A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The new 100-400mm seems to work.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 11th 18, 05:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,469
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 12:00:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the
possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up.


Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue.


I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or
pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted
windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a
mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in
gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens.

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg


Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg


.... and that's interesting ... umm.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #22  
Old July 11th 18, 06:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,584
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 10, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 12:00:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the
possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up.

Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will
quickly tell you if you have a lens issue.


I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or
pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted
windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a
mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in
gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens.

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg


Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg


... and that's interesting ... umm.


....and what exactly did you find interesting?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #23  
Old July 13th 18, 05:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,469
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg


Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg


... and that's interesting ... umm.


...and what exactly did you find interesting?

I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is
soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago
when I first got my D300
https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0 and here
is a 100% crop of the same image.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0

No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #24  
Old July 13th 18, 06:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,584
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

... and that's interesting ... umm.


...and what exactly did you find interesting?

I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is
soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0

and here is a 100% crop of the same image.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0

Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway
comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot.

Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg

....and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here
is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg


No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG.


Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #25  
Old July 14th 18, 12:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,469
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

... and that's interesting ... umm.

...and what exactly did you find interesting?

I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is
soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0

and here is a 100% crop of the same image.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0

Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway
comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot.


Postage stamp? That is an artifact of Dropbox. You should be able to
down load the file. When I do that I get a full height image. On my
screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165.

Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg


That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I
suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter.

...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here
is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg


I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve
the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was
probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite
surfers in your shot.


No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG.


Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small?


I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because
Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #26  
Old July 14th 18, 01:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,584
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

... and that's interesting ... umm.

...and what exactly did you find interesting?
I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is
soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when
I first got my D300
https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0

and here is a 100% crop of the same image.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0

Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway
comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot.


Postage stamp?


I was refering to the kite, which is less than postage stamp size regardless
of your crop.

That is an artifact of Dropbox.


I don’t seem to get DB artifacts which shrink kites. Strangely enough I
don’t get any DB introduced artifacts of any type.

You should be able to down load the file.


Yup!

When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165.


Strange? Your original downloads as a 6MB, 2848x4288 @ 300dpi, jpg.
Your 100% crop downloads from DB as a 656KB, 1056x1152 @ 300 dpi jpg.

ISO200, f/11, 1/400, 16-85mm



Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg


That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter.

...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here
is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg


I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve
the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was
probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite
surfers in your shot.


....and that makes for a nice abstractish line in the sky.

No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG.


Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small?


I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because
Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data.


Nope! All the EXIF data was complete DB removed nothing. Here is what I got
after downloading your 100% crop.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vui0lq9vhhjghr0/screenshot_338.jpg?

I considered your target to be the kite, and that was resolved so small in
both the original, and the 100% crop that determining sharpness of that kite
image to be near impossible. Therefore my thought that no amount of post
processing would have made a difference.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #27  
Old July 14th 18, 03:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,469
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:52:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

... and that's interesting ... umm.

...and what exactly did you find interesting?
I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is
soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when
I first got my D300
https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0
and here is a 100% crop of the same image.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0

Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway
comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot.


Postage stamp?


I was refering to the kite, which is less than postage stamp size regardless
of your crop.


I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the image as a
whole.

I picked the kite image as as a convenient example, as the string was
a single sharply delineated object so narrow that any blurring of the
edges would be immediately visible. I included the full image only to
show where 100% crop came from. The point I was trying to make was
that the unprocessed kite image seemed to be sharper than top of the
sail in your image.

That is an artifact of Dropbox.


I don’t seem to get DB artifacts which shrink kites. Strangely enough I
don’t get any DB introduced artifacts of any type.

You should be able to down load the file.


Yup!

When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165.


Strange? Your original downloads as a 6MB, 2848x4288 @ 300dpi, jpg.
Your 100% crop downloads from DB as a 656KB, 1056x1152 @ 300 dpi jpg.

ISO200, f/11, 1/400, 16-85mm



Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg


That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter.

...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here
is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg


I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve
the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was
probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite
surfers in your shot.


...and that makes for a nice abstractish line in the sky.


At the time I was most interested in the curve in the line caused by
the wind shear.


No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG.

Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small?


I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because
Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data.


Nope! All the EXIF data was complete DB removed nothing. Here is what I got
after downloading your 100% crop.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vui0lq9vhhjghr0/screenshot_338.jpg?


