October 21, 2014, 08:50:06 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 298
1036
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: May 14, 2014, 02:41:41 PM »
Very nice. Love that long-exposure fogging of coastlines like that. Nice, rich contrast, too!
And a lovely watermark ;)

LOL. That too. :D

1037
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« on: May 14, 2014, 02:14:18 PM »
One thing that newer camera bodies do have is slightly better noise reduction circuitry on the sensor chip.  That's why you see a slightly better high ISO performance.

Not noise reduction circuitry, so much as less noisy circuitry, AFAIK.  You commonly reduce noise by:

  • Cooling the image sensor to reduce thermal noise (mainly used when doing astrophotography)
  • Moving amplifier circuits closer to the actual detectors—the photo sites, in this case—so you're amplifying less induced noise
  • Using cleaner amplifier circuits that add less noise to the signal
  • Improving the ADC circuitry that converts the analog voltage into a series of bits—adding precision, lowering the noise floor, etc.
  • Increasing the consistency of amplifier circuits and ADCs to avoid banding when multiple ADCs are needed to capture a single frame (for speed reasons)
  • Increasing the effective size of the photo sites on the image sensor by increasing the sensor's dimensions, moving chip features that partially occlude the sensor, etc.

There are probably many other techniques that I'm forgetting.

There is noise reduction circuitry. It's called CDS, or correlated double sampling. There is usually a CDS unit per column, which samples dark current before an exposure is made, and that sampling is subtracted from the pixel charge as each row is read.

Now, as far as I am aware, Canon's CDS technology hasn't really changed much in a long time. It may have been tweaked, but I don't suspect any of those tweaks would result in a significant improvement in their hardware noise reduction.

As for the ADC units, the reason ADC units introduce noise is because they are high frequency. Canon uses eight channels in most of their modern cameras, and sixteen  in their 1D X. At approximately 5200 to 5600 columns, that means each ADC unit with 8 channels has to process an average of 675 columns of pixels each, or an average total of around 2.5 million pixels each, in a fraction of a second. Canon has low ADC parallelism, and as a result of that low parallelism, each ADC unit must run at a high frequency, which means the frequency of the clock is closer to the frequency of noise in the circuit itself. Additionally, the clock and power supply for the ADC units is right next to them in the DIGIC processors.

Sony Exmor sensors use column-parallel ADC. They moved the ADC onto the sensor die, and hyperparallelized them. That means each ADC unit in an exmor is only responsible for handling a few thousand pixels, instead of a few million pixels, every fraction of a second. That allows a lower frequency to be used, so the frequency of the clock is lower than the frequency of noise in the circuit itself. (Sony also move the clock and power supply themselves off to a remote corner of the Exmor die, which reduces potential thermal sources and, at least according to Sony's paper on the Exmor design, reduces noise from high frequency components within the ADC units themselves.)

So I wouldn't say that moving the ADC unit closer to the detectors really has anything to do with reducing noise. Increasing the parallelism of the ADC units, allowing each one to operate at a lower frequency, has a lot to do with reducing noise. Because the ADC units are on-die with Exmor, it also means that the signal is converted from analog to digital immediately...rather than after transit across a bus and through who knows how many additional electronics. In Exmor, pixels are read, amplified, converted to digital via the ADC, and digital CDS is applied. From that point on, the DIGITAL signal can be moved around anywhere, error-corrected transfer can be used, and the signal, since it is now bits rather than analog charge, can be kept pure and accurate.

Canon actually has their own patent for an on-sensor-die column-parallel ADC. Canon's is called a "dual scale" ADC, in that their hyperparallel ADC units can actually operate at two frequencies. When necessary, they can operate at a lower frequency, which again reduces the amount of noise introduced. I think Canon moving from an off-die, high frequency, low parallelism ADC system to an on-die, low frequency, high parallelism ADC system is the key to them achieving lower noise. I don't think that moving the ADC's closer to the pixels in and of itself really reduces noise much...maybe a little, as it avoids the need to move the signal across a bus to external units, but overall, I think the lower operating frequency is really what will reduce noise.

