October 23, 2014, 12:03:19 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 234
2296
Lenses / Re: Your technique for switching lenses in the field?
« on: October 26, 2012, 05:36:47 PM »
I flip my lens facing out from my BR strap. Pull out my other lens and Turn the lens on my camera just enough to un-engage the button. I remove the rear cap on the lens in hand and take off the lens on camera. Quick swap later, i put the rear cap back on to the lens I removed and back into my bag.

2297
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 05:14:31 PM »
se  answers above , physical conditions, everything is  NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.  :P
sorry but I have. I have done a comparison between Pentax 645 and D800E.
Do you understand that there are two different  sensor we are talking about? One old CCD and a new smaller cmos
And even if the larger sensor is larger the QE and DR are far behind a modern 24x36 sensor and the results at base iso are very similar, at higher iso the Pentax is no match for d800

Have you shot phase one before? Because MF still resolves more detail than any 35mm DSLR.

Take the best 35mm DSLR d800 and stack it up against the best MF system, The phase one IQ 180. Its no comparison.

2298
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 05:00:21 PM »
You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame.

A simple example here would be in a reach-limited scenario. If you are physically incapable of getting closer to your subject, and cannot user a longer lens, then a sensor with smaller pixels is the solution. MFD sensors are large, and have large pixels. Increasingly, their pixels are 2x the size of a FF sensor, and even larger than the pixels found in APS-C sensors. That means you can't put as many pixels on subject with the MFD, so either a FF or an APS-C DSLR sensor is going to be better...it'll put more pixels on subject, and assuming you use a lens with a similar entrance pupil, you'll achieve the same S/N. Focal length doesn't even necessarily matter in this scenario....entrance pupil size, exposure time, and # of pixels on subject are all that really matter to normalize S/N across sensors regardless of sensor dimensions or pixel pitch.

So your assertion that MFD is and always will be better is ignoring some of the facts. I'm trying to point out that you CAN get results just as good, if not better, with a physically smaller sensor with physically smaller pixels. The reason for this is Etendue. Roger Clark clearly, mathematically and visually, demonstrates how and why the 7D can and is better in many situations than a 1D IV (APS-H) or 5D II (FF). Just because a sensor is 44x33mm in size doesn't mean it is magically excluded from the facts.

Your contorting your argument to make it sound as though MFD sensors always have more pixels, which is not actually the case. Hassy has a 30mp MFD, which is actually FEWER pixels than the D800's 36.3mp. In just about every scenario, the D800 will outperform the 30mp Hassy MFD, and not necessarily because of the improved DR. Because it is easier to bet pixels on subject, and because there are lenses that exist for DSLR that have immense physical apertures (such as a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4). The best thing Hasselblad has to offer in their H-system is a 300mm f/4.5. Lets even assume you use a H4D-50 (btw, H4D-200ms is still actually a 50mp sensor, it just integrates their "multi-shot" technology...you could achieve the same results with a pano rig or a Tilt/Shift lens and a normal DSLR) with the 300mm f/4.5, and compare it to a D800 with a 300mm f/2.8. The hassy has 6 micron pixels, where as the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. If you shoot the same scene from the same distance, the D800 is going to take the upper hand here every time (even ignoring its better DR). Smaller pixels, larger physical aperture, more light on the sensor, higher S/N for that particular exposure for a greater number of pixels on subject. If you stop the D800 down to f/4.5, it will still win out because it puts more pixels on subject, even though the two exposures will have the same S/N.

I'm not saying medium-format cameras are not awesome cameras. They most certainly are, and when used for the things they were designed to be used for, such as studio photography where there is nothing to limit you from putting as many pixels on subject as possible (fill the frame), they can and will produce stellar IQ. Assuming you use a MFD with more pixels than a comparable DSLR (i.e. you use a 40, 50, 60, or 80 megapixel MFD), and fill the frame, then yes, MFD will also outperform 35mm. On the flip side, you need to acknowledge that there are situations where 35mm FF or even APS-C DSLR's are the FAR better tool for the job, and they can produce better IQ for those kinds of work than a medium-format digital camera could ever hope to aspire to.

