Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: gordone
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
May 18, 2023 10:00:08   #
With a 600 mm lens the max exposure time before you get star trails will be in the 0.6 to 0.8 s area, depending on the camera and lens aperture.
The PhotoPills app will give you camera specific info. Many also use the 500 rule where the max exposure time would be 500/600 mm = 5/6 s. This tends to be a bit optimistic with current cameras and cropped sensors would be closer to 300/600= 0.5s
Go to
Dec 13, 2018 20:33:19   #
IDguy wrote:
I found this page interesting: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm#calculator?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fup4

(Edit: I now see it was posted on p. 3. Missed it then.)

The thing bothering me up to this point is that the topic is about landscape photography, which generally means maximizing the DOF, and much of the discussion on diffraction does not address DOF. Enjoy playing with the calculator.

My conclusion: f22 for full frame and f16 for APS-C are OK. But yes, if you want to maximize sharpness at the focus then more like f16 and f11.
I found this page interesting: https://www.cambri... (show quote)


I did some bench testing (with Reikan Focal) at F 8 and F22 on a Canon 5DS-R camera and 3 zoom lenses to see how much degradation there is in image quality. The results are:
Canon 11-24 F4 at 11 mm - image quality degradation is 23%
Canon 16-35 F2.8 iii at 16 mm. - image quality degradation is 24%
Canon 24-70 F 2.8 ii at 24 mm. - image quality degradation is 21.2 %
The results are very consistent.
Go to
Dec 13, 2018 11:51:34   #
The other option is just go out and shoot jpg instead of spending all that time on the computer. Unless you are doing large prints, our old eyes will probably not see the difference
Go to
Dec 13, 2018 11:43:57   #
You really need to evaluate each lens on a case by case basis and generalities may not apply. For example a Canon 50 mm F1.4 lens is optically less sharp than a Canon 24-70 F2.8 ii at 50 mm. There is a big difference of course in price of these two lenses.

On the other hand price is not always an indicator of quality. Take a Leica 50 mm F 0.95 lens that costs $11000 and compare it to a Canon 50 mm F1.8 USM that costs about $125. The Canon beats it every important optical test. The Leica does beat the Canon in build quality and price.

In Summary:

Leica. Canon
Noctilux. 50mm F1.8 STM
Focal Length
50 mm. 50 mm
Max Aperture
0.95. 1.8
Price
$11,295 (USD). $125
Barrel distortion
1.10%. -0.77%
Vignetting wide open
3.33/4.31 EV coded/uncoded. 2.56 EV
Maximum Resolution
3195 at F2.8. 3742 at F5.6
Chromatic aberation at max aperture
2.18 pixels. 0.48 pixels
Go to
Dec 13, 2018 11:30:33   #
IDguy wrote:
OK. What does QoF stand for? (assume “Quality of” something?)


Quality of Focus
Go to
Dec 13, 2018 11:15:47   #
IDguy wrote:
What is the ordinate?


They do not specify what the actual units are, but they analyze lines in the horizontal and vertical direction separately and for each color channel and outs a combined final QoF number. With the Pro version you get a QoF for each color channel as well as the best microfocus adjustment spread for each channel.
Go to
Dec 12, 2018 21:15:22   #
TriX wrote:
Just upgraded. These snowy days are a good time to recheck calibration and check optimum apertures for each.


The Pro version also shows in real time how your lens compares to other copies that have been tested by all users
Go to
Dec 12, 2018 18:55:31   #
TriX wrote:
Thanks. I’m going to update tomorrow.


On page 7 of this post I included a graph from Focal output for my 1DX mark ii. I also have graphs for my 5DS-R and 7D and 7D mark ii. I took the Focal output and put them into Excel to give a composite of all lenses that I tested.
Go to
Dec 12, 2018 18:42:20   #
TriX wrote:
Interesting - I’m using an early version and need to upgrade because mine only shows the correction, not accuitance vs f stop. I want my “Ls” to read 2400 too - I’m jealous!


I have the Pro version that graphs the IQ at every F stop. It's very informative. I posted a graph that shows different lenses at different f stops
Go to
Dec 12, 2018 13:44:40   #
TriX wrote:
Candidly, I don't know the answer as they use a fairly complex target and their algorithm is proprietary, but I have found their acuity numbers very useful in evaluating a new lens - if it's in the 1000-1100 range (or below), there's a problem, but 1300-1400 or higher can generally be expected to be a sharp lens.


