Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Landscape Lens
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
Feb 14, 2019 00:13:33   #
User ID
 
Bipod wrote:
"There is nothing at all wrong with X as long as you understand their strengths and weaknesses"
is true of almost anything: paper hats, plastic spoons, nitroglycerin. You're blowing smoke.

If you don't rigorously test your lens, or look at test independent test results, then your impressions are subjective.

If someone needs the convenience of a zoom, or for some other reason can't change lenses,
fine, they should buy one. But otherwise, it's irrational to use a much more complex design
where a simpler design is optically superior. (Of course, any design can be poorly
manufactured or built from inferior materials--but that doesn't make design irrelevant.)

Prime lenses can come much closer to being a diffration-limited optical system than any
zoom can. That's a fact of optical engineering. All zoom designs involve compromises.
All have lot of moving groups. All have a lot of glass--which absorbs light and tints light.
That's the price you pay for convenience--and it's a fact.
"There is nothing at all wrong with X as long... (show quote)







Reply
Feb 14, 2019 14:40:42   #
Bipod
 
It's stuff like repeated posting of the same, stupid image that gives Internet forums a bad name.

Reply
Feb 14, 2019 15:26:34   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
User ID wrote:
It seems you do not understand how a shift
lens works. I doubt that you've ever used a
rising falling shifting front standard. If you
had ever used one, I'd not hafta waste any
bandwidth schooling you on simple stuff.

One uses such a front standard to keep the
camera's sensor parallel to the front of the
building while cropping out the foreground
by rising the front.

If one's camera lacks a rising falling front
standard, using a lens of wider coverage,
and then editing out the lower portion of
the image, follows exactly the very same
principle and thus accomplishes the very
same effect.

=========================

Anyone easily upset by less-than-ultimate
politeness should perhaps read no further.

Do you use a shift lens ? Just what do you
THINK your shift lens is doing ? If you don't
use a shift lens and just parrot stuff you've
read, please put a sock in it. Acoarst I know
how my shift lens works and any other shift
lens will also work exactly the same.

.
It seems you do not understand how a shift br len... (show quote)


Your fake technique for when you don't have a shift lens and the resulting loss of image pixels/field of view is far less desirable than actually using a true shift (and tilt) lens. Nor does it show that you have a clue how a shift lens works, since you didn't use one to support your story. You can't duplicate a shift lens when you don't actually shift anything. You are just holding the camera level and cropping - by no stretch is that ever equivalent to shifting a lens.

FYI - I cut my teeth on architectural interior photography in the late 60s and early 70s, and used a Sinar P and later a P2 4x5, and a collection of Rodenstock, Schneider and Nikon lenses. I'd say your assessment of my knowledge and skill level is as bad as your spelling. But you are no better than any other troll in that respect.

While we're on the topic of who has what gear - do you have any examples of REAL shift lens images that YOU have taken?

Oh, and btw, the last image, what lens is on my Nikon? (Hint: it's not my 24 PC-E).

You just can't seem to catch a break here, so far you have been wrong or confused about nearly everything you have posted - including stuff you presumed about me.

24mm PC-E camera level
24mm PC-E camera level...
(Download)

camera titled back
camera titled back...
(Download)

lens shifted vertically to avoid tilting camera back
lens shifted vertically to avoid tilting camera ba...
(Download)


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Feb 14, 2019 15:35:47   #
Photocraig
 
pmorin wrote:
I would stick with the 24-105. It is very versatile in landscape shots, especially on your full frame 6d. I have shot some really nice landscapes with my 7DII using that lens although the photos I have taken with my 5d4 look sharper with the higher resolution.
Do not discount the wider lenses either, you will find yourself using them too. I never travel without a 16-35 in the pack. Never know when you will want that one shot.
But if that 500 is just burning a hole in your pocket, this lens, the 70-300mm II nano, is very good for your purposes also. This is the manufacturer price and web site. I’m sure you can get better prices somewhere.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-ii-usm/ef-70-300mm-f4-5-6-is-ii-usm
I would stick with the 24-105. It is very versatil... (show quote)


I've had that lens in both I and II versions. Great for "extracting" details from a landscape, distant or--surprisingly, not so distant. It is a money well spent EF lens mountable on both cameras. With good body high ISO performance, it should prove useful for wildlife. I've done some modest birds in flight--learning how--at a local marina park. In the world of very pricy lenses this is an overachiever.

