advertisement


50mm comparison

Gromit

Gromit

Plasticine Dog
Just for a bit of fun, and spurred on by one of Mad Moon's comments, thought I'd have a very quick comparison test between 2 different camera bodies: The Nikon Df (Test 1) is with a very old AI-Nikkor 50-1.8, Tests 2 & 3 are on the Leica M-P 240 - one image with the AI-Nikkor, the other with the Voigtländer Nokton 50-1.5. I won't say which is which at the moment, but it may be obvious. :)

I used the school sign down the bottom of the hill as a focus target, and to keep things fair, used the clip-on EVF for both Leica images. The rangefinder tends to be more accurate but this will level the field. Anyway, see what you think (you're best to use the Flickr original I guess)...

Fifty Test 1 by Boxertrixter, on Flickr

Fifty test 2 by Boxertrixter, on Flickr

Fifty test 3 by Boxertrixter, on Flickr
 
I like these threads :D

Definitely worth looking on Flickr as the differences are more pronounced there. It seems to me, the difference between the cameras in these images is mostly down to white balance? (The Df's white balance in this instance being slightly cooler that the Leica's). As to the two lenses on the Leica, the Voigtländer Nokton 50-1.5 definitely has the edge, having more contrast and punchy colours, whilst still rendering a natural and pleasing image. Having said that, we clearly aren't talking about huge differences, and it's clear than the venerable AI Nikkor is no slouch. By complete coincidence, I got the Nikkor 105/2.5 Ai-S out today. I forgot just how wonderful it is :)

Lefty
 
Gary - spot on re the Nokton.

Paul - didn't use a tripod as I get enough funny looks just walking around with the camera. :D

There's a 'bite' to the image which helps without it becoming overly sharp. As Lefty said though, there isn't a night & day difference and my AI-50 is suffering from fungus too. True re the white balance - these are from RAW files with the WB left alone. The Df is most certainly cooler, with the Leica having a richer glow. TBH I like both, in their own ways.

If weather conditions are similar tomorrow, I'll put the Pen F on a tripod and do a couple of hi-res versions.

@Lefty good call re the 105. There's another lens for another comparison but only between differing bodies as I don't have any kind of M-mount equivalent.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Doesn’t the AA filter in the DF also have an effect on overall sharpness
Click to expand...

Almost definitely, but it takes some pixel-peeping to recognise it. It's certainly there though, less a case of a removal of detail (or just masking it slightly) but taking away some bite from an image.
 
Gromit said:
Almost definitely, but it takes some pixel-peeping to recognise it. It's certainly there though, less a case of a removal of detail (or just masking it slightly) but taking away some bite from an image.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the sharpness is quite noticeable, but of of course that's because a comparison is at hand, it would go mostly un-noticed if it was a standalone picture, and even less so if the images were printed as opposed to a digital screen review!

In lockdown I've been reviewing a lot of old pictures and the sharpness difference between say an X-T2 with 23mm F1.4 and the X100F (both at F8) within images is really noticeable - but only if you go looking for it - if the image stands up, then its just a non-issue.

The more photography I do, the more the urge I have to simplify my kit, so I can concentrate on the image making rather than get bogged down in gear selection/choices/what ifs
 
I've a feeling that you could make any of those look like the others with a little post processing. Given they have all been processed (it's not possible to get the data raw off the sensors), it would suggest to me that the differences aren't worth worrying about. They are all equally good to my eyes.
 
Cesare said:
I've a feeling that you could make any of those look like the others with a little post processing. Given they have all been processed (it's not possible to get the data raw off the sensors), it would suggest to me that the differences aren't worth worrying about. They are all equally good to my eyes.
Click to expand...

Same here. Picture 2 does look slight better to me, however it's not massive and could be down to other factors than the lens quality.
 
Don't know which is which, but image 1 at the top is by far the better image for my eyes...2 and 3 have a red cast...and the Pen image while pleasant, looks a tad over exposed to me
 
Waiting for the builders to turn up today so, with boredom levels getting a little high, thought I'd do another quick (and of course entirely non-scientific) comparison between 3 cameras. Of course there are 2 different lenses in play here, but I try to think of each combination as a 'package' that one is most likely to use.

Nikons D700 and Df with AF-Nikkor 50-1.8D
Leica M-P Typ 240 with Voigtländer Nokton 50-1.5 ASPH

All shot as base ISO, lenses set to f5.6 (ignore the EXIF on the Leica - the Nokton isn't 6-bit coded so the body chucks in whatever it thinks the lens is set at). :D Focus & metering point is the guttering on the blacksmiths' shed across the road, just above the ivy on the wall.

Test 1 by Boxertrixter, on Flickr

Test 2 by Boxertrixter, on Flickr

Test 3 by Boxertrixter, on Flickr

These are direct from the RAW files, only adjusted at the top and bottom end to keep the histogram in check. No other fiddling.

Bizarrely - against what I expected (and this is 100% subjective of course) I think I prefer the D700 file the most, by the tiniest of margins.

Still, a bit of fun...and the builder still isn't here yet... :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top