Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: jgcox on October 25, 2015, 05:33:02 am
-
I'm looking at these now as I've upped my budget. What are some of the gem lenses for the Sony? I need an ultra wide zoom and a standard zoom. The 16-35 doesn't look that great and I can't fine good samples from the 24-70 f4.
For the cannon I like the 24-70 2.8 ii alot, but I can't seem to find any samples from the 24-70 f4 IS or the 24-120 ISL, how are those?
From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?
thanks,
John
-
Pretty much every canon lens you love will also work equally good on the Sony now.
As for native lenses, my Sony toting friend swears by the 55mm Zeiss and the 90 macro.
-
From what I've read the FE 24-70 is below average all around but the FE 16-35 is rather good 16-24 or so, but starts getting weaker as you get to 35.
-
I'm looking at these now as I've upped my budget. What are some of the gem lenses for the Sony? I need an ultra wide zoom and a standard zoom. The 16-35 doesn't look that great and I can't fine good samples from the 24-70 f4.
For the cannon I like the 24-70 2.8 ii alot, but I can't seem to find any samples from the 24-70 f4 IS or the 24-120 ISL, how are those?
From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?
thanks,
John
I find my 16-35 is really great right up until about 28mm...then starts to diminish. Why do you say the 16-35 doesn't look great?
-
From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?
I find the camera tends to overexpose when grabbing shots quickly on auto settings.
Fortunately there's a big physical exposure compensation dial in exactly the right place to over-ride.
I've found myself using the camera on program much more often than I'm accustomed to. Auto ISO with settable limits and program mode with settable minimum shutter speeds make for a very sensible working pattern- you can even tell the camera "obey the 1/focal length rule" as best you can or one or two stops faster or slower than the 1/focal length rule.
The only real issue is that the histogram displays are too small, and I think they are based on the JPEG rather than true RAW histogram.
RawDigger types can probably tell us if the camera is really over-exposing or not, but for my evolving workflow with Capture One I find dialling in a stop of underexposure on the EC dial pretty much gets me where I want to go, except when the sun is right in frame.
When I'm working at leisure with camera on a tripod of course manual everything and bracketing for true ETTR is still the way to go, but setting my preference for max ISO, min ISO, slowest shutter speed, IBIS stabilisation and a quick burst of the EC dial seems to work pretty well. I'd rather underexpose a tiny bit than blow the highlights, ETTR notwithstanding.
Its a nice way to work in rapidly changing light.
Cheers, Hywel
-
From what I've read the FE 24-70 is below average all around but the FE 16-35 is rather good 16-24 or so, but starts getting weaker as you get to 35.
The 24–70/4 is an average lens but no less than that. More than fine for professional work, as I can attest via the work of folks I know who earn money with it. Frankly…in front of a 40+mp sensor even the glorious Canon 24–70/2.8 comes off as pedestrian if OCD levels of pixel peeping are your thing.
As for the OP's question about highlights blowing…that's either incompetence if done unintentionally or creative choice if done on purpose. An online acquaintance of mine often goes for a high-key look, maxing out highlight values in the process.
-Dave-
-
From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?
A7R2 spot meter is set for ~3.7EV below clipping... you need to see not images, but raw files (they are images too of course, just w/o alterations that wreck the data)... the above mentioned rawdigger or even fastrawviewer ( www.fastrawviewer.com ) are your friends...
-
The A7rII is hard to beat as a sensor, but E-mount leaves a lot to be desired as a camera system - the lack of f/2.8 zooms is a huge handicap compared with the more-established EF and F-mount systems. At present, I'm using EF mount lenses via Metabones adapters, but the system will never live up to its full potential until equal lenses are available in E-mount.
At minimum, there needs to be a f/2.8 zoom trio covering 14-200mm (14-24, 24-70, 70-200), as well as a lightweight and heavyweight supertele zoom (similar to 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and 200-400 f/4) once the AF system matures to be able to handle fast action. Without that, E-mount is doomed to remain on the periphery, as a mix-and-match system used by size-conscious amateurs and oddball professionals, but without the big cohorts of event and wedding photographers.