Reply
Feb 14, 2019 17:20:33   #
User ID
 
Gene51 wrote:


......... You are just holding the camera level and cropping -
by no stretch is that ever equivalent to shifting a lens.

.............





Reply
Feb 14, 2019 17:55:06   #
Bipod
 
This repeated posting of inane images is an abuse of this forum.
Please stop, UserID.

Also, how many user accounts on UHH do you have? You appear to have
at least two.

Does it occur to you that Gene51 is a good photographer who is being very
generous in taking the time to share his experience and knowledge with us?

You are free to disagree with him, but there is no justification for this behavior.
It pulls the discussion down to an infanitle level. Please grow up.

Reply
Feb 14, 2019 18:02:01   #
GrahamO
 
Gene51 wrote:
Your fake technique for when you don't have a shift lens and the resulting loss of image pixels/field of view is far less desirable than actually using a true shift (and tilt) lens. Nor does it show that you have a clue how a shift lens works, since you didn't use one to support your story. You can't duplicate a shift lens when you don't actually shift anything. You are just holding the camera level and cropping - by no stretch is that ever equivalent to shifting a lens.

FYI - I cut my teeth on architectural interior photography in the late 60s and early 70s, and used a Sinar P and later a P2 4x5, and a collection of Rodenstock, Schneider and Nikon lenses. I'd say your assessment of my knowledge and skill level is as bad as your spelling. But you are no better than any other troll in that respect.

While we're on the topic of who has what gear - do you have any examples of REAL shift lens images that YOU have taken?

Oh, and btw, the last image, what lens is on my Nikon? (Hint: it's not my 24 PC-E).

You just can't seem to catch a break here, so far you have been wrong or confused about nearly everything you have posted - including stuff you presumed about me.
Your fake technique for when you don't have a shif... (show quote)


Actually, Gene51, keeping a camera back level and cropping the foreground is a very legitimate technique that I also sometimes use.

(FYI, I also used 4X5 cameras in the 60s and 70s, owning a Linhof Karden Color as well as using others in a studio where I was once employed. I still own another 4X5 monorail camera and am very familiar with all its movements. I have worked over 50 years in various fields of photography, film, and television )

Now if I want to use for example, my 14mm f1.8 Sigma lens (or my 16/35 f4 zoom or my 24mm f1.4) on my Canon 5D4, to shoot say buildings, I will avoid converging verticals by keeping the back of the camera vertical and cropping the image a little. I can do a little more correction if necessary by using software. This of course results in a more narrow view. If I happen to want a panorama I will use the top of the final horizontal image and there is no more loss in resolution than cropping to use the middle of the image. In fact the resolution of any one shot panorama in a horizontal direction is exactly the same as in an uncropped image, when the full width is used.

Modern high MP cameras have plenty of resolution that a little cropping is not a problem.

Sure using a shift lens is better but that doesn’t make the technique of keeping the camera back vertical, a “fake technique”. It is a “good technique” By the way, I don’t know of a 14mm f1.8 shift lens. I think Laowa make a 15mm f4? lens with a vertical shift. We don’t all own an array of shift lenses in various focal lengths and if we did we probably wouldn’t carry them all around with us .

Reply
 
 
Feb 14, 2019 18:11:34   #
Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.
 
GrahamO wrote:
Actually, Gene51, keeping a camera back level and cropping the foreground is a very legitimate technique that I also sometimes use.

(FYI, I also used 4X5 cameras in the 60s and 70s, owning a Linhof Karden Color as well as using others in a studio where I was once employed. I still own another 4X5 monorail camera and am very familiar with all its movements. I have worked over 50 years in various fields of photography, film, and television )

Now if I want to use for example, my 14mm f1.8 Sigma lens (or my 16/35 f4 zoom or my 24mm f1.4) on my Canon 5D4, to shoot say buildings, I will avoid converging verticals by keeping the back of the camera vertical and cropping the image a little. I can do a little more correction if necessary by using software. This of course results in a more narrow view. If I happen to want a panorama I will use the top of the final horizontal image and there is no more loss in resolution than cropping to use the middle of the image. In fact the resolution of any one shot panorama in a horizontal direction is exactly the same as in an uncropped image, when the full width is used.

Modern high MP cameras have plenty of resolution that a little cropping is not a problem.

