• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Technical / Wag the dog, part 4

Wag the dog, part 4

July 8, 2011 JimK Leave a Comment

I did some lens testing this week:

  • The Sony 16mm f/2.8 on the NEX-5
  • The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar on the NEX-5
  • The 18mm f/3.8 Super Elmar-M on the NEX-5

and, just for completeness:

  • The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar on the M9
  • The 18mm f/3.8 Super Elmar-M on the M9

It wasn’t very formal, but was enough for me to draw some conclusions:

  • Amazingly, the little 16mm Sony lens is about as good on the NEX-5 as the Tri-Elmar when that lens is set to 16 mm.
  • The 18mm f/3.8 Super Elmar-M is an amazing lens, and does a great job on the NEX-5.
  • The lack of an antialiasing filter on the M9 makes for sharper images than on the NEX-5 when viewed one-pixel-to-one-pixel. With the Tri-Elmar, the differences are more subtle than with the sharper Super Elmar-M. The differences in pixel to pixel sharpness are swamped by the big advantage of the M9 in that regard: it just has more pixels.

Below are some examples of one of my test scenes. All exposures were made at f/4 at the lowest sensitivity supported by the camera body (ISO 160 for the M9, and ISO 200 for the NEX-5). All the examples below are at full resolution: one (demosaiced) pixel in the camera is one pixel on the screen. This presentation favors the Sony body over the M9, since the M9 images have more pixels.

There are some differences in image scale that are caused by the different pixel pitch in the two cameras: the M9 at 6.8 micron, and the NEX-5 with a little over 5 micron pitch. These differences favor the M9, since the NEX-5 images are effectively magnified more.

The part of the image presented is most of the way to the upper-right corner on the NEX-5, and the equivalent angle away from the lens axis (but not as close to the corner of the larger sensor) on the M9. To see the differences, download the images and view them at 2:1 or 4:1.

I have made no attempt to change the color cast introduced by the lenses. The Sony lens on the Sony body produce fairly accurate color rendering, as do Leica lenses on Leica bodies. However Leica lenses on the Sony body produce an overall blue cast.

The Sony 16mm f/2.8 on the NEX-5

The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar on the NEX-5

The 18mm f/3.8 Super Elmar-M on the NEX-5

The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar on the M9 (at 18mm)

The 18mm f/3.8 Super Elmar-M on the M9

 

Technical, The Last Word

← Wag the dog, part 3 Wag the dog, part 5 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.