Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: billnikon
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1176 next>>
Mar 20, 2024 07:20:04   #
buckscop wrote:
I just completed taking focus test shots for 2 of my lens, f/5.6 up through f/40, and downloaded them into my computer. My camera shot in RAW. Do I keep them RAW unedited and just look for sharpness, or edit them in some fashion to compare them (I have LR)? Should I have shot them in JPG as the would have been cleaned up somewhat exposure wise? Is MS File Explorer good enough to look them over (therefore un edited)? Thanks in advance.


My advice, since your asking. Forget trying to do a focus test on your own. Many others who have attempted this end up more confused and the results are far from conclusive.
Most lenses are sharpest stopping down two to three stops from max. So if your lens is a f1.8 lens, then the sharpest f stops for that lens should be around 2.8 to f4.
Generally speaking the further you stop down your lens the less the desirable sharpness. I personally would not shoot above f16, and that would be a stretch for me.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 07:13:23   #
Royce Moss wrote:
Hey Hoggers i'm looking for advice on a macro for mainly flowers and dog portraits. After lots of research I have pretty much narrowed it down to the Nikon 105mm vr and Tamron 90mm vc. My body is a Nikon D7200. Any one have experience on both or one or the other? My gut says the Nikon but I keep reading about how good the Tamron is. I did find a "like new " Tamron for about the same price as an "excellent" Nikon at MPB.Thanks for any input.


The Nikon has been produced exactly for your Nikon, the Tamron has been manufactured to fit many camera's without being specifically designed for the Nikon. The Nikon was produced to exact manufacturing standards. The Nikon will be worth more at trade in or selling than the Tamron. Tamron does not hold on to value as high as the Nikon does.
You should be happier with the Nikon than from a third party lens.
PS. Nikon produces it's lenses from blanks that it produces, Tamron buys their glass finished from other producers.
Nikon Yes, Tamron ?
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 07:08:45   #
imagemeister wrote:
The best super zoom on the planet is 24-600mm on the RX10m4. If you are serious about lighter weight travel, the RX10 should be your next camera.


Sorry Charlie, the RX10 is not the only camera in town, the Sony HX-99 has a very sharp and larger super zoom than the RX10, at 24-750mm. Zeiss all the way, weighs less than the RX10, can travel in a belt pouch, shoots RAW, and can produce excellent 20X30 prints. Has a pop up viewfinder, shoots auto fill flash and 4 way panoramic. Rear screen folds down for LOW LEVE shooting. And costs a lot less.










Go to
Mar 20, 2024 06:52:17   #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
Im perfectly happy with my 2 Canon rebels, 77D and T7i. I have kit 18-135, 55-270(?), tamron 10-24, and my Tamron 150-600 zoom I bought with my stimulus check. I blow my wall hangers to 16 x 20 and to me still sharp.
As these cameras are crop sensor cameras if I go mirror less is this the time to go full frame too? My 77D shoots 6 fps so I'm happy there.
Thanks for suggestions. I really don't want to change brands because I like my lenses
I know there are adaptors but don't know how good they are to change brands
Im perfectly happy with my 2 Canon rebels, 77D and... (show quote)


Be happy and keep on shooting until the end.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 06:50:24   #
When the Cattle Egrets head crest, chest, red eye, purple eye lure and multi-colored beak turn to breeding colors it becomes one of my favorite birds. These birds tend to make their nest deep into the mangrove. They are also characters because they will steal nesting material for abandoned and even live nests, sometimes with active chicks. They are quite comical and fun to watch. Wakodahatchee Wetlands.


Go to
Mar 19, 2024 15:48:33   #
Rgandel wrote:
Agreed, mirrorless makes the process easier.

Thanks


With the process I used, that I described earlier (you can look it up) it is just as easy with a DSLR as it is with a mirrorless. Makes no difference.
Go to
Mar 19, 2024 09:03:18   #
selmslie wrote:
If you increase the ISO you will probably reduce the exposure. It's the reduction in exposure that increases the noise.

All of the tests in the table were taken at the same exposure. After correcting for the underexposure, all of them ended up with the same amount of noise within +/- 0.03 stops (within the margin of error). The only one that is a little higher is the X100T (0.06 stops).


Sorry, don't buy it.
Go to
Mar 19, 2024 07:07:36   #
selmslie wrote:
We [should] already know that visible noise (signal to noise ratio aka S/N or SNR) is the determined by exposure, not ISO.

I have studied this at length and determined that S/N is primarily the result of shot noise. Sensor read noise does not begin to influence the SNR until well below middle gray (around EC-5 or darker).

If we develop an image from raw, there are times when you find that the original exposure may have resulted in a dark JPEG from the camera.

Increasing the ISO in the camera or reducing it and using the Exposure slider to offset it might produce the same image, assuming the camera is ISO invariant, which nearly all modern cameras are (but that's a different topic).

What happens to noise when you move the Exposure slider to the right to brighten the image? With each stop added via the Exposure slider we increase the apparent brightness by one stop. But we also double the effect of shot noise and this lowers the visible SNR.

So what would happen if we took two images using the same exposure (aperture and shutter speed) and equalized the brightness with the Exposure slider?

It has been suggested that the image that used the higher ISO would have less noise. Of course, we already know it would be better because it will be closer to ETTR (exposing to the right) but that may actually be because the shadows are recorded better.

To determine if there is really a measurable difference, I tested three cameras, a Fuji X100t, a Sony A7 II and III and a Nikon Z7. As luck would have it, all three are ISO invariant.

Below are the results of the test.

The samples for each camera used the same exposure (aperture/shutter speed). The SD column is from a 150x100 pixel selection at the center of the image.