Sure using a shift lens is better but that doesn’t make the technique of keeping the camera back vertical, a “fake technique”. It is a “good technique” By the way, I don’t know of a 14mm f1.8 shift lens. I think Laowa make a 15mm f4? lens with a vertical shift. We don’t all own an array of shift lenses in various focal lengths and if we did we probably wouldn’t carry them all around with us .
Actually, Gene51, keeping a camera back level and ... (show quote)


I read Gene’s comment to focus on the use of “shift lens” when discussing a technique which includes cropping the foreground. A shift lens will use the full available sensor and image file. Cropping of course don’t.

Reply
Feb 14, 2019 18:53:07   #
trainspotter Loc: Oregon
 
Bipod wrote:
This repeated posting of inane images is an abuse of this forum.
Please stop, UserID.

Also, how many user accounts on UHH do you have? You appear to have
at least two.

Does it occur to you that Gene51 is a good photographer who is being very
generous in taking the time to share his experience and knowledge with us?

You are free to disagree with him, but there is no justification for this behavior.
It pulls the discussion down to an infanitle level. Please grow up.
This repeated posting of inane images is an abuse ... (show quote)


THANK YOU Bipod...I want to scream EVERY time I see this stupid photo..and the yawn cartoon also...Please STOP!

Reply
Feb 14, 2019 20:18:10   #
Bipod
 
GrahamO wrote:

Modern high MP cameras have plenty of resolution that a little cropping is not a problem.

"Plenty of resolution" for what purpose? And how much cropping is "a little"?

I take it that you do not make large fine art landscape prints.

For that purpose, a 8 x 10" view camera has "plenty of resolution".
But a 4 x 5" is just adequate.

Photographers shooting FF or 35 mm film rarely have "plenty of resolution" if they
intend to print 8" x 10". They have enough-- but just about everything one does
to the image reduces resolution: cropping, processing, printing, scanning,
lossy compression, etc.

If you decide to use non-glare glass when framing the print--that reduces
the resolution a bit. Only when the print is hanging on the wall can you
say for certain that you have enough. If it's hanging in a gallery, you
really only know that it was good enough when it is sold.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding: I am not talking about pixel-shifting or
any other form of mutliple-exposure trick photography. I am talking about
a single exposure.

It's easy to reduce resolution you don't need, but impossible to increase it.

The actual amount of information captured by an image sensor can be far lower
than the number of megapixels: diffraction, lens aberrations, microlens
performance, gaps in the photocell array, and thermal noise all take a toll.
Demosaicing algorithms are not all equally good. Many digital filters ussd in
processing are information lossy.

Saying you have "plenty of resoltuion" is like saying you have ?plenty of money".
That can change rapidly if the stock market crashes, you lose your job, you get
involved in a lawsuit, you get divorced or get cancer. Prudent photographers
are careful about how much resolution they have and how they spend it.

Reply
Feb 14, 2019 20:50:20   #
GrahamO
 
Rich1939 wrote:
I read Gene’s comment to focus on the use of “shift lens” when discussing a technique which includes cropping the foreground. A shift lens will use the full available sensor and image file. Cropping of course don’t.


Of course it don't Rich. I did explain that if you bothered reading my contribution. One of my points was that modern DLSRs have an excess of resolution and that it doesn't matter to loose some. My first DSLR had 6mp. My second one had 13mp. My third one had 22mp and my present one has 36mp, as well as a few other digital cameras in between. They all had satisfactory resolution. So if I crop my 5D4 images by removing 1/3 I'm back to the same resolution approximately as my previous 5D3. So where is the problem with that?

Reply
 
 
Feb 15, 2019 00:00:19   #
Bipod
 
GrahamO wrote:
Of course it don't Rich. I did explain that if you bothered reading my contribution. One of my points was that modern DLSRs have an excess of resolution and that it doesn't matter to loose some. My first DSLR had 6mp. My second one had 13mp. My third one had 22mp and my present one has 36mp, as well as a few other digital cameras in between. They all had satisfactory resolution. So if I crop my 5D4 images by removing 1/3 I'm back to the same resolution approximately as my previous 5D3. So where is the problem with that?
Of course it don't Rich. I did explain that if you... (show quote)

According to Roger N. Clark (Ph.D., MIT in planetary science), a 8" x 10" large format film
camera loaded with B&W film has the equivalent resolution of 960 digital megapixels.
That's almost a gigapixel.

So you've gone from 6MP to 13MP to 22 MP to 35MP. I'm glad that's working out for you.
But that isn't the whole story of world photography, is it? It didn't start with a 6MP digital camera.

In the 1940s, even Kodak Brownie's were medium format (120 film) or larger. On the Baby Brownie
was 35 mm.