I have done extensive testing with Focal and different lenses on different cameras and my criteria for "tack sharp" is IQ of about 1700-1800 and up. The best I have been able to achieve is 2400.
Go to
Dec 11, 2018 18:17:00   #
John Gerlach wrote:
Both diffraction and AF micro-adjusting your autofocus lens seem to have the same issues among photographers. Many say neither is a problem, and other swear by paying attention to both. I use all expensive L Canon lenses with the Canon 5D Mark IV and Canon 1DX Mark II. While sharpness certainly isn't everything, it really does not make any sense to me to shoot images that aren't as sharp as they could have been had I paid more attention to my shooting procedure. In both cases - diffraction and AF microadjustment - if you just shoot at f/22 or don't microadjust your lens and camera, then most likely the results will be suitable for you and many will say look how sharp they are. Indeed, they do look fairly sharp and you assume that is the best your gear can do. But, unless you run a test and evaluate, you won't realize how good the image results really can be. Decades ago I tested diffraction by shooting a flat target at f/8 and f/22, and the difference in sharpness due to a loss of sharpness from diffraction is significant to me. Therefore, I try to avoid stopping down much, and never past f/16. I usually focus stack when I can as it is so easy to do and process. Three years ago when I tried a new Canon lens and the results weren't quite as crisp as I expected (they still looked fairly sharp), I decided to AF micro adjust it (first time I tried it) and discovered the lens needed a -9 adjustment to correct for a little backfocus. Since then, I have tested at least 20 lenses (mine and clients) and none have had best focus at the zero default setting, and I don't expect them to. These adjustments aren't huge, but they do give your sharper images. By using the sharper apertures around f/8 and using lenses with proper AF microadjustment, it truly is amazing at the sharp photos you get. If you never see how well your gear can really do, then you don't miss it. But if you don't want to give up quality, and sharpness matters to you, then don't neglect those sharpness factors. It truly is up to what you hope to desire. Diffraction is real and you can see it when properly compared, and lenses most likely benefit from AF microadjusting - all of mine did with two different cameras. Just saying.....
Both diffraction and AF micro-adjusting your autof... (show quote)


I agree 100%. On the graphs of image quality at different F stops you can clearly see the degradation in image quality above say F11. If image quality is not important then you may still choose to shoot F22 or whatever. Just taking a picture at F22 and printing it may still look ok but you don't know how much better it would have looked at F8

Attached file:
(Download)
Go to
Dec 7, 2018 13:21:20   #
Go with Reikan Focal. Tried the manual lenscal approach and it is too subjective and does not take into account focus inconsistency between shots. I use Reikan to focus every lens to every body. Well worth the effort and the graphs out afterwards give you a full picture of your lens IQ at every aperture
Go to
Dec 4, 2018 10:54:05   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Some of the other posts have taken my comments, but I'll repeat:

1. Sell your FD lenses and by EF lenses, or keep for when you have a mirrorless body and a glass-less adapter. Don't bother with using them on the EOS body.

2. Download a PDF copy of the 5DII manual from the Canon site.

3. Download the latest copy of the DPP v4 software, again from Canon site. Shooting in RAW and processing the results, via DPP or other tools, will maximize the quality of the images from this body and to process it's older noise capabilities.

4. Download the latest version of the Canon EOS Utility and then download and install lens profiles for your EF lenses into both the Camera and your DPP software. Here's a link for the camera aspect steps: https://support-th.canon-asia.com/contents/TH/EN/8202118200.html

5. Although the 5DII is limited in AF points, if not doing so already, learn to move and use the individual AF points for off-center selective focus.

6. Assuming your 5DII will be your workhorse camera for the next few years, get yourself at least 3 x 32GB class-10 CF cards. Bodies are moving away from CF cards so you may find them a bit cheaper now than in the somewhat recent past. You also might find them a bit harder to find, particularly if you wait.

7. Assuming your 5DII will be your workhorse camera for the next few years, assure you have two new, genuine Canon LP-E6 batteries. These were Canon standard for a few generations of Canon models, but againm things are moving on. Purchase them now before they get harder to find, as well as get a back-up charger.
Some of the other posts have taken my comments, bu... (show quote)


In reference to item 7 on batteries. Get the LP-E6N. It is an updated version and will be around a long time. It is also used on the new EOS-R mirrorless
Go to
Dec 3, 2018 12:35:07   #
Bill_de wrote:


I made the mistake of buying one of these as my first gimbal head. I gave it away after the first time I tried it, and bought a real gimbal head. It has very sloppy tolerances and wobbles around even after you tighten it. It might be ok for something like a small mirrorless or point and shoot camera but that's about it. They should re-label it as a wobble head instead of a gimbal head. Cheap heads and tripods are the most expensive because you buy one, throw it away and buy the one you should have bought to start with.
Go to
Dec 2, 2018 15:11:58   #
josquin1 wrote:
How about the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens. It is truly amazing and it's less expensive than the Canon 1.4. Most reviews say it's better also.


Just checked B&H. Canon F1.4 is $300 and Sigma F1.4 art is $849 so it had better be better.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.