Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: forjava
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27 next>>
Sep 1, 2016 00:34:55   #
Depth realism was a design goal for the 58mm 1.4.
Is the 58mm 1.4 the pathfinder lens for the 105mm E wrt realism in depth rendering?

The new 105mm E has been followed by deprecation of the 105mm DC.
This may imply that photographers who adjust with the extra control on the DC can't do as well with depth realism as automated by the 105mm E.

Kmgw9v wrote:
I own the 105 f2.8, and will hold into it--although I am not looking at it now.
But, I have an interest in the 105 1.4 because it is a different lense, with a different, specialty purpose: extreme shallow depth of field, creamy bokah--comparable to the 85 1.4, and the 58 1.4.
Go to
Aug 29, 2016 14:16:04   #
If you'd not posted, I'd have had to do it.

Further, it is worthwhile to know the background, as told by commenters and the Adamses themselves.

Richard Mann wrote:
There is an injustice to Ansel Adams by retitling "Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico" to read as you are titling it as "Moonlight over Hernandez" We have an autographed Gelatin silver reproduction purchased from him personally at his Yosemite studio. Retitle any other copy-cat recordings from the same location is fine, but please respect Ansel Adams's integrity of addressing his work as he would have liked it. https://www.google.com/?client=safari#q=moonrise+hernandez+new+mexico.
There is an injustice to Ansel Adams by retitling ... (show quote)
Go to
Aug 24, 2016 14:26:20   #
I asked Nikon why their CP filter was not in their list of accessories for the 105E, pointing to one of their PR shots (female in red garment) with shiny face skin. Ten days later, they had added the the CP filter to their accessories list for the 105E. You can see that in the Q&A for the lens. Oh wait! Did I drive a decision in a Japan conference room?? LoL.

My early take on this lens is that the discontinuous 3-D impression you can create on a 2-D surface by the DCs is out-of-favor at Nikkor. See the newest 58mm as the pathfinder. The 105E is supposed to automate the depth effect more naturally. The photos on nikonrumors.com conform to my take.
Go to
Aug 23, 2016 14:19:05   #
Quite a usable way to have put it.
Up-leveled, actionable; detailed but concise; illustrates how to analyze and reason; quantitative.
Thanks, as I am reading these posts to learn.


jackpi wrote:
You problem has nothing to do with depth of field. Your problem is shutter speed. Your depth of field is 1.9m; from .9m in front of your focus point to 1.0m behind it. Since your sister is in sharp focus and you obviously didn't focus behind her (because nothing the background was in focus) the problem was shutter speed. Bump your shutter speed up two stops faster and your ISO two stops higher.
Go to
Aug 20, 2016 16:22:35   #
Be sure to check out the lake in the crater.
The day I drove down into Ngorongoro there was a grass fire. Sensing a threat, the wildebeeste and zebras had massed and then took off in a stampede. It took forever for countless thousands to run past. So many, in fact, I never saw the last of them pass.
Go to
Aug 20, 2016 15:41:12   #
I recently posted about Quebec City, if you wish to look it up. Keep on cruisin'.

Lazy J wrote:
Will be taking an eastern seaboard and Canada cruise early October. I have "what to do" figured out for all ports except for the above mentioned. Looking for suggestions from anyone who lives in these places, or anyone who has visited. Photo opts or otherwise. Thx!
Go to
Aug 14, 2016 14:26:22   #
A great idea! For an unused tripod I have. Thanks.
R.G. wrote:
A tripod is a good idea, but if you hate the idea so much, how about a monopod, or as I do quite a lot, use a tripod with just the front leg extended and use it as a monopod. That way you'll always have the tripod with you for those times when you need it.
Go to
Aug 11, 2016 16:07:03   #
I think this is a great suggestion.

One caution: I bought my first strobe, an AB400 from this company.
Got this model least-power (W/s) model to not overwhelm the scene with lighting.
I even discussed this issue with Melissa.

Nevertheless, I found the lowest power setting to be too much, in many cases.
Right now, I'm looking to upgrade to their Einstein strobes with smaller power increments, a better profile of flash duration, and lower power choices.

We'll see.

wolfman wrote:
I would suggest looking at Paul C Buff Alien Bees, plenty of power and reasonably priced. They also have a good selection of light modifiers and accessories.
Go to
Aug 11, 2016 15:55:36   #
I'm curious about this POV: You'll need a hard floor. .
I put stiff, interlocking black, rubber-like squares on my small studio floor.
In case of dropping things.

