Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 02:33:07 AM 
Started by ErikKaffehr - Last post by Chris Livsey
Beautiful image. I like the way the sun stars off each canopy.


Thank you Edmund, I did have an angle choice and the reflections chose this one for me, it was the engineers I was after, just that touch of human interest, for once I'm pretty happy with a shot, usually they are better in my head.

 on: Today at 02:19:53 AM 
Started by peterv - Last post by ErikKaffehr

Yes I agree. But, you buy this very well corrected lens for 6k$ and have no option to focus it correctly.

- AF has limitations
- Focusing on view screen is often difficult. Some can do it admirably well. I use 9X magnification on my Hasselblad V and accurate focus is still hit or miss. Good enough focus is something different.
- No live view AF

Just to say, I have no problems with AF on my Sonys the way I shoot, but when I shoot other stuff like a group of people I often miss AF. Grave focusing problems are probable caused by non optimal usage, but critical focus is not a given with AF and all systems are not created equal.

Best regards


  I would like to compliment you on the superb layering in the setup of this image.
  The lighting and the styling are perfectly complementary. Bravo.
  Yes, in your hands the Leica draws well.

  I think the guy who compared AF to AE was the one who nailed it - we admit every AE system has limitations and quirks, yes shots get wrecked, and we learnt to check histograms. In the same way we should  learn to deal with the quirks of AF, and just get on with our lives.

 on: Today at 02:03:22 AM 
Started by hughmcintyre - Last post by hughmcintyre
I am 100-200 films into scanning an archive of 35mm and 6x6 negatives with a Nikon Coolscan 8000, but the scanner needs repair because of broken stage positioning.  When it works it's still OK, although somewhat slow at about 1-1.5 35mm films per day when batch scanning, and the repair cost from Nikon may not be much different from a new Epson V850 (or V800).

In addition, the LS8000 is Firewire which means keeping around an old, unsupported, and power-hungry MacPro1,1 for 2-3 years to finish the scans Sad

So are there people who have used both the LS8000 (or 4000/5000) and Epson V850 who can comment on some of the tradeoffs:

- What relative quality will I get from the Epson?  The photos will mostly be viewed on a high resolution computer display (with some cropping sometimes), probably not printed out.

- Will the Epson be noticeably faster or slower when bulk scanning films?  Enough to make this a compelling decision?  I am using fine mode with VueScan for the Nikon to avoid banding (1 scan line at a time) so each 2*4 or 2*6 pair of 35mm film strips takes 1.5-2 hours on the Nikon.  I would probably use 4000-6400 DPI, digital ICE, and other fine modes with Epson, but with a faster computer.

- How well does the focusing work in practice for the Epson?  Once I have adjusted the feet for 1 film, is this fire-and-forget in terms of being in focus for other films, or do I need to re-check for each film?  For the Nikon I can just say "autofocus, always".

- Any comments on quality of results with SilverFast (with/without LE) versus VueScan?  Will SilverFast improvements counteract and Epson/Nikon hardware differences when compared to VueScan on the Nikon (or vice versa)?  In particular when batch scanning and importing into Lightroom, not color adjusting each negative when scanning.

- Finally, how good (or not) is SilverFast at auto-detecting 6x6 film positions on the V850.  This is one of the major issues with VueScan scanning 6x6 on the Nikon Sad

Thanks! - Hugh

 on: Today at 01:51:45 AM 
Started by ctz - Last post by ctz
Did you try with the A7rII? AF speed is supposed to be much better than with the older cameras.

Best regards

Yes, with an A7R2 it's the only one Sony I have (the latest camera, latest software on metabones IV). AF it's terrible. Kind of Minolta AF in the late eighties. Even with a small and fast lens as EF50/1.4. Not usable.

 on: Today at 01:48:03 AM 
Started by John Camp - Last post by John Camp
As Paulo said, "It depends on what you shoot."
My point was that with "film thinking," we really did need big fast lenses simply to deal with the limitations of film. They came with certain advantages, as well -- we all carried a lens with shallow DOF because we needed the speed, even if DOF wasn't a particular worry. I may be mis-remembering, but it seems like when I bought a new Pentax Spotmatic at an Army PX in 1968, the standard lens sold with the body was a 50mm f1.8. With my current cameras, an f4 would be fine. And probably very small. I guess I'm wondering if people have the "lens kit" mind set from film, without considering the huge changes that camera with digital. When I first started getting serious about photography, way back when, most people shot black and white, and a fairly standard "lens kit" consisted of 35, 50 and 135mm lenses, and sophisticates carried an 85mm or 105mm for portraits. By the time I finished my run with film, I was carrying the three Nikon f2.8 zooms, a 60 macro and a 300, always with two bodies and a tripod, and I'd often have a huge sun shade over my shoulder. (I was doing a lot of archaeological photography in the Middle East and all those lenses had specific uses.) The 35mm film shots were excellent for even double-truck repro in magazines (although archaeological magazines are not Vogue.) But, where I was working was so hot and rotten and dusty that I'd lose weight every day just lugging that equipment around a desert dig site. Now, I'd carry two m4/3 bodies, three zooms and a macro, and a lighter tripod, and probably 1/4 the weight -- and still get excellent repro in archaeological magazines.