Canon also has patents for some other interesting technology. Such as a read-time power disconnect, which decouples pixels being read from the power source, which, at least theoretically as I understand it, could potentially eliminate dark current entirely as a contributor of read noise. That would help shadow noise performance a lot when shooting in higher temperatures...such as outdoors, in the sunlight, for birds, wildlife, landscapes, etc. (I know that my 7D can get pretty hot when I'm out in the sun trying to photograph birds or wildlife...which can take a lot of time to get close, get the right angle, etc.)

1038
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« on: May 14, 2014, 01:59:47 PM »
Fundamentally, ISO/noise performance is a factor of two things: Real sensitivity (quantum efficiency) and total sensor area. Assuming you frame your subject the same, the only way to really reduce noise is to use a larger sensor. Pixel size does not really play a role unless your only putting the same number of pixels on the subject (which means you are not necessarily framing the same). With the same number of pixels on subject, then pixel size matters, and larger pixels do better.

That's only true for shot noise.  You're forgetting read noise and thermal noise, neither of which is necessarily tied to sensor size in any way.  For more info, read:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#SNR

Well, partially true. Pixel area is died to read noise. Larger pixels, as much as they are capable of carrying a larger charge due to photon strikes, are ALSO prone to experiencing more noise from dark current. This is evident in the actual measurements of Canon sensors. Check out sensorgen.info...you'll notice a very high correlation between pixel size and read noise levels.

There are indeed some other components of read noise, which are primarily caused by high frequency component oscillations, however overall, read noise is a TINY contribution of noise overall. At higher ISO settings, read noise is at its minimums (~3e-), where as photon shot noise is at it's maximums. For a very high ISO setting, say ISO 3200, where the saturation point may be around 1000e-, the photon shot noise is ~32e-. Even though there is some read noise, it's trounced by photon shot noise (by a factor of ten or more, usually).

So I stand by what I said before. At higher ISO settings, noise performance is by far a factor of pixel size, not of read noise. Realize, a read noise of 3e- is the same as the D800 has at ISO 100. It's extremely low, trivial. ISO/noise performance is a factor of pixel size and quantum efficiency, read noise is such a small factor that it doesn't matter.

1039
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 14, 2014, 01:24:26 PM »

hey you, come right here. Don't make me yell at you.

LOL! Now THAT is an awesome shot. I can't say I've ever seen a bird tongue quite that way before. :P

1040
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: May 14, 2014, 01:23:04 PM »

Three Kings by Le ARchie, on Flickr

Very nice. Love that long-exposure fogging of coastlines like that. Nice, rich contrast, too!

1041
Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: May 12, 2014, 08:40:26 PM »
Nice milky way view there, Student.

If you want to stack, you really need to use full RAW. The Canon mRAW format is actually more like a JPEG than anything, a 4:2:2 encoding of Y (luminance) and Cb (blue/yellow channel) and Cr (red/green channel).  It is 14-bit, but it is actually not even remotely "raw". Stacking non-raw images doesn't produce nearly the same kind of results as stacking true RAW images.

For stacking to be most effective, you also want to have fairly closely temperature matched "dark frames" (same exposure time, ISO, and temperature...within a few degrees), say 30 of them, as well as about 150 "bias frames" (same ISO, shortest possible exposure time like 1/4000th or 1/8000th...super easy to create, and the more you stack, the better they are to calibrate.)

Once you have some real RAW lights, and some darks and biases, then you can stack with DSS, and the process is largely automated. Export as a TIFF (WITHOUT applying modifications), and you can do some pretty amazing tweaking and stretching in photoshop.

1042
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 12, 2014, 08:36:04 PM »
Thank you guys for your detailed responses in this thread. I have also always been fascinated with the universe outside of the Earth, and astrophotography is certainly part of that. Unfortunately, I live pretty much dead smack in the middle of Europe's largest heavy light pollution area, with the nearest clear-ish (note the -ish) skies being at least a 3 or 4 hour drive. One day I'll be in or closer to a better area, in the meantime I just enjoy the images of other astrophotographers :)

You don't have to worry about LP nearly as much these days. You can use a camera lens, DSLR, and a Light Pollution Suppression or Reduction filter, even under the most heavily light polluted "red" and "white" zones. I know quite a few astrophotographers now who live in the middle of or very near to big cities, and they still image.

