August 01, 2014, 12:46:49 PM

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 - Rocky

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39
Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".

I shoot a lot from a canoe or a kayak and it can be a challenge to keep the camera level as you are being bounced around by waves.... straightening horizons is very necessary for me.

In bird photography, very often only the center part of the image is on the target.... cropping becomes very important..

Agree. For these situations, it is hard to frame the picture correctly. It is wise to leave room for cropping.
However, We should avoid cropping when ever it is possible to avoid wasting of pixels. Why buy a high mp camera and use only half of them??? Do we want to turn a 5D into a 40D??

Technical Support / Re: Sharpest f stop for a lens?
« on: October 03, 2013, 02:55:40 PM » is a good place to check performance of a lens. As a GENERAL rule, 1.5 to 2 stop from the largest aperture will give you the best performance. However, aperture smaller than f11 should be avoided due to diffraction.

Video & Movie / Re: The world war L
« on: September 30, 2013, 02:11:02 PM »
The German has leica, they lost because it slower to pull the triger (manual focus)
With the proper skill, Leica is faster than AF by using zone focusing for shorter lens.

Canon General / Re: Priest meltdown over photographer at wedding. Ouch!! :O
« on: September 30, 2013, 02:05:38 PM »
Wow...I was amazed to see this one:

I mean, I've heard of officiants getting testy inside of church buildings, but even then, usually setting the rules before the ceremony.

This guy blows up in the MIDDLE of the ceremony, embarrassing the bride and groom....and this ceremony was OUTDOORS.

I read one quote someone made on YouTube that I agreed with.  The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."


I will not call it a meltdown. The priest is very calm. We only see part of it. We do not know whether the photographer has asked the priest's consent BEFORE the ceremony or not. Even worst, the priest may have announce that no photographer is allow in the alter area and the photographer has ignored it.  Most of the priest will not allow photography during the ceremony no matter whether it is inside of the church or outdoor. If the photographer is a professional,   he should know better. The priest has the right to ask him to leave whether the photographer is hire by the groom or not.

Lenses / Re: 40mm Panckake or 35mm 1.4L For walking street
« on: September 22, 2013, 03:12:31 PM »
40mm is too long for the crop senser  as a " street walker". 35mm 1.4L is big and heavy. You may want to consider a Non-L 28mm or even 24mm.  that will give you close to be 45mm or 28mm FF equivalent.

EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 15, 2013, 08:13:58 PM »

I agree with most but not really with this paragraph. Appropriately scaled (same) great quality lenses just do not exist. You cannot scale the index of refraction, and the lens design must be different. For the same DOF, etc., you have rays which need to be focused more than before (for smaller sensors), etc. There is a reason MF is still alive. The FF resolution near, say, f/2 is dramatically better than the crop one at f/1.4. When you stop down, the advantage decreases but it is there, and is real. I never had a landscape with my crop cameras that I could find acceptable, with all kind of lenses, L or not. Now, even the 24-105 is clearly better.

Let us all save our money and buy a MF and shoot landscape at f/2.

EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 15, 2013, 06:27:32 PM »
In the film days, you either shot with a SLR, or a p/s. There was no middle ground, with the exception of a few half-frame cameras, which were a lot closer to SLR than P/S. Very few of them were sold.

Modified due to Jim O's post:
Actully, there was a middle ground. The higher end was the SLR or Interchangeable lens range finders, e.g. Leica, Contax, Canon, Nikon etc. The middle ground was fixed lens in 35mm, 36mm X 24mm film format. e.g . Canon, Konica, Minolta, Olympus and  a whole lots that I even care to mention. The 110 ans APS, half frames (except the Olympus Pen F)are the lower end .
The above is based on 135mm film only. For larger film formats, e.g. 120 (or 620) that is another discussion. I do not  want to be way off the topic.

EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 15, 2013, 03:55:41 PM »
We can't really compare film formats to digital formats because of the different pixel sizes used in digital. In film, at a particular ISO, for all practical purposes you had one resolution. Bigger sheet of film captures more detail, smaller one captures less. In the digital world, you range from pixel densities of around 20megapixels to around 5 gigapixels for the equivalent area of a FF sensor. In film the limit was how big you could make the camera, in digital it becomes a hard limit where if the pixel were any smaller it would be shorter than the waveform of light and become a mechanical filter.

I am not sure what your point is. Since film of the same ISO was made more or less of the same material, with similar grain structure, this is in a way equivalent to a fixed pixel size. This degrades the resolution of the media proportionally to the crop factor. With digital, pixels can actually be smaller, and this is an advantage. We are still far from wavelength sized pixels, and film has no chance to get anywhere close anyway.