We're not discussing about limited reach, we're not discussing 35mm's versatility and we're not discussing the impracticality of the MF system, or the extreme im-practicality of a 4x5 view camera.

Well, no...my reply to you was in regards to the finality in your argument, the "simply fact" statements. Which is demonstrably NOT true, and I've linked external resources that provide the theory that explains why.

We are discussing the resolving power of two different formats. 35mm & MF.

You can't say 35mm resolves more that MF. It simply doesn't and never will.

That's plain and simply untrue. A D800 sensor, from a spatial resolution standpoint, resolves more than a 40mp, 50mp, or 60mp Hasselblad. All three of those sensors are different dimensions, and all three of them have 6 micron pixels. The D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels. A D3200 has 3.8 micron pixels. From a spatial resolution standpoint, all three of those cameras "out resolve" all of the hasselblad sensors. You might be able to put more pixels on subject with a hassy, but spatially, you aren't resolving more, you are just recording an image of a greater physical area. Different things. For the kinds of scenes you photograph with a MFD, you could just slap  a T/S lens on a D800 and in a few seconds a set of six photos that can be stitched together to make a photo around 250-300mp (same exact thing the H4D-200MS does...only with MORE resolution.)

Likewise, You won't see anyone go shoot a motorsports race with a MF camera. It's just not practical. I'm not saying 35mm has its place, It does and thats why Photojournalists aren't using garraflexes anymore. I feel 22MP is more than enough for 35mm. It can make great 24x36 prints. ;D

Your contradicting your own statements here. As I indicated above, FF and APS-C DSLR's can and do "resolve" more detail than a medium format. They are also far better suited to many forms of photography, and in many cases just as capable as a MFD in other types of photography. You absolutest statements about MFD being unbeatable period forever and ever are falling apart here.

But when push comes to shove, NO 35mm system will ever resolve more than larger formats MF or LF. Period. End of Story. Its Fact.

You need to properly qualify that statement with "when MF has more total pixels." You are also assuming that 35mm will never have as many pixels as MDF...that is just an assumption. There are prototypical sensors that pack FAR more pixels into FF and APS-H sensor area, with higher readout rates than any comparable MFD sensor. Technologically speaking, DSLR sensors could make some even more significant leaps (above and beyond what Sony Exmor has done) past anything MFD has so far provided, or might provide in the same timeframe. So stating "Period. End of Story. Its Fact." is also simply an anecdote, an assumption...and therefor not a fact.

A d800 only has 36MP. The Phase One IQ 180 Has 80MP. They're is no competition. When 35mm jumps to 46MP, MF will be in the 120-160MP range. 35mm will never catch MF.

The Phase One has more resolving power, not only because of its MP count but because since the magnification is lower on the lenses, They are sharper. Any imperfections on the higher magnification 35mm lens will be shown more clearly, while I had a Hasselblad 501CM with a beat-up scratched lens that still was sharper than any of my 35mm canon's.

MF will always have more detail and resolve better than 35mm.

Edit: Infact Imagine this. Take a full Size 36MP file from a d800. I take the 80MP Phase One file and downsize it to the d800's 36MP size image. Which File will be sharper, have more detail, and better resolution Eh?

2299
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 04:24:47 PM »

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue.  The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

Your changing your argument now, though. Which is fine, and yes, if you stuffed more pixels into the MFD sensor and framed your subjects the same, the MFD would put more pixels on subject, and thus have more detail overall. But that wasn't the original argument...your original argument was that no matter what, MFD is and will always be better. That is not necessarily true. There are a few ways where 35mm can outperform MFD, especially with a sensor like Exmor.

Thats Right, MF will always be better than 35mm for resolving detail.  Even if the MP counts are the same, MF will still be better.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

IE: If you have a 12mp FF sensor, That would be around a 30mp Medium format sensor. Be fair with the pixel density. There is no replacement for displacement. There is no replacement for a larger sensor.

You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame.