-
The A7rII is hard to beat as a sensor, but E-mount leaves a lot to be desired as a camera system - the lack of f/2.8 zooms is a huge handicap compared with the more-established EF and F-mount systems. At present, I'm using EF mount lenses via Metabones adapters, but the system will never live up to its full potential until equal lenses are available in E-mount.
At minimum, there needs to be a f/2.8 zoom trio covering 14-200mm (14-24, 24-70, 70-200), as well as a lightweight and heavyweight supertele zoom (similar to 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and 200-400 f/4) once the AF system matures to be able to handle fast action. Without that, E-mount is doomed to remain on the periphery, as a mix-and-match system used by size-conscious amateurs and oddball professionals, but without the big cohorts of event and wedding photographers.
Sony does have a 75-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens. Seems like a commendably well made lens too. Also, do Minolta's 17-35-24-70 and 70-200 work on the Sony? I thought Sony is fully backwards compatible with Minolta A mount. These lenses are a little old, but just how much worse are they compare to the current Nikon and Canon offerings?
-
Sony does have a 75-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens. Seems like a commendably well made lens too. Also, do Minolta's 17-35-24-70 and 70-200 work on the Sony? I thought Sony is fully backwards compatible with Minolta A mount. These lenses are a little old, but just how much worse are they compare to the current Nikon and Canon offerings?
Those are all A-mount lenses which require an adapter for E-mount (same as Nikon/Canon lenses) and don't work as well as native E-mount lenses (not all focus modes available, etc.).
Also, optically, they're not quite up to the standard of the current crop of Canon/Nikon/Sigma lenses.
Sony has a partnership with Zeiss. They can make a new line of modern, top-of-the-line lenses.
-
Any particular reason to use zooms? If yes, and you want f2.8 zooms, Sony already stated that they are in the pipeline. If you can not wait, you can use Canon f2.8 zooms, or Sony A mount f2.8 zooms, they provide ample quality. I am not so sure how handling the combo would become; after all, the Canon 24-70 weighs around 1 kilo, perhaps you would need the camera grip for better balance?
If you are willing to look into primes, the quality is abundant, from Sony and from Zeiss (Batis and Loxia).
-
Any particular reason to use zooms? If yes, and you want f2.8 zooms, Sony already stated that they are in the pipeline. If you can not wait, you can use Canon f2.8 zooms, or Sony A mount f2.8 zooms, they provide ample quality.
No particular reason. I mostly use primes myself (Otus, Sigma Art and Canon TS-E), apart from at longer focal lengths (e.g. 70-200) where there is little IQ difference between primes and zooms, and certain, specific zooms which are top-of-the-line optically at their focal length (Nikon 14-24 was like this until recently). But a solid lens lineup requires fast zooms, and the f/2.8 zoom trio is almost irreplaceable for event/wedding photography, at least as the first shooter (a second shooter often uses primes for the more creative shots). No manufacturer's lens lineup is complete without them.
I am not so sure how handling the combo would become; after all, the Canon 24-70 weighs around 1 kilo, perhaps you would need the camera grip for better balance?
If you are willing to look into primes, the quality is abundant, from Sony and from Zeiss (Batis and Loxia).
I shoot almost exclusively on the tripod. And, even when I'm not, handling a 1kg zoom on a compact mirrorless body is just like handling a large, 1.5-2kg lens on an SLR - you hold it primarily by the lens, with the body hanging off the back.
Of course, when they release their 'pro level' E-mount body (hopefully packed full of battery and processor power), balance will be less of an issue.
-
Hi,
Why I was in the Dolomites with Hans Kruse's workshop we have tried out some of his Canon lenses on my A7RII with the Metabones. We did not check focus tracking just the ability to lock on. Focusing was pretty OK with the 16-35/4L and the 24-70/2.8LII, with the 100-400 LII it worked well up to 200 mm. Longer than 200 mm it did not find focus but went into slow hunting. Prefocusing manually it still snapped into focus.
My take is that a Canon shooter probably does better with a Canon 5Ds/5DsR unless he needs an EVF or the additional DR the Sony offers.
As a long time Minolta/Sony user I am not offended by the user interface, but I still feel some things don't make sense. I would like the user interface to be more "orthogonal" many limitations it sets don't make any sense.
