Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

dpreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 291 posts

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#251

Post by Dylan16807 »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #200
0-_-0 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or keep it turned on and get used to it so we can all finally start enjoying high frame rate video!

Smoothing is orthogonal to high frame rate. You shouldn't upscale lower frame rates by making up frames (essentially tweening). It adds latency (boo) artifacts (boo) and reduces fidelity overall (boo). If the source happens to have more frames, then show them of course. But otherwise I'd prefer to see the same frame again for the extra 1/60th of a second.

I see their point though. Like UAC alerts being a janky experience that forces developers to fix things, watching interpolated 60fps is a janky experience that gets you used to 60fps so you won't react to it with an ingrained stereotype.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#252

Post by decafninja »

cratermoon wrote: post #48
ben7799 wrote: post #37

I love 50mm lenses but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously academic since photography is artistic & creative in nature. DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. These new 50mm lenses often defeat the point cause they're enormous, heavy, very expensive, and have little benefit over the slower versio…

> DPReview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. DPReview, FStoppers, PetaPixel, and back in before the web the Popular Photography and Modern Photography magazines. There's a big market for prosumer gear that costs a lot, has ideal technical specs, and hangs around the owner's neck like a prize. Of cour…

As an amateur, and speaking at the amateur level, I always find myself disagreeing that with that last statement whenever I see it.

I've used a bunch of cameras ranging from smartphones to high end point-and-shoots all the way up to full frame "prosumer" mirrorless. While I have no doubt someone whose work gets featured in say, NatGeo, can take an iPhone4 and make wonderful shots, I can't help but feel the rest of us Average Joes and Janes get a tremendous boost from having better gear.

And even that NatGeo featured pro would produce much better pictures with a FF DSLR than being limited to a iPhone 4, no?

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#253

Post by michrassena »

copperx wrote: post #204
foldr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of this must be psychological. Anyone can generate an extremely high res image nowadays by using a longer focal length and stitching four images together with a consumer grade SLR. Expensive bits of gear can be superior to that method in terms of the workflow (and sometimes results, given the limitations of stitching) but they aren’t magical. I know some will vociferously disagree with this statement, b…

Are you saying that the medium format look isn't real?

To add to the sibling comment, it is real. But it's more about the field of view of the lens and the depth of field. As pointed out the light doesn't know the area of the sensor. Depth of field is a matter of the distance from the camera to the subject, the aperture of the lens and the focal length of the lens. Larger formats allow you to stand closer to the subject while retaining a wider view than for a smaller format camera. Take the 80mm f2.8 lens on a Rolleiflex TLR. If you stand where you can frame a head and shoulders portrait, you're standing closer than you would for the same framing on a smaller format camera with an 80mm lens. You would have to stand back further, with the subject further away more is in focus. Have a look at the Brenizer effect for a digitally stitched equivalent of a larger sensor.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#254

Post by leemailll »

klodolph wrote: post #250
_ph_ wrote: post #231

There is a multitude of practical reasons. First of all, modern digital sensors offer resolutions far beyond what normal film material would offer. So 35mm cameras easily beat the resolution of classical medium format film. You need lenses to match that resolution. Then there are new requirements like AF and optical image stabilisation. With classical prime lenses, focussing often would move the whole lens forward an…

As someone who sometimes shoots medium format film, sometimes shoots digital—I am a bit skeptical about claims that digital “easily beat the resolution of classical medium format film”. I shoot with a nice, but old, MF camera and prime lens on a tripod and then do wet prints (usually) or drum scans (rarely). Based on close examination of drum scans, I estimate my setup gives images of around 60-80 megapixels. Knock t…

I suspect when people compare digital against film, they often mean the 35mm film or aps size, not something like medium format or larger. Of course, there is hasselblad medium-size digital back, but it is not often seen.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#255

Post by jrockway »

klodolph wrote: post #250
_ph_ wrote: post #231

There is a multitude of practical reasons. First of all, modern digital sensors offer resolutions far beyond what normal film material would offer. So 35mm cameras easily beat the resolution of classical medium format film. You need lenses to match that resolution. Then there are new requirements like AF and optical image stabilisation. With classical prime lenses, focussing often would move the whole lens forward an…

As someone who sometimes shoots medium format film, sometimes shoots digital—I am a bit skeptical about claims that digital “easily beat the resolution of classical medium format film”. I shoot with a nice, but old, MF camera and prime lens on a tripod and then do wet prints (usually) or drum scans (rarely). Based on close examination of drum scans, I estimate my setup gives images of around 60-80 megapixels. Knock t…

My experience mirrors yours. 50MP off of medium format and a flatbed scanner is easy. 1980s lenses look great, even with color film. I have one shot I took off the roof of a building, and you can read street signs many blocks away in the final scan. With 4x5, 100MP is pretty achievable, and even with very "inferior" lenses, the resolution is incredible. I have a picture of the Manhattan Bridge from the Brooklyn side, with the main focus being the bridge... but if you zoom in on the background, you can again read street signs. I love this kind of photo, where you can blow it up to wall size and think "nice" but walk closer and uncover tons of details that you could never see in person. It impresses me every time.