To go to the guitar analogy, I think that some people might have a whole panoply of instruments -- nylon and steel string acoustics, a Strat, a Tele and a Les Paul and maybe a 335, and even a resonator. But I think the better you get, maybe the narrower you get -- you wind up with a "curated" set of similar guitars for your particular interests. I think digital, and especially the variety of "good enough" quality in a wide range of cameras and sensors, really gives us a chance to curate our systems.

 on: Today at 01:35:04 AM 
Started by ctz - Last post by ErikKaffehr
Did you try with the A7rII? AF speed is supposed to be much better than with the older cameras.

Best regards

I didn't knew this trick.
Off topic, i tried metabones (IV) on my Canon lenses and I was disappointed about AF speed.

 on: Today at 01:34:56 AM 
Started by Quentin - Last post by adrian tyler
I stand by my opinion that the color discrimination in the greens of the A7RII has been traded for higher ISO.
But a filter might help.


bear in mid edmund that the test shot was made in the most brutal spanish summer sunlight at 1000m in the toledan mountains, the heat was stifling... that intense direct sunlight tends to flatten everything & turn greens to yellow... i'm not saying your observation is wrong but it'd be worth further tests in more natural light.

i can't compare to the live view on the a7r, but the "focus magnifier," especially at higher asa's on both the a7ii and a7rii are just adequate, slightly better than the d800e, it does the job, but by no means great.

 on: Today at 01:25:47 AM 
Started by Jann Lipka - Last post by Jann Lipka
I want to take advantage of faster transfer rates for USB3
( tethering works  fine for me with USB2 extension cable )

I bought  generic  USB 3 extension cable 5 m put extra power adapter in it
( as recommended ) nut no go on my most recent MAC ( yosemite )
any suggestions for USB 3 extension roughly 3 - 5 m  cable that works
( I use original Canon USB 3 connector  cable  close to the camera )

 on: Today at 12:46:25 AM 
Started by keithcooper - Last post by ErikKaffehr

What I think Keith has noted is that the higher resolution images actually have more detail, clearly observable with a loupe or using a macro lens. On the other hand it seems that the extra detail doesn't matter to viewers. On the other hand viewers can pick up thinks like differences in global contrast and small differences in composition.

This is pretty much what I have seen comparing prints in A2 size from my 24 MP and 39 MP cameras. More detail in print but little perceived difference.

My guess is that we see is that the human vision is most sensitive to medium frequency detail. The eye can resolve fine detail but medium frequencies will dominate perception, see linked figure from Wikipedia. So if we discuss detail visible at 360PPI at 25 cm, the contrast sensivity of vision is several magnitudes below maximum. To me that indicates that we should focus our sharpening efforts more on medium frequencies than actual pixel detail.

What I have observed that 12 MP was pretty good enough for A2 size prints. At my recent exhibition I had a mix of 12 MP and 24 MP images, reflecting the state of shooting irons in my possession at that time. On most images 12 or 24 MP mattered little. Could be that 24 MP or higher would make a noticable difference.

But, on one images there were a lot "dust specs". I realised that those were birds and not dust, but 12 MP was not enough to resolve them. Now, 24 MP may not have been able to resolve them either, that is just a 41% increase in resolution.

The impression I got was that the visitors placed that image #2 of all pictures at the exhibition.

This was #1:

Best regards
Hi Alan,

Do note that the prints IIRC were made at 300 PPI, and maybe output sharpening was (therefore) not as good as is possible when one does have that extra, 4x as much, detail at 600 PPI to sharpen with. Of course relatively casual viewers will look more at the image itself than the technical quality of it. They will subconsciously 'experience' a difference but will not be able to put that into words.

It's a burden I happily carry with me all my life, but technical image quality is important to me because, besides showing attention for detail in preparing the image (and thus taking the viewer serious by not holding back),  it does work on the subconscious observation. Material texture adds 'life' to the subjects we image, and if done well, it's not readily noticeable but it's present, as if subjects become more tactile, but not harsh.

I remember when I did my exams for my Photographers license (was mandatory for settling as a professional photographer many moons ago), and one of the examiners who had to judge my assignments looked at my assignment 'glass'. I had shot many different subjects with glass as the main motif, but finally settled for one beautiful stained glass window. The examiner looked at the large print that I had submitted and asked me with which view camera I had taken the image. He then turned over the printed image with my negative attached to the back in a sleeve, looked at the tiny 35mm negative, and said: "Okay, next assignment ...".


 on: Today at 12:45:52 AM 
Started by wildlightphoto - Last post by wildlightphoto
Excersizing my new-to-me equipment with a familiar subject, the Anna's Hummingbirds in my yard.  This is a juvenile male who has 'taken over' the feeder, at least until the migrant Rufous Hummingbirds show up.

equipment: Sony (kicks butt) a7II with Canon FD 500mm f/4.5 L

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »