Initial images from new Nikons = P&S quality

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    It's only the beginning, but the JPEG image at 180 ISO here appears to
    have noticeable noise and NR. In fact, I think LX3/5 (Panasonic P&S)
    images are at least as good. Well, we were warned. IMO, based on
    this, the Panasonic GH2 M4/3 and G3 sensors are much better. They
    have a few raws on the site as well. Oddly, they've stripped the
    ISO's off some of the images.

    http://masters.galleries.dpreview.c...694266&Signature=2WKg1U2aR70WFS3IS6eksIlhHrI=
     
    RichA, Sep 22, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    That link didn't work for me. Try here instead:
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092210nikonj1samplesgallery.asp
    or here:
    http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-j1-preview-samples
     
    Bruce, Sep 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    What's your take on this ISO 800 shot?
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/4xde46z
    or:
    http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/r...148/dsc_0027?inalbum=nikon-j1-preview-samples
     
    Bruce, Sep 22, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Resolution; Good
    Sharpness: Not so good.
    CA: Noticeable, strong.
    SA: Hard to tell, some there.
    Grain structure: Mushy, brain-convolution look, like from a P&S
    Noise: Noticeable, even with NR. Can't really guess how it would look
    without it.
    Colour: Ok, but who can tell with a web shot?
    I printed it at 11x8.5 at 360dpi and the shot looks ok, but not like
    I'm used to from M4/3 or APS.
     
    RichA, Sep 22, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    It's not very nice, is it? I don't think I'll be buying one. :)
     
    Bruce, Sep 22, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    As a pricey novelty, it might be good, but NEX more or less matches it
    on size, with a sensor with 3x the surface area. Now, if Sony can
    produce a really flat, good quality prime, it'll be really good for
    pocketability. Hell, BUY the license from Pentax for their 40mm f2.8
    and use it!
    I have no idea what will happen to the Nikon or (especially) the Q
    Pentax.
     
    RichA, Sep 22, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    I didn't think the Pentax 40mm f/2.8 was all that great.


    If Ricoh has any sense, the Pentax Q will be quietly forgotten.
     
    Bruce, Sep 22, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Rich Guest

    It's ok, better than Sony's 16mm. Maybe it's asking too much, to have a
    low-profile lens that works well with close proximity to a large sensor and
    it not cost a fortune, like a Leica?
     
    Rich, Sep 23, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    I'm not sure that there have ever been any optically excellent
    'pancake' lenses. Certainly not the ones I have tried.

    To make a pancake lens you have to restrict the number of elements.
    Inevitably, that means that a (typically) four element pancake lens
    will not perform as well as a five or six element lens of a more
    normal shape and size.
     
    Bruce, Sep 23, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    We have to establish a baseline for lens excellence. Seeing as every
    test site, magazine, etc., uses different parameters, it's difficult
    to do.
    This is why I suggested that testing cameras be done with a universal
    lens of known high quality that could be mounted onto any camera. The
    mirrorless cameras at least make this much easier.
    Looks like a judicious helping of aspheric surfaces and ED glass will
    be needed to make such a thing work well.
    It's the only way to eliminate elements and preserve or enhance
    correction.
     
    RichA, Sep 23, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    The Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron-M would be a good choice, and a used
    example is not ridiculously expensive to buy.


    It has been tried - the AI-P Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 had one ED element and
    I think also one moulded aspherical surface. But it wasn't a great
    lens. One of the better pancake lenses, perhaps, but not great.
    People often claim the Carl Zeiss Tessar MM 45mm f/2.8 for
    Contax/Yashica is the best of these, but I have never used one.

    On the other hand, the tiny Leica 40mm f/2 Summicron-C that was made
    for the Leica CL compact rangefinder camera was an all-time great
    lens, a fantastic performer. Many people who have compared it to the
    classic 35mm f/2 Summicron-M would say that they are in the same
    class. I think it is possibly even sharper than the 35mm, its only
    weakness being slightly greater light fall-off and neutral rather than
    creamy bokeh). But the 40mm has no ED glass and all its surfaces are
    spherical. It is a tiny lens, but not a pancake because it has 6
    elements.

    It would make a fine f/2 80mm (equiv.) portrait lens on m4/3.
     
