I hear that digital images have an "inherent softness" in the image compared to the same lens on a film camera...WHY?
What steps do YOU take to solve this? In-camera? Workflow?
Why do you think this "softness" happens, and how do YOU solve it?
Thanks!
(mods, sorry I forgot and used a word in all caps in my thread title...it's Sunday Morning, and I'm feeling sensitive and overly "emotional" LOL! please correct if necessary.)
I notice this especially with my old Minolta lenses that were sharp with film, and are pretty sharp (as digital goes) with digital, but just not the same as film. I know part of this is film's "resolution", but what about luminance, and etc?
In a digital camera there is an image processing engine that makes certain decisions about the image - colour, saturation, sharpness and more - whereas when shooting film you get whatever sharpness is derived from the quality of the lens and the focus onto the film plane without the camera making any interpolation....
in camera sharpening (via the software) adds artifacts to the image that are not always desirable so I leave in camera sharpening pretty neutral, and make sharpening decisions in post. Good editing software handles sharpening much more deftly than the in camera processing engine.
at the end of the day, though, image quality has to do with so many variables other than sharpness per se, and sharpness beyond a certain point is not always desirable, depending on the contrast ratio inherent in the scene, and your subject.
In my film days I often used softening or fog filters, an intentional smudge on a UV filter, shot through hosiery, and other techniques to take the "edge" off of images that would otherwise have been too sharp for the subject or genre.....
"in camera sharpening (via the software) adds artifacts to the image that are not always desirable so I leave in camera sharpening pretty neutral, and make sharpening decisions in post. Good editing software handles sharpening much more deftly than the in camera processing engine."
I don't leave it neutral. In the Nikon D7000 sharpness really works well about the manufacturer setting. And Nikon's D7000 is rather excellent at handling image processing.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Fotografica Gregor wrote: In a digital camera there is an image processing engine that makes certain decisions about the image - colour, saturation, sharpness and more
If you shoot JPG.
Fotografica Gregor wrote: whereas when shooting film you get whatever sharpness is derived from the quality of the lens and the focus onto the film plane without the camera making any interpolation....
See, here's the thing, a 35mm negative is always the same size.
Yes, so is a DSLR's sensor, but the MP count changes the perceived sharpness.
Let's look at two DX bodies on the opposite end of the scale. D2h vs D5200. 4MP vs 24MP.
You shoot an identical image with each of those, print them both the exact same size, you're going to notice a difference in apparent sharpness. On a 6x4, probably not so much. On an 30"x20"? Hell yeah.
When you're looking at pixels 100% on the screen, you're not getting a real view of sharpness, because you're seeing a smaller proportion of the entire image.
I almost never sharpen for print, and I've never had any complaints from clients or models.
ArtisticGlamour wrote: I hear that digital images have an "inherent softness" in the image compared to the same lens on a film camera...WHY?
What steps do YOU take to solve this? In-camera? Workflow?
Why do you think this "softness" happens, and how do YOU solve it?
Thanks!
(mods, sorry I forgot and used a word in all caps in my thread title...it's Sunday Morning, and I'm feeling sensitive and overly "emotional" LOL! please correct if necessary.)
Wouldn't this go along with the Nikon 800 or 800e debate? I always thought the inherent softness was due to the anti-aliasing features of the camera and in-camera processing?
I usually do a simple USM or Smart Sharpen to the final re-sized image. If I'm printing I'll take the image into Nik Sharpener Pro.
Kaouthia wrote: See, here's the thing, a 35mm negative is always the same size.
Yes, so is a DSLR's sensor, but the MP count changes the perceived sharpness.
Let's look at two DX bodies on the opposite end of the scale. D2h vs D5200. 4MP vs 24MP.
You shoot an identical image with each of those, print them both the exact same size, you're going to notice a difference in apparent sharpness. On a 6x4, probably not so much. On an 30"x20"? Hell yeah.
When you're looking at pixels 100% on the screen, you're not getting a real view of sharpness, because you're seeing a smaller proportion of the entire image.
I almost never sharpen for print, and I've never had any complaints from clients or models.
absolutely - this is why, for example, the splendid 14-24 f2.8 is smashing on a D700, okay on a D3x and starts to fall apart on the D800..... it's a matter of pixel density on the sensor starting to exceed the lines or resolution of which the lens is capable.....
but even if you do not shoot jpeg you have to deal with the fact that dslr pixels are digital and interpolative at the edges of changes of colour or tone.