A simple example here would be in a reach-limited scenario. If you are physically incapable of getting closer to your subject, and cannot user a longer lens, then a sensor with smaller pixels is the solution. MFD sensors are large, and have large pixels. Increasingly, their pixels are 2x the size of a FF sensor, and even larger than the pixels found in APS-C sensors. That means you can't put as many pixels on subject with the MFD, so either a FF or an APS-C DSLR sensor is going to be better...it'll put more pixels on subject, and assuming you use a lens with a similar entrance pupil, you'll achieve the same S/N. Focal length doesn't even necessarily matter in this scenario....entrance pupil size, exposure time, and # of pixels on subject are all that really matter to normalize S/N across sensors regardless of sensor dimensions or pixel pitch.

So your assertion that MFD is and always will be better is ignoring some of the facts. I'm trying to point out that you CAN get results just as good, if not better, with a physically smaller sensor with physically smaller pixels. The reason for this is Etendue. Roger Clark clearly, mathematically and visually, demonstrates how and why the 7D can and is better in many situations than a 1D IV (APS-H) or 5D II (FF). Just because a sensor is 44x33mm in size doesn't mean it is magically excluded from the facts.

Your contorting your argument to make it sound as though MFD sensors always have more pixels, which is not actually the case. Hassy has a 30mp MFD, which is actually FEWER pixels than the D800's 36.3mp. In just about every scenario, the D800 will outperform the 30mp Hassy MFD, and not necessarily because of the improved DR. Because it is easier to bet pixels on subject, and because there are lenses that exist for DSLR that have immense physical apertures (such as a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4). The best thing Hasselblad has to offer in their H-system is a 300mm f/4.5. Lets even assume you use a H4D-50 (btw, H4D-200ms is still actually a 50mp sensor, it just integrates their "multi-shot" technology...you could achieve the same results with a pano rig or a Tilt/Shift lens and a normal DSLR) with the 300mm f/4.5, and compare it to a D800 with a 300mm f/2.8. The hassy has 6 micron pixels, where as the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. If you shoot the same scene from the same distance, the D800 is going to take the upper hand here every time (even ignoring its better DR). Smaller pixels, larger physical aperture, more light on the sensor, higher S/N for that particular exposure for a greater number of pixels on subject. If you stop the D800 down to f/4.5, it will still win out because it puts more pixels on subject, even though the two exposures will have the same S/N.

I'm not saying medium-format cameras are not awesome cameras. They most certainly are, and when used for the things they were designed to be used for, such as studio photography where there is nothing to limit you from putting as many pixels on subject as possible (fill the frame), they can and will produce stellar IQ. Assuming you use a MFD with more pixels than a comparable DSLR (i.e. you use a 40, 50, 60, or 80 megapixel MFD), and fill the frame, then yes, MFD will also outperform 35mm. On the flip side, you need to acknowledge that there are situations where 35mm FF or even APS-C DSLR's are the FAR better tool for the job, and they can produce better IQ for those kinds of work than a medium-format digital camera could ever hope to aspire to.

We're not discussing about limited reach, we're not discussing 35mm's versatility and we're not discussing the impracticality of the MF system, or the extreme im-practicality of a 4x5 view camera.

We are discussing the resolving power of two different formats. 35mm & MF.

You can't say 35mm resolves more that MF. It simply doesn't and never will.

Likewise, You won't see anyone go shoot a motorsports race with a MF camera. It's just not practical. I'm not saying 35mm has its place, It does and thats why Photojournalists aren't using garraflexes anymore. I feel 22MP is more than enough for 35mm. It can make great 24x36 prints. ;D

But when push comes to shove, NO 35mm system will ever resolve more than larger formats MF or LF. Period. End of Story. Its Fact.

2300
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better dynamic range than my 5DIII
« on: October 26, 2012, 03:38:50 PM »
Its not the camera but the Fleshy, breathing Device behind it is what counts.

2301
United States / Re: warehouse space for photography in DC/MD/VA?
« on: October 26, 2012, 03:01:12 PM »
so I've recently been asked by a good friend who is in the process of starting a woodworking/furniture studio to take some pictures for his prototypes.  these aren't for publication or anything, but he wants some creative shots that he can bring along when he meets potential clients or fabricators.

