35mp+ 50mm Summilux's vs APO Summicron f2 Centre

[Nordvik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 36MP camera like Nikon D800e have 4912 pixels on the short side, that will give 204ppi on a borderless 24" paper. A 80MP camera will have something like 7300 pixels on the short side, 304ppi. I really doubt you can tell a difference between those resolutions when everything else are being equal = same lens and tripod (A Leica M 240 will give 166ppi and M9 144ppi, you can tell a difference then if you get real close. Like I said, you have to be careful with over sharpening and artifacts).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pgk]

These 'techie' arguments appear as regularly as clockwork here on the forum. As ever, quoting figures and facets of complex technical explanations is unsatisfactory and satisfies few, if any, readers of the threads.

 

In my experience, there is so much more to an image than just the lens and sensor used to 'capture' (not a word I particularly like, but apt here) it. Lighting, point of focus, air clarity, subject colour and contrast, and [add your own pet parameter here], all coalesce to produce an image. And some images work better than other and will even print larger than others. Simply boosting MPixels and/or using an extremely high resolution lens may help but are only two links in the chain.

 

FWIW, I have taken photos on my M8 which work better when printed large than some M9 photos and the same goes for 5D and 5D2 images. Simply using the camera with more pixels doesn't provide certainty of magnification but when everything comes together, it can provide images capable of higher magnification than those from lower MPixel cameras if you aim is higher levels of fine detail and smoother tonality.

 

Whether there will be a point at which increasing MPixels becomes irrelevant, well that remains to be seen. However for the vast majority of us, increasing MPixels is probably no longer an issue - we have fabulous equipment now, the absolute capabilities of which are almost certainly underused most of the time.

 

And also FWIE, the 50 Summilux-apo is an extraordinarily capable lens - IMHO the best 50mm lens currently available - that said I haven't tried the APO Summicron but the faster aperture is the deal breaker for me anyway.

[semi-ambivalent]

These 'techie' arguments appear as regularly as clockwork here on the forum. As ever, quoting figures and facets of complex technical explanations is unsatisfactory and satisfies few, if any, readers of the threads.

 

But:

 

And also FWIE, the 50 Summilux-apo is an extraordinarily capable lens - IMHO the best 50mm lens currently available

 

When I see how little my photography improves by the purchase of a high quality lens, and when I look at the last century's remarkable imagery produced by people using, say, Leica optics, of known lesser technical prowess, the fact that my new lens's specifications are complex might very well be the only thing I have to be proud of. (That and being able to pay for it.) Perhaps all posts that include lens bragging should include an image showing what that photographer actually did with said lens. Otherwise the "techie" arguments will indeed never go away.

 

Short on patience today, but what the hell,

s-a

[mb-de]

And also FWIE, the 50 Summilux-apo is an extraordinarily capable lens - IMHO the best 50mm lens currently available - that said I haven't tried the APO Summicron but the faster aperture is the deal breaker for me anyway.

 

Maybe the following article is worth a close look.

 

Most Adorable 50ies

 

I like the 'Lux but compared to Otus or even the Sonnar FE 55mm f/1,8, it tends to loose out.

 

I decided to keep my 50 'Crons (M+R), and get the Sonnar FE for my A7. The latter is (obviously) no good for my analogue Ms and my CL, but on the A7 (and on the NEX-7) it handily outperforms all my Leica glass… I so wanted to convince myself that I needed the 'Lux… the money saved went into a second hand WATE instead… so I do not need to borrow it all the time.

 

As for the analogue M/CLs, the late production Summicron M 50 is still plenty good… and the WATE a really handy extension of the portfolio.

 

Best regards,

 

M.

=->

[Jared]

So you actually believe that using a 35-mm-format 36-MP hand-held camera to produce a 180-ppi 24×36-whatever print is fine but using a 35-mm-format 80-MP hand-held camera to produce a 300-ppi 24×36-whatever print is not?

 

You cannot be serious, can you? After all, it's April fool's day ...

 

I think that using a 35mm format 36 megapixel camera hand held to produce 180-pip 24x36 prints will produce results no different from an 80 megapixel camera in the same format. Obviously, both will work just fine, it's just that I don't think you will be able to tell the difference. I don't think you will gain any resolution. You could up-sample the 36 megapixels and get an identical result. Heck, it might even be better due to improved signal to noise ratio from the larger pixels.

 

- Jared

[pgk]

Perhaps all posts that include lens bragging should include an image showing what that photographer actually did with said lens.