SharpShooter wrote:
Tramesy, I don't think you have enough room unless you're only going to do head shots. The good thing is you have the room for 9' paper. I rarely put a subject closer than 4' to my background whim h won't leave you much room to shoot except with a wider zoom. I that space your modifiers will need to stay pretty small especially if you only have a an 8' ceiling. Ideally you would have a center located doorway you can shoot trough. Ideally you can hang both black and white(or grey) seamless paper that you can just pull down as needed. Will save a ton of work and time. You'll need a hard floor.
I'm sure you'll get plenty of help with lenses and lights! Good luck
SS
Tramesy, I don't think you have enough room unless... (show quote)
Go to
Aug 6, 2016 01:31:53   #
I think the rocking technique has emerged into digital cameras. Saw it in a YouTube video.
A variant on rocking that I use with digital is the focus rail.
Apaflo wrote:
Well, maybe not!

It happens that an optical viewfinder restricts the aperture, usually to about f/2. Some a little wider some a little less. But the fact is that looking through the viewfinder and opening an f/1.2 lens up from f/2 to f/1.4 to f/1.2 simply won't make any difference in perceived DOF or image brightness.

Before Auto Focus, when we had to focus by sight through the viewfinder, that made f/1.2 lenses a bit hard to accurately focus. The DOF is significantly more narrow than what the viewfinder shows, so the only way to do it was to rock the focus back and forth to try to find a "center" between it going out of focus in front of and then behind. A calculated guess!
Well, maybe not! br br It happens that an optical... (show quote)
Go to
Aug 3, 2016 13:26:04   #
1) Ile aux Coudres, near Quebec City, in the river
2) Ancient Tadoussac (where Saguenay river powerfully enters St Lawrence)
3) Berri de Montigny subway station, Montreal, at rush hour, for people-watching
4) Train trip from Quebec City or Sept Iles to Schefferville, Labrador (Quebec), maybe with a guided fishing tour -- train will let you off anywhere and pick you up when you flag it down
5) If you can find it and get invited in as I did, a priest's residence at highest point in Quebec City, overlooking everything -- amazing, absolutely unique strategic view, surely known to Montcalm

legion3 wrote:
I am planning a week long trip to Quebec, I would appreciate information on photo opportunities and intere4sting places to visit.

THANKS
Go to
Aug 2, 2016 13:45:19   #
I wonder if something has been largely left out with the attention here falling on point sources of light.

Daylight bounces around and comes from all directions, even if the sun is behind you.
Ditto for studio.
And we know there is (ambient) light pollution at night.

So it seems to me that a lens hood minimizes stray light by absorbing and blocking.
Stray light?? I'll define stray light as light that is traveling way off the lens' center axis.
The issue with stray light is its entering the lens barrel and reflecting internally off of lens elements.

The additional control delivered by the hood could lead to improved contrast and color rendition.
In turn, this would make intrinsic resolution delivered by the lens less obscured.
Don't know about sharpness...

Not that I have enough experience to actually know.
So what part of unnecessary am I missing?

Just read the posts from whitewolfowner, amfoto1, and speters, which do not contradict this one.


camerapapi wrote:
Today, especially with the new optics they are not as useful as they were when we were using single coated lenses. As has been stated, they are very good lens protectors and totally useless for backlight photography.
I use them if the lens came with it. Many times, if one is not available I shade the lens with my hand but that is not very practical unless the camera is on a tripod and even so be careful not to include the hand in the picture which could easily happen using a wide angle.
My advise is that if the lens came with one use it.
Today, especially with the new optics they are not... (show quote)
whitewolfowner wrote:
Those that are dismissing the use of lens hoods are so un informed. Lens hoods block any stray light sources that come in from the sides or even from the frontal positions, barring the source is in the frame. Stray lighting cuts contrast and sharpness in any photo. The use of a lens hood is always used by those in the know and not by the less informed. If you want better contrast in your shots and sharper photos, always use your lens hood; after all they are the oldest accessory made for your lens and supplied with a lens when bought new; that should tell you something. DUH! The manufacturers are not putting them in there for their health and because they have stray supplies of metal they are trying to slowly dispose of.
Those that are dismissing the use of lens hoods ar... (show quote)
Go to
Aug 1, 2016 16:28:19   #
Interesting remark. The screw-in frame of the filter ought to make a metal lens barrel's metal filter thread more resistant to deformation; I see a lot of lenses on eBay that cannot host filters, due to being out-of-true. But, I dunno.

Dunno if fluorite lens elements inside the lens barrel of older lenses are less impact-resistant than the latest using synthetic fluorite crystals, as at Canon. Seems possible, given the known earlier avoidance of fluorite as soft.

I have the impression that shocks can mis-align lens elements. Likely less so today? Again, dunno. I dropped a naked 105mm G onto my concrete floor from waist level with no ill effects except for my $20 cost for rubberized flooring in the studio (Love it!!).

Leicaflex wrote:
The one thing it most certainly protected is the lenses filter thread.
Go to
Aug 1, 2016 16:01:57   #
Such a valuable discussion! As CatMarley points out. See also winterrose.