Here is what I got when I tried to access the EXIF of the Dropbox
image using Firefox.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy1csuvrm2s8k8k/Kite.jpg?dl=0
Normally I get the full EXIF.


I considered your target to be the kite, and that was resolved so small in
both the original, and the 100% crop that determining sharpness of that kite
image to be near impossible. Therefore my thought that no amount of post
processing would have made a difference.


And still it was sharp.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #28  
Old July 14th 18, 03:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,584
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:52:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...O/i-f5k8TQh.jp
g

Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...O/i-xJ9w5gP.jp
g

... and that's interesting ... umm.

...and what exactly did you find interesting?
I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is
soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago
when I first got my D300
https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0
and here is a 100% crop of the same image.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0

Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway
comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot.

Postage stamp?


I was refering to the kite, which is less than postage stamp size regardless
of your crop.


I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the image as a
whole.


The microscopic kite was lost in that sea of blue.

I picked the kite image as as a convenient example, as the string was
a single sharply delineated object so narrow that any blurring of the
edges would be immediately visible. I included the full image only to
show where 100% crop came from. The point I was trying to make was
that the unprocessed kite image seemed to be sharper than top of the
sail in your image.


....er, OK.

That is an artifact of Dropbox.


I don’t seem to get DB artifacts which shrink kites. Strangely enough I
don’t get any DB introduced artifacts of any type.

You should be able to down load the file.


Yup!

When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is
180 x 165.


Strange? Your original downloads as a 6MB, 2848x4288 @ 300dpi, jpg.
Your 100% crop downloads from DB as a 656KB, 1056x1152 @ 300 dpi jpg.

ISO200, f/11, 1/400, 16-85mm



Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg

That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect
that has been caused by highspeed flutter.

...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so
here is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg

I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve
the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was
probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite
surfers in your shot.


...and that makes for a nice abstractish line in the sky.


At the time I was most interested in the curve in the line caused by
the wind shear.


....and a pleasing curve it was.


No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG.

Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small?

I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because
Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data.


Nope! All the EXIF data was complete DB removed nothing. Here is what I got
after downloading your 100% crop.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vui0lq9vhhjghr0/screenshot_338.jpg?


Here is what I got when I tried to access the EXIF of the Dropbox
image using Firefox.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy1csuvrm2s8k8k/Kite.jpg?dl=0
Normally I get the full EXIF.


Interesting. That must be a Firefox/Mozilla thing DB has removed nothing, and
even you have been able to get full EXIF at some time or another. I had no
problem using Safari on my Mac.

Just for the Hell of it I also checked the full EXIF
usinghttp://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi and it seems that processed, or not
your image shows a definging correction applied:
Defringe Purple Hue Lo: 30
Defringe Purple Hue Hi: 70
Defringe Green Hue Lo: 40
Defringe Green Hue Hi: 40

Then I guess there was sharpening applied in-camera to show:
Sharpen Radius: +1.0
Sharpen Detail: 25
Sharpen Edge Masking: 0
Sharpness: 40

Color Noise Reduction: 25


I considered your target to be the kite, and that was resolved so small in
both the original, and the 100% crop that determining sharpness of that kite
image to be near impossible. Therefore my thought that no amount of post
processing would have made a difference.


And still it was sharp.


The line was sharp, the kite was something less than sharp.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #29  
Old July 16th 18, 09:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,469
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:47:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

Just for the Hell of it I also checked the full EXIF
usinghttp://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi and it seems that processed, or not
your image shows a definging correction applied:
Defringe Purple Hue Lo: 30
Defringe Purple Hue Hi: 70
Defringe Green Hue Lo: 40
Defringe Green Hue Hi: 40

Then I guess there was sharpening applied in-camera to show:
Sharpen Radius: +1.0
Sharpen Detail: 25
Sharpen Edge Masking: 0
Sharpness: 40

Color Noise Reduction: 25


That's interesting. Can these be the camera default settings? I'm not
concious of ever changing them in the camera and I don't think I ever
bothered to check the EXIFs of the time to see what the camera was
doing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PSE6: Work-around when Help doesn't work under Windows John Navas[_2_] Digital Photography 3 January 14th 08 11:04 PM
400mm IS Eric Miller Digital Photography 7 January 26th 06 01:14 AM
400mm IS Eric Miller 35mm Photo Equipment 7 January 26th 06 01:14 AM
400mm for 10D b4 Digital Photography 8 October 12th 04 01:01 AM
400mm AF-S $6,200.00 Pixuretakr 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 December 2nd 03 09:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.