I find that the D3x and D800 set to moderate internal sharpening do not need any further enhancement with the possible exception of images downsized for the web....
but most of my work is not about razor sharp images - whereas a landscape shooter might spend a ton of time delicately sharpening his or her work.....
LA StarShooter wrote: I don't leave it neutral. In the Nikon D7000 sharpness really works well about the manufacturer setting. And Nikon's D7000 is rather excellent at handling image processing.
you are leaving it in neutral by my definition - leaving it at the mfgr setting and not increasing the sharpness - this is what I do as well. I do find the inherent sharpening of the D600 and D800 to be more pleasing than the last generation of cameras though - personal opinion....
it's informative but he almost lost me with the long discussion of USM which is so very outdated in the more modern iterations of the software...... glad to see that he finally discussed more nunaced techniques in the last couple of pages....
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Fotografica Gregor wrote: but even if you do not shoot jpeg you have to deal with the fact that dslr pixels are digital and interpolative at the edges of changes of colour or tone.
Oh, sure, it's not the same as film, but I wouldn't say it's not necessarily "as sharp" - 18"x12" prints even from a 12MP D300s appear much sharper to me than those created traditionally from a 35mm Ilford FP4+ negative.
Fotografica Gregor wrote: I find that the D3x and D800 set to moderate internal sharpening do not need any further enhancement with the possible exception of images downsized for the web....
Whatever internal sharpening settings you use, if you're shooting RAW, they're ignored anyway, so I could say what the best in-camera settings would be for JPG shooters.
When I shoot RAW+JPG for events (or tethering via Eye-Fi to the iPad), I just have sharpening turned off, and the results have always looked fine.
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,126
Beverly Hills, California, US
Fotografica Gregor wrote:
you are leaving it in neutral by my definition - leaving it at the mfgr setting and not increasing the sharpness - this is what I do as well. I do find the inherent sharpening of the D600 and D800 to be more pleasing than the last generation of cameras though - personal opinion....
Yes, I am increasing it though it may not have been clear in what I wrote as I am having internet difficulty, it actually disconnected while I was writing and apparently my edits didn't take. I increased it from the manufacturer's setting. I don't leave it in neutral.
I find, the only time I get any sharpness issues, is with full length portraits. This is why everything in my port is head/shoulders, or half length. I have pretty much attributed this to the fact that the subject is hitting less actual pixels, and the camera/lens can't resolve that small detail on such few pixels.
As stated before, I have heard that using lenses that are built to resolve much finer detail, such as Hasselblad lenses that resolve 30+ MP of information, will help. The lenses built for DSLRs are done to resolve information for the line of cameras they currently build. I would hope, that they would have the foresight to build a lens to resolve much greater detail than what is currently expected, but it has also been noted that the "new" lenses are often sharper on the "new" cameras. Some Canon lenses were conceived in the '90's, when MP count was under 10. The lens only had to resolve the detail for that MP count, and so putting it on a 20+ MP camera, may be the reason sharpness issues show up. I really wish I had the money to rent several different lenses, adapters, etc, to test this out. I DESPERATELY want to put the 120mm macro Hasselblad on my 5D MKII, as well as their 50mm, and see what I get. I imagine, it would make a huge difference. Has anyone done this test?
Are we talking about sharpness or detail?
There's a difference between enhancing sharpness and having more detail.
For instance, with the D800E the detail is outstanding, but it's not the same visually as if one sharpened the image.
John Allan wrote: Are we talking about sharpness or detail?
There's a difference between enhancing sharpness and having more detail.
For instance, with the D800E the detail is outstanding, but it's not the same visually as if one sharpened the image.
I think the two may go hand in hand for some instances. The edge detail, is the sharpness, and the detail in the face, if not picked up properly, will/should/might be construed as a lack of sharpness. This is just what I've seen, especially when shooting full length. As the subject gets smaller, and smaller in my image, the overall sharpness of said subject becomes less, and less. Now, if they have a prominent design on their shirt, with large lines, crisp lines, that will come out well. Much more sharp than the face, hands, etc. This is what has led me to believe that detail, and sharpness go hand in hand.
