September 02, 2014, 04:25:37 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 - Policar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:07:40 PM »
Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes. 

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality.  Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat.  The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness. 

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

I disagree. The reason film looks better is because it has less dynamic range so you're forced to chase scenes in which the lighting is better, but the reason having less dynamic range in the scene is better in the first place is because...

Printed images have 4-5 stops at most of contrast.

Computer screens rarely have more than 9-10 stops of contrast.

But OLEDs have TONS more. On a perfect OLED display in a perfectly dark room your perfect sensor might look like real life. But even when we get to that screen few viewing conditions will be set up to match it, but if there were that might look like real life and it would look awesome.

Sensors are way ahead. Lenses and displays are behind. The nicest thing I've seen yet is a large format transparency on a light table. HUGE contrast ratio and color gamut of a scene with limited scene DR.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:44:19 PM »
How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them?  They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up.  While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.

This goes back to the reason for the common advice to ETTR: there are few tonal values in the deep shadows. Sometimes I am surprised and find that I can process a single file where I shot expecting to HDR. But if I have to push shadows more then 2...maybe 2.5 stops...I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.

The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

Even the zone system (the first incarnation of tone mapping) works within a ten stop range.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

3
EOS-M / Re: Finally a 50mm for EOS-M...
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:46:16 PM »
...from Samyang without autofocus.  :-\  Why hasn't anyone made this standby focal length yet??

It's sort of an awful focal length on APS-C, imo the most difficult to use in an interesting way. I like the 22mm, 35mm is very nice. Even 40mm and 60mm macro have their uses, but 50mm is boring.

Likewise, 85mm on FF kind of sucks. But with the 85mm f1.2 I guess you get a unique enough look to make up the difference.

Fwiw, 50mm is my favorite focal length on FF. But I think a 35mm or 22mm makes a lot more sense on APS-C, and most seem to agree.

4
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 11:32:31 PM »
TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product. 

Funny, I could have sworn it was the C500.

5
Photography Technique / Re: Photographer Spotlight. Mr. Eduardo Acierno
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:24:04 PM »
r the job, but - let's fact it - these static, staged, controlled (and to my eyes, stultifyingly dull, banal and clich├ęd) images would hardly present a technical challenge to a cheap mobile phone's imaging capabilities.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I agree. These are super cliched, over processed... Really remarkably bad photos.

6
16-35 f/4L IS is very steady handheld with IS on. Maybe with a stedicam it would be even better but I'd look into that lens

This seems like a good suggestion, but I haven't used it.

The 17-40mm L is a nice glidecam lens on the Mark III if you balance it right. I have actually found if it's too light it feels wrong... Talked with an MK-V owner and he claimed there is a visual difference, even if stabilized, between heavy and light, for which small stabilizers can't account, heavy being better and the MK-V being able to emulate an Alexa's weight while flying a DSLR-style camera. (He was flying an Alexa at the time.)

So if you can't balance it... it might be on you. That said, if the 24-70mm II (which I've seen used plenty, but only used the original) extends it will lose balance as you zoom. The 17-40mm L doesn't do this and if the 16-35mm L is similar but wider and with IS and sharper then... jump on it. It should be smaller, balanced, and not change the rig's moment of inertia so much and thus not unbalance it. It's SUPER wide, too.

7
Site Information / Re: Critiques
« on: August 06, 2014, 03:54:27 AM »
Based on this community's response to Gursky, I wouldn't dare turn here for "honest" critiques.

This, like most photography websites, is solely for technical information, not aesthetic.

8
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 04, 2014, 09:29:35 PM »
I gotta be honest pablo... kinda harsh, dude!  I have wondered the same thing about C lenses so I don't consider this to be a stupid question or a stupid thread.

So please, next time post something less condescending because your previous post does little to contribute to the discussion other than show everyone a side of you that isn't very considerate.  I mean, really, did someone with a cine-lens kick your dog, call you names or something?   :o

I stand by every word.  They are specialist tools.  I don't know how good or how bad, how rich or how poor the op asking the questions is.  I paint a scenario of where these lenses come into their own, what they are designed for, what no other type of product would do.  I think that goes some way to answering the question of why they cost so much...  sorreeeee.