I have essentially been very pleased with the camera and it is a great picture taking device and it works for me.
Best regards
Erik
Not with autofocus and not at speed and accuracy. At least with the A7sII as I tested a new metabones with the latest firmware and ef lenses, A mount lenses with Sony's adapters and E mounts.
The e mounts will track focus reasonably well, the rest won't.
If you shoot stuff that doesn't move, use any lens, but if it's alive then it's going to be e mount.
IMO
BC
-
Not with autofocus and not at speed and accuracy. At least with the A7sII as I tested a new metabones with the latest firmware and ef lenses, A mount lenses with Sony's adapters and E mounts.
The e mounts will track focus reasonably well, the rest won't.
If you shoot stuff that doesn't move, use any lens, but if it's alive then it's going to be e mount.
IMO
BC
J,
Whatever you say about the A7SII I will believe, but to speak about the R2 you really need to do the test on the R2. The A7sII and the A7R2 are different animals. The difference is not only the processors, it's those special focus sensels embedded in the main sensor which make the phase detect work.
Edmund
-
Two links to 'adapted' lens performance from Brian Smith (Sony guru)
SONY A7RII CANON EF SMART ADAPTER TESTS
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/
SONY A-MOUNT LENSES ON SONY A7RII
http://briansmith.com/sony-a-mount-lens-sony-a7rii-guide/
-
Not with autofocus and not at speed and accuracy. At least with the A7sII as I tested a new metabones with the latest firmware and ef lenses, A mount lenses with Sony's adapters and E mounts.
The e mounts will track focus reasonably well, the rest won't.
If you shoot stuff that doesn't move, use any lens, but if it's alive then it's going to be e mount.
IMO
BC
As others have mentioned the A7S2 doesn't have the same phase detection focusing subsystem as the A7R2. The S2 will be substantially slower or completely unusable with longer lenses.
I had a friends Canon 70-200 2.8 L2 on my A7R2 a couple days ago with the Metabones IV and .45 firmware and it was continuous tracking runners and bikers across the river from me just fine. That said you had to be careful and be close to in focus initially you don't want it to hunt, way to slow to reacquire focus. Focus limiter was certainly helpful.
-
Hi,
It is a 70-400/4-5.6 lens and it is pretty good at the short end. The corresponding Canon lenses are certainly better, but the 70-400/4-5.6G is sort of OK. many older Minolta lenses are OK but probably not great.
Personally, I would prefer a set of well working f/4 zooms over f/2.8. Large aperture lenses are big. The 24-70/4 offering from Sony is a bit mediocre AFAIK. I use it with the 24-70/2.8 ZA, which works remarkably well in the 24-60 mm range. But I would speculate the Canon 24-70/2.8 LII is a better lens. The 16-35/4 is said to be very good, but I would again guess the Canon 16-35/4L is a better (and cheaper) lens.
Getting back to f/2.8 of f/4 zooms, I feel that the A7rII works decently well at high ISOs and having image stabilisation is quite helpful. Shooting sports is a different thing, but I don't think fast moving action is the great strength of the A7 series anyway.
Best regards
Erik
Sony does have a 75-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens. Seems like a commendably well made lens too. Also, do Minolta's 17-35-24-70 and 70-200 work on the Sony? I thought Sony is fully backwards compatible with Minolta A mount. These lenses are a little old, but just how much worse are they compare to the current Nikon and Canon offerings?
-
For my personal use with DSLRs, I sold my f/2.8 zooms a long time ago in favor of f/4s. The faster lenses were a necessity back in the days of limited ISOs, but that is hardly the case with any modern body. Also, the subject isolation between f/2.8 and f/4 isn't that much, especially at longer focal lengths. I might be giving up some build quality and bragging rights with the slower lenses, but I'd gladly do that for the sake of the size and weight savings. I can't see too many genuine use cases for an f/2.8 zoom except for teleconverter use.
The problem that I see with the Sony f/4 lenses are that they seem to be not on par with the Canikon offerings. Once they update these, they should have very competent offerings for most people.
