Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Michael's comment  (Read 8947 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Michael's comment
« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2009, 05:25:25 am »

Quote from: Misirlou
About 10 years ago, I tested my Hasselblad 500 with an 85 Planar against one of my mid '56 Rolleiflexes (Xenotar I believe). On a tripod, with the Hassy mirror locked up, I couldn't see any significant difference on Velvia between the two of them when shooting landscapes. Handheld, the Rollei shots usually looked sharper most of the time. I attributed that to its lack of a moving mirror. Clearly, the Hassy was more flexible due to lens interchangeability, but I learned from that experience that one needs to use the right tool for the right job. I suspect that a big sensor is a great thing for certain kinds of shooting, but probably doesn't offer a useful benefit in others. Gee, who would have thunk?



And you were not mistaken.

I only had the cheap Rollei T with a 75mm Tessar and thought I had won the lottery when I first went out with the brand new 500C and its 2.8/80. Unfortunately, I immediately discovered that unlike with Nikon, that huge bouncing mirror was a real image killer. From then on it lived on a tripod. Oh, another thing: those plasic lens caps used to fall off as soon as you tilted the camera downwards. In fact, with the 50mm I had to put a rubber band on the lens to slip the cap over so it wouldn't fall off. But, in a studio with flash, great optical performance! Unfortunately, the Rollei was traded in against the 'blad...

Rob C

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Michael's comment
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2009, 05:29:08 am »

Quote from: DFAllyn
Stitched panos are wonderful for the scenes depicted in Bernard's images, but when shooting at elevations below tree-line one has the challenges of subject movement. I often wait for several minutes or much more, for breezes to die down so that I can "grab" a shot when the leaves have settled down. I have images which are the result of stitching (even with movement, which may be a creative enhancement), but stitching is not always a substitute for a single exposure.

There are simply different tools for different jobs, and these tools can be used to preform tasks outside of their "ideal realm" with modifications in technique or approach. To dismiss MF as being of no advantage is folly, but so would it be to dismiss any of the other available formats for various tasks. The key is to learn how to extract the best from each, as the comments here have indicated the value of solid support, etc. for the higher resolution cameras.

Yes, totally true. But the key point I was trying to make was not that panos were the solution to all problems, but that it is simply impossible to focus accurately any high resolution sensor without live view in many circumpstances.

The only image I had available to illustrate the point was a pano, but a single frame would have been just the same.

Cheers,
Bernard

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Michael's comment
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2009, 08:30:18 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
it is simply impossible to focus accurately any high resolution sensor without live view in many circumpstances.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's why god invented autofocus.  
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Michael's comment
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2009, 09:04:46 am »

Quote from: michael
That's why god invented autofocus.  

You must be either very forgiving or an atheist then. I expect better than AF from a godly entity.

Cheers,
Bernard

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Michael's comment
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2009, 10:31:36 am »

Quote from: michael
That's why god invented autofocus.  
Autofocus is indeed a godsend in many situations, but one must remember that it is not exact but depends on depth of field to allow for minor errors. This DPReview Thread discusses autofocus tolerances for Canon cameras, and gives an link to an excellent Doug Kerr article discussing the matter in more detail. The higher accuracy Canon spec says that the tolerance is within 1/3 of the depth of focus, using the Canon specified Circle of Confusion (COC) for determining the depth of focus. See the Doug Kerr article for a discussion of how depth of focus relates to depth of field and how the depth of focus relates to various standard depth of field charts, which use a rather liberal COC which is too large for demanding situations.

One should also remember that autofocus focuses on the plane of the focus sensor, which may not coincide exactly with the plane of the iamging sensor of the camera due to manufacturing tolerances. Lens tolerances also come into play and the more advanced DSLRs allow fine tuning specific for the lens.

The advantage of live view is that it determines focus in the plane of the CCD or CMOS sensor, not the autofocus sensor and allows viewing of the image at high magnification. With liveview one can check for focus using interference (Moire) patterns and an expensive apparatus such as LensAlign is not needed, as explained here.

My first experience with liveview was a revelation. I was attempting photomicrography using using my D3 attached to a Zeiss microscope using a 4x Planapochromat ojective, which has a very narrow depth of focus (unlike regular photography where wide angle lenses have a great depth of focus, depth of focus is least at low power in microscopy). In this setup, it is best to use live view with a program (Camera Control Pro 2) which allows viewing the live view on one's computer screen rather than on the LCD of the camera. I was able to obtain the best low power shots that I have ever been able to achieve.

A similar setup could be used for testing focus of regular lenses with an interference target as described in the above link. In the field, one would likely use the camera LCD as Bernard describes. Does the P65+ back allow liveview and fine tuning of autofocus?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 10:33:26 am by bjanes »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Michael's comment
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2009, 02:42:36 pm »

Hi,

My experience was essentially that:

KM Dimage 7D worked well on tripod and AS (Anti Shake)
Sony Alpha 100 did not work well on tripod and AS
Sony Alpha 700 did work well on tripod and AS
But Alpha 900 has issue with long lenses on tripod and AS

Would be nice if AS was included in preset. I have a preset for shooting on tripod, No AF, 2s timer with MLU, 100 ISO (I would love to add NO AS)

I'm shooting from 12mm to 800 mm, so I have pretty great range...

Erik

Quote from: pegelli
@ ErikKaffehr:

Interesting observation !

I think the advice for KM / Sony in body stabilization is to switch it "off" for tripod work. The explanations I have read are that the IS system is really tuned to "hand shake" characteristics and frequency, while it may actually hinder or degrade with the different (higher?) frequency you get when tripod mounted.

Is this in line with your observations as well? Would appreciate your insights.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

MarkKay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
    • http://markkayphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1305161
Michael's comment
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2009, 12:56:02 am »

To support your quote--
to paraphrase  Woody Allen
If there is a God, he is certainly an underachiever"


Quote from: BernardLanguillier
You must be either very forgiving or an atheist then. I expect better than AF from a godly entity.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Michael's comment
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2009, 01:37:35 am »

Quote from: MarkKay
To support your quote--
to paraphrase  Woody Allen
If there is a God, he is certainly an underachiever"

Much better put indeed.  

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Michael's comment
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2009, 02:04:43 am »

Quote from: MarkKay
To support your quote--
to paraphrase  Woody Allen
If there is a God, he is certainly an underachiever"

Whilst I agree with the atheistic sentiment, such a statement from Woody Allen of all people, is very transparent. His whole career is based on a comic role which emphasises underachievement and the comic relationships resulting from such underachievment.  The net result is, Woody Allen is an overachiever.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up