September 02, 2014, 10:44:30 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 152
EOS Bodies / Re: which model is this?
« on: July 11, 2014, 01:23:12 PM »

A lot of "medium format" sensors are not much bigger than 135 (FF).

The mirror box and flange distances won't allow much/any bigger sensors with current lenses.

A new line of lenses would be very expensive.

The market would be small, lets face it the vast majority if DSLR's are still 1.5/1.6 crop cameras.

Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography (Gear Discussion)
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:23:35 PM »
Just read about this,

that should keep you Canon shooting astro guys happy for a bit..............

Canon General / Re: Seeing Rebels....
« on: July 10, 2014, 05:15:39 PM »
I was at Kennnedy Space Center the other week, I ended up getting on the launch pad transfer bus first and sat down on the first seat, I then had thirty to fourty people pass by me, there were about eight DSLR'S and every one of them was a Rebel. No mirror less, no Nikons, no 5D Mk III's, 6D's or anything else. Lots of different nationalities from both USA and abroad, the only cameras on that bus were Rebels and iPhones. This fascinated me so I kept looking, didn't see anything but Rebels and iPhones/phones for the rest of trip including the return bus trip where I made a point of looking.

Hey no worries Steve,

It is a subject I have banged on about for years and one that is still greatly misunderstood by even knowledgeable photographers.

Bottom line, there is not only a focal length crop factor but aperture and iso crop factor too, that is why same generation smaller sensors will never, ever, be able to do what larger sensors can, be that an iPhone, M4/3, APS-C, APS-H and even 135 (FF) when compared to anything larger.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:25:33 PM »

Hey, that can't be - Canon has TWO "N"s, Nikon has only one "N".   ;D

I take a lot of "information" on the net with a giant crystal of sodium chloride.

Hmm, I see what you mean about the salt........

Photography Technique / Re: sunset post-processing
« on: July 09, 2014, 10:12:50 PM »
This is always 100% subjective, but working with what you have I did this. I rotated you a little did a grad on the sky with exposure and temp, did a brush on the sun for exposure and temp, did another brush on the valleys for contrast and clarity, did a final brush on the foreground for clarity.

Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:06:39 PM »
The f/4 IS is significantly sharper, 4 stops of IS, much lighter and still as solid as a rock.  So, unless you really need f/2.8, don't even think about the old lens.


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 09, 2014, 10:31:07 AM »

You're assuming that the imperfections in the lens are noticable/detectable with that camera.

As has been quite eloquently shown by many DSLRs, lenses for SLRs that were thought perfect in film days are been found lacking in the digital era.

Or to put it differently, that Zeiss lens outresolves the sensor.

No, my only assumption was you would read the link, if you had you would realize that the lens being capable of out resolving the sensor is not the point, pretty much every lens can out resolve a sensor.

You can argue the point as much as you like, indeed far more than I am interested in doing, but if you can show an equation, formula, law, or rule that allows DXO's measurements of the 135 and D800E to break the one I linked to then have at it. I would hope your explaination would include how the 135 manages to vastly out perform the Otus too.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: July 09, 2014, 09:26:04 AM »
I am not understanding the recommendations some are giving for an f/4 lens.

Yes, new cameras can do 6400 ISO pretty decently.  But 3200 ISO still has more detail, less noise, more contrast, 1600 has more detail, less noise, more contrast than 3200... and 12800 is still a mess.  If 6400 ISO looked perfect landscape photographers would simply use 6400 for their low light shots instead of slow shutter/tripod, obviously that is not the case; there is still a lot you gain from a lower ISO across the whole frame - most importantly in this focal length the center for event photography.

That being said, any advantage you would get from the f/4 lens primarily in the corners would be obliterated by the higher ISOs that affect the whole frame.  Compound this with the fact that when shooting people with a UWA you rarely actually use the corners for the subject to avoid perspective distortion, and the recommendation for the f/4 lens is even more befuddling.  The IS is virtually rendered useless as well due to the higher shutter speeds needed for people.

I understand the excitement some are having for the f/4 IS as a landscape/travel lens, but for events there really is no comparison to the f/2.8 II, IMO.  While you can use flash, yes, flash is banned at some places and hence should not be a crutch that you must rely on to avoid ISO-noise-riddled pictures.  Flash can also disturb the guests more than available light.

As others have mentioned, sometimes f/2.8 isn't even fast enough, but that is a very poor/contradictory argument to recommend f/4.  I personally use a combinations of zooms and primes, as while I love my 24mm f/1.4 in this range, it sometimes does not offer the focal length flexibility I want and obviously can't go wider than 24mm.  Having the options of picking a very fast prime or a pretty fast zoom gives you the tools to be more prepared for whatever the event brings.

To draw a parallel, there is a reason Nikon still has the 17-35 f/2.8 in their lineup (which has lower IQ than the 16-35 f/2.8 II) even while the sharper-in-the-corners 16-35 f/4 and 14-24/f2.8 have been available for years.  That reason is event photography, very simply - the 16-35 f/4 is too slow and the 14-24 f/2.8 focal length is not long enough on the tele end, plus the heavy/fragile bulbous element is not conducive to hectic events.

The answer to that boils down to how much is good enough.

6400iso can easily be printed to 8"x12" with superb results, actually they can be printed much larger. Now I don't know about you but I find reception/function shots are generally album fillers or web gallery fodder and are rarely reproduced larger than 8"x12" anyway.

