Why FF and the 3:2 ratio still horribly taxes lenses

In article , rander3128
@gmail.com says...

Here is a new $900 10x "do everything" zoom. Look at the file full-sized and check the edge-of-field on the image. What's the point? Also, most of the images in the set would benefit from being cropped to 4:3, the better, superior ratio.
Sure, the lens has a long zoom range and is relatively cheap as FF lenses go, but it's still pretty useless at the long end. Why not just sell the thing as an f7-8 lens, cut-out half the weight and about 30% of the cost?

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/s...5184198961.jpg

Very soft even at 24mm and horrible chromatic aberrations:
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/s...1363509453.jpg

Overall this lens sucks.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 19/08/2019 02:51, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , rander3128
@gmail.com says...

Here is a new $900 10x "do everything" zoom. Look at the file full-sized and check the edge-of-field on the image. What's the point? Also, most of the images in the set would benefit from being cropped to 4:3, the better, superior ratio.
Sure, the lens has a long zoom range and is relatively cheap as FF lenses go, but it's still pretty useless at the long end. Why not just sell the thing as an f7-8 lens, cut-out half the weight and about 30% of the cost?

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/s...5184198961.jpg

Very soft even at 24mm and horrible chromatic aberrations:
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/s...1363509453.jpg

Overall this lens sucks.

More than adequate for "snapshots", though.

Having been editing some photos recently, I've been using mainly 4:3,
but 3:2 does suit a lot of images, whereas for my taste 16:9 is a little
extreme. But from the lens's point of view, 1:1 square is ideal, and
from the image's point of view, each image needs its own aspect ratio!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:51:48 +0700, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , rander3128
says...

Here is a new $900 10x "do everything" zoom. Look at the file full-sized and check the edge-of-field on the image. What's the point? Also, most of the images in the set would benefit from being cropped to 4:3, the better, superior ratio.
Sure, the lens has a long zoom range and is relatively cheap as FF lenses go, but it's still pretty useless at the long end. Why not just sell the thing as an f7-8 lens, cut-out half the weight and about 30% of the cost?

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/s...5184198961.jpg

Very soft even at 24mm and horrible chromatic aberrations:
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/s...1363509453.jpg

Overall this lens sucks.

Sad to say I agree. I've cancelled my pre-order based on this sample
set, which looks really bad. Some shots at the long end are absolutely
terrible.

Still no free lunch, I guess.

In article , lid
says...
More than adequate for "snapshots", though.

Quite possible. But for snapshots you don't need a 30 MP FF camera.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 19/08/2019 18:27, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , lid
says...
More than adequate for "snapshots", though.

Quite possible. But for snapshots you don't need a 30 MP FF camera.

I sometimes wonder what folk who buy these cameras do with their images.
Sure, some will make large prints, but perhaps some use them just "for
the Web" and their social media activities. Those folk who buy "the
best camera" just before they go on holiday! Not folk here, I imagine.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Quite possible. But for snapshots you don't need a 30 MP FF camera.

I sometimes wonder what folk who buy these cameras do with their images.
Sure, some will make large prints, but perhaps some use them just "for
the Web" and their social media activities. Those folk who buy "the
best camera" just before they go on holiday! Not folk here, I imagine.


The point being of course that if you do use a high megapixel camera and
print anything large, the images out of it just won't look good.

of course they will, much better than with a low megapixel camera.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 22:11:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Quite possible. But for snapshots you don't need a 30 MP FF camera.

I sometimes wonder what folk who buy these cameras do with their images.
Sure, some will make large prints, but perhaps some use them just "for
the Web" and their social media activities. Those folk who buy "the
best camera" just before they go on holiday! Not folk here, I imagine.


The point being of course that if you do use a high megapixel camera and
print anything large, the images out of it just won't look good.

of course they will, much better than with a low megapixel camera.

It depends on the skill of the user.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 20/08/2019 10:46, Whisky-dave wrote:
[]
A former student now a researcher here was talking to me about a camera and he said he wanted to buy a FF nikon to put pictures on the web, he already has a nikon d3200 with a couple of zoom lens and apparently he said they aren't good enough.

Superficially, amazing! But perhaps he has some special need?
Low-light, perhaps? The D3200 is seven years old, and sensor
sensitivities have improved in that time. Severe cropping? Remote
control? Acoustic noiseless operation?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Quite possible. But for snapshots you don't need a 30 MP FF camera.

I sometimes wonder what folk who buy these cameras do with their images.
Sure, some will make large prints, but perhaps some use them just "for
the Web" and their social media activities. Those folk who buy "the
best camera" just before they go on holiday! Not folk here, I imagine.


The point being of course that if you do use a high megapixel camera and
print anything large, the images out of it just won't look good.

of course they will, much better than with a low megapixel camera.

It depends on the skill of the user.

the number of megapixels of the camera has nothing to do with the skill
of the user.

On 20/08/2019 12:14, Incubus wrote:
[]
Even when publishing on-line, the improvement in dynamic range and low-light
sensitivity can make an appreciable difference.

Yes, but you don't need full-frame for that. I doubt that you could
easily see the difference between APS-C and full-frame given similar
processing, and equivalent lenses.

Especially when you consider the gross variations in viewing devices and
their calibration!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu