December 22, 2014, 01:30:57 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 190
1
Another thing to consider is that most lenses designed for auto-focus, focus beyond infinity.

Focusing using hyperfocal distance, or focusing at infinity is best done with a manual lens.

Check out the DOFmaster link that Surapon provided and you might want to read this:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

Thanks. I read both. I am not clear but infinity focus and Hyperfocal distance seem to be two different things. Using the link and the calculator:

Full Frame sensor
F8, Focal length: 40mm
Focus distance: 500m
It calculates to 6.17m as nearest acceptable sharpness and infinity as the farthest.

Now,
The focus distance is probably hard to estimate for a landscape shot. So am I not focussing at roughly 6.17 m to get this large DOF or am I focussing at 500m to get that? And what if my focus distance of 500m is totally off?
Ray

Ray,

What is it about my first answer you don't understand? I explain the difference between the two adn where to set your point of focus for hyperfocal focusing.

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: Today at 12:16:08 AM »
Focal length does affect perspective :).


No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

Yes it does :).

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.


Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, same framing + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).

FOV and framing has nothing to do with perspective, that is where you are going wrong.

If we change this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

to this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

Then you will be on the right track.

FOV and framing has everything to do with distance, which affects perspective.

ecka,

You have a proven track record of wallowing in your ignorance, have at it, if you don't want to learn that is fine by me, I don't have the time to help all the people that want to learn let alone to be bothered with the people that don't want to.

For anybody else, the only thing that determines your perspective is your position, which is why you can get the same image with a 4mm lens with a phone as you can with a 35mm lens with your 135 format camera, stand in the same place and your perspective is the same, regardless of focal length or sensor size. Start moving, either with the same camera or a different one, and your perspective changes.

3
Technical Support / Re: monitor and printer calibration
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:35:02 PM »
The problem is your ambient light.

Do this simple test, put a foamcore or piece of card next to your screen, hold a piece of blank photo paper next to your screen with the card between them so that no light from the screen falls on the paper, is the paper the same brightness as your screen?

Over 99% of people will say no, prints will always appear dark if they don't have the same ambient light on them as your screen is putting out, a perfectly calibrated screen set to 110 cd/m² will be way too bright when next to most prints ambient light.

When I print I try to find out how the light is where the print will be hung, often 85 cd/m² is far more realistic.

I use these to get correct screen/print balancing. https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/colorproofkit.html it might be overkill for most people, but the idea is the same, good even light with the correct luminance levels to match your screen.

4
Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:29:35 PM »
Hi privatebydesign.
I take it that is B.O.A.T. as in Bust Out Another Thousand. Or a big hole in the water you throw money in to!  ;D

Cheers, Graham.

it is more like a boat, it has to be used as the time and money needed to keep it maintained will kill any enjoyment it might bring.

Hey Graham,

Yep, just like a boat, I was in the yachting industry for years and watched everything go up from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand to fix, even when they weren't being used! If it isn't a trailer sailer then you better love sailing :-)

I am in the process of selling my last yacht, a classic 48' ketch, and whilst I have loved owning her for the last ten years I will be happy once she is gone, and have no plans to replace her.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anything wrong with mRAW or sRAW
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:15:38 PM »
If you are going to shoot mRAW or sRAW you might as well shoot jpegs instead

Now I'm a bit heretical because I'm an early adopter, but I can only recommend "lossy dng".

It cuts the file size to 1/3rd while retaining the dr and lossless wb adjustment. It's meant to be the middle ground between full raw and jpeg, and it's just great for this purpose. With the DNG converter (but not PS/LR's menus) you can even downsample the lossy dng to a smaller resolution.

In comparison to this, mraw/sraw is just outdated unless you use it to save card space when shooting.

If the manufacturers gave you in camera DNG options I would agree, but they don't so it isn't going to help our OP.

I am a bit like Mt Spokane, I just don't worry about file size as storage is cheap (though the processing power to handle really big files isn't quite so cheap), I have many full size TIFF files up to their max of 2GB, and many many PSD files between 2GB and 4GB which is their max, I have a fair few PSB files up to 8GB that started life as a single 21MP 24mb CR2. PSB's are what you need after you exceed the 4GB PSD file. The worse thing about PSB's is that LR doesn't recognise them, and I think that is a big mistake.

When all is said and done, if I have to buy a >30MP camera I will shoot RAW, as always, and just suck it up, knowing I will have to budget for a newer computer as part of the cost of having it. Worrying about the file size of unannounced high MP cameras does smack a little of getting a Bugatti and bitching about finding the recommended 100 octane gas!

6
Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 21, 2014, 08:11:05 PM »

Something to keep in mind: if you don't empty the cartridges on a regular base, every 3 month, give or take, you've got a white elephant.

Really? As a hobbyist that would keep me from buying a large format printer, even though I want to get into more printing, and I live in a small mountain town, and a 16x20" costs $45 each.
[/quote]

Well I wouldn't say quite that often, but yes, they have to be run, and run very regularly. A large format printer isn't like a big telephoto or dry Sunday car, it is more like a boat, it has to be used as the time and money needed to keep it maintained will kill any enjoyment it might bring.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anything wrong with mRAW or sRAW
« on: December 21, 2014, 01:39:34 PM »
If you are going to shoot mRAW or sRAW you might as well shoot jpegs instead.