-
Hi,
Why I was in the Dolomites with Hans Kruse's workshop we have tried out some of his Canon lenses on my A7RII with the Metabones. We did not check focus tracking just the ability to lock on. Focusing was pretty OK with the 16-35/4L and the 24-70/2.8LII, with the 100-400 LII it worked well up to 200 mm. Longer than 200 mm it did not find focus but went into slow hunting. Prefocusing manually it still snapped into focus.
My take is that a Canon shooter probably does better with a Canon 5Ds/5DsR unless he needs an EVF or the additional DR the Sony offers.
As a long time Minolta/Sony user I am not offended by the user interface, but I still feel some things don't make sense. I would like the user interface to be more "orthogonal" many limitations it sets don't make any sense.
I have essentially been very pleased with the camera and it is a great picture taking device and it works for me.
Best regards
Erik
I tried Erik's A7R II for a short while on both the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II. My observation was that AF was considerably slower on the A7R II compared to the 5Ds R. The 5Ds R focussed instantly on both lenses. Especially from really out of focus it snaps in immediately. The A7R II was ok on the 24-70 for landscapes, but I'm not sure it would be ok for my way of shooting portraits. The 100-400 was an entirely different matter. The AF did not work well on longer distances for longer focal lengths like over 200mm. It would focus for shorter distances all the way to 400mm. As far as I know there is a newer firmware release for the Metabones adapter that should focus better.
The EVF on the A7R II was not my taste and would much prefer the OVF on the Canon. I prefer an uncluttered VF that is bright and clear and the 5Ds R has that.
Regarding weight of lenses, I sold my f/2.8 70-200 lenses and now only use the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens which is excellent and is light at about 800 grams. On the Canon I use the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS which is excellent, but not quite the biting sharpness of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens. This lens weighs 800 grams and the f/4 is 600 grams so not much of a difference.
Regarding the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens my observation is that my copy is in for repair at the moment since it had an unsharpness in the right hand side. The lens I have on loan via CPS also has a slight softness in the right hand side, so I'm waiting to see if the repaired lens has the weakness still of if it is a general thing with this lens.
Regarding the A7R II versus the 5Ds R, I would say that the Canon is a very fine example of DSLR design and has few defects in design and use. The well known lesser DR is for my landscape shooting only an issue in very early mornings with strong light from the sky and a very dark landscape and where the desire is to tone map it such that the deep shadows in the landscape will contain detail. The same applies for sunsets. For any other type of landscape shooting I have not found an issue with DR. So for the cases where DR is less than desired (which again depends on taste for post processing) I bracket and blend two (or perhaps 3) exposures using the HDR function in Lightroom. This works well and basically removes the DR issue for this camera (in my opinion) for landscape shooting.
So for choosing between the two cameras, if the use case is predominantly Canon lenses with auto focus, I my choice would be the Canon. If flexibility is needed to use many different lenses with adapters and a lot of manual focus needed and no fast focus is needed, then the A7R II seems like the obvious choice. If the EVF is highly favoured with lots of information in the VF then I guess the choice is easy too. Many more considerations could be added....
-
Hi,
It is a 70-400/4-5.6 lens and it is pretty good at the short end. The corresponding Canon lenses are certainly better, but the 70-400/4-5.6G is sort of OK. many older Minolta lenses are OK but probably not great.
Best regards
Erik
The current alpha mount 70-400G2 from Sony is exceptonal right to 400.
-
Hi,
I would just confirm what Hans has said. I had the latest version of Metabones and the firmware was very recent, but Metabones did put three updates in just a few days.
The Sony 70-400/4-5.6G works well over the full focusing range with the Sony LE-A3 adapter. It has like a closed loop action. Does coarse focus using PDAF and refines focus by contrast detection.
The only Canon lens I have right now is the 24/3.5 TSE LII, and that is not AF.
Best regards
Erik
I tried Erik's A7R II for a short while on both the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II. My observation was that AF was considerably slower on the A7R II compared to the 5Ds R. The 5Ds R focussed instantly on both lenses. Especially from really out of focus it snaps in immediately. The A7R II was ok on the 24-70 for landscapes, but I'm not sure it would be ok for my way of shooting portraits. The 100-400 was an entirely different matter. The AF did not work well on longer distances for longer focal lengths like over 200mm. It would focus for shorter distances all the way to 400mm. As far as I know there is a newer firmware release for the Metabones adapter that should focus better.
