in their right mind would shoot any of these lenses wide open in a real use case. The TS-E perhaps, but probably the longer ones. The 17-40 photo is different from the other three. Why? Is it a different framing or a different crop? The 17 TS-E photo is the same as the other remaining. This lens has much bigger image circle than everything else in the comparison. So the photo probably doesn't really show its corner performance as it isn't the real corner. What is the point? Given the photos above, I personally don't understand the point of trying to fix them up with "superbly tuned" processing chain. They have far bigger problems then just being blurry. Seriously. In any case, these are taken from the web: 16-35/2.8L II: 17/4 TS-E: 45/2.8 TS-E @ f/3.2: To my admittedly amateur eyes, all the above seem serviceable despite being pumped through multiple resizing stages "downstream" to fit on the sharing site. Expert opinions to the contrary would be greatly appreciated of course. Link to comment
accwai Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 22 hours ago, semente said: I think that you are missing the point. How much have you invested in your system and why? Surely if you're content with "serviceable" then any Bose Wave system would do. Serviceable as in serving the purpose of the photos. I am perfectly fine with merely serviceable as I don't have the level of knowledge and discriminating taste as the experts here on AS. How could I aspire to more? In any case, my amp is being fixed at the factory so I'm listening via 2+1 computer speakers now. Bose Wave would be a big step up 22 hours ago, PeterSt said: Warning: this post probably won't make much sense. This one is for fun, for @accwai, also taken from the web. [...] Also : Once you are used to what sharpening does, you can't avoid the painstaking "too much sparkle" of it. I am not 100% sure that you did this to your orchids as well, but it seems so. You mean like like these? Apparently these are focus stacks rather than sharpening. A computer controlled focusing rail lets you measure the depth of your scene. You then control the focus transition at the end of the stack by numeric aperture. Punch all the numbers into a spreadsheet and out come the required number of steps, which you in turn punch into the rail controller. Then you put all the resulting frames through the stacking software, which finds the focused details in the individual layers and put them back into a single frame. I understand that as magnification increases beyond certain point (0.75x?), at no point in the process would you be able to see anything close to the final result. So it's all in your head, kind of like soundstage depth perception in the audiophile world. But then again I could be totally wrong as I just siphon things off the web. I'm actually not smart enough to understand any of these complicated stuff. Link to comment
Recommended Posts