October 24, 2014, 07:38:07 PM

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 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 132

I am considering buying a high MP body for landscapes.  Right now Canon does not a high MP body (5DM3 is 22 MP), not quite high MP.

Other thoughts are welcome.


I'd look at this a different way; 22 mp is high mp. I know it's not in sympathy with your question but I'll explain.

A 36 mp FF sensor is still FF, that is the actual recorded image is the same size. True higher mp result in more theoretical resolution, put in practice this will depend on the viewing size and the lenses used. For instance it has been shown that the 24-70 II on 5Diii results in more resolution than the equivalent lens on a D800. OK so you could put the Canon lens on the A7r but you still have a recorded image of the same size at capture. The lack of AA filter is a red herring as after sharpening you'll finish with the same detail from a viewing point of view.

At Building Panoramics I stitch frames which result in images of about 50 to 100 mp depending on the camera and frames uses. I inevitably have to dump resolution to achieve the best viewing resolution of say a 1m wide picture. What is interesting is that on the occasion when I have used an 18mp aps camera and stitched the resulting image does not have quite the same depth as that produced from a 12mp FF camera despite the fact that single frames from the 18mp crop camera clearly have more resolution.

In my opinion the moral of the story is that if you want to go beyond 22mp you really need a larger format. When I produce a panoramic stitch it's overall capture area is larger than most current dMF systems.

Higher mp does give more scope for cropping but with landscape this isn't really relevant.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: February 15, 2014, 06:12:22 AM »
Shot with 50mm 1.4  @ f3.5, flash bounced at 90 degrees.

Animal Kingdom / Re: MY dog
« on: February 13, 2014, 04:55:14 PM »
Little 'n Large. 50mm 1.4 @ f4. Flash bounced off the daylight window

Animal Kingdom / Re: MY dog
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:03:58 AM »
This is MY ( daughter's ) dog.

First she got a pet ferret when she was a university student. That soon came to live with me on a permanent basis.
Then she got this Chiwawa; that soon came to live with me on a permanent basis.
I'm just hoping she isn't going to have a baby any time soon.

24-105L @105 f4. Smallest jpeg out of camera with a gaussian mask over it at 50% and the centre brushed out.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: February 10, 2014, 04:42:09 PM »
I don't do Birds In Flight because a): my lenses aren't long enough, and b): I can't focus on the damn things anyway.
Thought I'd post this of a Lapwing as I haven't seen any of these ground nesting birds on CR yet. They mob any creatures that approach the nest, and you can see this one is giving me the eye.

5D mkii, 300 f4 L @ f9

Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: February 10, 2014, 04:32:37 PM »
Walking the dogs this evening. 5Dmkii + 24-105L @ 95mm f8, 1/320, ISO 320

Lenses / Re: Confusing info on Lens Compression
« on: February 09, 2014, 01:43:47 PM »
However subject isolation is also a result of magnification as well as distance, so the 5D at 168mm would appear to have a shallower dof for a given same aperture.

Great point!  Is there a math way to figure this out including DoF equivalent?  Is the 7D 105 F4 DoF the same as the 5D3 168 F5.6?

There are calculations but it is complicated becUse it depends on distance. ( I understand you're asking about calculating the difference between formats, not dof per se).

There are guys on CR who know this stuff inside out so hopefully they'll pick up on the thread and help you out. At normal distances you're about right; in this instance it's about a stop, maybe a tad more.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 01:36:24 PM »
Jon, thanks for that info on the 6D. It explains a lot ! No doubt it's in the instruction manual  :-[

Isn't CR wonderful  ;D

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Here is what Earth looks like from Mars
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:58:11 PM »

Can we make a recommendation for the first person to go on this trip ?  ;)

Hummm...am I supposed to take a hint from that?  :o

Not you I hasten to add  ;)

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:54:20 PM »

Unfortunately, the same metering module put on the 6d is more erratic,

+1; you're not the only person to find that; I'm finding the matrix metering (pattern) almost 'erratic' too. It's as if it's trying to be too clever in certain lighting conditions. It also seems to react to blue by underexposing but I believe it doesn't have colour metering.

Certainly the matrix on the 5D behaved differently to the mkii which behaved differently to the 6D. I would recommend trying average metering mode - where there is nothing in the metering icon box. This is actually centre weighted, and should be more predictable but not 'intelligent'.

Lenses / Re: Confusing info on Lens Compression
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:38:23 PM »
Perspective / compression is a result of distance from the subject. To get the same framing of 105 on a 7D the 5D would require the 70-200 zoom setting to 168mm. Distance to the subject would be the same so the effect of compression would be the same.

