July 28, 2014, 01:33:04 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 138
Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: May 27, 2014, 06:21:37 PM »
.......... so I ended up shooting baby alligators...

I hope with a camera ;-)

Mind you we do have a place down here that does very good Gator on occasions!

Lenses / Re: Return policy on lenses/equipment?
« on: May 26, 2014, 08:49:15 PM »
Playing Devil's advocate here.

Why should a store deal with the inability of the consumer to make a decision? More specifically what do you expect the store to do with the return? B&H have said publicly they would resell it as new, Vistek have said they absolutely would not, if you buy it new from them it is brand new to you. Which policy would you rather? How happy would you be if you knew your new lens or body had already been sold once or twice?

For whatever reason, the distance markings don't seem to be that accurate. Maybe I need to do some detailed measurements.  However, I initially took note of the following quote when I was reading reviews on the lens.

The below quote is from dpreview.com.

"The lens has a basic distance scale, with depth-of-field indicators for the minimum aperture of F16 only. Note that these are calibrated for use on full frame cameras; on APS-C the extremes of the indicated range won't appear as sharp"

Ah, that is referring to the dof scale, not the distance scale. The dof is different for the same aperture on ff and crop on the same lens and subject distance.

The truth is that all lens dof scales are "mirky" at best, they actually use a different coc values to actual reproduction values so tend to be generous at the best of times, but a crop camera will be just over a stop less on the dof scale than a ff camera, so on a ff lens dof scale if the f16 is suggesting good dof, then for your crop camera where the f11 marks are will be as good. The actual focus distance is still the same though.


It is clear that the focus distance markings on the lens will not be accurate, as I am using the lens on a crop-sensor camera.

Why do you say that? Distance is distance, crop or ff have no impact on that.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: May 25, 2014, 11:27:15 PM »
the fact that DxO have embarrassed themselves as "scientists" yet again by claiming the physically impossible.

Hmmm....isn't DXO a French company?  I wonder if any of their "scientists" were involved in that faster-than-light neutrino error a few years ago.   ;D

What's 60 nano seconds between friends? It doesn't matter that much does it?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: May 25, 2014, 10:50:27 PM »
Well I have 34 years of providing for myself and family by producing images, so I suppose you could say I know nothing.

On the other hand I could point you to the various articles, comments and such that point out the many inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and unmentioned "editing" (rewriting of the "facts") that have been made about DxO. Or that they claim to be scientists with scientific methods but won't actually share how they arrive at their end scores, so nobody, scientist or not, can check their "work"/opinions. Or point out, again, that they are claiming the physically impossible, nothing is perfect, not even a Zeiss 135.

But my dear dilbert, like the cartoon, you have proven to be a frustrating person to have a conversation with, you avoid direct questions (Does a 70D pixel enlarge as well as a 1Dx pixel?), rebuttals, and facts that don't align with your opinion, you change the subject, throw up strawman arguments, and seek to deliberately misrepresent what people say in their counter positions.

Bearing that in mind, I don't really care what your opinion is, or about the fact that DxO have embarrassed themselves as "scientists" yet again by claiming the physically impossible.

Hey there,

Well you have several issues. I think the camera and your gf did reasonably well, but clearly she didn't fully understand what she was supposed to be doing.

The sign on the front of the lectern is fine, unfortunately you are further back, in darker light, out of critical aperture dof and seem to be moving such that the SS was not high enough to stop your motion. You also have some pretty bad noise and jpeg artifacting, so much that sharpening is difficult.

Having said all that I did have some luck with PS Smart Sharpen with the Motion Blur option chosen with an angle of around 11º using a mask on you so the sharpening only adjusted for your movement as the lectern and screen seem shake free.

If you want to upload a RAW file or two to Dropbox and PM me the address I'll see what can be done after removing the noise first. If not then remove as much noise as possible, then open as a smart object, make a layer mask of just you in white, then do Smart Sharpen with Motion Blur selected, play around with the pixels (they are looking for how many pixels you moved), and the angle setting, that is the direction of the movement.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: May 25, 2014, 09:57:57 PM »
That is laughable for several obvious reasons, first, they are saying the Ziess lens is perfect and causes zero resolution loss, that is impossible, it is either breaking the laws of physics, or their measurements are suspect yet again. And, just read any Nikon forum where people own both, and there are a surprising amount, they will tell you that is simply not true, yes the E does resolve slightly more, but 30% more, no.


Of course you're welcome to tell me that bigger isn't better :)

Bigger is only better if the smaller thing you are enlarging more is better than the native big thing.

You are not arguing bigger is better, you are saying smaller (pixels) are as good as bigger ones, that has been demonstrated repeatedly to not be the case.

So the 1Ds and original 5D have better IQ than the current 1DX, 5D3 and 6D?

So a 70D pixel enlarges as well as a 1DX pixel?

If you look at same generation sensors on a per pixel basis bigger pixels have always performed better than smaller ones.


