Shot with 50mm 1.4 @ f3.5, flash bounced at 90 degrees.
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.
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?
Can we make a recommendation for the first person to go on this trip ?
Hummm...am I supposed to take a hint from that?
Unfortunately, the same metering module put on the 6d is more erratic,
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.
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.
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?
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.
If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.
And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.
I find it funny when I hear this too.
Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.