Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Super Takumar 300mm F4 versus FZ200 lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 11:28 pm    Post subject: Super Takumar 300mm F4 versus FZ200 lens Reply with quote

At first sight it may seem a little strange to compare pictures taken with a FF camera like the Sony A99 to pictures taken with a compact super-zoom like the FZ200. However, if there are applications in which the super-zoom cameras really shine, these applications are super-telephoto and macro photography.

The FZ200 has a tiny 12 MP sensor with a crop factor of about 5.5 compared to the 24 MP of the A99. Clearly, there is a difference of image quality, but when the FZ200 is used with ISO 800 or less, the results can be surprisingly good.

The FZ200 has a zoom lens with equivalent focal length of 25 to 600mm. The aperture is constant F2.8. The image stabilization is so effective that it's easy to take handheld pictures that are sharp at pixel level, with shutter speeds as low 1/15 sec at 600 mm!

An interesting characteristic of the FZ200 lens is that the image quality is almost the same, both in the center and in the corners, for any aperture between F2.8 and F5.6. At F8 there is some loss of image quality due to diffraction.

The Super Takumar 300mm F4 is a classic lens with an image of good/excellent quality in the center, and lateral chromatic aberration of average intensity to telephoto lenses of its time. The focusing ring of the Takumar is silky as butter. The weight is 990g with the tripod collar, and 850 without. The balance of the Super Takumar with the A99 is very good, much better, for example than the Sonnar 200mm F2.8, which is slightly heavier and front weighted. The minimum focus distance is 5.5m, which is one of the few weak points of this lens

First the pictures taken with Super Takumar and A99:

Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F4 - tower in the center - full image:



Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F4 - tower in the center - 100% crop:



Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F8 - tower in the center - 100% crop:



Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F11 - tower in the center - 100% crop:












Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F4 - tower in the corner - full image:



Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F4 - tower in the corner - 100% crop:



Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F8 - tower in the corner - 100% crop:



Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F11 - tower in the corner - 100% crop:





Note the lateral chromatic aberration in the pictures above. Fortunately the lateral CA can easily be removed in post-processing, as can be seen in the pictures below.

Super Takumar 300mm F4 @ F11 - tower in the corner - 100% crop – lateral CA removed:







Now the pictures taken with the FZ200 with a zoom factor of 12x, which means an equivalent focal length of 345mm.

FZ200 at 345mm @ F2.8 - tower in the center - full image



FZ200 at 345mm @ F2.8 - tower in the center - 100% crop



FZ200 at 345mm @ F2.8 - tower in the corner - full image



FZ200 at 345mm @ F2.8 - tower in the corner - 100% crop



Note the absence of visible lateral CA, which was corrected by software by the camera.
The quality of the images (noise and details) produced by the FZ200 is lower than the A99 with the Super Takumar 300mm, but the difference is not as great as suggest by a ratio of nearly 30x between the areas of the respective sensors.

Out of curiosity, I took a picture with a zoom factor of 24x, which corresponds to an equivalent focal length of 600mm.

FZ200 at 600 @ F3.2 - tower in the center - 100% crop



Note that the detailing with the FZ200 is now much better than with the Super Takumar. The obvious conclusion is that a FZ200 is better for capturing distant details (wild birds, for example), than the A99 with a 300mm lens. Of course, the A99 with a 600mm lens would be even better, but a quality 600mm lens would be very large, heavy and extremely expensive.

Finally two pictures of a pair of parakeets that stopped to rest on a banana tree in the backyard of my neighbor. The parakeets were about 20 or 30m away, and I was on a ladder, holding the FZ200 with just one hand. The equivalent focal length was 600mm. Who could handle with just a hand a FF camera with a lens of 600 mm?

A third parakeet does not appear in the picture, but I believe its presence explains why the parakeet couple is having an argument. Is it jealousy? Laughing





PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting analysis!

The super zooms is an impressive pieces of glass - as your photos prove, but with a small sensor, like on the FZ, you have some significant design latitude you lack when designing for the larger image circle of a full frame 35mm size sensor.

Also, while you compared actual pixels (100% crops), A99 images at 24 MP will of course be able to yield much bigger enlargements! At printing quality dpi on a 24MP image, you can get a beautiful 20 x 30 in.or larger, but with a 12 MP sensor, your image of the same quality will only be about 16 x20 in..

Enjoy!

Paul

This is shown in the chart below, downloaded today from http://www.photographyicon.com/enlarge/





PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Paul!

The chart is interesting and serves as an initial guide to determine the perceived quality of the printed picture. However, the chart ignores the effect of the lens quality. No matter if the lens is a Zeiss Otus or a Crapnon, the numbers in the chart are the same. In addition, the chart seems to always consider the same viewing distance of about 30 cm. In practice, no one watches a 40x60 picture at the same distance than an 8x12.


PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
Thank you, Paul!

The chart is interesting and serves as an initial guide to determine the perceived quality of the printed picture. However, the chart ignores the effect of the lens quality. No matter if the lens is a Zeiss Otus or a Crapnon, the numbers in the chart are the same. In addition, the chart seems to always consider the same viewing distance of about 30 cm. In practice, no one watches a 40x60 picture at the same distance than an 8x12.


Right.
I had a 16Mp picture taken with my nex printed on a 150x100 cm forex panel (for a shop window), and it looks just perfect, even if dpi count is low.
Obviously it would make no sens watching it from 30cm, and the lens helped, as it was shot with a contax planar 1.4/85.


PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald and Aanything,

Great points! I absolutely agree that viewing distance is an important consideration. Large roadside billboards can be printed at sub 50 dpi and look spectacular. I certainly am not the type of photographer that gets all hung up on megapixels, I am much more interested in other factors, such as noise and lens performance.

Perhaps, though, of all the myriad variables from pixel density, noise, and lens quality, lens quality, unless it is absolutely abysmal, is the least of things to worry about. The difference in quality between lenses of decent quality will be difficult to discern on prints viewed from an appropriate distance.

Now, that is not to say all lenses of decent to good quality are equal. Many have unique characteristics that will certainly show up: CA, pincushion/barrel distortion, vignetting, bokeh, etc. With the exception of bokeh, these are things that can easily be manipulated in post.

All the best,

Paul