In the 1950s, 35 mm became popular with amateurs and photojournalists. If you're final print
is a 3 x 5" in an album or 1-colum wide in a newspaper, you don't need much resolution.
All other professionals continued to use medium and large format for serious work.

And there other things a large format view camera can do that a digital camera can't: like tilt.
That's rather important if you're photographing architecture--or even landscapes.

Glad it's gettin' better for ya', but for photographers that need a lot of resolution, it hasn't gotten better.
Large format film still overs the best resolution by almost two orders of magnitude. What's happened
is that medium format digital cameras are now extremely expensive compared to what we used to pay
for medium format film cameras.

Nothing wrong with driving a Honda Civic -- unless you have four kids or need to haul firewood.
Some people might need an SUV or a pickup truck. Why can't a tiny format have huge optical
resolution? Same reason a Honda Civic can't haul much firewood--physical laws.

An optical image cannot be focused infinitely small. If nothing else limits it, it is limited by diffraction.

And no lens is prefect: they all have aberrations that also limit how small an image can be projected.

For these reasons, a point source (such as a star in the night sky) does not appear as a point, but as a
circle-of-confusion and/or Airy pattern. Try to project an image that is too small, and all you get is
a blur.

There are also technical limitations on pixel density. These are improving--slowy. But the phyiscal
laws are not going to change, and lenses are just about as good as they are likely to get.

Frankly, the best lenses haven't improved very much in the last 30 years. The last big improvements were
calcium fluorite elements and aspherical lenses. This is fact of optical engineering. Zoom lenses have
improved greatly thanks to computer design -- but zoom lenses never have the fewest aberrations--the
design of a zoom lens inherently involves compromises--unless you want to swop out whole groups.

Consumer want everything miniaturized, and don't seem to care about making prints anymore. So the
industry has gone in that direction. If you never make prints and don't own a large, high-res montior,
you may nrbrt notice how poor the resolution is. All thumnnails look sharp.

Hey, if that's good enough for you, fine. Just please don't assume that means it's good enough for everybody.

And don't assume that because your camera generates a 35 MP pixel array, it actually captured that much
information. Image sensors are far from perfect. And it takes your color sensor 3 photocells (with color filters)
to do the job of one photocelll on a monochrome sensor.

There's still no "one size fits all" in cameras--and here never will be. You gotta have the right vehicle for the job.

Reply
Feb 15, 2019 00:00:47   #
GrahamO
 
Bipod wrote:
"Plenty of resolution" for what purpose? And how much cropping is "a little"?

I take it that you do not make large fine art landscape prints.

For that purpose, a 8 x 10" view camera has "plenty of resolution".
But a 4 x 5" is just adequate.

Photographers shooting FF or 35 mm film rarely have "plenty of resolution" if they
intend to print 8" x 10". They have enough-- but just about everything one does
to the image reduces resolution: cropping, processing, printing, scanning,
lossy compression, etc.

If you decide to use non-glare glass when framing the print--that reduces
the resolution a bit. Only when the print is hanging on the wall can you
say for certain that you have enough. If it's hanging in a gallery, you
really only know that it was good enough when it is sold.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding: I am not talking about pixel-shifting or
any other form of mutliple-exposure trick photography. I am talking about
a single exposure.

It's easy to reduce resolution you don't need, but impossible to increase it.

The actual amount of information captured by an image sensor can be far lower
than the number of megapixels: diffraction, lens aberrations, microlens
performance, gaps in the photocell array, and thermal noise all take a toll.
Demosaicing algorithms are not all equally good. Many digital filters ussd in
processing are information lossy.

Saying you have "plenty of resoltuion" is like saying you have ?plenty of money".
That can change rapidly if the stock market crashes, you lose your job, you get
involved in a lawsuit, you get divorced or get cancer. Prudent photographers
are careful about how much resolution they have and how they spend it.
"Plenty of resolution" i for what purpo... (show quote)


Hey Bipod I thought we were trying to help koosh who is going, presuming on vacation, to the Canadian Rockies with a couple of canon DSLRs and a kit lens plus a nifty fifty and a 24/105 zoom. I’m sure he will have plenty of resolution for his purposes.

Whether or not I make fine art prints with an 8X10 camera or any other camera has no bearing on that.

I’d be surprised if you make fine art prints from photos using an 8X10 camera on vacation. You might be one of only 10 people in the world taking an 8X10 camera on vacation. I’d also be surprised if you own an 8X10 camera. When did you last shoot 4X5?