Look for the Astronomik CLS EOS Clip In filter. It's super easy to use...it literally just clips right into Canon EOS DSLRs. You can then attach the DSLR to a telescope with a T-adapter and T-ring, or to a Canon EF lens (note, you CAN NOT use EF-S lenses, as the short backfocus doesn't leave room for the filter.) There are also other brands that offer similar filters, with varying strengths.

Personally, even though I am under a yellow->green transition zone, I use the Astronomik CLS with my 7D. It has allowed me to get quite a few great nebula shots:

http://jonrista.com/category/astrophotography/deep-sky/nebula-deep-sky/

The summer nebula and galactic core season is starting now, and I hope to be getting some more nebula photos with this filter soon.

Anyway, if you really want to do some astrophotography, and already have some Canon EF lenses and an EOS DSLR, then you CAN do astrophotography! You can do ultra wide field astrophotography with lenses of 50mm and wider, wide field with lenses between 50mm and 1200mm, and deep field with lenses longer than that. The Astronomik CLS EOS Clip-in filter is about $140. You can pick up a small equatorial tracking mount and tripod for around $800, or if you want to start even cheaper than that, with lenses of around 200mm and shorter you can use something like the iOpteron SkyTracker, which is about $500.

You could try without tracking, but you really going to be limited to really light exposures at focal lengths below 35mm. So something like the SkyTracker at the very least is important. You could take it a step up, and support larger lenses or small telescopes, with something like the Celestron Advanced VX mount or the iOptron ZEQ25 (the latter being very slightly more expensive but a fair bit better.)

1043
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 12, 2014, 05:00:21 PM »
As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional  photographers using filters in many situations and why.

The reason you cannot simulate what a solid ND does in post is because it allows you to expose over a duration of time within which motion is occurring. You can take a photo of water, but if you take it with a high shutter speed, your not going to be able to replicate the effect that flowing water produces over a longer duration with an ND filter. Same goes for clouds, or anything else with motion. ND filters reduce the rate of light entering the lens, and therefor allow longer exposure times. There is no way to simulate a longer exposure time in post.

The reason you cannot simulate what a GND filter does in post is because it reduces the dynamic range OF THE SCENE. If you are actually clipping your highlights without a GND, then those pixels are pure white. There is no recovery, and there is no simulating a GND filter...all you could do is make those pixels gray, you could not actually recover the detail that was lost by not using a GND filter. With GND filters, you pull down highlights in ANALOG space, before the light ever even reaches the sensor, thereby reducing the dynamic range of the world around you AS it enters the lens.

These are real-world physical effects. They cannot be simulated. Hence the reason photographers who know what they are doing invest the money on a good multi-filter holder (like the Lee Filter system) and a bunch of good 4x6" filters. Because they are quite literally ESSENTIAL to achieve the effects they support.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think there are situations where GND can be simulated in post. Just like using a filter, it takes some forethought by taking multiple exposures of that scene and then in post compositing and masking. As long as it doesn't include motion such as clouds or water it will be a pretty good substitution for a GND filter.

The whole entire point of GND filters is to AVOID having to take multiple shots, which is where you get into HDR. HDR is really a misnomer...doesn't matter if you do an HDR blend and convert down to 16-bit, use Enfuse, or manually tonemapp, all three approaches achieve the same thing, and all three require more than one shot. HDR is certainly a viable option, however HDR is different than using a GND and it's not the same as single-shot photography. The purpose of a GND is to balance contrast and reduce dynamic range so you can take one single shot of your scene and not have to worry about clipped highlights.

1044
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 12, 2014, 04:33:01 PM »
As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional  photographers using filters in many situations and why.