I also stand by my other comments, and nowhere do I consider them a personal attack on any other specific forum user, I am critiquing the fairly recent trend in photography where everybody wants the latest and greatest and most expensive.  The technology has been static for 5 years as far as bodies go, and probably 10-15 years as lenses go.  Part of that trend is confusing cost with performance or value.  Simply put, a bright ring type USM lens will give a talentless photographer more keepers, but the photographs still won't be that great.  Obviously they would give the talented professional more keepers too, but the talent would shine through regardless.

If the question was, will these cinema lenses make my still photography better, then, apologies if the timbre of my reply frightens the horses, but no, they will not.  They will make your still photography worse.

There, I've just saved you 25k.

If anybody reading this has a spare 25k to drop on a lens, and will buy or not based on what somebody on a forum says... then I really consider that I'm doing them a public service.  Find a charity close to your heart or something instead.  It will be more rewarding.

Quite where you think I'm having a go a cinema lenses or cinema lens users, I fail to see.  Cinema lenses are great.   For cinema.   And in that regard, the answer is in the question, so maybe 'obvious' is kinder than 'stupid'.

This is kind of fair and kind of unfair.

The CN-Es are by all accounts pretty similar to the Ls, not different enough for the 2% improvement in coatings or whatever and 9-bladed aperture to make up for the vastly huge increase in price.

The majority of what makes movie zooms movie zooms (parfocal, lack of breathing, mechanics) are helpful only for movies... but who wouldn't want an 18-85mm f1.8 (for APS-C only) that's as sharp as the sharpest Canon prime. (Okay it's 15lbs and $90k but still Fuji makes such a lens.)

I know of someone who converted a Zeiss Master Prime to his 5D or 7D for astro photography. If you have the money go for it, but as most just cover APS-C (other than the CN-Es, which, again, are not that much different from the Ls) it seems silly to spend up toward a smaller format rather than a bigger one. (IMAX uses modified Hasselblad and Pentax 6x7 lenses is the rumor.)

Also there is a longer history of still lens conversion than people realize. There was a 70-200mm Nikkor I think on one of the Bourne movies, Panavision has a host of converted Leica primes, some of which I've played with... they're nice! But the cost is in the rehousing... although the 280mm f2.8 Leica is sick.

9
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:12:02 PM »
Besides that they sell for the price, what does a Cine lens offer than a regular L lens does not?

Flip side - could a Cine lens be used as a still lens?  How sharp would it be?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

1/3 of the way down.

10
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:31:47 AM »
So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.

That's a point where the relatively low overall turnover rates for MF come into play. Some of the current lenses for small frame have leveled the playing field quite a bit, and we won't see many MF lenses that benefit from the same technological advancements.

This is more the case with zooms than it is with primes, however. The recent Hasselblad lenses are very sharp. The Mamiya 7 series lenses and even RZ67 lenses are as sharp as good dSLR lenses and the recent tech camera lenses are amazing:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D810 vs. 3D
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:56:17 AM »
it's not just a flatbed scanner heeds, if he takes the advice to shoot medium or large format film, then he's going to need a drum scanner too.  Deep pickets required here, he must be very very good.

Maybe he is. Also I was just recommending large format because I find it vastly superior for landscapes. Not everyone does!

12
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:53:22 AM »
Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.

The interesting part here would be: why does one want to go medium frame?
For raw sensor size/resolution the D8x0, A7r are, compared to the new CMOS-sensor, almost there. To make the step worthwhile one of the full 645 sized sensors would be helpful.
LS-lenses are an actual added value, at least with HBlad and POne; that can make sense from a bookkeeping point of view.
Some legacy stuff? Would be a reason, but tough to capitalize on for a new manufacturer.
And then there is the factor "prestige", either to impress someone or to caress ones own ego.

It helps to impress clients, sure, but the same way 24MP full frame looks a lot sharper, especially int he center, because the lenses only need (1/1.6) times the MTF to produce a certain amount of sharpness for a given print size, lenses don't have to behave as well on a tiny scale for a larger sensor. So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.