As stated above, a 35mm slide of film, is the same. Always. But digital sensors have changed quite a bit over time. Dunno. Just my observations, opinions. I could be completely wrong about this. I'm definitely not a tech pro!
Fotografica Gregor wrote: absolutely - this is why, for example, the splendid 14-24 f2.8 is smashing on a D700, okay on a D3x and starts to fall apart on the D800..... it's a matter of pixel density on the sensor starting to exceed the lines or resolution of which the lens is capable.
Yup! Hitting on something here...
My all-time favorite example...
This from someone here on mayhem shooting a 30+mpix digital back (+ hasselblad lens, I think).
You can see that the ^resolution/lens combo provides a better "perceived sharpness" even when not viewed at 100%
you are leaving it in neutral by my definition - leaving it at the mfgr setting and not increasing the sharpness - this is what I do as well. I do find the inherent sharpening of the D600 and D800 to be more pleasing than the last generation of cameras though - personal opinion....
I shoot RAW on my D800 and avoid all this. And no, there is no lack of sharpness in the images I create even straight out of RAW. On my older Nikons I did a lot of layering to sharpen the images. On the D800 I adjust color and contrast and am ready to print. I almost feel guilty how easy it is to get from concept to giant prints. ALMOST. LOL!
Caveman Creations wrote: I find, the only time I get any sharpness issues, is with full length portraits. This is why everything in my port is head/shoulders, or half length. I have pretty much attributed this to the fact that the subject is hitting less actual pixels, and the camera/lens can't resolve that small detail on such few pixels.
As stated before, I have heard that using lenses that are built to resolve much finer detail, such as Hasselblad lenses that resolve 30+ MP of information, will help. The lenses built for DSLRs are done to resolve information for the line of cameras they currently build. I would hope, that they would have the foresight to build a lens to resolve much greater detail than what is currently expected, but it has also been noted that the "new" lenses are often sharper on the "new" cameras. Some Canon lenses were conceived in the '90's, when MP count was under 10. The lens only had to resolve the detail for that MP count, and so putting it on a 20+ MP camera, may be the reason sharpness issues show up. I really wish I had the money to rent several different lenses, adapters, etc, to test this out. I DESPERATELY want to put the 120mm macro Hasselblad on my 5D MKII, as well as their 50mm, and see what I get. I imagine, it would make a huge difference. Has anyone done this test?
I seriously doubt that they looked at the MP count and decided to suddenly make an inferior lens. They already had lenses capable of resolving much more for their film cameras (the stuff we call full frame glass) so they knew how to do it. Even more than today, back then they knew their customers would keep glass longer than bodies. other than for kit lenses, they aren't going to deliberately make inferior glass ever, not when they already know how to do it up better. will the hassy lens make a difference on your MKII? I have no clue. it may not be that much better than your canon glass. It may be better but the sensor doesn't resolve it significantly better. it may be better but only when pixel peeping. it may be better when you crop. If you have good glass (I suspect you do), I'd be willing to be it doesn't make a big difference. but it would only be an MM bet (no money involved).
For Nikon, I hear you dont have to bet. They have a list of lenses that are cool with the 36MP sensors and ones they don't recommend.
I seriously doubt that they looked at the MP count and decided to suddenly make an inferior lens. They already had lenses capable of resolving much more for their film cameras (the stuff we call full frame glass) so they knew how to do it. Even more than today, back then they knew their customers would keep glass longer than bodies. other than for kit lenses, they aren't going to deliberately make inferior glass ever, not when they already know how to do it up better. will the hassy lens make a difference on your MKII? I have no clue. it may not be that much better than your canon glass. It may be better but the sensor doesn't resolve it significantly better. it may be better but only when pixel peeping. it may be better when you crop. If you have good glass (I suspect you do), I'd be willing to be it doesn't make a big difference. but it would only be an MM bet (no money involved).
For Nikon, I hear you dont have to bet. They have a list of lenses that are cool with the 36MP sensors and ones they don't recommend.
