« on: January 25, 2013, 06:30:41 AM »
Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW as a dedicated bag. Blackrapid strap (attached to the tripod foot) to carry around.
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.
I cannot imagine a more pointless, unrealistic test. If your goal is to demonstrate a passion for creating the ultimate rig for imaging newspapers taped to brick walls, congratulations, you've succeeded. But if your goal was to demonstrate an understanding of actual photography as practiced by actual photographers....
Again, the test I performed resulted in two images with the same number of pixels in addition to the same perspective and depth of field and background magnification and out-of-focus blur and everything else a photographer cares about. The only variable was format size, and we saw that sharpness is very closely related to format size and not at all related to the number of pixels in the image. All your test demonstrates is that, if you ignore everything that actually defines what an image of anything other than a test chart looks like, you can get two systems with certain similar specifications to make similar images of a test chart and nothing else.
Gee...I don't know...how about getting the actual cameras and putting the same lens on each; changing position to achieve the same FoV; and making sure that all other factors (scene; lighting; aperture; shutter; settings) are equal, thereby isolating the difference you want to measure (sharpness)?
On second thought...nah...that's just crazy talk
Yes, that's crazy. Spectacular fail crazy.
Use the same lens on different formats and you get a different field of view. Change position and you get a different perspective in addition to a different field of view. Keep the aperture the same between different formats and you get different depth of field.
I was very specific in what I did and didn't change, and I did it for a reason. My test really was a true apples-to-apples comparison. The shooting position was the same, so the perspective was the same. The shutter speed was the same so the motion blur (not that there was any) was the same. The aperture was different, yes, but it resulted in the same depth of field. The ISO setting was different, yes, but it resulted in the same exposure -- and, unsurprisingly if you know the basics of photography, it resulted in basically the same amount of noise.
...all other factors being equal...and I've always found the same thing: FF is sharper out of camera, but the range is small enough to be closed by bumping up sharpening in camera or post. When the sensors are otherwise comparable of course.
I'm debating between the 250 and the 350. It's always hard to judge online - I recommend taking your gear into a shop if possible. For example, the Flipside 300 isn't supposed to hold a gripped body, but it does. The Fastpack DSLR Video 250 states 'pro dSLR (without grip) and 24-70' but based on the stated depth a gripped body will fit - I just need to know if an attached 28-300L will fit, despite what the specs say, and if my 17" MBP will fit in the 'holds a 15" notebook' pocket (measurements say yes, reality may be different).
Nikon 5200 blow 5d of the road, if you have enough good lens on the Nikon
Brilliant, a thread with a particular issue I am having... I need a square filter ND, 6 stops, to stack together with the Big Stopper to get 16 stops... Neuro any idea? Lee make 3 stop NDs, but I guess stacking a 10 stop Big Stopper and two 3 stop NDs would be overkill in terms of vignetting. Hitech, Cokin or BW make a 6 stop 100 mm square filter anyone knows?
As for the filter system, I can see the hassle with the screw-on version, so I'll have to calculate the cost of Lee/Cokin with polarizer & nd if getting the adapters and holders from eBay/China - but that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.
And I'll want to use it on the 17-40L on ff sooner or later - and even for "normal" sized filters I've read vignetting can occur, that's why b+w sells the slim version. But since I'll have to use a step-up adapter 77->82 for the 17-40L I might get vignetting anyway, even with a slim version?