Neither of them are full bit depth files, they cannot contain the DR of a true RAW file and just give you a false sense of security. This isn't a DR thread, the point, to my mind, of shooting RAW is editing capability and although an m/sRAW does have more editing latitude than a jpeg, it doesn't have close to the levels of the actual RAW file.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: depth of field preview button position
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:54:16 PM »
I have only ever had cameras with it on the grip side, I find it well placed for my left hand under the lens and use my left middle finger to push it. With long lenses I can equally easily use my right ring finger to push the DOF preview button without losing any other right hand control. So my vote is very firmly for the grip side.

9
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:49:20 PM »
Focal length does affect perspective :).


No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

Yes it does :).

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.


Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, same framing + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).

FOV and framing has nothing to do with perspective, that is where you are going wrong.

If we change this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

to this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

Then you will be on the right track.

10
Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: December 20, 2014, 05:13:22 PM »
Quote
Maybe I'm just losing hope.  I've been following this site much longer than I've been a forum member and I don't understand why Canon is so reluctant to develop/release lenses that they should know their customer base keeps hoping for.

I also can not understand why Canon is not updating its popular lenses, e.g 50 mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.2, 100-400 mm and others. Now Canon released USD 7000 (in Europe such lenses cost GPB 7,000). I and many other photographers will never have such lenses. However, Sigma and Tamron are able to release very high quality and affordable lenses. I think that Canon will have to revise its lens pricing strategy. Why we should pay for marginally better quality lenses for double price
I would really like to see a fast, new 50 mm lens with IS and USM.
You and me both. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses are very old designs (I seem to remember they're closely based on the old FD lenses from before the days of autofocus) and  I haven't bought one, hoping for a modern design replacement. When my camera was a T90 I took for granted that I could get really good portraits with backgrounds thrown well out of focus, using the cheapest lens in my bag, my 50mm f/1.4. Now my widest aperture lens is f/2.8 and I want a portrait lens for my crop camera with an f/1.4 aperture but Canon don't make one that I want to buy...

Core lens design is a very mature science, things like modern coatings and IS add somewhat, but the actual core design possibilities have been well understood, and made, for a very long time.

As for Canon's 50 f1.4, I can understand people not wanting to buy one, but if they want a fast 50 they are being silly. It is a very good lens that is available secondhand for crazy good value. Mine focuses spot on at 1.4 every single time, it has been sitting in the bottom of my bag for over ten years and has never given me an issue (in the same time I have sent L lenses to Canon over half a dozen times for repair), it weighs next to nothing and at f5.6 and smaller it is  sharper than a 100 L Macro (which I also own).

11
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:40:06 PM »
I would bet a large amount of money that Canon will not release an interchangable lens FF mirrorless next year, or the year after.

12
I was at Disney yesterday and always notice the cameras being used. I was staggered at the number of people with big iPhone 6's and Samsung Galaxy's, and the images, and video, they were getting were great, in my party one person had an iPhone 6Plus.

I saw more Canon DSLR's than Nikon, though Disney use Nikon, and I saw a lot of interchangable lens mirrorless, but the phones vastly outnumbered all other cameras put together, and don't forget, for many people that was a once on a lifetime trip and they were very happy with their phones.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: What head with 055cxPro3?
« on: December 19, 2014, 05:42:28 PM »
I have the 055CXPRO3 and the only head I have come to use with it is the Acratech GP, it is a bit more money than you wanted to spend, and you need to budget for Arca Swiss plates to use with it (as you should for any worthwhile solution), but it is money well spent and I would get another one tomorrow if I lost it.

As an added bonus the GP has a very cool 'gimbal feature' that would work very well for the 400 size and weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKoNUPilNy4

14
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 17, 2014, 07:07:58 AM »
That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

Call it what you will, you are probably right, but on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens. In that particular reference I was not comparing 35mm to 35mm, but aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement.... I gave up my 35 prime because i liked how my zoomed images looked in tight spaces compared to the images from a  fixed lens in same space, Gave up sharpness in the trade.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

The 35 is better at 2.8 midframe and the 24 70 II is better in the corners, center is basically identical... Using your chart link...

Focal length does affect perspective :).


No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

15
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 17, 2014, 07:06:27 AM »
Interesting observation. Shallow dof 'pop' can be induced by the contrast between very sharp in focus areas and the remaining blurr, or 'bokeh'. So some lenses have really good bokeh; the EF 50/1.4 for instance, but it doesn't display very well against the sharpness and contrast of that 50 mil lens at f1.4. So my initial reaction is that you are not getting proper focus when wide open, either due to the need for AFMA, or a bad copy of the lens.

However what prompted me to reply is the fact that the 24-70/2.8 uses ground glass aspherical elements ( very expensive to produce) and the 35/2 IS uses moulded ( cheapish).  Now I have often thought that these moulded elements are getting better and better; the 35/s IS is definitely very good, but some of the lenses that I have, or have had, with the much more expensive to produce elements in them do seem to give, for want of a better description, a 'liquid, 'glassy' quality. I'm not saying that I could pull the difference out in a blind test all the time but I see it in some of my pictures taken with those lenses.

The moulded aspheric lenses in phones are remarkable, they vastly outperform our EF lenses for resolution.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 190