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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
D.Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2009 7:41 PM:
I agree entirely. That's why I use an 85mm F/1.4 for all portrait work and most of my wedding shots. 200 mm is simply too long. It's too long for portraits, too long for group shots and not long enough for candid portraiture. For a wedding photographer, I couldn't think of a worse lens to use than a 200 mm prime on anything less than a 6x9 CM Medium Format camera. I don't know where you got the notion you could "make a pano" for a wedding album. Maybe the same place you came up with the bull**** about photographers buying Nikon speedlites to use on their Canon DSLRs? Your "supposed" information is about as useful as a hole in a rubber boot. and here we have another example of a moron impersonating Dougie. Wait until the crap starts flying... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
Noons wrote:
D.Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2009 7:41 PM: I agree entirely. That's why I use an 85mm F/1.4 for all portrait work and most of my wedding shots. 200 mm is simply too long. It's too long for portraits, too long for group shots and not long enough for candid portraiture. For a wedding photographer, I couldn't think of a worse lens to use than a 200 mm prime on anything less than a 6x9 CM Medium Format camera. I don't know where you got the notion you could "make a pano" for a wedding album. Maybe the same place you came up with the bull**** about photographers buying Nikon speedlites to use on their Canon DSLRs? Your "supposed" information is about as useful as a hole in a rubber boot. and here we have another example of a moron impersonating Dougie. Wait until the crap starts flying... You better call the security guards in Doggy's Tangalooma resort home as the impersonator is using Doggy's computer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
"D.Mac" wrote in message ... 35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some less than others. I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp than I get with film and something I didn't expect. The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs than with Nikon which could possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias (de-focus) filter in the Canon's. The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya glass and oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma SD9 which uses an entirely different sensor system to either Canon or Nikon. My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor (due perhaps to the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later sharpening) or the lack of resolving power of modern day APS size lenses. Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely it would affect landscape shooters as much as group shooters? No official testing, but I get better results shooting "team" shots with the 5D then I ever got with film. Maybe you're seeing the image degradation that seems to occur when you simply don't have enough pixels and fine details seem to fall apart much quicker than film? With any luck, I'll be able to test a 5D II in a couple of weeks. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
"D.Mac" wrote in message ... 35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some less than others. I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp than I get with film and something I didn't expect. The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs than with Nikon which could possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias (de-focus) filter in the Canon's. The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya glass and oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma SD9 which uses an entirely different sensor system to either Canon or Nikon. My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor (due perhaps to the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later sharpening) or the lack of resolving power of modern day APS size lenses. Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely it would affect landscape shooters as much as group shooters? You didn't specify the circumstances-- obviously, if it's a candid group, you have to shoot it with what you got as it is. But if it's a posed group such as a reunion or wedding, I can't think why you would have to be back 100 feet. (You do say "people spread around", so I'm guessing that it's a candid group, rather than posed.) That the problem doesn't exist with a medium format 6x7 seems right. It's a matter of real estate. A 35mm frame (24x36mm) is 864 square millimeters, allowing each person to occupy up to 14 square millimeters. A 6x7 frame is 4200 square mm, allowing each person to occupy up to 70 square mm. Each square millimeter of film (or image sensor) is going to be able to resolve a certain amount of detail. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
bowser wrote: "D.Mac" wrote in message ... 35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some less than others. I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp than I get with film and something I didn't expect. The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs than with Nikon which could possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias (de-focus) filter in the Canon's. The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya glass and oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma SD9 which uses an entirely different sensor system to either Canon or Nikon. My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor (due perhaps to the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later sharpening) or the lack of resolving power of modern day APS size lenses. Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely it would affect landscape shooters as much as group shooters? No official testing, but I get better results shooting "team" shots with the 5D then I ever got with film. Maybe you're seeing the image degradation that seems to occur when you simply don't have enough pixels and fine details seem to fall apart much quicker than film? With any luck, I'll be able to test a 5D II in a couple of weeks. I've had excellent handheld 'pick out' results next to disastrous ones in sequential images taken a second apart with the same settings. My only explanation would be natural hand-tremor tolerances piled up together, or shifty focus. That 5D really allows for some impressive crop-room if your goal is small prints or Web display. -- Frank ess |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
^Tems^ wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2009 11:56 PM:
You better call the security guards in Doggy's Tangalooma resort home as the impersonator is using Doggy's computer Really? Proof? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to have
a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some less than others. I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp than I get with film and something I didn't expect. The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs than with Nikon which could possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias (de-focus) filter in the Canon's. The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya glass and oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma SD9 which uses an entirely different sensor system to either Canon or Nikon. My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor (due perhaps to the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later sharpening) or the lack of resolving power of modern day APS size lenses. Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely it would affect landscape shooters as much as group shooters? -- Visit my site: D-Mac.info My photos, Information about trolls and a little bit of fun too! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
D.Mac wrote:
Well Ken, the circumstances are casual to be sure but posed casual. There is an example of what I'm talking about in my latest magazine he http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/cherbon/index.htm Ummm... Doug? You're not *seriously* suggesting the image shown in the link above is in the category of "portrait" are you? Its a very nice "atmosphere" shot (and all that), but "portrait"? Be reasonable. Who wants to blow up a shot to 9 feet wide just to work out who is who? Another thing. Serious question - not a flame. Why is Gillian Hirst's name presented in quotation marks? You do know what that implies, yes? I had a local aluminum worker alter the ladder yesterday so I can now sit on top of it Do be careful Doug. No aluminium step-ladder is designed to sat on, on the top step. The penultimate step is the highest you should go. Check with OHS. I'm not sure the Brisbane photographic community could take it if you fell and were injured. (Just picture where the monopod might end up... :-( ) Cheers for now -- Jeff R. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
D.Mac wrote:
There is an example: http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/cherbon/index.htm Oh Crikey, I can't resist this one. Surfing around that link, Doug, I came across http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/wedport/index.htm , your very own Wedding'n'Portraits page. Dr Moiré just called. He wants to talk to you about copyright infringement (on the mens' coats), or at least to negotiate a royalty fee. -- Jeff R. :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A serious equipment question.
"Larry Thong" wrote in message m... D.Mac wrote: 35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some less than others. I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp than I get with film and something I didn't expect. This is why you shoot large groups with the 200/2 and make a pano. No pro photog will be stupid enough to use a WA lens in this application. I agree entirely. That's why I use an 85mm F/1.4 for all portrait work and most of my wedding shots. 200 mm is simply too long. It's too long for portraits, too long for group shots and not long enough for candid portraiture. For a wedding photographer, I couldn't think of a worse lens to use than a 200 mm prime on anything less than a 6x9 CM Medium Format camera. I don't know where you got the notion you could "make a pano" for a wedding album. Maybe the same place you came up with the bull**** about photographers buying Nikon speedlites to use on their Canon DSLRs? Your "supposed" information is about as useful as a hole in a rubber boot. -- Visit my site: D-Mac.info My photos, Information about trolls and a little bit of fun too! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wedding photography- equipment question please | Caesar[_2_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 16 | July 10th 07 10:26 PM |
Equipment Question | nk | Digital Photography | 2 | June 18th 06 12:33 AM |
FA: Darkroom equipment, Hot light, Studio equipment accessories | Gordon | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 7th 05 05:05 PM |
ULF equipment question | brook | Large Format Photography Equipment | 8 | February 1st 04 03:46 AM |
Question about selling equipment | Infocus | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | August 4th 03 01:53 PM |