The A7 II has not Bayer array so the effective ISO settings are actually one stop higher than what was set. ISO 25600 does not work right but all of the other ISO settings in the analog range are proportional and ISO invariant. The log(SD) changed by almost exactly one stop with each doubling of the ISO. For the other cameras I just tested two ISO settings.

As we can see, there may be a very small difference in the noise level changes but they are within a reasonable range of the actual difference in ISO.

If you have been following this so far, it conclusively shows that raising the ISO does not actually alter the amount of visible noise. It's safe to say that there is no benefit to lowering the ISO and using the Exposure slider to correct the apparent underexposure.

The higher exposure does not suppress any noise. In fact, with an ISO invariant sensor, it has absolutely no effect.

ETTR remains the recommended approach because it collects more clean information in the shadows, if you decide to amplify it.
We should already know that visible noise (signa... (show quote)


Increase ISO, you increase noise. Decrease ISO, you decrease noise. This has always worked for me.
Go to
Mar 19, 2024 07:05:19   #
anhmydo1941 wrote:
Do you have any experience with this store ? Do we need to stay away from it ? I learned this shop stay on the market for a pretty long time ."Grey market or bad quality products?
Thank you for your suggestions.


Personally I would not use them. Photography equipment has set prices, if a company is selling for less then all others, they are doing something no other company is doing. And that is not good.
You are much better going through B&H, Adorama, or your local camera shop.
Go to
Mar 19, 2024 07:00:58   #
Rgandel wrote:
What is the best way to photograph white birds without blowing out the highlights?


I have used the following for years.
I take a manual reading off grass or a green tree that is lighting the subject the same way. (this will give you a gray card reading without the gray card) I then underexpose 2 to 3 stops, it is easier to bring back details by underexposing than by overexposing in post. But most of the time 2 to 3 stops works great.
This has been my method and it works for me. Others my have different methods.








Go to
Mar 19, 2024 06:47:31   #
Rongnongno wrote:
The progress is in the sensor, nowhere else.

The idea of using a display instead of through the lens is reverting to old time when folks were looking from above to focus...

Issues with the display...
- LIGHT!!! If too bright, good luck using the display.
- Eyes issue If one needs glasses all bets are off, there is no way to adjust for that but use the tiny in camera display in the 'view finder'. Go check for accuracy on that since the display is made of tiny pixels vs 'a normal light' (analog)
- Weight unbalance. (Light body, heavy lens)

That is one of the few reasons why I will not upgrade to mirrorless, even if I do appreciate the new sensors.
The progress is in the sensor, nowhere else. br b... (show quote)


As a wildlife photographer, capturing the right moment is important in the fast moving world of animals in motion.
Pre-exposure on mirrorless camera's allows me to capture moments I could never get before with any DSLR.
30 frames per second RAW is a real help for me capturing that right moment.
Now, I can understand if your shooting stagnant objects my former D500, D850, and D5 would be great, no argument there.
In the image below I use 30 frames per second RAW to get the moment of capture that this Tri-colored Heron caught his meal. Now my D500 shot 10 frames per second, but even with that, it was sometimes hit or miss. Again, I get many more keepers at 30fps vs. 10 fps. I shoot RAW only because of the advantages in post.
Did I also mention the silent shutter on the mirrorless, this allows me to say closer to wildlife in cover, my D850 would frighten away anything with a hundred yards.
Again, if your just shooting general subjects, I see nothing wrong with keeping your DSLR's.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
Sony a1, 30 fps RAW, iso 2000, 1/2000 sec. Sony 600mm f4 all manual exposure


Go to
Mar 19, 2024 06:35:32   #
Wildlife face perils everyday. This Great Blue Heron has no use of its left leg. In observing it over a few days it seem to fly, land, hunt and eat OK. I am going to call him lefty. Wakodahatchee Wetlands. If you see lefty, please post an update.


Go to
Mar 18, 2024 08:40:41   #
agillot wrote:
I am at a point that i refuse to buy anything newer that i have [ D300 and 7100 ] The 300 is a better camera , so i use it daily [ birds and other] .Cameras have been silly for a long time now , way too complex .I ll bet you dont use 10 % of whats is in there .So with me, old stuff rule , including older manual lenses .[ also VERY affordable ].


I have always said if your getting everything you want from your equipment, you need nothing more.
But for me, I need the higher frame speed and focusing of the latest camera's for my wildlife business.
To each his own, congratulations.
Go to
Mar 18, 2024 08:34:45   #
gwilliams6 wrote:
11 new top quality, affordable Viltrox Nikon Z-mount and Sony E-mount autofocus lenses announced. Still no RF ones, does that matter at all ?


Cheers


That's nice, but for over 55 years of photography, 40 of those professionally, I will continue to get great IQ, endurance, and higher resale value from riding with the brand.
Thanks for your post though.
Go to
Mar 18, 2024 08:31:17   #
a6k wrote:
Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens
Sony RX10 m4
Nikon Coolpix P1000

Image quality is more than sharpness. And sharpness is different at different distances and lens lengths.

In the next post, below, I will provide actual JPGs that I took using my favorite target for sharpness and more.

For the Nikon and the RX10 I used F8 at 1/800 or 1/1000 with ISO 100. The Nikon was 1/1000 because it would not do 1/800.

I also took one with the Nikon in Bird Mode and it turned out the best. That's the one my wife always uses.

These are not really lab quality comparisons but I think it will be obvious what some of the differences are.

I will also provide screenshot(s) where I attempted to equalize the image size in pixels. That would matter in printing. In those screenshot(s) I had to make some minor exposure corrections.
Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens br Sony RX10 ... (show quote)


Sorry, amateur lens tests only prove one thing, amateur's should not do lens tests.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1176 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.