Question on step up ring

[LoveLife]

stnkline wrote:

LoveLife wrote:

Your: http://lovelife.smugmug.com/photos/35784545-O-1.jpg is [1854KB]
And your: http://lovelife.smugmug.com/photos/55525674-O.jpg is [4143KB]

My question was:"Is the 07 a better quality lens than the 08". The two above pictures are of different resolutions so it is difficult to check the sharpness, lack of aberrations ofeach lens, etc. So in your honest opinion Which is better?! i.e.which lens on the FZ30 takes a BETTER picture ignoring the obvious difference between a .8 [28] and a .7[24] ?

Thanks again

Stan

You are confusing file size with resolution both pictures have the same resolution just different jpeg compression. The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. But I feel the You are confusing file size with resolution both pictures have the same resolution just different jpeg compression. The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. But I feel the results obtainable from the WCON07 out weights the difference with better sharpness.

[stnkline]

LoveLife wrote:

Stan
You are confusing file size with resolution both pictures have the same resolution just different jpeg compression. The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. . The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. But I feel the results obtainable from the WCON07 out weights the difference with better sharpness.

Thanks. I did look at the two pictures and on my monitorI was unable to tell the different in sharpnessof the two lenses. That is why I asked the question again

Your postclears it up.

Stan

P.S.:A new Thread?:: What is the maximum possible compression of a jpegfile thatwould still provide an acceptable image on a monitor/TV or a printed picture. Most discussions are about pixels per inch.

[LoveLife]

stnkline wrote:

LoveLife wrote:

Thanks. I did look at the two pictures and on my monitorI was unable to tell the different in sharpnessof the two lenses. That is why I asked the question again

Your postclears it up.

Stan

P.S.:A new Thread?:: What is the maximum possible compression of a jpegfile thatwould still provide an acceptable image on a monitor/TV or a printed picture. Most discussions are about pixels per inch.

That would be very low. I can set the picture size to 800X600 then set the compression to 233k and get good results on a 20" glass screen. here is an example:

[stnkline]

LoveLife: That would be very low. I can set the picture size to 800X600 then set the compression to 233k and get good results on a 20" glass screen.

I opened your picture above in Photoshop Elements and "save as" at 242kb, quality 12,and 71kb, quality 5,to the desktop. Compared them in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. I could not see any difference in the sharpness or color on my 17" CRT [Glass!]. Does that mean if I make a slide show, 71kb is sufficient for a good presentation? Food for thought!!

Thanks

Stan

Your above picture at 71kb:

[Cwood]

Maybe its just me and I cant see well,:lol: but it seems (To me.) that the pics do not look very sharp. They seem to be a tad bit blury. Is this just me? Is there a better lens to check into that produces a sharper/Clearer image?

[LoveLife]

Cwood wrote:

Maybe its just me and I cant see well,:lol: but it seems (To me.) that the pics do not look very sharp. They seem to be a tad bit blury. Is this just me? Is there a better lens to check into that produces a sharper/Clearer image?

Well now you are way off target and I know were you are going with this.

1) This is done with the standard 35mm WA setting of the FZ30.

2) It was a two hour traffic jam none of the cars and trucks are moving so I blurred up the truck the car on the right and the rear of the red car to give the illusion of movement.

The original shot.