12-01-2010, 11:10 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291204714' post='4643']
*sigh*
[/quote]
?
Is it my fault that it took you so long to arrive at your current position?
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291204714' post='4643']
The sharpening itself may not affect the validity of the MTF tests so I could leave the K5 as is - this is correct. However, it does diminish the field quality of the K5 -> for me<-.
[/quote]
I'm happy for you to have whatever personal preferences for using the K-5 in the field.
Note, however, that you initially said that the removal of the AA filter were necessary because the "strong" AA made it pointless to replace the K10D with the K-5 for your lab tests. You specifically said that the K-5 issue only is an issue for your lab testing and that your concerns wouldn't apply to normal shooters. You even disrecommended the removal of the AA filter for non-lab users.
In the light of your new understanding, do you think you need to revise your earlier K10D = 2350 LW/PH vs K-5 = 2500 LW/PH assessment? Or was/is it an apples to oranges comparison? I'm assuming that you are now agreeing that the AA filter doesn't destroy resolution, that detail can be fully recovered by appropriate capture sharpening. If you agree then it seems that your LW/PH comparison was incorrect.
Regarding sharpening artifacts: I prefer to set my sharpening in a way so that I don't see artifacts. A choice I don't have with moiré.
Regarding sharpening noise: Even standard USM filters allow you to confine sharpening to high detail areas. This will not increase the noise in other areas. More elaborate methods (such as creating luminance / high frequency masks) are available if necessary.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291204714' post='4643']
Regarding the tests - it is quite meaningless whether there's an AA filter in the camera or not. This will NOT CHANGE THE RANKING of the lenses nor the technical quality of a lens and THIS IS THE ULTIMATE ESSENCE of it all.
[/quote]
I always understood that and that results are not comparable across different systems. No need for shouting. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291204714' post='4643']
So as always in life - the truth is always gray and neither black nor white.
[/quote]
Yes, of course (except for the "always" part, should have been "often"). Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent one from being wrong at times. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I'm including myself in this, of course!
*sigh*
[/quote]
?
Is it my fault that it took you so long to arrive at your current position?
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291204714' post='4643']
The sharpening itself may not affect the validity of the MTF tests so I could leave the K5 as is - this is correct. However, it does diminish the field quality of the K5 -> for me<-.
[/quote]
I'm happy for you to have whatever personal preferences for using the K-5 in the field.
Note, however, that you initially said that the removal of the AA filter were necessary because the "strong" AA made it pointless to replace the K10D with the K-5 for your lab tests. You specifically said that the K-5 issue only is an issue for your lab testing and that your concerns wouldn't apply to normal shooters. You even disrecommended the removal of the AA filter for non-lab users.
In the light of your new understanding, do you think you need to revise your earlier K10D = 2350 LW/PH vs K-5 = 2500 LW/PH assessment? Or was/is it an apples to oranges comparison? I'm assuming that you are now agreeing that the AA filter doesn't destroy resolution, that detail can be fully recovered by appropriate capture sharpening. If you agree then it seems that your LW/PH comparison was incorrect.
Regarding sharpening artifacts: I prefer to set my sharpening in a way so that I don't see artifacts. A choice I don't have with moiré.
Regarding sharpening noise: Even standard USM filters allow you to confine sharpening to high detail areas. This will not increase the noise in other areas. More elaborate methods (such as creating luminance / high frequency masks) are available if necessary.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291204714' post='4643']
Regarding the tests - it is quite meaningless whether there's an AA filter in the camera or not. This will NOT CHANGE THE RANKING of the lenses nor the technical quality of a lens and THIS IS THE ULTIMATE ESSENCE of it all.
[/quote]
I always understood that and that results are not comparable across different systems. No need for shouting. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291204714' post='4643']
So as always in life - the truth is always gray and neither black nor white.
[/quote]
Yes, of course (except for the "always" part, should have been "often"). Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent one from being wrong at times. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I'm including myself in this, of course!