The EVF on the A7R II was not my taste and would much prefer the OVF on the Canon. I prefer an uncluttered VF that is bright and clear and the 5Ds R has that.
Regarding weight of lenses, I sold my f/2.8 70-200 lenses and now only use the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens which is excellent and is light at about 800 grams. On the Canon I use the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS which is excellent, but not quite the biting sharpness of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens. This lens weighs 800 grams and the f/4 is 600 grams so not much of a difference.
Regarding the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens my observation is that my copy is in for repair at the moment since it had an unsharpness in the right hand side. The lens I have on loan via CPS also has a slight softness in the right hand side, so I'm waiting to see if the repaired lens has the weakness still of if it is a general thing with this lens.
Regarding the A7R II versus the 5Ds R, I would say that the Canon is a very fine example of DSLR design and has few defects in design and use. The well known lesser DR is for my landscape shooting only an issue in very early mornings with strong light from the sky and a very dark landscape and where the desire is to tone map it such that the deep shadows in the landscape will contain detail. The same applies for sunsets. For any other type of landscape shooting I have not found an issue with DR. So for the cases where DR is less than desired (which again depends on taste for post processing) I bracket and blend two (or perhaps 3) exposures using the HDR function in Lightroom. This works well and basically removes the DR issue for this camera (in my opinion) for landscape shooting.
So for choosing between the two cameras, if the use case is predominantly Canon lenses with auto focus, I my choice would be the Canon. If flexibility is needed to use many different lenses with adapters and a lot of manual focus needed and no fast focus is needed, then the A7R II seems like the obvious choice. If the EVF is highly favoured with lots of information in the VF then I guess the choice is easy too. Many more considerations could be added....
-
One thing not mentioned is that the A7R2 AF is accurate with landscapes, while dSLR AF systems all have inherent accuracy limitations that make them (IMO) unsuited for landscape photography use.
-
One thing not mentioned is that the A7R2 AF is accurate with landscapes, while dSLR AF systems all have inherent accuracy limitations that make them (IMO) unsuited for landscape photography use.
When was the last time anyone needed AF to focus on a landscape?
-
When was the last time anyone needed AF to focus on a landscape?
You didn't read Hans Kruse's post?
-
You didn't read Hans Kruse's post?
I did. And I still fail to see how AF is needed, or even useful, for landscape photography.
-
I did. And I still fail to see how AF is needed, or even useful, for landscape photography.
It mostly isn't, but there are some exceptions.
- There are some rare cases where a fleeting moment can be captured thanks to the ability to focus very quickly on a feature in the landscape,
- When doing depth of field stacking, an AF lens can enable automation (speed is irrelevant, but I am not sure whether the DoF stacking solutions are supporting the a7RII with Canon lenses),
- A person with deficient eyes would probably benefit from AF in some cases (low light,...).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, AF is beneficial in some landscape scenarios (Especially for cameras with limited or no live view capabilities, such as CCD backs), but the "lack of accuracy of phase detection systems making them unsuitable for landscapes" statement is laughable. There are very, very few situations in landscaping where a razor sharp focal point confirmation is needed. One is mostly working with zones of focus and it doesn't make any noticable difference if the actual plane of focus is a wee bit ahead or behind the intended plane of focus, at working apertures for landscapes.
I have used Phase detection AF for landscaping on multiple formats and have made 40"+ prints and have never once thought "Dang, this PDAF thing is totally unsuitable for landscaping"!
In fact, if one knows how to do AF microadjust, I don't even see how PDAF is a limitation even in shallow DoF portraiture.
This sort of pedantic complaining is great for the Diglloyd types, but it is hardly a limiting factor for anyone who is doing real work. Sure, CDAF/ on sensor PDAF is more accurate and there is no need to fine tune it like one does with mirror based systems, but people have been doing perfectly good work before those two came along.
Regarding the speed of Canon lenses on the A7RII, I don't have any first hand info, but from what I see here, it is perfectly usable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yottoM_P1o
Not as fast as on the Canons obviously, but definitely usable in the field.
