All my sensors are at the original size as manufactured. Cropping them is really delicate work.
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.
I have a question related to different focal lengths and want to decide which one would work better for me.I can't really contribute to helping you decide what focal length lens would best suit your planned work, but I do want to clarify the concept of "compression of distance".
I'm planning to go full-frame this year and want to have better understanding of the difference between 85mm and 135mm focal lengths for portraits. I love fixed lenses and looked through several sample shots made using both, but there are things that you can't predict by just looking at those pictures. I'm not able to try both by myself, that's why I'm asking for help here.
The only thing that comes to mind is different "compression" you get using different focal length (the more is your focal length the less is the distance between objects).
Yerry - just checked that link. Wow - 1/1.5" is pretty close to APS-C size (at 1.5 crop)!This absurd system of specifying sensor sizes goes back to the "2/3 inch" Vidicon tube (so-called because of the diameter of its "bottle"), which had a target (sensor) 8.8 x 6.6 mm in size. That relationship was continued, proportionally, for small-sensor digital cameras (since stating the actual size would have worried the consumer by seeming "terribly small").
This will be a 2/3" sized sensor (close to the 8.8 x 6.6 mm Fuji X10)...QuoteYes, I assume that this is the case.
This is the size that started this whole absurd sensor size designation scheme in the days of the "2/3 inch" Vidicon!
As I was sitting here debating on taking an old Tamron lens apart, I had an idea about camera/lens design. The idea is to put the aperture diaphragm inside the camera body near the lens mount, instead of the rear of the lens.The physical aperture needs to be at a place in the optical train substantially away from where the rays from a point on the object converge.
When Canon describes the 1Dx as having "100 to 51200 native ISO (expandable to ISO 50-204800)" what does that really mean? Does "native" mean setting the sensitivity of the sensor itself and "expandable" mean setting it after the signal comes off of the sensor? I've googled around and haven't seen a great explanation.
The 50mm f/1.2L is something of a special case. That lens suffers from a particularly bad focus shift (many lenses have some focus shift, especially, fast primes, but usually not enough to notice). Focus shift is when the focal plane of the lens changes when you change the aperture of the lens.As I'm sure you know, this is often largely a result of uncorrected spherical aberration.
Would like to know if you guys have trouble keeping up with this solid lens and did you get used to it.
But what does it mean "the color temperature the flash is set to"?
imho what that means is that the guide number (power output) will be different for different color temperatures the flash is set to.
Yes, a flash unit with controllable chromaticity - controllable "color temperature" (CCT, actually), if you will - would be nice.The basic discussion in the cr report makes no sense to me. I fail to see the connection between color temperature and "exposure".
Imagine, if you will, a flash that has the same temperature as either an incandescent light, the sun or fluorescent lighting, as well as the normal "tungsten" value.
AFAIK, the Tamron and Sigma lenses send false information (read: that the aperture is at f/5.6 when it's actually f/6.3)
Yes, I know...but Doug stated, in effect, that at lens apertures narrower than specificed for the AF system, i.e. f/5.6, the AF detetors cannot function at all, i.e. it's an optical limitation, as opposed to a firmware limitation. The fact that an f/6.3 lens can AF, as can an f/8 lens under certain conditions, with an f/5.6-sensitive sensor, suggests that it's a firmware limitation, and not an optical limitation.