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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
Le 14/04/14 15:31, nospam a écrit :
Nospam mentions shallow depth of field but he misses the point that sometimes shallow depth of field is exactly what one wants. which you can easily get if that's what you want, and is in fact much easier on a full frame camera than on 4/3rds. With the same lens ? Hahahaha. Great joke. Take a shot at FF , crop it. Now you have APS-C or 3/4, whatever. Does it change the DOF ? But it is easier to get on the FF camera because you get more choice of lenses made for FF, with a wide aperture hence a shallower DOF. Nothing prevent you from using them with a smaller sensor if you feel so inclined. Noëlle Adam |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote: Superwide apertures help to compose and focus when it's really dark. i've never had a problem, even with f/4 lenses. Try in the dark, then, you will see the difference between 1,4 and 4. i have. the trick is use both eyes. maybe if you pixel peep, but normally, it's not noticeable. http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/.../Photography/D 4S_iso_02.jpg Sure, I have only real life experience. Where buying a D4s and having plenty light and unfiltered faith on nikon ads is not an option. it's just one of many examples. nikon d7000 @ iso 3200 http://www.yophotographer.com/page.php?t=12055 pentax k5 @ iso 3200 http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/93...3/pentax-k5--3 200-ultegra fuji x100 @ iso 6400 http://coffeegeek.tumblr.com/post/61...rain-why-the-f uji-x100-is-a-landmark canon 5d @ iso 3200 (and given the exposure, was very dim) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/25602011 all very impressive, given the isos involved. mix in a little noise reduction in lightroom (or photoshop), and you can go a bit faster too. Real life situation are such that most of the time, the need for high iso occurs within darkness, when the light is both scarce and uneven. Shooting high speed with high iso and plenty even light is a laboraty situation. try theatre photography, where high iso is *really* useful. It is what I do. In a rather small, intimate theater where the lights are usually played low. Sometimes very low. then you know how useful high iso can be. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote: Nospam mentions shallow depth of field but he misses the point that sometimes shallow depth of field is exactly what one wants. which you can easily get if that's what you want, and is in fact much easier on a full frame camera than on 4/3rds. With the same lens ? Hahahaha. Great joke. Take a shot at FF , crop it. Now you have APS-C or 3/4, whatever. Does it change the DOF ? actually it does, because you have to enlarge the result more. however, that's an invalid comparison. the comparison to make is between a crop and full frame sensor with the same number of pixels and using the same equivalent focal length, which will produce the same composition in the image. the smaller the sensor, the wider the aperture has to be to match a given image quality and depth of field, but the problem you run into is that the faster lenses don't exist for the smaller sensors. for example, you can get an f/1.4 lens on full frame, but to duplicate that on crop, you would need an f/1.0 (not available, other than obscure lenses that are impossible to actually find) and an f/0.7 on 4/3rds (definitely not available). that is why it's easier on full frame. But it is easier to get on the FF camera because you get more choice of lenses made for FF, with a wide aperture hence a shallower DOF. Nothing prevent you from using them with a smaller sensor if you feel so inclined. nope. you have a much wider choice of lenses for crop sensor cameras because both full frame and crop lenses will work on a crop sensor camera, whereas on a full frame camera, you are limited to full frame lenses. you could set the camera to crop mode for crop lenses but then you're losing the advantages of having a full frame sensor. at that point, you have a crop sensor camera, with its wider selection of lenses. there are a few crop sensor lenses that might cover a full frame at certain focal lengths, but those are an exception and the quality at the edges isn't all that wonderful when doing so. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
Le 14/04/14 16:05, nospam a écrit :
which you can easily get if that's what you want, and is in fact much easier on a full frame camera than on 4/3rds. With the same lens ? Hahahaha. Great joke. Take a shot at FF , crop it. Now you have APS-C or 3/4, whatever. Does it change the DOF ? actually it does, because you have to enlarge the result more. No, it doesnt change the DOF. It may change the definition, but not the DOF. Sorry, I still beleive in physics. Noëlle Adam |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
Le 14/04/14 16:05, nospam a écrit :