Add-on points:
1) Lens resolution (resolving power for reproducing detail) and camera-sensor resolution (megapixel count for detail, low-ISO, high dynamic range, and large images and maybe for cropping) are measured independently; display resolution likewise affects the resolution of a digital photo. So, this remark above, "...only the camera can improve the resolution..." needs to account for the two further influences on digital resolution. For more influences, see Mansurov, cited below.
2) Lens resolution depends on lens aperture and light-wave length. As I recall, the latter factor is expressed with a lambda in the system-resolution formula.
3) Every lens is its own special case, even when general numerical arguments are deployed to bounce some lens against some (future, present, past) sensor
4) Which camera? The successor to the D810 could have smaller pixel pitch and could host more receptors; accordingly, its sensor resolution would increase

Apaflo is taking a strong position in his opening sentence about a major current controversy ("...lenses today are as good as the best sensors..."). This controversy affects our spending. I agree with apaflo, after having studied the question. While there are endless public discussions about high megapixel sensors out-performing lenses and the possible need for reformulation of lenses to accommodate (catch up), two major vendors have spoken to the matter. Upleveling my findings from reading of Nikon and Canon publications I have found:

-Nikon clearly and succinctly says Nikon has/have always tried to approach theoretical lens resolution, though it has been overkill, to date, so the implication is: they have largely succeeded, so it is yesterday's war and so: No worries. Nikon lenses since the 55mm 3.5 appeared, if not before, generally have had resolution that supports denser emerging sensors (bill_de's question). In fact, resolution has long-since become such a cultural value at Nikon that Nikkor lens designers are focused today on natural 3D (See my remark last week on the linearity of DoF in the newest 58mm and 105mm; the realism of this enhanced linearity stands, I presume, in contrast to photographer interventions in DoF continuity with the Nikkor DC lenses.).

-Canon says they are reformulating their lenses to align lenses with sensors and so: Some worries. Canon's lens reformulation track is stated clearly but not succinctly. I derived my two-word Canon summary above from several published Canon remarks. Canon does explicitly say sensor resolution is today affecting their lens designs. Canon is pushing more resolution to more lenses at less cost, through better materials and manufacturing.

Just remembered, I have kept up a bibliography of the most useful sources I looked at. My references below support my remarks. Note that LenScore is not, IMO, helpful, though I had thought they would be.

Pertinent references assembled by me:
1. Canon, Inc. (2016) “Lenses: Fluorite, aspherical and UD lenses,” http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do
2. Canon Inc. (2006) “Optical Terminology,” EF Lens Work III: The Eyes of EOS, eighth edition, http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf.
3. Nikon (1979) Nikkor Lenses, Sales Manual.
4. Sato, Haruo and Koichi Ohshita (2016) “Nikkor Future Vision: Lens Design Concepts,” http://nikkor.com/technology/02.html.
5. LenScore (2016) “High resolution sensors: are lenses up to the task?” http://www.lenscore.org/.
6. Mansurov, N. (February 17, 2015) “Camera Resolution Explained,” https://photographylife.com/camera-resolution-explained.
7. Ssymeono (March 6, 2014) “So, it is not the lens, it is the sensor..,” http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-352738-3.html.
8. Dube, B. (May 30, 2015) “Aberrations Theory,” http://www.photozone.de/aberrationsTheory.
9. “Lens Quality: MTF, Resolution & Contrast,” http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm.





Apaflo wrote:
Virtually all modern lenses today are as good as the best sensors... at least in the center of the image and at their best fstop. Maybe not in the corners and not wide open (expensive lenses will make the grade there too). But the higher the pixel density the greater the influence of diffraction, and we are getting closer to the day (somewhere between 150 and 250MP) where every lens will be diffraction limited at any useful aperture.

Also note that SS is wrong that only the camera can improve the resolution. What ever the focal length you have, a lens of the same quality but twice the focal length will double the resolution of your images. That is why pro wildlife photogs all have those excessively expensive heavy 600mm f/4 telephotos!
Virtually all modern lenses today are as good as t... (show quote)
Go to
Aug 1, 2016 15:39:26   #
Agree but I'd say live view has something to contribute to manual focus.
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
As one who has a 44" printer and has made many 24x36 and 30x40 pictures I would say this: you need at least six megapixels of original image size, and a program like PhotoZoom Pro. You can get away with 240 pixels per inch in the print and still be happy. Sure, the more megapixels the better, but from DSLRs, even those with 6000 pixels are going to need some up-sizing to make the big print. What counts more is the quality of the lens. "GIGO" is the acronym: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Use the best lens and be happy.

When it comes to wildlife photography, the big telephoto, and a hunter's stealth is the thing. Luckily, no one wants a fully manual lens anymore. This means you can buy extremely good huge telephotos at about $0.10 on the dollar today, of course, on Ebay. All you have to do is learn to focus and use f/stops.

The idea of buying more resolution in the camera and then cropping... it is valid, but cropping past a six megapixel chunk of a big frame amplifies the need for really great glass.
As one who has a 44" printer and has made man... (show quote)
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.