I often do post images with my lenses to show what they can be used for and showing the aperture used - but in the appropriate category in the Photo Forums. That said, it is impossible to illustrate on line just what most lenses are like (unless they are utterly appalling that is). Techie arguments will never go away until people stop trying to define lenses with a simplistic set of numbers or limited number of parameters. One of the reasons I like the 50 Summilux aspheric so much (besides its optical excellence) is its size and ergonomics - all too often ignored in the quest for optical 'perfection', but far more important in actual usage.

 

And FWIW my photographs did improve when I changed from pre-aspheric to aspheric Summilux simply because I often use it wide open and it is here that the aspheric shows clear superiority.

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I often do post images with my lenses to show what they can be used for and showing the aperture used - but in the appropriate category in the Photo Forums. That said, it is impossible to illustrate on line just what most lenses are like (unless they are utterly appalling that is). Techie arguments will never go away until people stop trying to define lenses with a simplistic set of numbers or limited number of parameters. One of the reasons I like the 50 Summilux aspheric so much (besides its optical excellence) is its size and ergonomics - all too often ignored in the quest for optical 'perfection', but far more important in actual usage.

 

And FWIW my photographs did improve when I changed from pre-aspheric to aspheric Summilux simply because I often use it wide open and it is here that the aspheric shows clear superiority.

 

I certainly agree that the MTF data--whether good or bad--have little to do with whether a photograph is any good. The most dramatic examples I am aware of are Robert Capa's photographs of the Normandy invasion in World War II. The negatives were damaged--partially melted--during development in London, and as a result the surviving images are blurry. Resolution is atrocious. Yet these are some of the most compelling combat photographs ever taken. How can that be? I guess the quality of the equipment doesn't have much to do with the quality of the photograph.

 

All that being said, many of us seem to concentrate on the technical aspects of our photography. I suspect it is because it's easier to control. Is the picture sharp? Is the white balance accurate? Is there noise in the image? We worry about these things because the answers are clear and measurable. Frankly, for most of us it is easier to upgrade our equipment than our skills, and easier to upgrade our skills than our artistry. Nothing wrong with that--it's a hobby, after all. I'm never going to take a picture as important or as compelling as Eisenstadt's "VJ Day in Times Square," but I can certainly make one that is well exposed, has accurate colors, good "sharpness" (whatever that means), and even give it some pleasing bokeh. If I'm lucky, the photo itself will be interesting enough that others will actually want to look at it. That part is much harder.

 

- Jared

[friedeye]

Yes, Jared. I don't give a fig about edge sharpness or micro-contrast. I want emotion in a frame. I want framing and tone and artistry. A brutally clean and sharp lens has nothing to do with either. Pick your instrument - fine - but if it's not about your result, it's BS.

[pgk]

I guess the quality of the equipment doesn't have much to do with the quality of the photograph.

It depends on what you are trying to do. interestingly, I did a monitoring photography job yesterday which I carry out every couple of years. Its of an inaccessible subject and I've done this using a Canon 5D2 with 100 macro (and 5D with 100 macro prior to this). I have to shoot a sequence and stitch the panorama together for scientific evaluation. And before anyone asks - tripod and all vibration minimising techniques utilised. Just as an experiment I also shot it using an M9 and 75 Summicron.....

 

Sequences from both cameras and lenses are perfectly acceptable, but the sequence from the M9/75 is actually much, much easier to work with, stitches faster, shows better micro contrast and detail and shows exceptional shadow detail. In all honesty its easier to shoot the sequence with too. However on paper its the 'lesser' specified system with fewer MPixels and requiring more magnification to view although the lenses' capabilities and lack of anti-aliasing filter are clearly helpful.

 

So the quality of equipment CAN have a lot to do with the photograph but ONLY where this is relevant to what it is that is trying to be achieved.

[IWC Doppel]

I think the only way to evaluate this is to shoot sufficient shots to avoid errors between contenders and comparators, then compare and view in print at your normal or desired size and of course on screen. Whilst strong technical arguments exist and I do listen to Putts (its a shame some of the comparisons between film and pixels have been archived) trying in your circumstances is king IMO

 

I'd love an APO, on the M9 it was obviously clearer than the cron at f2, I was quite taken by it with a few shots, that was enough for me to lust, but the price and issues have stopped me taking it any further ! I did try the S too (I am equallly as likely to buy one of these and Leica Mayfair were fully cognisant of this before I tried) that was extremely impressive, that's another lust item as well

 

Sometimes living with and learning is for me required to fully appreciate I didn't need more than a few shots to see strengths in the APO or S. I can see sensor improvements reducing the need for lager formats as the years role by, this is unequivocal fact in my humble view. For what it's worth Putts spoke of 70MP to compare to the very best 35mm film from memory