January 27, 2015, 03:38:53 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 49
31
Lenses / Re: What is your favorite lens/camera combo in your camerabag?
« on: December 26, 2014, 03:41:02 AM »
6D + 40STM and Σ150/2.8Macro

32
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 23, 2014, 04:36:14 AM »
You cannot use random focal length to get what you want.

Yes you can, just crop, or use a different sized camera. An iPhone takes normal perspective images with a 4mm lens, a 135 format camera appears to give distorted perspective images at 17mm, but when shot from the same place crop the 17mm image to the 4mm image framing and the images are the same, no distortion and the background elements are as 'compressed' as with any other lens with that framing from that place.

These two images are shot from the same place with the same camera, one with a 17mm lens the other with a 200mm lens, they both have the same perspective because they were shot from the same place.

Perspective has nothing to do with field of view or focal length, zero, nada, zilch. Perspective is describing where you are in space in relation to your subject, and where the subject is in relation to the other elements in the picture and the viewer, you can only change perspective by moving yourself or one or more of the elements within the frame, that is what perspective means.

Perspective gives you your view; focal length (in combination with your sensor size or crop) gives you the angle of that view, but it doesn't affect your spatial relationship to your subject or the other elements in the picture. Dolly zooming does change the spatial relationship of the subject to camera, so it changes the perspective.

Cropping doesn't prove your theory, sorry. You've shot two different pictures from the same spot, that's all.

The two pictures have the same perspective.

So what? You still can't shoot the same picture using the same FL from whatever distance to get different perspective. All you can do is cropping or using different camera format (which is cheating) :).

Quote
It isn't a theory either, that is the definition of perspective, it isn't my definition, it is the actual definition.

Really? :) I thought it was about representing 3D objects in 2D.

33
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 23, 2014, 02:20:56 AM »
You cannot use random focal length to get what you want.

Yes you can, just crop, or use a different sized camera. An iPhone takes normal perspective images with a 4mm lens, a 135 format camera appears to give distorted perspective images at 17mm, but when shot from the same place crop the 17mm image to the 4mm image framing and the images are the same, no distortion and the background elements are as 'compressed' as with any other lens with that framing from that place.

These two images are shot from the same place with the same camera, one with a 17mm lens the other with a 200mm lens, they both have the same perspective because they were shot from the same place.

Perspective has nothing to do with field of view or focal length, zero, nada, zilch. Perspective is describing where you are in space in relation to your subject, and where the subject is in relation to the other elements in the picture and the viewer, you can only change perspective by moving yourself or one or more of the elements within the frame, that is what perspective means.

Perspective gives you your view; focal length (in combination with your sensor size or crop) gives you the angle of that view, but it doesn't affect your spatial relationship to your subject or the other elements in the picture. Dolly zooming does change the spatial relationship of the subject to camera, so it changes the perspective.

Cropping doesn't prove your theory, sorry. You've shot two different pictures from the same spot, that's all.

34
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 22, 2014, 10:25:05 PM »
If you only change distance, then you change the whole picture (framing, perspective, DoF...). OK, you can skip the experiment, just google for "dolly zoom" or "vertigo effect" (used in movies) and learn how it is done and why.
No need for personal insults, have nice holidays :).

If you looked up those terms yourself you would see that they are not changing subject framing, they are changing PERSPECTIVE because they are changing camera to subject DISTANCE.
and focal length!

Quote
The framing stays constant on the subject and the perspective changes because the camera position is moved, which is entirely consistent with my point that perspective is created by position and nothing else. Change position and your perspective changes, if you don't change position your perspective does not change.

This effect (changing perspective) is not possible without zooming. You cannot use random focal length to get what you want.

35
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 22, 2014, 03:15:46 PM »
Focal length does affect perspective :).


No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

Yes it does :).

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.


Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, same framing + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).

FOV and framing has nothing to do with perspective, that is where you are going wrong.

If we change this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

to this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

Then you will be on the right track.

FOV and framing has everything to do with distance, which affects perspective.

ecka,

You have a proven track record of wallowing in your ignorance, have at it, if you don't want to learn that is fine by me, I don't have the time to help all the people that want to learn let alone to be bothered with the people that don't want to.

For anybody else, the only thing that determines your perspective is your position, which is why you can get the same image with a 4mm lens with a phone as you can with a 35mm lens with your 135 format camera, stand in the same place and your perspective is the same, regardless of focal length or sensor size. Start moving, either with the same camera or a different one, and your perspective changes.

Well, most photographers (not snapshooters) are not just photographing the perspective from where they stand, they tend to frame their pictures logically, while looking for the best position, background and distance. Standing still and zooming your 18-300 lens won't change the perspective. But, when you have the image in your mind, then you have to choose the right FL and distance to replicate it using your set of tools (which has it's limits). Try using some primes, shoot an environmental portrait (or something where perspective really matters), then you'll see that you are changing the perspective by changing your lens (FL) and distance, while keeping the main subject. If you only change distance, then you change the whole picture (framing, perspective, DoF...). OK, you can skip the experiment, just google for "dolly zoom" or "vertigo effect" (used in movies) and learn how it is done and why.
No need for personal insults, have nice holidays :).

