So is it the Camera or the lens?

[markubig]

The 1st photo is just a random one I took of my fiance. It was taken with my 20D and Tamron 28-75. The 2nd pic is a 100% crop of her left sunglass lens. That's me in the reflection on the right of the photo, taking the picture.

The only thing I did in PS was WB correction and cropping. I guess with some USM and exposure adjustments, the reflection can be edited to look pretty clear.

So, is it the camera or the lens that allows for this detail?

Here's the EXIF info:
Natural Light
Av Mode
1/160s
f/2.8
ISO 100

[Dante King]

I think its both. Are those lumpia on that plate?

[weemannie]

Definitely both :)

[vpkb]

they're giant lumpia

[Dante King]

I could go for some Giant lumpia right now. Or some adobo. No balute! Wretch!

[deedas]

Awesome! :D

I'm gonna be looking for something similar in my pictures now. :D

[Wazza]

Hah, sweet reflection. Shows the great quality of that cheap priced Tamron

I did similar, on my ex girlfriend sometime last year with my Sony V1.

http://wazz*****scity.com/temp/reflection.jpg

[scrumpy]

What's a lumpia?

[Tom W]

It's the glasses! None of that detail would be present if not for the sunglasses. :)

Place me in the "What is lumpia" crowd as well.

[pehabe]

omg... i love lumpia ;)

BTW I think both parties have some contribution to the quality.
Good body & bad lens = bad
Bad body & good lens = soso (lots of works in PS, NeatImage etc.)
good body & good lens = perfect partner

cheers

[deedas]

Ok, now I too am curious about the Lumpias. I guess its google time. :)

[markubig]

HAHA, DANTE!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lumpia's are filipino egg-rolls. usually filled with meat, shrimp or vegetables. Dante also mentioned Balut, which is another filipino food. They are eggs w/ partially-developed ducks inside them . . . yep, feathers and all. THEY ARE DISGUSTING IMHO :confused: :confused: . They had Balut on an episode of "Fear Factor" once.

And to answer Dante's question: No, they weren't lumpias. They were Turon (pronounced 2-Rhon), which are bananas wrapped in eggroll wrap and then fried with sugar. My fiance loves them and calls them "Tyrone's"

I'm not big on filipino food . . . i'm more of a burger and steak guy :D :D :D

[mr.photoguy]

It's a mixture of them both ..
The Lens is excellent, and so is the Camera. They both work together.
Here are some Sunglasses shots I did one day.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/sunglasses

I need to go find me a fiance...
So when is the wedding.

[Dante King]

I'm not big on filipino food . . . i'm more of a burger and steak guy :D :D :D

Boy do I have a menu for you at the diner!

[Bob_A]

100% crop of a picture of my daughter. You can see me taking the picture in her eye. This one was taken with a 20D using a 24-70 2.8L.

[grego]

Lens is more important, but then ultimately it goes this way.

The photographer > Lens > Body

[Pekka]

Lens is more important, but then ultimately it goes this way.

The photographer > Lens > Body

Lens -> Photographer -> Body

Because photographer can not see anything without a lens and big part of photographer's decisions are based on what is seen. Lens also offers the current aperture range which is the single most influentional technical aspect in photography. This does not mean lens is the most important for the end result (i.e "good lens = good photo, bad lens = bad photo" is not true), it is just affects the shooting most.

[BottomBracket]

Nice pics. by the way, I'd go for either lumpia, turon or balut - as long as it is washed down with sago at gulaman.

[roanjohn]

YOu guys are making me hungry with all this talk about food...........Lechon anyone??

I think for digital........its Photographer > Lens > Sensor. You can have a really good lens.........but if you got a lousy sensor.......(Oly??)...........then it might as well be a P&S shot.

Ro1

[Hellashot]

Probably more the 8MP of the camera than the lens allowing for detail. You can't see much detail in a 2MP image compared to the size of an 8MP image.

You would be able to see that detail in the sunglasses if you put that lens on a camera that had a 2MP sensor because the image taken would be quite small compared to the huge size of a 8MP image. The lens has maybe 5% to do with the detail of digital images.