Reply
Feb 15, 2019 00:28:22   #
GrahamO
 
Bipod wrote:
According to Roger N. Clark (Ph.D., MIT in planetary science), a 8" x 10" large format film
camera loaded with B&W film has the equivalent resolution of 960 digital megapixels.
That's almost a gigapixel.

So you've gone from 6MP to 13MP to 22 MP to 35MP. I'm glad that's working out for you.
But that isn't the whole story of world photography, is it? It didn't start with a 6MP digital camera.

In the 1940s, even Kodak Brownie's were medium format (120 film) or larger. On the Baby Brownie
was 35 mm.

In the 1950s, 35 mm became popular with amateurs and photojournalists. If you're final print
is a 3 x 5" in an album or 1-colum wide in a newspaper, you don't need much resolution.
All other professionals continued to use medium and large format for serious work.

And there other things a large format view camera can do that a digital camera can't: like tilt.
That's rather important if you're photographing architecture--or even landscapes.

Glad it's gettin' better for ya', but for photographers that need a lot of resolution, it hasn't gotten better.
Large format film still overs the best resolution by almost two orders of magnitude. What's happened
is that medium format digital cameras are now extremely expensive compared to what we used to pay
for medium format film cameras.

Nothing wrong with driving a Honda Civic -- unless you have four kids or need to haul firewood.
Some people might need an SUV or a pickup truck. Why can't a tiny format have huge optical
resolution? Same reason a Honda Civic can't haul much firewood--physical laws.

An optical image cannot be focused infinitely small. If nothing else limits it, it is limited by diffraction.

And no lens is prefect: they all have aberrations that also limit how small an image can be projected.

For these reasons, a point source (such as a star in the night sky) does not appear as a point, but as a
circle-of-confusion and/or Airy pattern. Try to project an image that is too small, and all you get is
a blur.

There are also technical limitations on pixel density. These are improving--slowy. But the phyiscal
laws are not going to change, and lenses are just about as good as they are likely to get.

Frankly, the best lenses haven't improved very much in the last 30 years. The last big improvements were
calcium fluorite elements and aspherical lenses. This is fact of optical engineering. Zoom lenses have
improved greatly thanks to computer design -- but zoom lenses never have the fewest aberrations--the
design of a zoom lens inherently involves compromises--unless you want to swop out whole groups.

Consumer want everything miniaturized, and don't seem to care about making prints anymore. So the
industry has gone in that direction. If you never make prints and don't own a large, high-res montior,
you may nrbrt notice how poor the resolution is. All thumnnails look sharp.

Hey, if that's good enough for you, fine. Just please don't assume that means it's good enough for everybody.

And don't assume that because your camera generates a 35 MP pixel array, it actually captured that much
information. Image sensors are far from perfect. And it takes your color sensor 3 photocells (with color filters)
to do the job of one photocelll on a monochrome sensor.

There's still no "one size fits all" in cameras--and here never will be. You gotta have the right vehicle for the job.
According to Roger N. Clark (Ph.D., MIT in planeta... (show quote)


Thanks for all that interesting history bipod. Actually I still have my first camera which is a Brownie Model E. It takes 620 film 2, 14” X 3, 1/4”. Not 120. I got it for my 10th birthday in 1948. I have used many professional cameras since then, but now I’ve retired from paid work I’m using DSLRs. .
The discussion is about koosh gong on vacation with a couple of DSLRs.

Reply
Feb 15, 2019 00:32:31   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
GrahamO wrote:
Hey Bipod I thought we were trying to help koosh who is going, presuming on vacation, to the Canadian Rockies with a couple of canon DSLRs and a kit lens plus a nifty fifty and a 24/105 zoom. I’m sure he will have plenty of resolution for his purposes.

Whether or not I make fine art prints with an 8X10 camera or any other camera has no bearing on that.

I’d be surprised if you make fine art prints from photos using an 8X10 camera on vacation. You might be one of only 10 people in the world taking an 8X10 camera on vacation. I’d also be surprised if you own an 8X10 camera. When did you last shoot 4X5?
Hey Bipod I thought we were trying to help koosh w... (show quote)


Don’t take him personally. It is just noise. He joined a photography forum that is frequented MOSTLY by photographers who use APSC and FF dslr cameras and he can’t stop yacking about large format cameras. Talk about using a Honda Civic to haul wood.

Btw, Bipod uses a 15 year old 3mp P&S camera with a truly tiny sensor on his hikes and calls FF “””miniature””” Format. I wouldn’t take what Bipod say seriously even on April 1st.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.