March 01, 2015, 01:52:12 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 6 ... 50
46
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: January 05, 2015, 11:05:54 AM »
Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective.  But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame.  Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.

Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.

OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.

47
16-35mm F4 can solo landscaping decently well, yeap, something like Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS should be perfect :D.

48
Lenses / Re: What is your favorite lens/camera combo in your camerabag?
« on: January 05, 2015, 01:37:02 AM »
60D + 24-70 f/2.8L II

It's a little heavy but lighter than carrying a FF and that monster of a lens around.

6D + 24-105L still beats it :)

Alright, I'll bite.

No, it does not! Unless you are talking about weight only (which I assume you checked somewhere) but I'm not interested in giving up my 24-70.  Let me break down my argument in sections.

- Specs:
Sure, the 6D has better low light performance, better bokeh (given the _same_ lens) and a nicer viewfinder, just to name a few features. And these are differences that I can quote from having used the 6D next to the 60D, not from reviews.  However, while we are at specs, the 6D has a lower max speed and a lower max flash sync speed than the 60D, and while the 1/250 of the 60D is not enough for a sunny day it does give you some more freedom than the 1/160 of the 6D (not a big deal, but something to mention).

Let's revisit the strengths of the 6D though (low light and bokeh).  The combo you offer has a 4.0 lens, the combo I use has a 2.8 lens.  This is a whole stop difference, which pretty much makes up for the 1.6 factor of the crop sensor in both light let in and bokeh. So while the 6D beats the 60D, the 6D+24-105 barely beats the 60D+24-70.
There is still the viewfinder of course, but whatever.  I guess the 6D+24-105 is still better if you are doing low light landscapes with a closed down aperture for good DoF and high ISO to make up for the light, but who does that? I don't anyway and my post was about the equipment I carry.

- Return on investment:
I bought the 60D when I was on a much tighter budget, before the 6D came out, and long before I could afford the 6D anyway, since my walk-around lens was the Tamron 17-50/2.8.  When the AF on that lens died, I decided to go the extra mile and buy a lens (24-70/2.8L II) that not only is far superior, but also enables me one day to switch to a FF body.  At the time of purchase I spent $1800 for it (after rebates and whatnot).  The combo you are suggesting is still about $700 higher (and that's if you buy gray market on ebay) and back then it was a good $1K higher.

- The limiting factor:
I view photography like sport car racing. If all you can drive is a Suburban, you don't need to move up from your Porsche to a Ferrari, you need to learn how to drive better.  When you can fully control your Porsche and you miss some races because it can't deliver, then move up to the Ferrari.  I guess I'm not the photographer you are, or don't do the type of photography you do (low light landscapes?) because I'm barely every limited by my camera.  I've been limited by lack of sufficient control of external lights a lot, that's why my latest purchases have been  speedlights, modifiers, remote triggers and lately a witstro 360.  I've missed a lot of shots, and screwed up others, but I honestly can't think of a single shot that I missed because the 60D was not enough camera.

- The bottom line:
I shot those three over the holidays.  Can you tell that they are done with a four year old underspeced camera?

Yes, we may have different expectations for the gear we use, nothing wrong with that. I don't really worry about that 1/160sec flash sync (it's just a weird number and it's not even there when the flash isn't mounted) and the max shutter speed. When I had my 7D, the only 1/8000 pictures I took are the ones I tried if it actually works. For me, too much light isn't the problem :) and (if something) there is ISO 50 nowadays (not sure if 60D got that one).
It doesn't really matter if I can tell the difference looking at these beautiful images you took. That's a common misconception, the image itself is not enough data to judge the tool, I can't know the actual distances, sizes or proportions used in a 2D composition, not to mention cropping. Gear matters mostly when you are shooting the picture and which set gives you more potential for the money. With 6D+24-105L it is possible to reproduce pretty much any image you can shoot with a 60D+24-70L'II, but not vice versa. 24-70L'II on crop isn't as wide, f/2.8 translates into f/4.5 not f/4 (not a big difference, but still, for the price and fair comparison 24-105L at f/4.5 is just as good or even better optically) and then there is weight, filter size, no IS, diffraction and stuff (I'm not sure and correct me if I'm wrong, but 6D+24-105L at f/11 may give you better contrast than 60D+24-70L'II at f/8).
Looking at the current prices I see that 6D+24-105L combo goes for $2400 new at B&H (or $2100 after rebate) and the 24-70L'II alone costs $2000 (or $1850 after rebate). $250 (the difference) for the body? :) Finally, there is Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art ($800 new), which IMHO makes a lot more sense for a crop camera.
However, the most important thing is the joy of using whatever toy you've got and the experience you learn with it.

49
Lenses / Re: What is your favorite lens/camera combo in your camerabag?
« on: January 02, 2015, 04:18:12 AM »
My only experience of a Sony camera was with the RX100II which I gave to my son for Christmas.
It is an impressive piece of engineering. The picture quality is 'good enough' and it is pocketable.
The user interface is not very easy as there are too many menus and buttons that can be configured and its logic (at least for me) is hard to figure out.

There will be a learning curve with the a6000 as well.
And in any case, it will be easy to sell if it turns out to be a disappointment.

You better use a "speedbooster" for your EF lenses (not EF-S) instead of just an adapter.
:)

50
Photography Technique / Re: Aperture for total sharpness?
« on: December 28, 2014, 07:17:12 AM »
You need to position your camera as precisely as possible, to get the sensor parallel to the flat surface you are shooting, so the DoF plane would cover it. Anything past f/11 is really unnecessary. I would use something in f/5.6-8.0 range, perhaps f/6.3 ;)

51
Lenses / Re: What is your favorite lens/camera combo in your camerabag?
« on: December 26, 2014, 03:54:46 AM »
60D + 24-70 f/2.8L II

It's a little heavy but lighter than carrying a FF and that monster of a lens around.

6D + 24-105L still beats it :)

52
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

53
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.

54
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.

55
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.

56
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 :).

57
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.

58
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).

59
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 :).

60
Lenses / Re: What's your favourite focal length?
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:53:45 PM »
14-35-85-150

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50