However subject isolation is also a result of magnification as well as distance, so the 5D at 168mm would appear to have a shallower dof for a given same aperture.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Here is what Earth looks like from Mars
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:21:24 PM »

There is also the inevitable TRUE realization of what these people are signing up for means...a ONE WAY trip to Mars. People think that's amazing right now...but there is no rescue plan, there is no return ship, there is no return period. It is a PERMANENT LIFE CHANGE, on a scale no one on Earth has experienced before.

Can we make a recommendation for the first person to go on this trip ?  ;)

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 07:31:05 AM »
It's not necessary all the time mind you, but another advantage of higher dr is more exposure safety - you don't need to (spot) meter 100% correctly if short on time which usually is the case if your subject is about to move away.

If you're going to use spot metering through your camera ' on the fly' as it were you are certainly gong to need all the exposure latitude help you can get  ;)

In the film days the reason we bought spot meters was specifically not to take one reading, but to take various reading from around the scene to get a range and average, or to take a reading from a grey card, again from the different illumination within the scene.

Using spot as a one off meter reading can lead to real exposure error unless you have hit the correct reflectivity within the scene with your one reading.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 07:20:11 AM »
As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.

If you're basing your comment on Neuro's then you've no personal experience to base this on. Similarly, in Neuro's comment he doesn't actually reference any personal experience either, just makes a grand statement. If he said the sun would rise at midnight, would that make it true?

Why don't you go out there and find out for yourself what the limitations are of the equipment? Yes, that would mean going outside and taking photographs but it won't hurt you.

In Sporgon's signature, there a link to his images.  I recommend that you not click it, or else you might realize how asinine your statements are (assuming that would come as a surprise).

Well if he has his own experience to build on then he doesn't need to quote or cite your comments, does he?

I was expanding on a point made earlier by Neuro. It was common courtesy to acknowledge that he made the original point. It also lets readers know that I have been following what had been said earlier in the thread. Beginners Guide to Debating, Chapter One.

From the threads on CR it is clear there is a total misconception of the amount of EV range in a scene. No doubt this is partly stoked by people using reflective light meter readings.

I could post a picture taken into the morning sun of a beached fishing boat, which, as well as exposing for the sky has absolutely zero noise or banding in the dark underside of the boat's hull, but as PBD has already posted a picture which trolls have taken zero notice of, I'm not going to bother.

I'm not saying 11.5 stops is always enough. I'm saying that the difference between 12 and 14 ( or 11.7 and 13.2 if we are going to be anal about it ) is not a deal breaker. The difference between 12 and 20 would be a deal breaker. Why such a big jump ? Read what was written earlier.

Here's a link to a shot into the sun with the dreadful noise plagued 5D mkii (not one of mine). When you get beyond this start complaining about DR.


It's also worth mentioning that to a certain extent, photography is defined by its limitation in DR. Reproduce a scene as we really see it and it will be quite boring as the human eye ( or to be more correct, the brain ) has around 24 stops due to our HDR computing ability.

Again you might find this an interesting read:


Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: February 08, 2014, 04:36:36 PM »
Here's a quick question... when shooting horse riding coming towards you... do yall try for both the horse's head/face and the riders to both be in focus or do you aim for one or the other... and if the other is blurred... it's blurred. 

I know the distance along at which we are shooting will usually have both within the depth of field... but it is something I've been wondering.

As you have rightly identified, horse and rider combinations coming towards you are long, so you need an aperture that is going to cover that depth of field. When shooting show jumping I always zone focus; you know exactly where the horse is going to be at the time you want the picture. For dressage I use tracking because although in theory you know where the horse is going to be if you know the test there is nothing specific to pre focus on, and getting the right leg position requires taking pictures in many different places.

So for zone focus I know that I am placing the point of focus roughly between the rider's body and the horse's head, with enough dof to cover both. With tracking AF I am trying to focus on the rider, but with enough aperture to cover both. Also animal fur can be notoriously difficult for the AF to lock on to.  If you want to achieve minimum dof it takes a little practice to know what aperture / focal length / distance combination you can get away with.

With the pictures I've posted here if either the rider or horse's head was oof the picture would be a dud. In the pictures of Heather I was really pushing it with an 85 @ 1.8. If you saw a big version of the pictures you might find that the horse's head is not as sharp as the rider's. With the picture of Kelly shot with the 135 I had to use a smaller aperture.

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 132