Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: Finch585
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 next>>
Feb 2, 2014 00:41:58   #
(Photo Gallery)
Helping "Keep Santa Cruz Weird"...
Helping "Keep Santa Cruz Weird"...The interesting people of Santa Cruz in their DIY New Years Eve parade 12/31/13.
FujiFilm X-Pro 1, @55mm, f/4, 1/125, ISO 6400


Go to
Jan 29, 2014 02:29:46   #
(Photo Gallery)
Early Morning Swim
I love this image, and hand-held, geeesh, thanks for sharing it.
Go to
Jan 29, 2014 02:21:57   #
(Photo Gallery)
Surfer Girl candid
Captured on West Cliff Dr, Santa Cruz, CA
FujiFilm X100


Go to
Jan 24, 2014 01:17:37   #
(Photo Gallery)
Seen in Santa Cruz
First outing with my lovely Fujifilm X-Pro 1 and its sweet 18-55mm. This baby has cured my Leica G.A.S.


Go to
May 25, 2013 19:57:47   #
(Photo Gallery)
No Fan Left Behind?
EMS was able to wake him up, just a bit tipsy is all, but where were his ball park pals?....


Go to
May 20, 2013 01:30:45   #
(Photo Gallery)
SF Giants fans - all types and ages...
...In line before the last game of the recent sweep of L.A. Dodgers at AT&T Park.


Go to
May 19, 2013 04:01:02   #
(Photo Gallery)
Magic Mushroom, Man...
While at SFMOMA for the Garry Winogrand exhibit (fantastic event...GO!), I like the serendipitous reflections I managed to capture.

[Copyright]


Go to
Feb 24, 2013 14:10:55   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
DOF question
I've read a lot here and elsewhere, about how to create shallow DOF, (FL, aperture, distance), but I'm still not clear on one aspect of this.

My question is, shooting with an 85mm lens on a DX body at f/1.8, which affects shallow DOF more, the distance from focal plane to subject, or distance from subject to background to blur?

thanks in advance.

Jeffrey


Go to
Feb 18, 2013 00:44:16   #
(Photo Gallery)
Don't Jump! (1 image)
Walking across the Golden Gate bridge for the first time, I noticed this unusual and poignant sign and wondered how many times it has worked to save a life?

I had a difficult time getting this shot with my Fuji X100, because I was shooting towards the sun and the sign was in shadow and my AEL didn't seem to work (or I was just doing it wrong).

Helpful suggestions welcomed.

Best,

Jeffrey


Go to
Feb 18, 2013 00:33:35   #
(Photo Gallery)
ROTHKO (1 image for C&C)
Touring the SF MOMA yesterday with my Fuji X100 in hand, I turned back towards the Rothko painting, and there she was, leaning in with interest. Without time to adjust settings, I quickly framed the shot and snapped it before she moved away.

I think it came out fairly well, and with minimal PP. Any suggestions?

Best,

Jeffrey


Go to
Feb 3, 2013 12:54:58   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
DX "Reach" versus magnification
Finch585 wrote:
Brucej67 wrote:
Isn't that assuming you are using the same lens on the crop sensor camera as on the full frame camera? If you use a lens made for a crop sensor camera on the crop sensor camera and use a lens made for a full frame camera on the full frame camera and if both lenses have the same focal length the results should be the same for testing.


No, I don't think that's right because if I put my 35mm DX f/1.8G lens on my D7000 I thought it still provides me a 52.5mm FF equivalent FOV. I believe it's just that being for DX by design, the circle of light coming through the DX lens is reduced to fit the crop sensor in full rather than being cropped, therefore the lens is made smaller and lighter, or am I wrong and the DX designed lenses are providing the full MM result? [I don't have a FF body to compare this].
quote=Brucej67 Isn't that assuming you are using ... (show quote)


UPDATE: The Nikon lens simulator Jerry provided proves my thought, and that your idea is not true.
Go to
Feb 3, 2013 12:50:21   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
DX "Reach" versus magnification
Quote:
Hey Doc ..... I don't think you get it yet ..... why don't you post the photos you're unhappy with so we can see what you're doing .....


It's actually nothing I'm unhappy about in a single image, it has to do with composition potential, and my wanting to be able to shoot the full 20mm wide and not getting only 30mm on DX without having to use a 14mm to get to 20mm (er, 21mm).

BTW, I'd love to know the reason for your affinity to the Wascaly Wabbit? He was my favorite cartoon character. Were you affiliated with the production in some manner or just a huge fan, too?
Go to
Feb 3, 2013 12:42:56   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
DX "Reach" versus magnification
MtnMan wrote:
Finch585 wrote:


So, this goes to the nexus of my question: if you took this same shot with a higher power magnification lens on FF to result in the same subject size on screen or paper, would the FF image have better fine detailing and sharpness and perhaps less pixelation problems when blown up, as this shot that just has the illusion of similar magnification from the crop sensor's "reach"?



Pixelation relates to the MP on the original image. Since the DX has more MP on the original image it can be blown up to a larger size without pixelation.

I often use it the other way: to crop more.

The wood duck shot is only slightly cropped and was at 300mm. You'd need a 450mm on a full frame to get the same composition. Or I'd have to crop my image with the 300mm lens down to the 45% or so representing the DX area of the image.

Even with the ISO at 500 woody required 1/30 s (f6.3). Since it was handheld I feel the clarity is a testament to the VR of the 28-300 more than anything.
quote=Finch585 br br So, this goes to the nexus... (show quote)


OK, got it, thanks
Go to
Feb 3, 2013 12:41:12   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
DX "Reach" versus magnification
Quote:
This Lens Simulator is good.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/


Thanks, Jerry, that simulator is great and helps a lot.


Jeffrey
Go to
Feb 3, 2013 12:26:16   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
DX "Reach" versus magnification
MtnMan wrote:
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
This is about FX and DX where FX is full frame and DX is smaller than full frame, giving full frame lenses a "magnification factor through cropping in of 1.5x. This means a full frame 50mm will give the look of a 75mm on a DX camera.

The fun fact: this psuedo 75mm will be sharper with better image characteristics than a 75mm lens designed for the DX format. Why? It is about image circles. Every lens has an "Image Circle" which is designed to cover the given image format (sensor or film.) Lens performance, in general, always deteriorates towards the edges. You can see this, for example, when dark vignetting occurs with certain lenses, usually when shooting wide open.

When you put a FX lens on a DX camera, you are using a famous trick - that is, shooting at the part of the image circle where the lens delivers its best quality. Vignetting disappears, sharpness increases, distortions are fewer.

So, hurray!
This is about FX and DX where FX is full frame and... (show quote)


Thank you for another reason to prefer the 28-300 FX over the 18-300 DX, even though I don't (yet) have an FX camera. One always likes to have justification for such expenditures!

Just getting started with it but think I'm gonna like it.
quote=PhotoArtsLA This is about FX and DX where F... (show quote)


So, this goes to the nexus of my question: if you took this same shot with a higher power magnification lens on FF to result in the same subject size on screen or paper, would the FF image have better fine detailing and sharpness and perhaps less pixelation problems when blown up, as this shot that just has the illusion of similar magnification from the crop sensor's "reach"?
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.