-
It's quite simple. Off-sensor PDAF often misses far / infinity focus with normal and wide lenses - to such an extent that the resulting image must be trashed.
-
It's quite simple. Off-sensor PDAF often misses far / infinity focus with normal and wide lenses - to such an extent that the resulting image must be trashed.
Have you fined tuned the PDAF on your camera?
-
It mostly isn't, but there are some exceptions.
- There are some rare cases where a fleeting moment can be captured thanks to the ability to focus very quickly on a feature in the landscape,
- When doing depth of field stacking, an AF lens can enable automation (speed is irrelevant, but I am not sure whether the DoF stacking solutions are supporting the a7RII with Canon lenses),
- A person with deficient eyes would probably benefit from AF in some cases (low light,...).
Cheers,
Bernard
Anybody in a hurry will benefit from AF.
Even if you don't ALWAYS need it, you certainly can often use it.
Edmund
-
It's quite simple. Off-sensor PDAF often misses far / infinity focus with normal and wide lenses - to such an extent that the resulting image must be trashed.
Which hardly matters for landscape photography. Not only do you have all the time in the world to focus manually (using live view or using the distance scale on the lens), but your settings are usually such that everything from the foreground to the horizon is in sharp focus anyway. Even in rapidly-changing light at sunrise or sunset, you have more than enough time to manually focus - it only takes a few seconds.
-
One thing not mentioned is that the A7R2 AF is accurate with landscapes, while dSLR AF systems all have inherent accuracy limitations that make them (IMO) unsuited for landscape photography use.
I have been shooting landscapes using only PDAF on Canon and Nikon DSLR's and can say for sure that your statement is completely wrong.
-
Have you fined tuned the PDAF on your camera?
Yes. This is an issue with AF inconsistency.
-
It's quite simple. Off-sensor PDAF often misses far / infinity focus with normal and wide lenses - to such an extent that the resulting image must be trashed.
This resonates in my head.
I recently bought my second af lens ever - a 1.8/50 G Nikkor, and it works well on simple, straight images of things in front of me, badly where there are complex images in reflections in windows, and the one shot I tried of some distant red sails was so far off as to be laughable.
I only bought it because of my failing eyesight, but I sometimes find I use the old manual one instead - if only because I have to override the af so often it ends up annoying me.
How grim never to have experienced manual focus, especially with very long lenses, where the changing focus experience is often even more a sensual delight than the final image.
Rob C
-
It's quite simple. Off-sensor PDAF often misses far / infinity focus with normal and wide lenses - to such an extent that the resulting image must be trashed.
If a 50mm lens set at f/1.4 on a FF camera is incorrectly focused at 300 feet instead of infinity, the DOF extends from around 120 feet to infinity. You can get different results depending on sensor size and circle of confusion, but the point is that at long distances DOF becomes huge and focus has to be incredibly far off before one has to trash an image. At wider focal lengths and/or smaller apertures this is even moreso. Some current wide lenses shift focus significantly when stopped down or develop field curvature at long distances, but those are lens issues. In the former case stopping down before manually focusing is a workaround, but it's not a PDAF issue.
I use PDAF all the time for both wildlife and landscapes. I've never had any PDAF DSLR camera miss infinity focus. Low contrast fast moving subjects could be difficult for PDAF in the past, especially with lenses like the 600mm f/4 wide open and close where DOF is paper thin. Today with a camera like Canon's 1DX it's almost hard to miss focus even at high frame rates. I just don't see the problem with PDAF beyond having to spend time micro-adjusting AF when one gets a new camera or lens. I'm not arguing that PDAF is better than on-sensor focusing, just that it seems perfectly adequate for just about any use.
-
Hi,
DoF is an illusion. It just says that a certain amount of unsharpness is acceptable and it goes back to the time we considered a 5x8" print a decent size print.
According to standard DoF tables this would be regarded to be a sharp image (CoC 0.025 mm, 9 cm of defocus at 3.0 m and f/4 on a 100 mm lens)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/DoF2/A55_100Macro_small1-4.jpg)
The very same lens/sensor can deliver this, when correctly focused:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/DoF2/A55_100Macro_small1-5.jpg)
This is not very exotic gear, a 30 year old macro lens on a 24 MP camera from 2008.