And this is exactly what I'd like to find out. No, I'm with you, I don't think they made "inferior" glass, but maybe they made "just what was needed". If, the Hassy glass makes a significant difference, then that would put this to rest. I do have "pro" glass that I use, but only a few. To be quite honest, I can get excellent image quality from my cheap 75-300, but only at f8, and using the strobes. My 24-105 does the same or better quality at almost all apertures, and focal lengths. My 85mm, I am in love with. But, no matter what I have on the camera, if I shoot a full body portrait, the face is noticeably "less focused" or less "sharp" in print. I want to know why that is. I just need the money and time to test some Hassy, Mamyia, or other MF lenses to test this out. If you are correct, and the quality difference is miniscule, then it is just the camera, and something to live with. If it turns out that the opposite is true, then I may have to invest in some different glass. Lord knows I'm not going to get an H5D and a few lenses for it in my lifetime! I'm poor, and just not that lucky!
And this is exactly what I'd like to find out. No, I'm with you, I don't think they made "inferior" glass, but maybe they made "just what was needed". If, the Hassy glass makes a significant difference, then that would put this to rest. I do have "pro" glass that I use, but only a few. To be quite honest, I can get excellent image quality from my cheap 75-300, but only at f8, and using the strobes. My 24-105 does the same or better quality at almost all apertures, and focal lengths. My 85mm, I am in love with. But, no matter what I have on the camera, if I shoot a full body portrait, the face is noticeably "less focused" or less "sharp" in print. I want to know why that is. I just need the money and time to test some Hassy, Mamyia, or other MF lenses to test this out. If you are correct, and the quality difference is miniscule, then it is just the camera, and something to live with. If it turns out that the opposite is true, then I may have to invest in some different glass. Lord knows I'm not going to get an H5D and a few lenses for it in my lifetime! I'm poor, and just not that lucky!
at what DOF are your full body portrait faces less sharp? are the feet similarly affected?
I used the new Sony 16-50/f2.8 glass (that I got with my a77(24mpix)) on my older a55(16mpix) to see how it performed, and it results in a SIGNIFICANTLY sharper/finer detailed image than the old Minolta glass primes at the same focal/f-stops. This seems to prove to me that this newer lens (coatings, etc) makes a huge difference.
Then, the same image with the 24mpix Sony a77 is also noticably more detailed...even when reduced down to the same final 800pix wide file. There's a noticable difference. It's definatly a combination of many factors, but the quality of the glass seems to make the MOST difference, in combination with a high resolution sensor.
Probably no big "surprises" there...but I was kinda wondering what other folks "solutions" and "results" have been for MAJOR differences in image quality.
My biggest step was good glass and good sensor upgrade. Much morso than software post-processing. It did surprise me how MUCH difference it made.
at what DOF are your full body portrait faces less sharp? are the feet similarly affected?
I shoot usually between f8-f16, although here lately, outdoors has been more in the range of f20-f22. Yes, feet, hands, hair, it all looks good on screen. But once the editing has commenced, that "sharpness" fades quickly. It's as if (not to beat a dead horse here but.....) the fine detail in the face, eyes, hands, just gets lost. It affects the overall sharpness of the image. Bold designs on shirts, crisp lines on shirts, are usually sharper than the face is. Which led me to believe I had front/back focus problems.
So, yeah, I thought, well I have a front/back focus issue. So, I took one of my daughters out in the front yard, and in front of the seamless, shot several shots in the same framing, toying with micro-adjustment. That did nothing but increase the lack of focus. Using a prime lens, there is no focal length issues (being sharp at one end, soft on the other), and so that got me to thinking.
Images like this....
Have wonderful detail, sharpness, and a lot for me to work with in post.
Any longer than this one.....
And I run into sharpness issues. Even in this one, shot at f22, ISO 50(Low), the hands are losing sharpness.
I usually just deal with it, try not to let it worry me much, and the more I shoot with this 85mm 1.8, the less and less I am finding sharpness complaints. There are a lot of factors that go into sharpness, but overall, I tend to get similar results when shooting full length. And, lets not forget user error. I may just be overly picky, and I don't use a tripod as often as I probably should. I figure, at 1/160, and strobe flash duration, that it wasn't all that necessary. Maybe I'm wrong...
ArtisticGlamour wrote: I hear that digital images have an "inherent softness" in the image compared to the same lens on a film camera...WHY?
What steps do YOU take to solve this? In-camera? Workflow?
Why do you think this "softness" happens, and how do YOU solve it?
Thanks!
(mods, sorry I forgot and used a word in all caps in my thread title...it's Sunday Morning, and I'm feeling sensitive and overly "emotional" LOL! please correct if necessary.)