then you know how useful high iso can be. Together with fast lenses, yes. Not instead. Just like stabilisation is NOT a substitute for fast lenses, if your subject is moving. Not saying that stabilisation is not a nice thing to have. Noëlle Adam |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:30:13 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Martin Brown wrote: The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go, it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful. that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses. 1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery. There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock. edge case, and only the low end cameras have problems in low light. the mid and high end cameras can focus in rather dim lightning conditions. Doesn't work at all for astrophotography. astrophotography is definitely an edge case. there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a flash. Or in sports stadiums at night. those are well lit if there's a game. if not, then what's there to photograph? http://easyrack.org/images/football_field_lighting.jpg http://www.citruscollege.edu/Athleti...llstadium1.jpg http://www.fillmoregazette.com/files...-panoramic.jpg http://img.weiku.com/waterpicture/20...462098_1. jpg I got more if you want them. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a flash. Or in sports stadiums at night. those are well lit if there's a game. if not, then what's there to photograph? http://easyrack.org/images/football_field_lighting.jpg http://www.citruscollege.edu/Athleti.../2009/football stadium1.jpg http://www.fillmoregazette.com/files...eld-lights-pan oramic.jpg http://img.weiku.com/waterpicture/20...462098_1. jpg I got more if you want them. like i said, what's there to photograph? if an empty ball field is your thing, that's great but it isn't for me. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote: then you know how useful high iso can be. Together with fast lenses, yes. Not instead. yes instead. when i shot theatre with film, i *had* to have fast glass because film didn't go much past 800 and it wasn't particularly good at that speed. with digital, things are just starting to get warmed up at iso 1600 or 3200, and 6400 is certainly usable in most cases, which means an f/4 lens is not a handicap at all. f/2.8 is nice to have but it's certainly not critical. Just like stabilisation is NOT a substitute for fast lenses, if your subject is moving. different issue. stabilization helps camera shake and opens up a world of new opportunities in how slow you can hand hold a camera. however, it won't help if the subject is moving, although it will if you pan to follow the subject. Not saying that stabilisation is not a nice thing to have. it's great to have. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote: which you can easily get if that's what you want, and is in fact much easier on a full frame camera than on 4/3rds. With the same lens ? Hahahaha. Great joke. Take a shot at FF , crop it. Now you have APS-C or 3/4, whatever. Does it change the DOF ? actually it does, because you have to enlarge the result more. No, it doesnt change the DOF. It may change the definition, but not the DOF. it does, because depth of field is based on the circle of confusion, which if you enlarge the photo, will be bigger. Sorry, I still beleive in physics. then you might want to revisit it. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users
On 4/14/2014 5:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:30:13 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Martin Brown wrote: The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go, it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful. that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses. 1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery. There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock. edge case, and only the low end cameras have problems in low light. the mid and high end cameras can focus in rather dim lightning conditions. Doesn't work at all for astrophotography. astrophotography is definitely an edge case. there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a flash. Or in sports stadiums at night. those are well lit if there's a game. if not, then what's there to photograph? http://easyrack.org/images/football_field_lighting.jpg http://www.citruscollege.edu/Athleti...llstadium1.jpg http://www.fillmoregazette.com/files...-panoramic.jpg http://img.weiku.com/waterpicture/20...462098_1. jpg I got more if you want them. I was going to post some of my high ISO images, but then I took this course. http://myjetpack.tumblr.com/image/80457780970 -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More speculative camera tech, pt. II | Martin Brown | Digital Photography | 1 | October 9th 13 02:55 PM |
Linhof Tech. 70 and/or Tech. IV differences | Alex Tutubalin | Large Format Photography Equipment | 5 | January 16th 04 07:49 AM |
FA: Omega Rapid M (medium format camera) | Angelo P. | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 31st 03 10:38 PM |
FS: Omega Rapid M (medium format camera); us$ 280 | Angelo P. | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 16th 03 12:18 PM |
FS: Omega Rapid M (medium format camera) | Angelo P. | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 8th 03 08:19 PM |