Best regards
Erik
If a 50mm lens set at f/1.4 on a FF camera is incorrectly focused at 300 feet instead of infinity, the DOF extends from around 120 feet to infinity. You can get different results depending on sensor size and circle of confusion, but the point is that at long distances DOF becomes huge and focus has to be incredibly far off before one has to trash an image. At wider focal lengths and/or smaller apertures this is even moreso. Some current wide lenses shift focus significantly when stopped down or develop field curvature at long distances, but those are lens issues. In the former case stopping down before manually focusing is a workaround, but it's not a PDAF issue.
I use PDAF all the time for both wildlife and landscapes. I've never had any PDAF DSLR camera miss infinity focus. Low contrast fast moving subjects could be difficult for PDAF in the past, especially with lenses like the 600mm f/4 wide open and close where DOF is paper thin. Today with a camera like Canon's 1DX it's almost hard to miss focus even at high frame rates. I just don't see the problem with PDAF beyond having to spend time micro-adjusting AF when one gets a new camera or lens. I'm not arguing that PDAF is better than on-sensor focusing, just that it seems perfectly adequate for just about any use.
-
If a 50mm lens set at f/1.4 on a FF camera is incorrectly focused at 300 feet instead of infinity, the DOF extends from around 120 feet to infinity. You can get different results depending on sensor size and circle of confusion, but the point is that at long distances DOF becomes huge and focus has to be incredibly far off before one has to trash an image. At wider focal lengths and/or smaller apertures this is even moreso. Some current wide lenses shift focus significantly when stopped down or develop field curvature at long distances, but those are lens issues. In the former case stopping down before manually focusing is a workaround, but it's not a PDAF issue.
I use PDAF all the time for both wildlife and landscapes. I've never had any PDAF DSLR camera miss infinity focus. Low contrast fast moving subjects could be difficult for PDAF in the past, especially with lenses like the 600mm f/4 wide open and close where DOF is paper thin. Today with a camera like Canon's 1DX it's almost hard to miss focus even at high frame rates. I just don't see the problem with PDAF beyond having to spend time micro-adjusting AF when one gets a new camera or lens. I'm not arguing that PDAF is better than on-sensor focusing, just that it seems perfectly adequate for just about any use.
I've been led to believe it's absolutely nothing to do with DOF or optics per se, nor setting up the camera's af tolerances; the problem, I'm told, is that the mechanical parts that actually cause the change in focus (using af) work very well at closer distances, but that they are far less efficient the nearer you get to infinity; they just can't be precise enough because the changes they need to make near infinity are just too small. I'm told.
Rob C
-
Hi,
DoF is an illusion.
...
Best regards
Erik
I agree, to a point. But if you do the same calculations based on a 60" wide print that appears sharp when viewed from 3.3 feet (1m) by a person with normal eyesight, you end up with everything from 143 feet to infinity appearing sharp when the lens is focused at 300 feet and set to f/1.4. At f/8 it's 41 feet to infinity. If the person has 20/20 vision it's different. That requires an aperture of f/4 for everything to from 147 feet to infinity to appear sharp when focused at 300 feet. At f/8 you get 97 feet to infinity "sharp". Still, it's a 60" print viewed from a couple feet away, and we haven't even tossed in deconvolution sharpening, which changes everything. For any reasonable intent I think DOF is quite useful, but you can't use numbers for 8x10 prints if you're doing 30"x40" prints.
-
I've been led to believe it's absolutely nothing to do with DOF or optics per se, nor setting up the camera's af tolerances; the problem, I'm told, is that the mechanical parts that actually cause the change in focus (using af) work very well at closer distances, but that they are far less efficient the nearer you get to infinity; they just can't be precise enough because the changes they need to make near infinity are just too small. I'm told.
Rob C
If that is the case, that PDAF and CDAF would suffer equally from this in focus accuracy.
-
If a 50mm lens set at f/1.4 on a FF camera is incorrectly focused at 300 feet instead of infinity, the DOF extends from around 120 feet to infinity. You can get different results depending on sensor size and circle of confusion, but the point is that at long distances DOF becomes huge and focus has to be incredibly far off before one has to trash an image. At wider focal lengths and/or smaller apertures this is even moreso. Some current wide lenses shift focus significantly when stopped down or develop field curvature at long distances, but those are lens issues. In the former case stopping down before manually focusing is a workaround, but it's not a PDAF issue.