I would have agreed when I had my 5D MKII and L zooms. I now use an X-Pro1 with an M mount adapter and Zeiss lenses. Things are now brutally sharp.
liddellphoto wrote: Bayer interpolation and AA filters plus high res sensors like the D800 are taxing lens performance like never before.
I'm surprised no one else mentioned the AA (anti-aliasing) filter until you did. It's important to understand WHY digital images need sharpening and why some people remove the AA filter and why some models such as the D800e come with it (or at least a much weaker version of it).
Caveman Creations wrote: But, no matter what I have on the camera, if I shoot a full body portrait, the face is noticeably "less focused" or less "sharp" in print.
I know it's a silly "tool" and just for amatures like me, and "real photographers" don't take advantage of such technology ("real photographers" shoot pinhole cameras, after all...who needs silly lenses)...but, I LOVES me some Facial Recognition!
Give it a try if you have it.
Billh wrote: I would have agreed when I had my 5D MKII and L zooms. I now use an X-Pro1 with an M mount adapter and Zeiss lenses. Things are now brutally sharp.
Exactly! Same for my Sony 16-50/f2.8. I think it may be made to Zeiss formulas or something. LOL! I wish I understood the lens "resolution" concept a bit better...in relation to sensor resolution and film resolution...as well as the Luminosity/Acutance/Perceived sharpness/etc.
I can't find any full-length examples to show. Those are all on my hard drive at the office. I've shied away from shooting them, because of these issues. People are usually more impressed by the portraiture, than full length images of themselves, so there hasn't been a great incentive to shoot them.
I'm surprised no one else mentioned the AA (anti-aliasing) filter until you did. It's important to understand WHY digital images need sharpening and why some people remove the AA filter and why some models such as the D800e come with it (or at least a much weaker version of it).
R Michael Walker wrote: I shoot RAW on my D800 and avoid all this. And no, there is no lack of sharpness in the images I create even straight out of RAW. On my older Nikons I did a lot of layering to sharpen the images. On the D800 I adjust color and contrast and am ready to print. I almost feel guilty how easy it is to get from concept to giant prints. ALMOST. LOL!
agree - the D800 has so much *detail* and so much pixel density that the inherent sharpness of the chip is going to be higher than that of a chip with 12mp worth of pixels on the same size chip. Any "aliasing" of edges on a pixel on the D800 is very small compared to the entire image vis a vis a camera with fewer megapixels.
The D3x, D600 and D800 all produce right out of the camera sharpness for me whether shooting RAW or jpeg
Caveman Creations wrote: I can't find any full-length examples to show. Those are all on my hard drive at the office. I've shied away from shooting them, because of these issues. People are usually more impressed by the portraiture, than full length images of themselves, so there hasn't been a great incentive to shoot them.
Where is your "crtitcal focus" point when you are shooting the full lengthes? You are shooting "AutoFocus" with a center "spot focus", then holding and re-composing?
ArtisticGlamour wrote: I hear that digital images have an "inherent softness" in the image compared to the same lens on a film camera...WHY?
What steps do YOU take to solve this? In-camera? Workflow?
Why do you think this "softness" happens, and how do YOU solve it?
Thanks!
(mods, sorry I forgot and used a word in all caps in my thread title...it's Sunday Morning, and I'm feeling sensitive and overly "emotional" LOL! please correct if necessary.)
I would say the opposite. Digital tends to be sharper largely because of the quality of the sensors. Film had grain (basically size of the silver particles) depending on film speed format and how it was process would determine grain size. Grain is very similar to noise in the digital image. The larger grain the more noisier the image. Also the less sharp the image. Film grain did some nice things like hide some the texture an imperfections of skin. While digital tends to pick up much grater detail the imperfections in skin.
fullmetalphotographer wrote: I would say the opposite. Digital tends to be sharper largely because of the quality of the sensors. Film had grain (basically size of the silver particles) depending on film speed format and how it was process would determine grain size. Grain is very similar to noise in the digital image. The larger grain the more noisier the image. Also the less sharp the image. Film grain did some nice things like hide some the texture an imperfections of skin. While digital tends to pick up much grater detail the imperfections in skin.
This was in relation to the ASA (ISO), and the lower the ASA the "finer" the silver particles (resolution) correct?