Of course you're welcome to tell me that bigger isn't better :)

Bigger is only better if the smaller thing you are enlarging more is better than the native big thing.

You are not arguing bigger is better, you are saying smaller (pixels) are as good as bigger ones, that has been demonstrated repeatedly to not be the case.

For usable resolution it isn't even just about the system (sensor, AA filter, lens, firmware etc), that just gives you a potential resolution in best case scenario situations that most of us practically never shoot in, and require 10x Live View manual focus, optimal aperture for lens sharpness, minimum or base iso (if we take the time and trouble to work out our sensors true base iso), very good light with high contrast, very firm support, cable release etc etc.

Now that list sounds like a landscape and architectural shooters M.O., and I believe they are the only people who will get any remote chance of worthwhile resolution increases when going over 30MP in the 135 format etc. Having said that I do a reasonable amount of higher end real estate work that is regularly used in quality print advertising as well as posters and billboards and I haven't found 21MP to be a serious limitation. Peolpe who use AF, BIF, sports shooters, action shooters, most wedding shooters etc will get practically nothing from a 30+MP sensor over current models.

After some extensive testing I did with the 1Ds MkIII and the 7D (sure things are better now but they are better for both formats) in ideal shooting situations set up to maximise the difference between the 21MP sensor and the effective 46MP sensor that showed minimal resolution differences, I concluded the numbers mean very little, in real world shooting situations where I was using AF and not optimal iso and aperture settings the differences disappeared completely. In truth AF had a far bigger impact on resolution than a 21 or 46 MP sensor.

If I shot landscape 100% of the time I'd use TS-E's on an A7R where the methodology of realising the potential resolution wouldn't impact my shooting, but I don't, I am a generalist and need AF, a range of ISO's, apertures, and shutter speeds, zoom lenses, etc etc.

In conclusion, I am not saying, and never have, that a higher MP sensor doesn't resolve "more", it does, but the rule of diminishing returns kicks in for virtually all real world shooting scenarios and makes the difference so small as to be imperceptible most of the time. Having something because it has a higher number is a game I stopped playing long ago, I look very closely at what it can actually do for me, so far the disadvantages of higher MP sensors in 135 format have not convinced me that Canon don't know far more about this than us and they hit a sweet spot with the 5D MkIII. I am a long time 1Ds MkIII user, if they come out with a true replacement in the 35-45MP range I am not interested, if they come out with a 1DX MkII with a 24MP sensor I died and went to camera heaven.

I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?

And about signal noise and if the cameras  file size are compared at the same file size, there are not much to discusse, they are equal regarding higher iso. So my question  is, why can not Canon introduce a high megapixel camera year 2014 ?

Similar questions were asked in Nikon forums prior to them using Sony's 36MP sensor and Nikon folks used all of the same arguments here that Canon guys do about why they didn't need it.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that Canon have been working down a different path for sensor R&D in the belief that their current design pattern for full frame sensors was good enough and that Sony's advances with the 36MP sensor caught Canon by surprise.

But, Nikon users had a mere 12MP in their FF cameras, the D3/D3S and the 5D MkII competition D700, until the $7,000 D3X (the 1Ds MkIII competitor).

There is a huge difference in usable resolution between 12MP and 21MP files, there is not such a huge leap between 24MP (the current 5D MkIII) and the 36MP Sony sensor.

Post a 100% crop of a problem image and I'll tell you what can be done with regular software.

PS has some very good movement deblur algorithms.

Or, for one of those thousand word thingies, ponder the why of this..........

Sure, I know CPS likely loaned all those, but weren't all those guys Canon shooters already?

Not necessarily, particularly if it is a Canon sponsored event. When the full CPS circus rolls to an event anybody with photo credentials can borrow anything subject to availability for zero cost, no CPS membership, no Canon shooter requirements etc.

But there can be no doubt that with the 1DX and the MkII superteles Canon have put the bad old 1D MkIII days firmly behind them.

Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: May 23, 2014, 07:32:47 PM »
My 17 did come with the extra knob in a small bag in the box. I didn't get the funky instruction booklet though!

Tilt when focused at infinity is Scheimpflug, adjusting focus while tilted is Merklinger. Merklinger really is the key to using tilt well.

As a basic start out point a little theory makes sense, if you focus or your far point, then tilt for your near point you will get there quicker. So for a typical landscape image focus at infinity via 10x live view, then move your zoomed square to the bottom of the frame and tilt until it is sharp. That is normally all you need do unless the plane to infinity is not close to 90°, if it slopes up or down a lot from you then a focus adjustment will be needed.

For closer work the idea works again, focus for the far part you want in focus, then tilt to get the close part.

As for the amount of tilt that is needed, that all depends on how far the bottom of the camera is away from the plane of focus, if it is at eye leve, say 5',l 1° is typical with the 17 ( tilt degrees have a focal length factor, if a 17 needs 2° a 24 would need 3°) however put the 17 close to ground level, 8" or so, and you need the full 8°.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 138