The reason you cannot simulate what a solid ND does in post is because it allows you to expose over a duration of time within which motion is occurring. You can take a photo of water, but if you take it with a high shutter speed, your not going to be able to replicate the effect that flowing water produces over a longer duration with an ND filter. Same goes for clouds, or anything else with motion. ND filters reduce the rate of light entering the lens, and therefor allow longer exposure times. There is no way to simulate a longer exposure time in post.

The reason you cannot simulate what a GND filter does in post is because it reduces the dynamic range OF THE SCENE. If you are actually clipping your highlights without a GND, then those pixels are pure white. There is no recovery, and there is no simulating a GND filter...all you could do is make those pixels gray, you could not actually recover the detail that was lost by not using a GND filter. With GND filters, you pull down highlights in ANALOG space, before the light ever even reaches the sensor, thereby reducing the dynamic range of the world around you AS it enters the lens.

These are real-world physical effects. They cannot be simulated. Hence the reason photographers who know what they are doing invest the money on a good multi-filter holder (like the Lee Filter system) and a bunch of good 4x6" filters. Because they are quite literally ESSENTIAL to achieve the effects they support.

1045
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 12, 2014, 02:09:11 AM »
You know, why don't you get the Planewave 0.7m CDK Telescope System? Seems like a good option for 200,000$

Indeed. I think my HOA would crucify me if I mounted one in my driveway, though. ;P

1046
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: "Pro" mythbusting
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:35:03 PM »
LOL

These things seriously sound like Chuck Norris jokes. :P

Here's a bit more satire:

 * Pro's don't even need to press the shutter button, the camera takes pictures for the photographer out of sheer fear.
 * A pro doesn't use flash! The camera illuminates itself by absorbing then emitting the pure awesomeness exuded by the pro photographer.
 * A pro could care less about frame rate! Because the camera takes photos for them out of fear, all they have to do is imagine the exact moment that the camera needs to photograph...and it just happens.
 * Pro's don't need to find action...action finds them.
 * A pro can shoot subjects at infinite distance without the need for a telephoto lens. The camera will subdivide it's sensor pixels on the fly according to the photographers impressive will.

:P What a crackup. Pro photographer-norris jokes. :D

1047
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« on: May 11, 2014, 12:56:54 PM »
7D or 70D: these are fast enough, but do they do well enough in low light?  I'll define "well enough" as having at least the same image quality at ISO 3200 as the Rebel does at 800.

6D: fixes the low-light issues, but is the frame rate fast enough to have a decent shot at capturing action?

I'd appreciate any advice on this.  Should I go for one of the above options, or just bide my time and save up for the 5D III?

Fundamentally, ISO/noise performance is a factor of two things: Real sensitivity (quantum efficiency) and total sensor area. Assuming you frame your subject the same, the only way to really reduce noise is to use a larger sensor. Pixel size does not really play a role unless your only putting the same number of pixels on the subject (which means you are not necessarily framing the same). With the same number of pixels on subject, then pixel size matters, and larger pixels do better.

Given these facts, it's highly unlikely that you will ever see an APS-C camera that has ISO 800-level performance at ISO 3200. Even if Q.E. reached 100%, your still not going to see that much of an improvement. I think the XS had around 25-30% Q.E. The 7D has 41% and the 70D has 45%. That is not even a factor of two improvement over the XS, let alone a factor of four improvement. You will see an improvement in high ISO IQ, but no where near enough that ISO 3200 looked like ISO 800. ISO 1600 will look a lot better, almost as good as ISO 800 on your XS, but still not quite as good.

The only real way you are going to get a significant improvement in high ISO performance is to move up to a full-frame camera. The 6D has about 50% Q.E., so just from a real sensitivity standpoint, it's about twice as sensitive as your XS. On top of that, it's got 2.6 times the sensor area. So you'll gain almost two stops of improvement in high ISO performance...indeed, ISO 3200 would look a lot like ISO 800 on your XS. Because of the greater pixel count, if you frame the same, ISO 3200 should look quite a bit better than ISO 800 on your XS for a given output size. These same fundamental facts apply to the 5D III as well. It has 49% Q.E. and the same total sensor area.