To my understanding it takes a good (minimum) +30mpix digital to match the "resolution" of the best films. And the silver particles had better (smoother/random noise-less) transitions as well.
To this day...I STILL believe the old film is better. Look at some of the old Linhoff (International Photo Technik, etc) Magazines in the days of pre-digital magazine printing. That's the kind of "sharpness" and "detail" I want out of my current digital images!
They all looked a lot like this...
ArtisticGlamour wrote: My all-time favorite example...
This from someone here on mayhem shooting a 30+mpix digital back (+ hasselblad lens, I think).
fullmetalphotographer wrote: I would say the opposite. Digital tends to be sharper largely because of the quality of the sensors. Film had grain (basically size of the silver particles) depending on film speed format and how it was process would determine grain size. Grain is very similar to noise in the digital image. The larger grain the more noisier the image. Also the less sharp the image. Film grain did some nice things like hide some the texture an imperfections of skin. While digital tends to pick up much grater detail the imperfections in skin.
This was in relation to the ASA (ISO), and the lower the ASA the "finer" the particles (resolution) correct? To my understanding it takes a good (minimum) +30mpix digital to match the "resolution" of the best films. And the silver particles had better (smoother/random noise-less) transitions as well.
To this day...I STILL believe the old film is better. Look at some of the old Linhoff (International Photo Technik, etc) Magazines in the days of pre-digital magazine printing. That's the kind of "sharpness" and "detail" I want out of my current digital images!
They all looked a lot like this...
Unless I miss something but I can get this sharpness and possibly sharper with the D800 + 85mm f1.8G.
This was in relation to the ASA (ISO), and the lower the ASA the "finer" the particles (resolution) correct? To my understanding it takes a good +30mpix digital to match the "resolution" of the best films. And the silver particles had better (smoother/random noise-less) transitions.
Digital does not beat film in the large format for sharpness. But in the 35mm range Full frame especially in the higher ISO of 200 and above digital is better than film. The Nikon D3 pretty much was the final nail in my 35mm cameras's coffin. If I was shooting Pan X or Kodachrome yes the grain was tighter, but that was ISO 32 and ISO 25.
What film is superior to digital is tonality and hues. It records a greater range than digital.
ArtisticGlamour wrote: I hear that digital images have an "inherent softness" in the image compared to the same lens on a film camera...WHY?
What steps do YOU take to solve this? In-camera? Workflow?
Why do you think this "softness" happens, and how do YOU solve it?
Thanks!
(mods, sorry I forgot and used a word in all caps in my thread title...it's Sunday Morning, and I'm feeling sensitive and overly "emotional" LOL! please correct if necessary.)
Today's digital camera, it put more demanding no the lens than with film. A 16MP camera with 35mm sensor will beat the 35mm film.
Ken Pegg
Posts: 1,756
Weymouth, England, United Kingdom
ArtisticGlamour wrote: To this day...I STILL believe the old film is better. Look at some of the old Linhoff (International Photo Technik, etc) Magazines in the days of pre-digital magazine printing. That's the kind of "sharpness" and "detail" I want out of my current digital images!
I think you will find that they were either 9x12cm or 6x9cm negatives/transparencies, certainly not 35mm.
Critical focus is always on the eye. Yes, I do recompose, but I change the focus points to where re-composition is minimal. Or, as minimal as it can be. With full length portraits, there may not be as much moving around, strictly due to the fact that they may already be in "enough" of a third zone not to worry about it.
My settings usually camp out.....single shot AF. I use the 5D MKII, and use aperture values to determine DOF, more than exposure. I use strobes an awful lot, and have taken to mounting on a tripod more often now.
LOL! please correct if necessary.)
To be quite honest, I can get excellent image quality from my cheap 75-300, but only at f8, and using the strobes. My 24-105 does the same or better quality at almost all apertures, and focal lengths. My 85mm, I am in love with. But, no matter what I have on the camera, if I shoot a full body portrait, the face is noticeably "less focused" or less "sharp" in print. I want to know why that is. I just need the money and time to test some Hassy, Mamyia, or other MF lenses to test this out. If you are correct, and the quality difference is miniscule, then it is just the camera, and something to live with. If it turns out that the opposite is true, then I may have to invest in some different glass. Lord knows I'm not going to get an H5D and a few lenses for it in my lifetime! I'm poor, and just not that lucky! 
| 
| 
| edu