But is it work it? Probably not. Look at the sales figures. :(

13
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:35:10 AM »
Again with lenses I'm out of my element since I'm not a video guy.  I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lenses "use technology that is existing in the canon line."  While I'm sure some of the optical design can be borrowed the result must be parfocal, and it's my understanding that a lot has to change regarding the chassis in which the optics are mounted: it must be optimized for manual focus and to eliminate focus breathing, etc. 

I don't pretend any expertise, just enjoying the speculative conversation.  It seems to me there's a bigger difference between a still lens design and cinema design than between FF and MF.

The Canon CN-E primes appear to be VERY similar optically (if not identical in some cases) to their L counterparts. The cinema zooms are obviously dramatically different designs, however.

Medium format lenses have to cover a much, much larger area (while still autofocusing...) so while the optical designs might resemble scaled up stilll lens designs more than they resemble cinema zooms, they would have to be pretty much all new.

My [mis?]understanding of the motivation behind film MF was the limitation on how much film could be enlarged. MF lenses weren't as sharp as FF lenses, because MF film wasn't enlarged in printing as much as FF film.

As example, FF film was always enlarged 16x area just to get 4"x6" from 24x36 (mm) film, while 8x10 film (large format, I know, just illustrating) was printed 8x10.

So, how useful would MF lenses from the film era for digital MF sensors? Wouldn't the manufacturer have to make an all new line of sharp-as-FF lenses for the new sensor anyway?

Sort of.

Film enlargements might be based more on grain and film sharpness than on lens sharpness, but lens sharpness had to be sufficient for enlargements, too. In my experience, fine grain 135 ("FF film") can be enlarged to about 8''X10'', maybe a bit larger; 8X10, while often contact printed to 8''X10'' can flawlessly be enlarged to about 80''X100''... The ratio is always about 10 times in each axis for irreproachable quality, but it's a little smaller for smaller prints due to the viewing distance. Black and white grain looks nice and scales up nicely, however, to larger sizes. I think FF digital can easily scale to 11X17 and I am sure soon MUCH larger; it is on par with good 6x7 medium format in terms of sharpness but with less grain and also less resolution.

The thing is, those 6x7 lenses had to be adequately good wide open for film... meaning they are often stellar stopped down. The 50mm f1.4 Nikon AI lens is not great wide open on digital (the Otus is surely better), but by f5.6 it is still good enough for digital, especially for APS-C. 6x7 lenses stopped down will be perfectly sharp for high pixel density digital. Large format lenses are a bit softer.

Irrelevant... Canon will never go in this direction!


14
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 04:42:27 PM »
Ha Ha Ha   ;D 

Dear Mr. Surapon,

I would like to see that camera hang-on to you while on your next photo expedition.  ;D

Have a great weekend Sir.

Yes, Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear Friend Click.
If I have this Camera, I must hire the Strong/ Beautiful  Helper,  who can help me carry this big camera.
Good day, Sir.
Surapon

There are a lot of photographers still using 8X10. Of course all the great landscape photographers were 4x5 or 8x10.

I saw a few stills from this photographer:

http://www.lauramcphee.com

Great stuff! Worth the extra effort for sure.

Fwiw, Canon won't do this because they don't have lenses for it. Yes they made a PL mount C300 for some reason (they also sell PL mount lenses), but the C300 was VERY expensive because they weren't necessarily going to push lenses with it. And they only entered the market once the EF mount become a competitive "cinema" mount and now Arri and Red are building (very expensive, since they don't sell lenses to subsidize the cost) EF mount cameras.

Besides, FF is pretty much on par with 6x7 in everything except "film look." MFDB is more competitive with large format, especially the tech and view cameras... and that is a much smaller market even than 645/6X6/6X7 was.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D810 vs. 3D
« on: August 02, 2014, 06:47:39 PM »
I'd wait for the 3D mkII. It's going to have better dynamic range and other amazing technology that will make you want to delete every photo you have ever taken and start over. For realz.

In all seriousness, this is why I recommend 4x5 or 8x10. Sure, film will all dry up and it's expensive to shoot, but there's nothing terribly competitive on the horizon:

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

And when you consider that every lens is a tilt/shift lens (imo, necessary for landscape photography), it's even better. :)


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27