Whether you choose the 6D or 5D III is really up to you. The AF performance is indeed much superior on the 5D III, and for action, that will certainly be better. The 6D's 11pt AF system is not bad, though, and at least for kids  and for some lower action wildlife, it should suffice quite nicely. The 5D III's AF system is going to be able to lock onto active subjects, like kids running around or wildlife in action, a lot better than the 6D's. For action, frame rate is pretty important as well, and I'm not sure the 4.5fps of the 6D is really quite up to snuff. Personally, my limit, having used 3.4fps, 3.7fps, 6fps and 8fps cameras, is about 6fps. Anything lower than that, and I really feel I'm missing the right moments. At 8fps the frame rate feels really good, and you definitely see an improvement in small changes in subject pose and orientation that give you the option of picking a really ideal frame. The 7D, which I own, has an AF jitter problem that causes some frames to become very slightly out of focus, which basically negates some frames for all but the smallest reproduction ratio online. My average "keeper rate" is about 5-6fps at best, which is part of the reason I feel the 6fps of the 5D III, with it's much better AF system, is acceptable for action. I say acceptable, however ideally I'd say 8-20fps is probably where the sweet spot is, and I think 10-12fps, maybe 15fps is really quite ideal (assuming the AF system can keep up.)

At the very least, given that you've stated high ISO performance is one of your biggest concerns, that you should really move up to a full frame camera. The 6D is a very nice camera, and for certain applications, like landscapes, low light photography, and still scenes (like floral macros), and even astrophotography, it is a very, very good camera. For action, it's maybe middle ground at best. The AF system is capable enough, but the 4.5fps frame rate may just not quite be up to snuff. Whether you choose the 5D III or not would really have to be up to you. If you do choose the 6D, I honestly think you will find it to be a truly MASSIVE improvement over your XS...despite the shortcomings of the 6D vs. the 5D III, it really is a vastly superior device compared to your XS, and once you get it in your hands, you'll understand what I mean.

1048
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 11, 2014, 11:21:52 AM »
Northstar, looks like Sandhill Cranes. Beautiful birds! I had originally planned to go photograph them in Nebraska during the migration, but something came up and I wasn't able to go. :( Second year in a row that's happened. I am hoping I get another chance this fall, would love to photograph these beauties.

1049
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 10:02:01 AM »
The fly actually was a rather large one. I took those shots late last year, weather was cold, and it was just before sunset, so the inset was very sluggish. I coaxed it into a stick, and it just hung there. I clamped it into a gorilla holder, stuck it on a tripod, and then started shooting.

Like I mentioned before, if your dedicated, you find a way of getting things to work the way you want them to. Some macro photographers regularly resort to bait, which often gets insects to stop and sit still for a minute. Others resort to setups, where they generally know where the insect will be in a few minutes span of time, so chasing it down isn't nearly as tough a job. The other way is to find insect subjects in the mornings (usually) when it's cold, and they are lethargic. They they can be quite cooperative subjects.

The image is cropped about 50%, so the fly isn't 35mm in size. I'd also say magnification was probably closer to 1:1.1 or so than 1:1...it was shot hand held, after all, which makes it extremely difficult to nail focus right exactly at 1:1. The largest subject size in a 1.6x crop at 0.9x mag is ~17mm, so the size of the fly's head is less than that. If I run the numbers through Cambridge in Color's calc, I get a DoF around 0.5mm. Now, CiC assumes a CoC of 0.032mm. Given my crop and the fact that the image I shared here is pretty much exactly a 3x downsample, I've calculated my CoC at 0.02mm, and when I run the math on that, I get a DoF of 1.03mm.

If I run the numbers through DofMaster, I get a DoF of 3.3mm. I figure subject distance was probably about 33cm, 330mm, or around 13 inches.

A DOF of around 1-2mm sounds about right, given what I know about the actual subject size and imaging distance.