Digital is in an awkward spot where semiconductor yields make larger sensors impractical, so they have to focus on hyper-optimizing lenses. This ends up being very expensive. And, there are diminishing returns; the wave nature of light introduces interesting artifacts the smaller your pixels get, so there is unfortunately a hard limit. Compare this to a big piece of plastic dipped in some chemicals, and you wonder how much we really benefited from the switch to digital. It's great for the snapshot market, it's great for people that need to produce 1000s of wall-sized photos a day, but for the large middle ground, it feels like technology for technology's sake. (I of course own a DSLR, being very into technology for technology's sake!)

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#256

Post by skhr0680 »

jeromenerf wrote: post #220
foldr wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shooting wide open is fashionable because it’s a sign of expensive gear. Once artificial bokeh is perfected I expect people will stop obsessing over blurry backgrounds.

I hope not. My Nikkor 135mm dc is quadrupled in value since I bought it :) DC stands for “defocus control", as distorting the bokeh forward of backward.

I picked up an old stock 105mm last year, case included. I love how it makes people look, it's a great bridge between vintage and modern lenses.

How do you feel abbout the DC function? I've found R settings don't really focus correctly with AF, so it's best to focus manually. Is that the case with the 135mm version too?

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#257

Post by BasicObject »

Matrixik wrote: post #77
azhenley wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great camera. Don't discount the 3rd party E-mount lens makers, such as Samyang. If you are unsure what to get next, I suggest looking at this list of every E-mount full-frame lens: https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/

And Tamron. Everyone remembering Tamron from 10 years ago looks at me as if I'm insane for using Tamron zooms (that was all released in last 2-3 years) on Sony A7 III. Then I show them end results and they are making big eyes. They are sharp and looking really good. As good as best Sony zooms or Sigma? No, but really close and cheaper. I'm looking now to buy Tamron 28-200 that is basically best super zoom available o…

I use the 28-200 Tamron on the A7 III. It is amazing for the price. It's a good size and weight for what it is. It isn't always mentioned online, but it's not bad at macro either. For my purposes it strikes many of the right compromises. Rent it and give it a shot.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#258

Post by N1H1L »

jaywalk wrote: post #27
iamacyborg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how true this is but I always found it interesting that new makeup was developed (HD foundation) as a result of the switch towards high definition tv/cinema formats.

It's 100% true. HD changed everything from the makeup to how sets are constructed, painted and lit. Even at the level of your local newscast.

Did it also change air conditioning? I have been on sets thrice in my life, and everytime it has been uncomfortably hot.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#259

Post by porphyra »

diarrhea wrote: post #59
ben7799 wrote: post #37

I love 50mm lenses but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously academic since photography is artistic & creative in nature. DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. These new 50mm lenses often defeat the point cause they're enormous, heavy, very expensive, and have little benefit over the slower versio…

Yes, pretty much. I loved my low-range Canon gear (100D, Sigma lenses). When the Sony a7R3 came out, I got it alongside an array of GM lenses. My God do they blow everything out of the water. It's an insane kit. The best part is the great autofocus of the body; even in low light, even in rapid movement, even in burst shots. Among 1000 shots, I can count focus misses on one hand. However , the entire thing feels artif…

You could make things hard mode for yourself by shooting manual lenses. There are some amazing manual lenses for Sony such as the Voigtlander ones. I personally found it quite fun to shoot digital with modern manual lenses --- the image quality is so good but you still have to work to get it.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#260

Post by viraptor »

N1H1L wrote: post #258
jaywalk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 100% true. HD changed everything from the makeup to how sets are constructed, painted and lit. Even at the level of your local newscast.

Did it also change air conditioning? I have been on sets thrice in my life, and everytime it has been uncomfortably hot.

It reminded me of a trivia: shows shot in Melbourne gave actors ice to put in their mouths - because everyone knows Australia is always hot and sunny so you can't show the steam of their breath. (when they filmed on a cold day)
Post reply on HN