Even if you think of film as some perfect analogous sensor, detail smaller than wavelength does not exist anyway in the projected image, and then there is the photon nature of light, and all that.

Obviously, I did not explain myself well.

Back in the good old days of film, if you wanted an image good enough for an advertising poster, you had to go to medium format or larger to get a negative with enough detail to blow up..... 35 mm just did not cut it, blow it up past 16x20 and the lack of detail showed. This is one  of, if not the big one, of the reasons why the advertising world and so many studios went to larger formats.

35MM was great for magazine sized prints, with the smaller format one could get economical lenses at a variety of focal lengths, particularly  longer ones. The smaller formats like 110 were great for the instamatics and p/s cameras of the day, same market as APSC is in now....but with the reduced film size came reduced image size to that of 35mm..... blowing up a 110 negative past 8x10 was a bad idea because the detail just was not there.

With film, there was no real option of upping the resolution. If you made the silver halide crystals in the emulsion smaller, you got more detail, but you reduced the ISO. At a particular ISO there was not much difference between brands of film, unless you went B/W.

Digital is very different from film.

If you had a film camera that you could use 35mm (FF) film in or use 110 (APS-C) film in, you could very easily say that the 35MM film has 2 1/2 times the detail of the 110 image. In the digital world, with a great lens, an 18Mpixel FF sensor would have almost the same amount of detail as an APS-C 18Mpixel image with the appropriately scaled great quality lens. <edit: they would be almost the same, the FF would be a bit better than APS-C> In the film world, the quality of each square mm of film would be the same between the two sizes, and in the digital world the quality of the FF pixels would be up totwice as good as the quality of the APS-C pixels (depending on lighting and assuming the same level of technology and processing).

Both digital formats give you an image that you can blow up to 17x11 at 300dpi..... but if you want to go bigger, conventional thinking says go MF and get more pixels, yes, you could wait for FF cameras with more megapixels,  but as the numbers climb in FF they will also climb in MF. You could wait for a rumoured 75Mpixel FF camera or plop down your credit card today and order a Hasselblad HD4-200 with 200Mpixels...for sale now! MF will always beat FF for pixels.... and will always blow up larger.

The thing is, digital is not film.... you can take multiple pictures and stitch them together to get those high megapixel images to really blow up.... yes, it is easier to do it in one shot with MF, but the point is that there are now options, where as with film there was not. For example, the shot below is CROPPED down to a 150Mpixel image and was taken with a 60D. I have a couple 2Gpixel images that I have taken. We can do things now with a middle of the road camera that were impossible with a MF or even large format film camera.

The point is, that with digital photography. the answers are not clear. Size of sensor or number of megapixels is just one factor. So much depends on how you do photography and how you process the results that in some cases you can produce superior results with a crop camera than a MF camera, and other times it's the other way around. There is a place for MF, FF, and crop cameras.... it becomes a question of the right tool for the job for the way YOU (not someone else) are going to do the job. There are no easy answers anymore.

Don, excellent analysis!! +2.

Photo Stitching is great for static objects. For scenery incuding moving objects, e.g., moving water, people, boats etc .can be tricky and even hit  and missed, especiall for the pixel peepers.

Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 15, 2013, 02:53:52 PM »
My own general rule:
1. Used rigid lenshood ALL the time for protection.
2. No filter 90% of the time
3. Use  UV fiter in hazard condition: rain, on beach etc.

So far I am lucky enough not to have any damaged front element.

EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 15, 2013, 02:05:07 PM »
Canon sells more APS-C parts than FF parts. Always has, probably always will.

A good example of the "my memory is universal memory" fallacy.

Canon has existed since 1933. Canon started selling APS-C sensored cameras in 2003. For 70 years, they never sold a single APS-C sensor. All those years they sold cameras equipped for "full frame" 35mm film. As far as I know they never sold film either, so they never sold any image sensors at all for 70 of their 80 years. They would seem to be quite new to this whole arena. Who knows what the future may hold.

I'm hoping maybe they get into the dark chocolate business.

Did anyone ever call 35mm film "full frame" before digital came along (except maybe in the context of those cameras that could shoot 2 or 4 pictures within a single 35mm frame)?  I think you might be able to argue that anytime some refers to FF in this context they are talking digital.
I cannot recall that the term FF was used for film format.  However, Olympus took half the standard 36mm X24mm as their new format for their Pen series in the 60's and call it half frame. Therefore can we call the 36mm X 24mm as an implied FF???
APS is another film format invented by Kodak.  Everybody has made camera for it in the 1990's. APS-C sensor just happened to be slightly smaller than the APS film format( Classic) and APS-H is slightly bigger than the APS film  format (Classic). These two terms are used for the benefit of people that know the size of film. Otherwise, it may be called 1.7" or 2.1 " sensor??? What is that???

EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 12, 2013, 01:47:32 AM »
You are basically saying the same thing as Neuro in a oppsoite way.

No, I am saying the opposite thing. That you may find out that you do not need to stop down, very often at least.

And not everybody is coming from film, many people started with crop cameras. Give some credit to the younger generation.

For someone comming from film, I am surprised that you call "Exposure Value" as  "a vague term you just invented"

I explained that already.
I did not say you say the opposite thing. I said you are saying the same thing as Nuero in an opposite way.
Understanding DOF has got nothing to do with film and has got nothing to do with the younger generation. You are just implying that people do not understand DOF without film back ground,. That is a very blunt and offending statement.
 You did not explain why you call "Exposure Value" as  "a vague term you just invented". You just admitted you do not know anything about "exposure value" even with your back ground on film.

EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 11, 2013, 11:56:37 PM »
For example, I think most photographers would most likely consider photographing at f/2.8, regardless of sensor size, if they had the option and wanted a thin depth of field. That they would have to photograph at a narrower aperture on a larger sensor in order to produce equivalent results with a smaller sensor is, I think, not generally how most photographers think. Even in the context of evaluating a camera system for purchase.

There is another side to it. Most crop camera photographers would shoot at f/2.8 (with the 17-55,  or 70-200, etc.) not because they do not want to go get shallower DOF but because they cannot (say, with those zooms). When they try FF, they may discover that more than often, there is nothing wrong with the f/2.8 DOF on FF, and learn how to shoot and compose even then. This is something difficult to evaluate before you try. I am coming from film, so I did not need much convincing.

You are basically saying the same thing as Neuro in a oppsoite way.
For someone comming from film, I am surprised that you call "Exposure Value" as  "a vague term you just invented"
Every half way decent phtographer will know the difference in DOF between APS-C and FF. They do not need to physically evaluate it. Please give us fellow photographer some credit.

But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)

If you have a fast prime, you can bokeh the crap out of a poor background.
If you have a nice body, you can crop the crap out.
If you have a set of balls you can get closer.
If you have a good eye, you can do environmental portraiture.

This is a message from the 35/85 liberation front.
+1;  Some people travel around the world with Leica M,a  35mm f2.0 and a 90mm f2.0 lens in order to "travel light".


Leica's first lens was a 50mm, the 135 format and the 50mm "standard", became popular long before slr's. There is zero retrofocus issue with a 50mm multi element lens on an 18mm- 38mm flange distance, common rangefinder interchangeable lens flange distances. Even with slr's requirement for larger flange distances closer to 42mm-48mm there is still no retrofocus issue with multi element 50mm lenses.

For the Canon FL system, their first interchangeable slr system, from 1964-1971 that morphed into the FD system and shared mount and flange distance, they made six 50mm lenses and one 55mm lens and two 58mm lenses, the later three being the more complex f1.2 version of their standard lens.

I love it when people say stuff like "suggest you to look into the history a little bit more" without having the slightest idea of who they are talking to, nor give references for their own education.

As a primer, read this.

All the example that you have quoted are either Range finder lens (Leica) or post 50's SLR lenses
Ziess Biotar is from the 30's till early 50's It is even at 58mm.  if you can spend time to look at ebay,  you will find  a lot old 55mm lens.
The reason that I mention 55mm (or 58 mm) for early SLR to to show how arbitrary the standard lens can be. I have not yet mention the 40mm for the fully auto 35mm film camera in the 80's t0 90's and Canon's 'shorty forty" yet.
But if you think that you are right and know them enough, then you are right. Let us not to waste any more time on this pointless discussion.

Due to the mirror,  it is hard (expensive) to make a 50mm standard lens. Therefore 55mm became the standrd SLR lens until the 50's or even early 60's.

It is very easy and cheap to make 50mm lenses, even for 135 format reflex cameras, thought 135 format was adopted long before the SLR became a standard and rangefinders are even easier to design lenses for, 50mm lenses have no technical hurdles to overcome, no retrofocus or similar issues. That is why, even today, you can buy new auto focus 50mm lenses for $100!

Canon and Nikon were selling 55mm lenses well into the '70's, often alongside 50mm versions.
Now it is cheap and easy to make 50mm lens for SLR due to the new technology in glass making and grinding process. In the 40's and the 50's it is entirely different story. 55mm was use to avoid retrofocus and keep the price reasonable.  I would suggest you to look into the history a little bit more, pay attention to the price of lens and camera in the 40's and 50's also.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39