January 26, 2015, 09:37:09 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 - Sporgon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144
1
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:22:40 PM »
Sporgon, is there a large difference between primes and zooms at this f stop?

In the context of common focal lengths for landscape, Canon have rewritten the rule book with the 24-70/2.8II and the 16-35/4.

However looking at other common FF standard or wide zooms such as the 24-105, the 24-70 IS, 17-40, 16-35/2.8II, a good quality prime is better edge of frame to mid, and in the four corners at f8. Centre can be identical. I am bearing in mind that 'landscape' normally means trying to define and resolve small detail that is a relatively long way away.

At f11 I cannot, for instance, see any difference between my 24-105 @ 50mm and my EF 50/1.4 at the same aperture, even at 100% on a studio tripod.

When shooting subject that are closer to the camera I find at f8 the differences are much slimmer, but landscape is a different ball game. This is why until recently the large format cameras reigned supreme in this sphere, and even now you are better with a larger format for serious work due to the greater magnification of the subject.

2
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:57:20 PM »
The EF 50/1.4 has been out getting some love again, and I'm left thinking maybe I've been using the 40 too much lately.

Swans of the lake at Londesborough Hall where I had been to shoot a panoramic. The sun had given up for the day, but then just managed to sneak out for a few minutes before setting.

5DII + 50/1.4 @ f2.5

3
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:51:26 PM »
Love is.......being a piggie

5DII + 50/1.4 @ f1.8

4
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:43:41 PM »
Swans on the lake at Londesborough Hall where I had been to do a panoramic. The light had gone but then the sun managed to just sneak through again before setting.

5DII + EF 50/1.4 @ f2.5

5
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:33:03 PM »
Forgive me if I'm wrong. But aren't most lenses perfectly sharp at f8-f11? What would be the difference between a the 35mm 1.4 and the 24-105 f4l at F8? CA?

I find that there can still be a real difference mid and edge of frame between lenses at f8, but they all do seem to begin to gravitate together at around f11 and beyond. Not that you have to take landscapes at f8. With wider lenses in particular you can go significantly wider than f8 with great dof.

6
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 24, 2015, 04:18:03 PM »
I have both. The 24-70 is much better than the 24-105 at 24 mil. Sharper centre, mid frame and better corners. Less distortion. With my copies the 24-105 is a tad better at 30-35 mil. Of course it is significantly better at 71 to 105 too.

If you are using mainly 24 to 28 and want a small, compact lens the 24-70 is the one to go for. As I am shooting at the longer end I tend to stick with the 24-105 now, and for critical work I use primes.

7
Funnily your greens and reds are obviously more saturated in the second picture, which is apparent on the background bricks and moss ! This is more in line with the theory of ETTR.
So we are speaking of a major imbalance in the treatment of the components.
Maybe your software is playing havoc with colours, trying to compensate for a known colour shift of the sensor in low light, but applying it in a range where there is no sensor coor shift due to the overexposure ? Just a wild guess...

I think we have a different understanding of the word saturated. If you put a colour picker on the reds or greens they are more saturated in the top picture in all three sets. The 'correct' exposure is giving more detail and saturation than the severely overexposed image.

Thanks Private, yes that is what I would expect.

I believe blue is the weakest wavelength and this may have something to do with the effect ETTR has on blues, but other colours are effected in the same way. Not sure why feanolas thinks the second image has more saturated red, green etc.

If you intend to lift shadows then a small amount of ETTR will improve the overall image, yes, but ETTR for the sake of it is a myth, and the article from LL that started this thread is absurd.

I suggest anyone who believes in ETTR to 'improve IQ' try taking the same shot twice, one at correct exposure, the other two stops over. Convert to a JPEG and then have a look at the difference in size of the two files.

Another point that I would make regarding exposure is printing. I have always found that the closer the exposure used was to a 'correct' incident light reading the better the picture prints.


8
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 23, 2015, 07:03:45 PM »
I think it is entirely personal choice. Primes don't meant having to zoom with your feet: you don't have to carry just one prime.

My personal choice is to use a few lightweight primes. My reasons are high IQ across the frame, light weight, bright viewfinder and easy balance on the camera. If I'm travelling light I'll have a couple of Lowepro cases on a belt with a couple of lenses.

Primes also mean that you use a proper hood for the focal length, which for me, as I'm often shooting across or into the sun, is beneficial. The 24-70 f2.8 mark one had a very clever system of a long hood and the longest focal length is the shortest physical length; thus the hood matches the focal length. However on all other standard or wide zooms this isn't the case. On my 24-105L I have a Hoya rubber hood which you can squash in for 24 mil and pull out for 105. This is a major improvement over the standard, wide angle hood. The 24-70 f2.8 II is an 82 mm filter and I don't think anyone makes one like that for this lens, so for me that is an issue.

Also because I'm mainly producing stitched images I don't use an ultra wide angle lens. 28 mil is as wide as I go, so I don't really have a vast range requirement. I suppose in summary, if we are talking about landscape photography where you are trying to resolve tiny detail that is a long way away, a 'standard' range on FF, if you want to make every pixel count at all the focal lengths of a zoom,( not just the one focal length and aperture combination where it may be excellent)  you have to go for the 24-70 f2.8 II. As this is a heavy lump, and you cannot hood it properly at mid to longest length, I prefer a few high quality, light primes, and the 24-105L as a fall back position.

