Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: abc1234
Page: <<prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 331 next>>
Jan 23, 2023 10:07:18   #
Wonderful shot and wonderful place for birding. The only thing I would change is to remove the droplets.
Thanks for posting.
Go to
Jan 11, 2023 10:26:46   #
Rab-Eye wrote:
That’s the Jewish Sabbath.


They close at 1 this Friday. Always check the times because they change through the year. I have spent a lot of time and money in Manhattan so I know the place. Just never got to B&H but spent a lot with them online.
Go to
Jan 10, 2023 09:07:03   #
Thanks to everyone for replying.
Go to
Jan 9, 2023 16:10:38   #
I would like to visit B&H. Can someone tell me how you arranged it?

Thanks.
Go to
Jan 3, 2023 10:48:13   #
Lovely portrait. Wonderful lighting, everything sharp or unsharp where it should be. Love the eyes. Thanks for posting.
Go to
Dec 24, 2022 15:46:17   #
Save your money. Cell phones are already cameras. This is only a little more than a grip. If you have hand problems, this might help.
Go to
Nov 23, 2022 22:56:00   #
TriX wrote:
Thank you for the kind remarks. Here are two threads, one testing the contention that the microfocus adjustment (MFA) isn’t useful because it’s only correct at one FL: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-508300-1.html.

And another showing Focal’s facility to plot aperture vs acuity (and some results that are contrary to the idea that the sharpest aperture is always 1-2 stops down from wide open). Even though MFA and Focal isn’t applicable to MILC cameras, I wish they’d make this utility available for them - it tells you in a minute if that lens you just bought is up to snuff, where it’s really the sharpest, and when diffraction begins to have a noticeable effect: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-573232-1.html
Thank you for the kind remarks. Here are two threa... (show quote)


You are welcome. Of the four lenses I tested, all were sharpest at about two stops down. The falloff was not steep so you not notice much of difference. However, the big take away is you really do not know until you test them properly. FoCal sure beats those cheap, static, and subjective tests.
Go to
Nov 23, 2022 22:12:22   #
I recommend that everyone read TriX's post very carefully. The only side he takes is that of objectivity. Thanks for taking the time to formulate this informative post.
Go to
Nov 23, 2022 12:36:24   #
User ID wrote:
If your in-out focus data is gathered from the image sensor then theres no reason for focus errors. OTOH, if its gathered from some other source such as a Leica rangefinder or an AF SLRs AF module, those other sources are only analogous to the real image focused on the sensor. There is artifice involved and thus a possible difference between the analog and the reality.

Any AF calibration performed will be to deal with the difference between the non-sensor focusing device (Leica RF or SLR AF module) and the actual sensor image. IOW, you are calibrating the bodys own internal focusing device, but nothing in the lens.

The only focusing info that comes from an SLR lens is the light beams coming thru the glass. Theres nothing within the lens to calibrate. Its the bodys assigned job to determine when those light beams are in focus. The body will ask the lens to move, and when the body sees in-focus it tells the lens to stop moving. Any inaccuracy there is the bodys error.

(With Leicas the lenses are also calibrated cuz the RF is just a mechanical position measuring device, it doest see any light from the lens).
If your in-out focus data is gathered from the ima... (show quote)


Thank you for the clarification.
Go to
Nov 23, 2022 10:29:02   #
User ID wrote:
That challenges common sense.

Heres how it works in various cameras that I use:

The lens manufacturer calibrates nothing, but does provide that lens element can move when commanded to move by the body AF drive.

The body AF drive is informed by the sensor imagedata as to which way the elementsshould move, and as to when the morion must cease.

Nothing involved there needs "calibration".


As you said, that challenges common sense. If my explanation is wrong, then I will admit to that. Nonetheless, I have found that my lenses improved by recalibration, also known as microadjustment. One can certainly question whether the improvement is noticeable or have lenses, new or used, that are optimal. I do accept both of these assertions. For me, I prefer to assume nothing and to conduct carefully controlled experiments.
Go to
Nov 23, 2022 08:39:31   #
I think the second could have used more sky. Something looks a bit funky. Might you have sharpened these too much?
Go to
Nov 23, 2022 08:30:40   #
Architect1776 wrote:
I also found this out.
I played around with micro adjustments just to see what would happen.
I found no improvement on several lenses so put them back to 0 where they were originally.
Saw the whole thing as a waste of time and effort.


Without knowing the experimental details and seeing the results, I would hesitate on generalizing from your experience.
Go to
Nov 22, 2022 09:15:52   #
jerryc41 wrote:
I got a notice from them when they had the iPhone version ready, and I recently got an email telling me that the Android version is ready. Fortunately, I don't do any photo work with my phone.


Jerry, what that means is that they have migrated the desktop program to those devices so that you can run the tests and calibrations from any Android or IOS device. The app is not for adjusting the device's camera.
Go to
Nov 22, 2022 09:13:55   #
agillot wrote:
Now , maybe you can answer that , if the lens focus at wide open , but let say you are shooting at f8 or 11 , even if you are slightly off at wide open , at 8 or 11 the added depth of field would take care of that ?????


Good question. Yes, the increased depth of field may compensate for any focusing error. However, the maximum lens sharpness is often two stops down from the maximum aperture. As you stop down past that, diffraction decreases the sharpness. Just be aware of these issues.
Go to
Nov 22, 2022 09:10:29   #
billnikon wrote:
Many experts caution against fine tuning a lens, or, if you will, lens calibration. Most calibrations can only be done for one specific distance, many, many folks who try to fine turn end worse off than before calibration.
Over my 50 years of professional photography I have never had to fine tune a lens, be it Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Hasselblad.
I now only shoot mirrorless, which focuses the image right on the sensor, no need for any calibration for any lens.
I caution anyone trying to calibrate, DO NOT DO IT.
Lots of folks here will disagree with my statement, but after 50 years of hanging photography, and after more than 500 weddings, I have never, NEVER, had any issues with not getting a tack sharp image.
If you know what your doing, you will NEVER have to fine turn a lens.
Goodbye.
Many experts caution against fine tuning a lens, o... (show quote)


Bill, I respect your experience. Focusing manually or using mirrorless obviates the need for calibration. My much more limited experience did show that calibrating did improve the sharpness. This is all a matter of expectation and comparison.

By sharpness, I mean focusing accuracy, not the optics.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 331 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.