Re: The Zeiss Myth... That would be a subjective evaluation, it would not be empirical.
One may measure a lens' resolution and assign a numerical value to it, which
may be directly compared to that of other lenses. It is not possible to
assign an empirical measurement to bokeh, as there are no accepted standards
of measurement.
Leica, for one, has stated that they design a lens around what they feel is
the optimal balance of numerous factors. If the bokeh turns out to be good,
then so be it. But they do not design for good bokeh, at the expense of
other optical characteristics that they feel are important.
Zeiss, at least judging from their advertising, emphasizes bokeh. Their
Planar design for normal lenses has always required cemented surfaces,
ususlly between the 4th and 5th element. This cementing slightly decreases
sharpness while producing a slight amount of aberration that produces
pleasing bokeh.
Nikon lenses typically have emphasized sharpness (I read that it came out of
their having produced precision optics for use by the Japanese during WWII.
The goal was to create sharp lenses with excellent resolving power, not to
worry about OOF elements of the image.)
I cannot come up with a photo scenario that requires bokeh for landscape
shots. Landscapes typically require getting as much into focus as possible.
What do Holgas have to do with bokeh?
I think you are confusing "reportage" with "portraiture."
I am not planning on buying into the Pentax digital system. In fact, I keep
wavering on whether to bother with a DSLR at all. The Canon G7 (advanced
P&S) has more than I need, and I still have my film SLRS if I require
special lens applications, like macros or super-wide angles.
And, every time I read Dante Stella's assessment of the "Film vs. Digital"
argument, I come away wondering why I even bother *thinking* about adding
more digital capability over and above the digital P&S that I bought in
2000. It still takes very nice photos, and I use it only for snaps--
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
The only advantage that digital holds for me is that I can see and edit my
images without the need to first develop the film and scan it. Considering
that my local photofinisher develops a roll of C-41 for $2.50 (no prints),
and I is open 24/7, and that I can wait for the film to be processed in just
15 minutes, rather than driving home and then back later, the time delay
factor is not significant for me. And my scanner digitizes an entire roll
at one time, rather than requiring that I insert only 4 or 5 frames at a
time (my photofinisher returns my negs uncut, at my request), so all I have
to do is to start the roll in the scanner and come back in 2 hours.
I am a low-volume shooter, and as an amateur I have no concerns over meeting
any kind of deadlines for editors. Since I already own about a dozen camera
bodies and close to 20 lenses (many of which were absolutely superb when
they were originally manufactured, and have continued to produce great
results) I just don't see a net gain in migrating over to a DSLR, with its
plastic-barreled zoom lenses. What (digital) lens out there is going to
blow away my SMC Takumar 100mm f/4 Macro, with its incredible bokeh,
corner-to-corner sharpness and beautiful resolving power? What digital zoom
lens is going to produce images that are discernably superior to those
recorded on my SMC Takumar normal lenses (I have 7 of them--in f/1.4, 1.8
and 2.0, and in 50mm and 55mm, plus f/1.7 and f/2 "A" lenses)???
Granted, my situation is not typical of that of most amateurs, but why would
a guy in my circumstances abandon all that great gear in favor of some
generally-overpriced zoom lenses?
Now if you are the type
I own a very serviceable Velbon tripod, with a ball head (great for keeping
those horizons level, without having to struggle with all those individual
pan head adjustments) and I almost always trip my shutters using the
self-timers. I also have a cheap, $15.00 Vivitar tripod, that I picked up 7
years ago at Wal-Mart, that is extremely lightweight and easy to tote around
virtually everywhere. This may sound like heresy, but that tripod has
proven itself to be an essential tool, because it is so light that it is no
problem to take along. Thus I am able to make virtually every shot a tripod
shot. Granted, it is flimsy, but it still results in images that are much
sharper than if I had shot hand-held. No tripod has value is it is too
cumbersome to take along, and I think that more people should try cheap,
lightweight backup tripods, for those times when they would ordinarily be
shooting hand-held.
Then there is the undocumented mirror lockup on Spotmatics and ES bodies
(tap the shutter button very quickly, and the meter locks up without
tripping the shutter. A second, slower, press of the shutter button trips
the shutter while the mirror is locked up. The mirror returns to normal
position after the shot is completed.)
Somehow I have managed to get by all this time without anti-shake. Even
taking into account the convenience of anti-shake, will I produce sharper
images than I do with my current setup? Probably not.
I am not a pro, and I have become comfortable in knowing who I am and what
my real requirements are. Landscape photographers are fortunate in that
their needs are extremely modest. I can't see myself buying a "Pro" DSLR,
because I already have so many SLRs. A photographer that does the kind of
work that I do needs only a few essentials:
* A steady tripod
* A proper lens shade
* Excellent quality filters (Pentax Skylight, UV and Polarizer are all I
use)
* A really good LENS (I am a big fan of normal lenses--I could get by with
just a 50mm f/1.4)
* A cable release
* A hand-held light meter (optional)
On the digital (post-shoot) end, all I need is
* A good film scanner
* An online printing service (I don't print at home. I prefer silver halide
prints, not inkjet or dye-sub)
* Editing software (PSP XI has more functionality than I need. I have PS
5.5, but I never found myself turning to PS, so I never bothered to upgrade
it all these years)
The now-discontinued Kodak Photo CD scanned with 2048 x 3072 resolution, and
had a DMAX, as I recall, of something like 2.2. And processors were
charging around $1-$2 per frame. I can scan at 50% higher resolution and
DMAX of 3.6, and I can do a roll in two hours, without the need to drop off
and pick up scanned film. And my only cost is that of the blank CD.
Considering my modest requirements, would I be better off in any significant
way by migrating to a DSLR? I still can't justify the move in my mind.
And, the most ironic thing of all, I believe that my current (35-year-old)
setup consists of better imaging potential than today's "digital" lenses.
No worries over moire, no need for the lens to be dumbed-down, probably less
optical distortion than current zoom lenses produce, multicoating that is
second-to-none, and descriptive power that probably exceeds that of current
lenses for digital cameras. (We don't know, because it is difficult or
impossible to see lens test data on these new lenses).
Bokeh? Are there any current lenses that have better bokeh than the SMC
Takumars? Or better build quality? And, if such lenses do exist, what do
they cost?
Jeremy
|
|
