iandol on mon 15 dec 03
Dear Friends,
From time to time, those "In the know" give us the good oil on some good =
or bad choices when selecting or electing to buy a digital camera.
We have read a lot about image quality due to pixel numbers and silver =
grain but I do not recall much being said about the resolving power of =
the optical glassware.=20
As I remember reading, in my youth, the standard for Lens Resolution was =
measured in lines per millimetre and good quality was something of the =
order of 100 to 120 lines/mm for a good quality lens for a 35 mm reflex =
or direct view camera. The other thing of importance was "Depth of =
Field" which could be controlled by altering the aperture.
So I would like to ask, "Just how good is the glassware of Digital =
Cameras at various price ranges".
Or is it a case that CCD sensors do not need that sort of resolution, =
therefore good quality optics are of no consequence?
I have a feeling that some of the digital cameras offered do not produce =
images which would be comparable to those snapped in an old " 120 Box =
Brownie"
Any other opinions out there?
Carl Finch on mon 15 dec 03
At 03:06 PM 12/15/03 +1030, iandol wrote:
>Dear Friends,
> From time to time, those "In the know" give us the good oil on some good
> or bad choices when selecting or electing to buy a digital camera.
>We have read a lot about image quality due to pixel numbers and silver
>grain but I do not recall much being said about the resolving power of the
>optical glassware.
>As I remember reading, in my youth, the standard for Lens Resolution was
>measured in lines per millimetre and good quality was something of the
>order of 100 to 120 lines/mm for a good quality lens for a 35 mm reflex or
>direct view camera. The other thing of importance was "Depth of Field"
>which could be controlled by altering the aperture.
>So I would like to ask, "Just how good is the glassware of Digital Cameras
>at various price ranges".
>Or is it a case that CCD sensors do not need that sort of resolution,
>therefore good quality optics are of no consequence?
>I have a feeling that some of the digital cameras offered do not produce
>images which would be comparable to those snapped in an old " 120 Box Brownie"
>Any other opinions out there?
Ivor, you might get some of that information at these digital camera review
web sites, if not directly, then by comparing sample photos they've posted
in their reviews.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
Maurice Weitman on mon 15 dec 03
Hello, Ivor,
At 3:06 PM +1030 on 12/15/03, iandol wrote:
>So I would like to ask, "Just how good is the glassware of Digital
>Cameras at various price ranges".
As you surely know, the only answer possible to your question is: It
depends. One can assume that the more expensive a camera, the more
likely it will have good glass.
>Or is it a case that CCD sensors do not need that sort of
>resolution, therefore good quality optics are of no consequence?
I believe that lens quality is most important; since each system of
an assembly line depends on the quality of the steps before, very
little can make up for lower-quality lenses.
You and many others on clayart often say "Test, test, test." In
choosing a camera, it's not practical to test each camera for
yourself, but thanks to the 'net, there are many excellent resources
available to you. In my opinion, the best among them are Phil
Askey's dpreview.com pages.
You may see the resolution tests for dozens of cameras there; for my
camera, the URL is:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf717/page20.asp
When I chose my last digital camera, I valued glass over just about
anything else. I chose the Sony F717, largely because of its 5x Carl
Zeiss lens. It also has excellent software and controls, battery
life, fast auto-focus, night (IR) vision, manual focus, and many
other cool features which I appreciate. I paid $700 US, and expect
to be happy with it for many years to come. I believe they have a
newer model already, but I'm not looking anymore. Really.
Well, I did look for a camera for my youngest son last week; he's a
photojournalism major and is giving up my former Nikkormat EL bodies
and Nikkor lenses I gave him to use in high school seven years ago in
favor of digital. He's buying a Nikon D-100; $1500 with no lens.
Gulp. (He's paying his own way through college and is, obviously,
quite serious about his passion.)
My film cameras are Contax 35mm bodies which also feature Zeiss
lenses. I'm hooked. I've had these Contax beauties for twenty years
and cannot be happier with them. No auto-focus or built-in flash,
just solid bodies with great optics.
Regards,
Maurice
Russel Fouts on wed 17 dec 03
>> Ivor, you might get some of that information at these digital camera
review web sites, if not directly, then by comparing sample photos they've
posted in their reviews.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
<<
Another is http://www.imaging-resource.com
They often talk about the quality of the optics. And yes quality optics are
still essential, even with digital.
Russel
Russel Fouts
Mes Potes & Mes Pots
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 223 02 75
Mobile: +32 476 55 38 75
Http://www.mypots.com
Home of "The Potters Portal"
Over 2300 Pottery Related Links!
Updated frequently
My work can also be seen on:
The World Crafts Council International Site: http://www.wccwis.gr
The World Crafts Council Belgium Site: http://wcc-bf.org (English Pages)
EasyCraft: http://www.easycraft.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public." --U.S. President (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Theodore
Roosevelt.
| |
|