while we plan on renting some studio space so we can do the standard white-background shots, we also talked about doing something a little more environmental, perhaps in an old factory-looking space if possible.  we're both living in the Washington, DC area, and traveling to a nearby city (Baltimore, Richmond, Annapolis) would all be viable options.  I know there's tons of good looking warehouses around, but as I'm a hobbyist, I have no idea how you'd go around arranging something like this.  I've looked for rental studios that are in warehouses but there's surprisingly little info online (this one seems promising, we'll probably check it out http://www.baltimorephotostudios.com/#!studio-411)

anyone from the MarVa region have any suggestions of locations to shoot?  we don't have a specific budget, probably a few hundred bucks at most to rent the location.  thanks in advance for any replies! 

oh, also, I have my own camera gear (5D Mark II, 24-70 f2.8 L, 70-200 f2.8 L II, 100 f2.8 L Macro) and while I have some speedlites we'll probably rent/buy a flashkit, I'm thinking two heads should be sufficient.  any gear/lighting recommendations are also welcome.

A set of Monolights for the environmental stuff would be best. They put out alot of light to shoot at Iso 100.

Smaller apertures will get the sharpest details and take your time lighting. Its the most important thing you need to do.

2302
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 02:27:29 PM »

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue.  The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

Your changing your argument now, though. Which is fine, and yes, if you stuffed more pixels into the MFD sensor and framed your subjects the same, the MFD would put more pixels on subject, and thus have more detail overall. But that wasn't the original argument...your original argument was that no matter what, MFD is and will always be better. That is not necessarily true. There are a few ways where 35mm can outperform MFD, especially with a sensor like Exmor.

Thats Right, MF will always be better than 35mm for resolving detail.  Even if the MP counts are the same, MF will still be better.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

IE: If you have a 12mp FF sensor, That would be around a 30mp Medium format sensor. Be fair with the pixel density. There is no replacement for displacement. There is no replacement for a larger sensor.

2303
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 02:20:58 PM »

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue.  The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

2304
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 02:16:47 PM »
se  answers above , physical conditions, everything is  NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.  :P

2305
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 02:03:02 PM »
Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement.  ;D

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.

and what has that to do with the earlier answers from Jrista or Mikael?

For equivalent focal length, framing, and film, A larger format will always resolve more detail.


2306
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 01:33:59 PM »
Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement.  ;D

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.

2307
Canon General / Re: Canon saw operating profit slump over 42-percent
« on: October 26, 2012, 12:39:05 PM »
The 5D3 is over-priced. That why I bought it off of evil bay for 3000$.  ;D

you still payed to much.. there are ~2699$ (depending on the dollar course) deals now in my country.  ;)

Well, 3000$ around two weeks after Launch. Plus, I needed to replace my dying 5Dc already and I still made the right choice for when I needed it.

I will buy another 5D3 body to replace my 7D soon when that adorama fire sale comes back. ;D

2308
Canon General / Re: Canon saw operating profit slump over 42-percent
« on: October 26, 2012, 12:28:40 PM »
Quote
DSLR sales fell over last year, with Canon mentioning that its launch of new models like the EOS 5D Mark III didn't help to shore its camera figures up

no matter how the canon fanboys here will twist it, the overpriced 5D MK3 did not help making things better for canon as it seems.

and from the harsh critics on the net... the 6D will not be that loved either.
it´s not like canon can sell these two cameras like they sold the 5D MK2.

The 5D3 is over-priced. That why I bought it off of evil bay for 3000$.  ;D

2309
No, you guessed it: It's Nikon :-p ... http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/1024_acil_01.htm

What is interesting is that this really shows the advantages of a mirrorless design, I'll be interested to see how the af performs: "The V2 is equipped with the advanced hybrid AF system, which utilizes both focal-plane phase-detection AF (75 points) and contrast-detect AF (135 points). The speed and capabilities this system offers can be clearly seen with certain capture of the perfect moment with a wide variety of scenes, from moving subjects, even those that move unpredictably such as children and animals, to dimly lit indoor scenes and night landscapes."

Well, It's better in everyway to the EOS M except IQ. Good job Nikon.  ;D

2310
WB is a completely subjective thing but generally, You want it accurate.

Different Light sources give out different shades of light, Tungsten is more orange, Florescent is greenish, daylight is bluer, Flash is always 5600K Etc.

The tint control allows you to tweak the Green-magenta to fine tune the color more.

You can Lie about the true colors on a scene with mixed lighting to impressive results.

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 234