Seriously. There's no pixellation and very little noise. There's a little chromatic aberration due to the fact that I'm at 10mm and wide open.
Check the original size:
http://www.flickr.co...o/in/photostream/
Er, that's a shallow DoF...
Seriously. There's no pixellation and very little noise. There's a little chromatic aberration due to the fact that I'm at 10mm and wide open.
Check the original size: http://www.flickr.co...o/in/photostream/ |
|
Pixellation is the wrong word
I don't know the right word, but digital cameras have a distinctive look when they are at the limits of their dynamic range. It's probably not "worse" in any absolute sense than the way film displays its limits, but as someone who grew up with film I still find it "unnatural".
--
Drew |
|
Dynamic range of what?
It's not a badly exposed image.
I reckon what you're seeing there is what pretty much what you'd see on film, all else being equal. |
|
I think you mean the mild "fish eye" effect.
It's a short focal length lens. It's working as designed.
E.g. the goat here - http://bestdesignoptions.com/?p=13706 - scroll down. You can get the same effect in cheap cameras, but the detail, sharp focus, good chromatic aberration control, etc., show this is a good lens. HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Maybe you're thinking of the noise profile.
Which will be different between an image sensor and film. :-)
Wade. Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
|
|
Bingo
I don't always know the right terms, but I know what I mean. :-)
--
Drew |
|
Sorry for the misdirection on my part.
|