    Bruce, Sep 23, 2011
    #11
  12. :

    [...]
    "Speaking" of 35mm lenses on 4/3rds, a friend has been using
    some Nikkors on the Panasonic AF100 video camera which, judging
    from frame-grabs he has sent me, have been spectacularly sharp.
    These included the 35mm f2 AIS, 50mm f1.4 AIS, 85mm f2 AIS,
    135mm f2 AIS, and the 50mm-135mm f3.5 AIS Nikkors, most from
    my collection of FS lenses at --
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs.htm
    Maybe not the best "bokeh", but I've long considered that a
    compromise with the highest sharpness and contrast at wide
    stops...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 23, 2011
    #12
  13. :

    [...]
    "Speaking" of 35mm lenses on 4/3rds, a friend has been using
    some Nikkors on the Panasonic AF100 video camera which, judging
    from frame-grabs he has sent me, have been spectacularly sharp.
    These included the 35mm f2 AIS, 50mm f1.4 AIS, 85mm f2 AIS,
    135mm f2 AIS, and the 50mm-135mm f3.5 AIS Nikkors, most from
    my collection of FS lenses at --
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs.htm
    Maybe not the best "bokeh", but I've long considered that a
    compromise with the highest sharpness and contrast at wide
    stops...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 23, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Just recently, someone built an apo telescope using normal glass. So,
    a well corrected lens using non-ED glass and spherical surfaces might
    be possiblem, to a point. There is also lens surface curve accuracy,
    polish quality and internal baffling efficiency that contribute to the
    lens correction and contrast. But if it's possible to produce AF
    lenses with sizes more like some small rangefinder lenses that don't
    have AF, that would be good too. Problem is, the use of plastics for
    the bodies means, inevitably, larger bodies (plastic has to be thicker
    than metal) and that is an issue too.
     
    RichA, Sep 23, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Is that last part anecdotal or has anyone actually tested it out?
    Reason I mention this is that Samyang's 85mm f1.4 has very good bokeh
    and yet is very sharp with high resolution. It makes sense that a
    soft lens would probably produce more diffuse (better?) bokeh, but
    that isn't always the case. Certain lens aberrations can make bokeh
    look pretty disturbing. For example, coma can produce oval highlights
    in the periphery of an image that give the sense that the image is
    moving, or spinning; not nice, but entertaining. You see this in
    CCTV lenses under 25mm adapted to micro 4/3rds cameras because the
    lens wasn't meant to support that large a sensing area and the edge
    isn't corrected for it. I think if people were able to test lens
    aberrations and then directly compare the result to the bokeh they
    produce, it would be very interesting.
     
    RichA, Sep 23, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    David is right. There is in most cases a trade-off between smooth
    bokeh and ultimate sharpness.

    A lens designer achieves ultimate sharpness by optimising both
    resolution and contrast. Various combinations of those two factors
    produce varying degrees of apparent sharpness.

    The term "apparent sharpness" is subjective. A more objective measure
    of sharpness is MTF, which includes both contrast and resolution. The
    higher the MTF, the higher the apparent sharpness. Or at least that
    is the case up to a point where the figures become unstable. Higher
    MTF is obtained by better correction of optical aberrations.

    Smooth bokeh is usually achieved by not correcting out all the
    spherical aberration. It is a balancing act because increased
    spherical aberration means decreased MTF and decreased apparent
    sharpness. The art is to leave in just enough spherical aberration to
    produce smooth background bokeh, but without too adversely affecting
    MTF and apparent sharpness.

    So smooth bokeh versus good apparent sharpness is about choosing a
    good compromise. Lens designers who pursue ultimate sharpness are
    unlikely to deliver good bokeh.

    The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 is a particularly good compromise, with
    excellent sharpness and reasonably smooth bokeh. Optically, in my
    opinion the Samyang is a better design than the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D
    and all versions of the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4. This is a remarkable
    achievement for such an inexpensive lens that is also very well made.

    The latest AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G is marginally better, with improved
    sharpness at the edges when used wide open, but costs many times more.

    The Samyang 85mm is not a one-off lucky break either. The Samyang
    35mm f/1.4 is a stellar performer. In this case, it actually matches
    or exceeds the performance of the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G which costs
    many times the price. Of course both of these blow away the AIS
    Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 which has only just been replaced after 40 years in
    the Nikon range (in AI and AIS versions).
     
    Bruce, Sep 23, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Rich Guest

    I don't know what the copier company is going to do, but I will be sad the
    day they cancel the 645, a truly great camera.
     
    Rich, Sep 24, 2011
    #17
  18. I guess you were sad in 1997, since that's when the 645 was
    discontinued.
     
    Mike Benveniste, Sep 24, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it's obvious that he means the *current* 645d.
     
    Guest, Sep 24, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Sep 24, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.