Also there is the counterpoint to IS doesn't stop subject motion, well in a dimly lit church during a ceremony nobody is moving, so IS will get you the shot more effectively than 2.8 compared to 4. Move to a reception with dancing and you are screwed either way, flash is the only ways you will get sharp dancers.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 09, 2014, 09:10:34 AM »
Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

What I know is you need more than a $2,199 Zeiss to resolve 100% of a 36MP 135 format sensor. DXO just did it again, they threw any "scientific" credibility they had out the window, not that they had much left anyway.

What is the basis for your knowledge here?

My earlier linked law of physics.

So shoot at max sync and stop down whilst in lowest iso. Don't take the shutter speed up, close the aperture down, HSS is very inefficient. Or, if you want narrow dof get a variable ND filter.

But you know you need a scrim, so take one. A white bed sheet and a couple of broom handles will probably do.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 09, 2014, 12:33:35 AM »
Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

What I know is you need more than a $2,199 Zeiss to resolve 100% of a 36MP 135 format sensor. DXO just did it again, they threw any "scientific" credibility they had out the window, not that they had much left anyway.

A result made all the more comical when you look at the $4,000 Otus results on the D800E, down to 33MP, a drop of over 8% for what is regarded as one of the finest photography camera lenses ever made. I think DXO have two teams of testers and the Canon team, who clearly multiply all their results by 0.9, mistakenly did the Nikon Otus when they did the Canon Otus as well. No that's not true, I believe the Canon testers are OK, it is the Nikon test team that multiply all their results by 1.15.

As for not being able to have 99% of perfection or it being a strange way to look at it, I understand that, I was just trying to illustrate that anybody claiming perfect anything is farcical and it isn't as simple as the lens being capable of resolving more than the sensor. Like the >14 stops of DR in a 14 bit file, extrapolate to ridiculous figures all you want (DXO) but if I can't actually realise that shadow lifting capability it is of no practical use.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: July 07, 2014, 03:23:16 PM »
If you limit yourself to available light, a very dying breed nowadays, and you anticipate very low light levels where iso 5000 with a 5D MkIII won't cut it (macguyver's example was only at 2500 and f2.8) which is basically three stops over the best we used with film, then the f2.8 is your choice.

But those situations are few and far between for most of us. The truth is there are way more options open for us now with wireless flashes and superb high iso performance than there ever was with fast film, if I was buying new today I'd do what macguyver just did and sell his 16-35 f2.8 and get the f4 IS. Sure there might be situations where that one stop won't work, but we now have options, if you get enough function work where f4 limits you get a 24 f1.4 or a 600-EX-RT and ST-E3-RT to augment it.
Some good points, private, though I still think there's something unique (and better) about available light for event shooting, though I'd probably use lights for a wedding to avoid risking things.  The new lens is definitely an improvement over the 2.8 II, but it doesn't make the 2.8 II a lousy lens and if f/2.8 were more important than sharper corners and lower CA, I'd go for the 2.8 II.  For people who rarely shoot events, the f/4 IS is cheaper and better for everything else, and as you say, you can always add light :)

 :D I am a poor photographer, am still running the 16-35 f2.8 MkI, because we needed that with 800iso film!

I recently shot a wedding with a very dim reception, mood lighting was the term I think, dungeon would be more accurate, plus it was small with nowhere to put stands. I gelled a couple of 600-EX-RT's and put them on the tables and bounced off the ceiling, I also had one on camera, this made the weak DJ lights look much more effective and gave me enough fake ambient to work with my 1Ds MkIII's with their 1600iso limit (but I never go over 800 with them either).

I agree some shooters will always need more speed, but I'd advise any natural light specialists to go for 1.2-1.8 primes over 2.8-4 zooms anyway. I just get the feeling that there is a touch too much generalisation here from some people sometimes, we used to shoot 2.8 800iso images all the time, now many can easily shoot 5,000iso and that more than makes up for the one stop loss in lens speed for the same shutter speed value.

I really like your function examples, and you make the 2.8 point very well, but you could, if you had needed to, gone up one stop of iso, 2,000 to 4,000, and/or had a remote 600 popped into the canopy that would have blended well but not been obvious.
A dungeon, eh?  That's too funny, and always seems to happen when your client says the location is "well-lit" right?  Based on DxO's measurements, the 16-35 MkI is still a nice lens, so I wouldn't be too sad.  Going for the f/1.2 & 1.4 lenses is definitely the way to go if you want to get lots of the ambient and stop the motion for sure, but you still have thin DOF to deal with, even at f/2.  I like the challenge and look of it, but wouldn't risk missing a shot at a wedding.  I was at a wedding recently where the photographer popped light on a stand and moved it around the room as she worked keeping it around 15-30 feet from her subjects.  The photos came out pretty well but still had the dark background.  Using some flashes on the tables sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure the bounce worked well.

You're right about the ISO in my examples - I could easily have bumped it up and in practice, I did in the dimmer areas, going up to 6400, which is about as high as I dared with the 5DII.  I think they're good examples of how even slow motion can be an issue if the light is lower, though.

Speaking of film, I laughed when I read one of Art Wolfe's recent books talking about trying to shoot wildlife with ISO 25 film.  Yikes :o

Oh I am not sad, the 16-35 MkI fitted in my underwater housing whereas the MkII didn't, that was the main reason I kept it. Housing has long gone but the lens lives on. Having the 17TS-E for the times I need sharp corners, and so much more, make swapping it out for anything a low priority.

Wedding prime shooters, the real artists, are a very small breed, Jeff Ascough is my personal favourite and he truthfully is an artist, though it is surprising how much he relies on post to get his exposure and contrast where he wants it.

As for film, I delayed jumping to digital in the early 2000's when Velvia went from 50iso to 100iso, wow a whole stop more, for free!

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 152