Regarding the effectiveness of tilt in macro. I honestly can't say what it would be like with a design like Canon's old TS-E lenses. They are much more complex designs. The Novoflex Bellows T/S design, however, for all intents and purposes, uses a "simple" lens design attached only to the front of the bellows. Focus is achieved by moving the lens on the bellows or the whole bellows assembly forward/backward...there are no additional optical elements behind the Schneider APO Digitar lens. In which case the math works much more like it does on the Wikipedia page for Schiempflug, in which case my original diagram of a 20mm ball would apply much more readily. If I could gain almost 6mm of additional DOF with tilt on a 20mm ball, I figure another half a millimeter shouldn't be out of the question with the Novoflex and a 3-4mm fly head. If I assume an effective aperture of f/21 (i.e. if I had stopped down to f/11 instead of f/5.6), and a CoC of 0.02mm, then the DoF is 2mm (according to 2Nc((m + 1)/m^2))...if tilt gets me even a mere half millimeter of increased focus along the back of the fly's head, then I think I'd have achieved my goal. And at a significantly less diffraction limited aperture than a real f/22.

1050
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:40:19 AM »
I do not disagree, there is indeed value in both experience and theory. I'm not trying to dismiss experience, honestly. However I do believe that if tilt is of no value at macro scale, it should be easy to prove, especially for someone who has ready access to a wide variety of tilt/shift lenses with a range of capabilities and designs. I'm also not above admitting I could be 100% wrong here, but I honestly do not believe I am.

PrivateByDesign and I have a long history. He has his way, and he thinks it is 100% purely objective, and in many cases he very much is, however there have been cases where I believe he is blind to his bias, and his bias is very persistent. Hence my reason to doubt him until I get some kind of concrete proof. You came on pretty strong, immediately claiming a superior position then also immediately and subsequently trouncing any possibility that you would provide any evidence to back up your position. I'm happy that your happy and confident in your position...but that doesn't change anything. :P

You have still made claims I have no reason to believe just on your word alone, or even the combined word of you and private, and given that there is apparently quite a number of T/S bellows systems explicitly designed for macro photography, some with magnifications up to 2:1 and tilts from 10° to 25°, that only gives me further cause to doubt your strong assertions, based on your own personal experience, that tilt is of no practical value for macro photography. Experience is well and good, but how different, really, is photographing a carpet of moss with a tiny mushroom in the middle different from photographing a ring on a slate in a whitebox? I don't see any fundamental difference in the subject distances, angles, or viability of T/S between these two things. In the case of the fly, it's head as a whole is indeed a largely round object like a ball...but from the standpoint of what's visible within the field of view and what really needs to be in focus, the top of the eye and front part of the fly's head that is within view ALSO make for a relatively flat subject at a slight incline, which is again not all that different from a carpet of moss with a mushroom in the middle or a ring on a slate in a product photography box.

If T/S can be useful for product photography at macro distances, it can be useful for nature photography at the same distances. Insects, being ever-mobile subjects, are certainly rather arbitrary subjects...your not always going to have them cooperating and giving you the opportunity to get a good composition with a good angle on the interesting parts to fully maximize the potential of a flexible T/S macro system. But the same core argument could be made about insect macro in general...that you can't really get the most out of macro photography with insects, for the very same reasons. And yet...thousands of photographers have found a way, not only to make their subjects cooperate, but even photograph them, sometimes hand-held, at magnifications up to 5:1, even in natural lighting.

So, epistêmê or technê, theory and/or experience... I'm not speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint myself. While I have not actually used a macro t/s bellows before (hopefully something that I'll rectify before too long, I actually really want to get some actual evidence that demonstrates what, if any, and how much of a difference tilt could actually affect focus at macro scale now...I'm about ready to DIY myself a little bellows system and use my 50mm and 100mm lenses to test the theory out in the short term), I am not without experience with macro or T/S photography. The assertion that I am simply an ignorant, hopeful idiot doomed to be disappointed, well, it's certainly your right to have an opinion, but it also certainly doesn't give me any reason to trust what you say at face value any more than I had reason to before. :P

Well, good night.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 298