Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Zooms or primes  (Read 13264 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9758
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2013, 06:00:27 AM »

Why stitch 36 mpix when you can stitch 80 mpix! :)
Marc

Hum... price, live view, weight, compactness, battery life, weatherproofness, long lenses, shorter exposures at equal DoF, much better high iso enables reasonnably short exposures in dusk/dawn situations,...

Besides that, no particular reasons. :)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

jonathanlung

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2013, 02:21:17 PM »

The D4x + stitching will probably enable us to see at molecular level. Crystallographic analysis on screen should become a breeze...

Diffraction might pose a bit of a problem. We'll need to upgrade to Nikon's pico crystal coated lens lineup.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2013, 02:43:18 PM »

Hi,

Diffraction is no problem if you reduce wave length and wear a radiation protection shield. You would definitively not subject yourself voluntarily to the kind of radiation used for X-ray crystallography.

Best regards
Erik

Diffraction might pose a bit of a problem. We'll need to upgrade to Nikon's pico crystal coated lens lineup.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #64 on: April 11, 2013, 10:18:12 AM »

Having recently received the Nikkor AF-S 85/1.8 G, I took a few test shots today, comparing it with my Nikkor 24-120 zoom at 85mm. The resolution in the centre is not significantly sharper. The big surprise is the resolution at the borders.

Focussing on a target at some distance, as in a landscape, I was amazed to find how much sharper the Nikkor 85mm prime is at the borders, at full aperture of F1.8, compared with the zoom at its maximum aperture of F4. I didn't expect this. I imagined that the additional shallowness of DoF at F1.8, compared with F4, might reduce resolution at the borders to a degree that would approximately equal the lower resolution of the zoom at the borders at F4. Not so by a long shot. Refer attached 100% crop of the extreme right side border.
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #65 on: April 11, 2013, 10:51:49 AM »

some serious sharpening going on there! :o  didn't realise the sliders went that far to the right.
i bet the differences are even more pronounced out of the camera.
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1187
    • Quentin on Facebook
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #66 on: April 11, 2013, 11:49:53 AM »

Medium format is, I would suggest, redundant if the aim is stitching.  If you need even more detail that can be obtained using, say, a D800/E and standard-ish lens for some unusual reason, choose a longer focal length and shoot more frames.  Medium format brings nothing extra to the party, other than weight, cost and inconvenience.  

As I can and do take impeccably detailed stitched panoramas with my Sigma DP2M, Nodal Ninja III and compact tripod that stitch perfectly, even a D800 is redundant for stitching in most cases.

Of course our experiences may vary  ;D
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013, 2014 & 2015

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #67 on: April 11, 2013, 08:55:53 PM »

some serious sharpening going on there! :o  didn't realise the sliders went that far to the right.
i bet the differences are even more pronounced out of the camera.

Both images were sharpened by exactly the same degree in ACR, consistent with my impartial and objective methodology, without fear or favour.  ;D

Following are the mushy images reconverted without sharpening, although I did apply an equal degree of 'clarity' to both images in ACR.
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2013, 06:32:21 PM »

Ah I can see now ;D  they look more natural IMHO. A big difference in the corner crops.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #69 on: April 13, 2013, 12:26:54 AM »

Hi,

Moving changes perspective. What I normally do is to walk around until I get the view I want. That means I want to include that tree top,  that stone, leave out that bush and have that reflection in that place. When I found the spot, I decide on the lens. This is normally the first time I look in the viewfinder.

I have worked with primes a long time and that was no problem. But now days I feel the zooms have the quality I need, when stopped down, and also deliver the flexibility I like.

Best regards
Erik


Down at the cheapest end of the range; it still seems like the cheapest prime lens for Sony α APS-C, are obviously better at the border and corners than the cheapest zoom lens.

Some of the advantages of either primes or zooms are very personal, and specific to what we're doing badly when we photograph.

One of the things I would do was zoom in and out searching for some perfect framing, instead of just taking the photo! With a prime I take the photo (and then move the frame a bit and take another, and then move my feet a bit...) Someone else might walk around with a prime lens searching for some perfect framing, instead of taking the photo.

Similarly cheap prime lens are so lightweight that I hold the camera in my hand for hours, and that seems to mean I put the camera to my eye and take the photo. Again, that's a fix to a problem someone else might not experience.

urbanpicasso

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
    • davidbogdan/urbanpicassostudios
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #70 on: April 13, 2013, 08:50:41 AM »

Hi,

Moving changes perspective. What I normally do is to walk around until I get the view I want. That means I want to include that tree top,  that stone, leave out that bush and have that reflection in that place. When I found the spot, I decide on the lens. This is normally the first time I look in the viewfinder.

I have worked with primes a long time and that was no problem. But now days I feel the zooms have the quality I need, when stopped down, and also deliver the flexibility I like.

Best regards
Erik



+1... My feelings exactly.  While there are times I want the utmost corner to corner sharpness, often, in general scenic and landscape situations I would prefer the zoom for the true scene as seen.
db
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380
Re: Zooms or primes
« Reply #71 on: April 13, 2013, 10:56:18 PM »

What is perhaps missing from this discussion is the usual advantage of IS or VR with zooms, which is sometimes missing with primes, unless one uses a sensor-stabilized camera, as Erik does.

Since most of my shots are taken without tripod, image stabilization is important for me. I'd be very reluctant to buy a 400mm prime without IS or VR, even if it were unusually sharp, lightweight and low cost. The Nikkor 85/F1.8 doesn't boast VR, and that's a disadvantage, but not so serious a disadvantage as would be the case with a longer focal length.

Taking some more shots in bright sunlight today, comparing the prime with the zoom, this disadvantage became apparent. A 1/125th with the zoom at F11 and ISO 100 would have been sufficient, but not with the prime. To compare resolution fairly, I used ISO 400 and 1/500th for both shots, hand-held.

Now, what's interesting is that even at F11 the prime seems a tad sharper, at least to my 70-year-old eyes when viewing a 100% crop on my HD monitor.

Of course, such differences are subtle and probably only of interest to connoisseurs of fine resolution.  ;)

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up