9
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: January 22, 2015, 02:19:04 PM »
Probably a bit cheeky putting the 40 pancake in this thread, but I think it has made a nice job here at f3.5

Ivy growing over a wall in front of the ruined Byland Abbey, England. This is straight out of the camera using the 'landscape' picture style and increased contrast.

10
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 21, 2015, 04:19:41 PM »
Robin Hood's Bay on the North East coast of England, originally a tiny little fishing village basically built up a cleft in the cliff face, now mostly holiday homes.

Strange how the place got its name; the legend of Robin Hood jumps about a bit geographically. This bay is quite a way from Barnsdale and Sherwood Forests.

5DII + little 40 pancake.

11
Don like so many things it's easy to tell the left from the right but it gets muddy in the middle.  N G is in business and they aren't saints but I appreciate that they are at least trying to keep photos out that have been seriously doctored because they'd self destruct if they didn't.  Guess we've strayed off topic! ;)

Here's a shot that it is not edited, it's illuminated by prism light.  Unnatural for sure but not edited and it's OK by N G standards.

Jack

Nice one Jack, and definitely 'ethical'  ;)

12
Lenses / Re: Fast lenses at a crossroads?
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:45:49 PM »
An f/2.8 aperture on an 11 mm lens would be fantastic - if you could get reasonably sharp corners. At 11 mil you don't need small aperture for dof; I think f/2.8 on 11 mil would give everything from about 1 metre to infinity in focus at f/2.8.

The trouble is that it's not feasible to do this as the lens would have to be far too expensive, if indeed it were possible at all. Here's a link to the Tokina on TDP and this is on APS  !

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=947&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yuck.

Also a lot of modern lens tech has to go into making a fast lens sharp, even in the middle, even stopped down. 'Fast' doesn't automatically mean good, in fact, uncorrected 'fast' means bad. It is easier to make a slower lens with smaller diameter lenses sharper than a faster one with larger elements. Just off the top of my head a good example of this is the Voightlander 40mm pancake, f/2, compared with the Canon 40 mm pancake at f/2.8. The Canon is the sharper lens, even more so across the frame.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:26:35 PM »

Focus has no bearing on the image quality -


Quote of the month !

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Says it all
« on: January 21, 2015, 09:40:37 AM »
From my local professional dealership.

Both described as "mint -", which means basically brand new.

Shows how much the Market cares about another stop or so of DR. Says it all really. Personally I'd be annoyed if my chosen brand of asset was depreciating so much faster than its other equal.

Incidentally it is very rare for them to get a used 5DIII in. This is only the second I have ever seen them get.

15
Lenses / Re: TS-E Depth of Field newbie question
« on: January 20, 2015, 03:45:28 AM »
Picked one up on eBay. Waiting for delivery.
While shopping, found this commentary. Thought it was interesting.
Thoughts?

24 and 17mm T/S aren't useful.


 
The lens does two things that are practically unrelated, and both of which are borderline useless in the extreme wideangle. Firstly, the shift mechanism allows perspective correction. This was a critical part of photography in the days of large format, and I used this lens to get the same benefit on film when I started out with Canon. However, if you are working digitally, it is far easier and cheaper to correct perspective while editing. Second, It allows tilting of the plane of focus, which allows near/far compositions to simultaneously be in focus when simply stopping down doesn't do enough (or isn't desired for other reasons such as stopping subject motion, etc.) However, these extreme wide angles, with small apertures even wide-open, have extreme DOF already and it'd be a rare photograph that needed more DOF than a normal lens could accomplish at 24mm (or even more so, 17mm). On the other hand this ability would be very attractive at 45-90mm. (A related trick is to tilt focus in the opposite direction of your composition to minimize DOF. But again at 17 and 24mm, I'm sorry but nothing gets very defocused anyway.) As far as other details of the lens go: the construction is the very best Canon makes, comperable to the 70-200Ls or better. The image quality unfortunately suffers as you shift off-center, as the lens resolution falls off as with every lens. (There is also extreme cos^4 vignetting, though that can be fixed in your editing software.)

What the guy says is true - if you gloss over certain things. Yes, 24 and especially 17 have great dof anyway, especially if you stop down, but beware of 'hyper focal' distance with digital, especially for distant landscapes: your horizon will be soft. A lens such as the 24 is at its best fully open, you can achieve dof with this wider aperture with all the benefits this brings: resolution and light gathering.

Correcting extreme perspective in post: OK for small prints, not so good if you are producing A3 or A 2 size prints. Your computer program has to make a lot up.

Again on the new  24 IQ remains superb with  6 degrees ( which is a lot ), only falling off a little at the full 12 degrees ( shift).

You can see that here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=8&API=1&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

For many people he is correct in saying the longer focal lengths offer more benefit. However try telling that to someone who shoots in extremely confined circumstances, room interiors or outside of cathedrals in built up areas for instance.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144