Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Lens Budget Problem
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
Aug 16, 2019 08:52:32   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
dsmeltz wrote:
And you do not. You end up with fewer.
Two different situations here

(1) using crop camera with smaller pixels

(2) using crop lens on ‘FF’ camera.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 09:03:08   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
amfoto1 wrote:
There is absolutely no difference between cropping "in-camera" when the shot is taken or "in computer" later during post processing. Either way, you end up with exactly the same thing.

Well, I suppose there's one minor difference... with post-processing crops you can change your mind and undo it (or save the cropped version as a second file).

With in-camera cropping, you can't undo it later. Once it's done, it's done.


rehess wrote:
Often you end up with more pixels on subject when you use in-camera.


rehess wrote:
Two different situations here

(1) using crop camera with smaller pixels

(2) using crop lens on ‘FF’ camera.


The discussion was about in-camera crop. Are you having trouble remembering what you say?

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 09:05:07   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
dsmeltz wrote:
The discussion was about in-camera crop. Are you having trouble remembering what you say?
I remember exactly what I said - as you noted earlier I addressed two different issues, which is why my summary had points (1) and (2).

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2019 09:37:09   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
rehess wrote:
I remember exactly what I said - as you noted earlier I addressed two different issues, which is why my summary had points (1) and (2).


But your comment was on in-camera as I showed in the thread. Trying to claim you were discussing something because you have discussed other issue ate other points is disingenuous at best and flat out deceptive at worst most likely.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 13:18:33   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
dsmeltz wrote:
But your comment was on in-camera as I showed in the thread. Trying to claim you were discussing something because you have discussed other issue ate other points is disingenuous at best and flat out deceptive at worst most likely.
If you want to pick a fight, then just say so.

When I first came here, people were saying that an APS-C was like using just part of a FF image, and I thought that was the claim. Later I agreed to your interpretation, and that should be enough.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 13:56:45   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
rehess wrote:
If you want to pick a fight, then just say so.

When I first came here, people were saying that an APS-C was like using just part of a FF image, and I thought that was the claim. Later I agreed to your interpretation, and that should be enough.


I just want to see if you are capable of admitting when you are just plain wrong. You have not been able in the past. I am not surprised you cannot do it now even when it is placed so clearly before you.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 14:42:54   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
dsmeltz wrote:
I just want to see if you are capable of admitting when you are just plain wrong. You have not been able in the past. I am not surprised you cannot do it now even when it is placed so clearly before you.
I explained why I made my initial response. That is the best I can do.

Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2019 11:08:27   #
Leitz Loc: Solms
 
RWR wrote:
That Reflex-Nikkor should serve you well. Nikon recommended the TC-14A or TC-14B 1.4X, and TC-201 2X teleconverters. I think you’ll lose too much image quality with any 2X.
Since you’re focusing manually, proper diopter adjustment is critical. I believe your camera has the plain Type B screen, which I find ideal for most purposes. If you cannot see the screen etchings clearly, you might want to consider one of the magnifying attachments Nikon makes for your camera.
How’s your post-processing skill? Check this out: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-206902-1.html
Note what Searcher did with that tiny 8-bit JPEG, and imagine what you could achieve with a RAW file.
That Reflex-Nikkor should serve you well. Nikon re... (show quote)

I agree with what you said about the Nikon mirror lens and plain focusing screens, but what's with the link to the "Test of a $45 lens"?

Reply
Aug 17, 2019 13:13:21   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
Leitz wrote:
I agree with what you said about the Nikon mirror lens and plain focusing screens, but what's with the link to the "Test of a $45 lens"?

I thought it illustrates that good results can be had with inexpensive lenses, as long as you accept the limitations of manual focus on still subjects, don’t need large prints, and are good at post-processing. Certainly the OP’s lens is capable of producing better images than that Opteka.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 10:15:34   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
rehess wrote:
I explained why I made my initial response. That is the best I can do.


But your explanation was simply in opposition to what you actually said. You know it. I know it. Everyone who read this thread knows it.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 19:13:16   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
dsmeltz wrote:
But your explanation was simply in opposition to what you actually said. You know it. I know it. Everyone who read this thread knows it.
I have explained why I said what I said. You will argue whatever you want for whatever reason you want, but I will not join in the fight you insist on picking for whatever inscrutable reason.

[unwatch]

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
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.