[grego]

Lens -> Photographer -> Body

Because photographer can not see anything without a lens and big part of photographer's decisions are based on what is seen. Lens also offers the current aperture range which is the single most influentional technical aspect in photography. This does not mean lens is the most important for the end result (i.e "good lens = good photo, bad lens = bad photo" is not true), it is just affects the shooting most.

Anyone if they have the money can buy the best lens, but that doesn't mean they'll deliever a good shot. It's what you make of your equipment, basically. Yes there are some limitations as always when not having all the equipment, but you compromise as a photographer, especially as a photo journalist on the spot.

It's the photographer's eye and his/her creativity that make or break the photo. The lens comes second and the body comes third.

I don't have all the top lens i need/want, but I make the best of what i got and get the job done as a staff photographer.

[Phil V]

Probably more the 8MP of the camera than the lens allowing for detail. You can't see much detail in a 2MP image compared to the size of an 8MP image.

You would be able to see that detail in the sunglasses if you put that lens on a camera that had a 2MP sensor because the image taken would be quite small compared to the huge size of a 8MP image. The lens has maybe 5% to do with the detail of digital images.

That's twisted logic, try putting a soft lens in front of both sensors and you get a soft picture.

However once you have a 'good enough' sensor, you can improve the quality of the image with a 'better' lens. Now that might be only 5% better with L glass than with consumer glass.

The obvious answer to the original post is BOTH, a soft lens will produce a soft image (no sensor can improve that), and a sensor can only resolve a finite amount of detail (no matter what the resolving power of the lens).

Currently the best sensors are showing the optical limitations of even expensive glass. However the 20d isn't in that league, but it'll certainly show you the limitations of cheap lenses (that's why we are all upgrading to L lenses).

[Pekka]

Anyone if they have the money can buy the best lens, but that doesn't mean they'll deliever a good shot. It's what you make of your equipment, basically. Yes there are some limitations as always when not having all the equipment, but you compromise as a photographer, especially as a photo journalist on the spot.

It's the photographer's eye and his/her creativity that make or break the photo. The lens comes second and the body comes third.

I don't have all the top lens i need/want, but I make the best of what i got and get the job done as a staff photographer.

I do not doubt that.

I'm not talking about lens quality or cost at all. Every lens has two features, FoV and aperture which affect you, the photographer, most (third important feature is minimum focusing distance). The photographer has of course the eye, but the lens defines a "ruleset" for the creative playground: photographers position and distance relative to subject, available shutter speed range and available DoF range. Photographer takes those into account creatively and chooses, but the choice is always bound to lens used.

[Jonny]

OK, so this thread has got me thinking.

Does DOF apply to reflections? If this guy had shot at say f16 would the background in the reflection have been more in focus? Or is a whole relection basically at the same focal point (ie the sunglasses lens).

[rent]

the reflection in a mirror is at 2x the distance from the mirror to the viewer. so hypothetically, if the DOF of your photo is from 2ft to 4ft, and the mirror is placed at 3ft, the mirror itself (say, its frame) will be in focus, while the camera being reflected in the mirror will be out of focus, because the camera is at 6ft (2x3ft).

-alex

OK, so this thread has got me thinking.

Does DOF apply to reflections? If this guy had shot at say f16 would the background in the reflection have been more in focus? Or is a whole relection basically at the same focal point (ie the sunglasses lens).

[rdenney]

Probably more the 8MP of the camera than the lens allowing for detail. You can't see much detail in a 2MP image compared to the size of an 8MP image.

You would be able to see that detail in the sunglasses if you put that lens on a camera that had a 2MP sensor because the image taken would be quite small compared to the huge size of a 8MP image. The lens has maybe 5% to do with the detail of digital images.

8MP on a 15x23 sensor is already finer than the resolution of the lens, in most cases. If you take a given amount of information and divide it up into smaller pixels, you reach a point where each pixel is starved for information. Personally, I think the 6MP 10D approaches that point--given that it starts with only 15x23mm worth of information to begin with. Your 2MP camera might not be as bad as you think if it wasn't starting with so little information to begin with.

Rick "who could see the details of a studio umbrella in the eyes of portraits shot on medium format film and scanned on a 1200 pixel/inch flatbed" Denney