36
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 21, 2014, 04:52:30 AM »
Focal length does affect perspective :).


No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

Yes it does :).

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.


Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, same framing + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).

FOV and framing has nothing to do with perspective, that is where you are going wrong.

If we change this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

to this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

Then you will be on the right track.

FOV and framing has everything to do with distance, which affects perspective.

37
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:40:20 PM »
Focal length does affect perspective :).


No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

Yes it does :).

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.


Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, same framing + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).

38
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:31:27 AM »
That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

Call it what you will, you are probably right, but on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens. In that particular reference I was not comparing 35mm to 35mm, but aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement.... I gave up my 35 prime because i liked how my zoomed images looked in tight spaces compared to the images from a  fixed lens in same space, Gave up sharpness in the trade.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

The 35 is better at 2.8 midframe and the 24 70 II is better in the corners, center is basically identical... Using your chart link...

Focal length does affect perspective :).

At the same settings there is no difference between a zoom lens and a prime lens background compression.
I don't know what you mean by "on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens". Some people are confusing "more zoom" with longer focal length, shorter focal length or more magnification. Are you?
"aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement" sounds like you don't know what you are talking about :).

39
Lenses / Re: What's your favourite focal length?
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:53:45 PM »
14-35-85-150

40
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Gold-trimmed Nikon DF - good, bad, ugly?
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:38:59 PM »
We might laugh at these, but in the future these collectibles will be worth big money.

Specially the lens with a pointless plastic gold ring :). IMHO, it's just as collectible as Pentax K-S1.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: I killed my brand new 7D MK2 today
« on: November 13, 2014, 08:56:39 PM »
So, why would anyone insert a memory cards without looking?

42
Lenses / Re: Canon 85mm f1.2 or Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art?
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:59:38 AM »
Apple vs tomato :)
85L has more oomph.
Next question.

43

Battery life is like Canon 1 : 3 Sony, and for a landscaping trip you may end up with 10 or 12 NP-FW50, because battery life in landscape photography is not about the number of shots you take, but the amount of time you are waiting for the right moment and unlike DSLR you can't even work on the composition with your A7r being turned off or in standby mode like most DSLRs are most of the time.

And you can't just do the composition and turn off the Sony while waiting for the right moment?

I mean that LiveView/EVF is eating your battery while you are looking for the best spot or a better angle, not just when sitting there with a ready to shoot camera on a tripod and waiting for good light to push the button.

Quote
Actually I find myself using liveview when doing landscapes on Canon and the battery life of even the 1DX in live view is just as bad as the Sony.

Me too, and yes it is. I've never been on a pure landscaping trip, but I like doing macro (for hours) and I think the battery drain rates are very similar in both. Normally it's like 10 peekers per battery :).

44
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 1Dx in favour of mirrorless
« on: November 08, 2014, 03:58:55 PM »
Many claimed 12MP is little low for landscape. I don't agree with that either. I feel 12MP is good, as long as you don't crop 30-40% from RAW.

Well, A7s is not as bad as X-T1, but 16+mp wouldn't hurt.

45
Well, I think it is OK when better = heavier and more expensive.
What's wrong with adapting Canon EF 16-35/4L IS on Sony A7r?
Battery life is like Canon 1 : 3 Sony, and for a landscaping trip you may end up with 10 or 12 NP-FW50, because battery life in landscape photography is not about the number of shots you take, but the amount of time you are waiting for the right moment and unlike DSLR you can't even work on the composition with your A7r being turned off or in standby mode like most DSLRs are most of the time.

Nothing is wrong with adapting an EF 16-35mm if you are a Canon user, have already the lenses and want the sensor characteristics of the Sony A7r. But in real life most users would buy the lenses from the manufacturer of their camera. It might be the case for the "advanced photographer", ready to mix and match lenses and bodies through adapters, but it is unlikely to be what most people do.

I assume the standard user would buy a Canon camera to use Canon lenses, and Sony camera to use Sony / Zeiss lenses. Nothing wrong with either method, it's just very unlikely that someone buying a camera system for the first time would bother to buy a Metabone adapter ($400) to mount a lens that won't behave exactly as the original brand would, to maybe get 10% better optics.

If someone want to go into the Sony system, it makes sense to buy Sony lenses, if you go into the Canon system it makes sense to buy Canon lenses for general use. So for Sony users, I suppose it is a good news to have an excellent wide angle zoom available, as it is for us, Canon users to finally have the 16-35 f4 IS that will replace without regrets the previous ones.

Makes sense. However, for most big canon L glass collection owners it is easier and more reasonable to use an adapter, than buying a whole second system + longer flange distance has its IQ advantages too. When/if I give up waiting for canon FF mirrorless, then I will definitely get some nice fast manual primes and adapters for A7r or the next best thing.
I'm not a professional and I don't have those back problems caused by 10+ years of heavy gear lifting. Which may be one of the reasons why I don't buy this crazy "compact system camera" propaganda, that is supposed to replace a proper FF camera. Sony A7 series may be my last hope :).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 49