John said:
The reputation of 35mm film machinery depended to a large extent on the
quality of not only build quality but the quality of the optics to
produce a superior image [brands such as Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Contax,
Canon, Olympus and Minolta coming to mind].
In the context of build quality and especially optical lens quality what
is the reputation of present day digital machinery to produce a superior
image vis a vis what a Leica or high end Zuiko lens could produce
yesterday or today?
If I am completely off the deep end or completely uninformed about the
picture producing quality of today's digital machinery vis a vis what
what obtainable with a piece of Wetzlar or Zuiko glass can someone
please come to my rescue.
-----------------------------------------
When I questioned the capability of OM Zuikos to fully utilize the
resolution of the E-300's sensor it was not meant in any way to impugn
the OM Zuiko vs the digital Zuiko. What you may not be considering is
that lenses for larger formats, regardless of their optical quality
level, typically do not have the the resolving power of lenses for
smaller formats. Firstly because they don't need it and secondly
because it would be very expensive even if possible.
If you were to view an 8x10 print that has resolution on the print of
about 5 lines/mm you would call it sharp. To make an 8x10 print from an
8x10 camera we don't have to magnify the negative at all. Therefore, if
the 8x10 lens was resolving even 5 lines/mm it would make a good looking
print. A 35mm image, on the other hand, would need to be magnified by
8X in order to produce an 8x10 image. That means that the image on the
film must have a resolution of 40 lines/mm to end up as 5 lines/mm on
the print. The 35mm lens must be made to much more exacting resolution
standards than the 8x10 in order to exhibit the same image quality on
the final print. But, because it's so much smaller, it can be done and
far less expensively than trying to produce the same resolution from the
larger piece of glass.
I'm just extending this analogy to the 35 OM Zuiko vs digital Zuiko.
The E-300 sensor has 188 pixels/mm. I suspect that no OM Zuiko has a
resolution over 100 lines/mm if that. Not because they are of poor
"quality" but because they didn't need to go higher than that for 35mm
film. Now the digital sensor is smaller and the image needs to be
enlarged more to make a print. Is the OM Zuiko capable of resolving
enough that it competes with the digital Zuiko at large print sizes?
My suspicion is that at, say, 16x20 we should see the superior
resolution of the smaller, digital design lenses. But do we?
Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|