|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
|
![]()
E.T wrote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
|
![]()
Meryl Arbing wrote:
Quote:
BTW, Why would Sony make worse sensor version for themself and better to direct competitor? But nevertheless, that shows that just name in side doesn't mean anything, total is as good as that weakest link. Also it's quite sure camera makers give tight price limit for lenses so lens designers propably have to do lot of compromises even though they could do lot better. tclune wrote: Quote:
You're right in that good quality can be made in everywhere if its wanted. They have done (and do) some very good quality optics even in Soviet Union/Russia... as strange it might sound considering that corruption seems to be best working thing they have. But there's really much all kind of stuff made in those East Asia's cheap factories with lower and wildly varying quality and it's quite sure lenses of cheaper cameras are made similarly in cheaper factories. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 276
|
![]()
Here is a 100% crop of a picture I took with my Fuji F10. The left is the middle of the original picture, the right is the right side. The Purple Fringing or Chromatic Aberration, which ever it is, is much more severe the further you go to the edge. This makes me think it's a lens artifact, not sensor. If the lens does not effect things like Purple Fringing or Chromatic Aberration, then what defines a basic Carl Zeiss lens from a Fujinon lens if all specs are the same and the Fujinon has less distortion?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|