Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: abc1234
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 283 next>>
Jun 25, 2019 08:40:03   #
Are you in an automatic exposure mode that might be sensing it has enough light and does not need the flash?
 
Jun 25, 2019 08:35:59   #
I use both Eneloop and Amazon and do not notice a difference other than the latter may last longer between charges. Please note this is anecdotal and not based upon a controlled comparison. I started with Eneloops but now buy Amazon exclusively. The batteries power a high-drain flash plus many low-drain devices.
Jun 23, 2019 11:59:19   #
billnikon wrote:
Not even close to the end of this story. I do not need to know because those lenses do not need testing. If they are already tack sharp they DO NOT need testing. How do you improve TACK sharp with testing? And THAT is the end of this story.


And you miss the point. I too had a lens I thought was tack sharp and could not be sharper. That is, until I tested it and made it even sharper.
Jun 23, 2019 10:27:26   #
RichardSM wrote:
I don’t consider Canon L lens as mediocre. If you wish to take the time to calibrate you Lens go for it! I’d rather be out taking pictures.


Richard, you completely miss our points and I simply cannot understand why without getting personal which I will not do. You keep on bringing up irrelevant points. We did not say and would not consider your lenses, cameras or skills mediocre. All we are saying is that even the best lenses should be checked for focus. If you do not want to and are satisfied with your results, fine. However, do not criticize or demean those of us who would rather know than assume. We do not criticize you for not wanting to do so. We just criticize your assertion that it is not necessary.

If the manufacturers did not know that lenses do need checking, then why would they have cameras with micro-adjustment, advise you to do so with instructions on how to, and offer that service?
Jun 23, 2019 09:02:37   #
TriX wrote:
Bill, since we both have strong opinions on the subject, Let’s agree to disagree as gentlemen and leave it at that.

Cheers,
Chris


Ditto.
Jun 23, 2019 08:37:26   #
billnikon wrote:
No need. Would u not agree that if u were getting 30X40 tack sharp prints with a lens out of the box recalibration was unnecessary?


We are all getting bogged down in semantics. If you think the lens is tack sharp and are satisfied with the prints, then you do not need to test it. However, if you want to know for sure, then test. End of story.
 
Jun 22, 2019 07:50:46   #
RichardSM wrote:
I’m very happy with Ef Canon L lens I have for there sharpness right out of the box.


Sorry but that is not the same as knowing whether or not the lenses were performing optimally. For all that you spend on that excellent gear, would you not want to confirm that?
Jun 20, 2019 11:09:39   #
RichardSM wrote:
As I said I stay with Canon L glass no issues.

Many years back I bought some 3rd party manufacturers glass it was poor quality on my film camera’s. I’ve been using Canon cameras and lens for fifty years or more.


That was a half century ago. How do you know that is still true?
Jun 20, 2019 09:36:23   #
rborud wrote:
Thanks abc for your thoughts and comments and useful information. Even if we do not really agree, it lead me to an even better way, to my eye, to present this, but I do thank you for the prod. I am not sure you would stil approve but I like it much better. RBorud


Thanks for responding. Please bear in mind that I see this first through my own photographic sensibility. When I began to get serious about photography in 1959, lenses were soft, films grainy, colors so so. Many, many photographers wanted to overcome that and, fortunately, technology progressed. For me, digital is a dream come true and how I first judge photographs. That being said, each and every photographer can and should developer his or her own ideas and not apologize for it. What they should apologize for is grasping on to the fad or preset of the day.

I am sure you have a few more interesting shots so post them. A close-up of the dancer's face might prove interesting.
Jun 20, 2019 08:09:31   #
I think you would have been off by cropping tighter, using much less vignette, and without blurring anything. If you wanted blur, you should have gotten that in your exposure instead.
Jun 18, 2019 15:04:28   #
billnikon wrote:
None of my 350 Brides asked me if my lenses were calibrated. My award winning photo judges never asked if my lenses were calibrated. My more than 20 AF n Nikon lenses never needed calibration to produce tack sharp 20X30 images.


Bill, I do not doubt any of that. However, I still side with TriX. The issue is how do you really know. How about telling us how you determined your lens are "dead on"?
 
Jun 18, 2019 14:56:26   #
TriX wrote:
Please share your reasons and your evidence if you have any. I am sorry, but otherwise your statement is not convincing.


Anecdotes and poor methods are not substitutes for good evidence. Photography is part science and part art. You are entitled to your opinions about the art but let us stick to data for the science.
Jun 18, 2019 13:49:30   #
Strodav wrote:
Live View (LV) uses Contrast Detection Auto Focus (CDAF) and AF uses Phase Detection Auto Focus (PDAF). LV will give you the sharpest result your camera and lens are capable of as long as you are using GOOD TECHNIQUE and LV is more consistent than PDAF. So, set up a resolution target, like a newsprint page at a 30 to 45 degree angle, with a good focus point and take some LV and AF shots. IF the LV and AF shots are equally sharp, no need to do anything. If the LV shots are sharper, then you might benefit from tuning. If the AF shot is sharper than the LV shot, something is wrong. Further, because your target is at an angle, you should be able to see if your AF shots are front or back focused.
Live View (LV) uses Contrast Detection Auto Focus ... (show quote)


That works for me.
Jun 18, 2019 11:39:53   #
Strodav wrote:
Major manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, and Sony don't care about 3rd party lenses. Their reputations are at stake with their own stuff and don't want bodies and glass coming back for $repairs$ under warranty and want to avoid bad reviews. It's up to the 3rd party lens maker to make sure their equipment works on compatible bodies.

I am invested in Nikon and have found that Nikon glass AF is pretty close to dead on out of the box, but Sigma and Tamron lenses almost always need tuning to get the most out of the lens and camera. I think that's why they sell the USB Dock and Tap-In. So my recommendation is that if you are not into tuning, buy the manufacturer's glass, but if you are willing to tune, you can save quite a bit of money with results that are very close to the manufacturer's equivalent.
Major manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, and Sony do... (show quote)


When you say "dead on", how do you know that?
Jun 18, 2019 11:16:43   #
TriX wrote:
I haven't checked in the last couple of months, but about two months ago, I upgraded to the pro version. One of the new features was an aperture vs acuity test which provides very interesting results on where your lens is the sharpest or at least acceptably so as well as being able to compare the absolute acuity of your lenses (makes it very easy to spot a bad copy). Interestingly, those old adages of a lens being sharpest 1-2 stops down from wide open or sharpest at f8 do not always prove to be true.
I haven't checked in the last couple of months, bu... (show quote)


FoCal certainly pumps out the information. Other than the microadjustment and aperture sharpness, I am not sure how helpful it is. Most of that you cannot adjust. If you are buying lenses and want the best of the bunch, then perhaps FoCal helps. I wish their descriptions of all those tests were better.

That old saw about being sharpest at about two stops down really is pretty true for my lenses. The values are at the top of the curve so the lens does have some latitude. F/8 might be go in the old days when F/3.5 was considered fast. What surprised me was how much sharpness degraded at smaller apertures. I liked stopping down for the depth of field and avoiding focusing errors. Now I see the price I paid was sharply declining lens sharpness. My default aperture is now two stops down.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 283 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.