I use PDAF all the time for both wildlife and landscapes. I've never had any PDAF DSLR camera miss infinity focus. Low contrast fast moving subjects could be difficult for PDAF in the past, especially with lenses like the 600mm f/4 wide open and close where DOF is paper thin. Today with a camera like Canon's 1DX it's almost hard to miss focus even at high frame rates. I just don't see the problem with PDAF beyond having to spend time micro-adjusting AF when one gets a new camera or lens. I'm not arguing that PDAF is better than on-sensor focusing, just that it seems perfectly adequate for just about any use.
+1 and absolutely my experience shooting both wild life and landscapes etc.
-
Thank You Edumund, but . . .
Your not familiar on how we prepare, or what we shoot.
We tried both, the 7s and R . . . zero difference, though if you shoot trees and buildings with time in, plan it, set, it light it view it on a big screen both these two little Sony's work.
But in severely heavy conditions, working out of a military Blackhawk, bouncing backwards on a 75mph atv, hanging ten feet out of a 1200 hp skiff then no they don't.
For video pretty good, for stills not.
It takes a Nikon or Canon. Period, cause we tried the sony way.
Sony makes nice stuff, Canon and Nikon . . . Military grade.
Even fast moving environmental portraits, you need to see it focus to be dead on.
Everyone talks pixels and the other stuff but traditional Rules when the SITF and there is blood on the floor.
IMO
BC
Well, nice to hear that the embedded press won't be using Sony still cameras :)
I guess only the salad-grazing landscape shooters will be able to track their prey and convert to Sony ...
Edmund
-
Hi,
You need 90PPI at 1m viewing distance. For a 60" inch wide print you thus need 90x60 = 5400 pixels. If you divide 36 mm with 5400 you end up with 6.7 microns of, which would be your CoC for that distance.
Putting this into the hyperfocal distance formula H = f^/Nc you get 50 * 50 / ( 8 * 0.0067) = 46642 mm, that is 46 m, so the hyperfocal distance for your print size with 20/20 vision would be 46 m on 50 mm lens at f/8. I have not seen any 50 mm lens ever with a marking at 46m (or 50m) on the focusing scale. The one I happen to have close by has markings for infinity and 5m.
The 6.7 microns would correspond to around 20 MP on a full frame DSLR. So that is all you need for 60" wide print, when viewed at 1m.
Actually, it is much smarter to look at the sensor side of the thing. If you need a CoC of 6.7 microns and use aperture f/8 the amount of acceptable defocus would be 0.0067 * 8 = 0.054 mm. That figure will be the same for any lens at f/8, regardless if it is an ultratelephoto or an ultrawide.
So, what does this give us?
- You need about 20 MP for that print, viewed at that distance
- Focusing at around 50m on a 50mm lens at f/8 will give you an image that is sharp at that print size and viewing distance from 25m to infinity.
- To achieve the same above you need a focusing accuracy of about 0.05 mm in the focusing plane, at f/8. That figure does not depend on the focal length.
Best regards
Erik
I agree, to a point. But if you do the same calculations based on a 60" wide print that appears sharp when viewed from 3.3 feet (1m) by a person with normal eyesight, you end up with everything from 143 feet to infinity appearing sharp when the lens is focused at 300 feet and set to f/1.4. At f/8 it's 41 feet to infinity. If the person has 20/20 vision it's different. That requires an aperture of f/4 for everything to from 147 feet to infinity to appear sharp when focused at 300 feet. At f/8 you get 97 feet to infinity "sharp". Still, it's a 60" print viewed from a couple feet away, and we haven't even tossed in deconvolution sharpening, which changes everything. For any reasonable intent I think DOF is quite useful, but you can't use numbers for 8x10 prints if you're doing 30"x40" prints.
-
Hi,
You need 90PPI at 1m viewing distance. For a 60" inch wide print you thus need 90x60 = 5400 pixels. If you divide 36 mm with 5400 you end up with 6.7 microns of, which would be your CoC for that distance.
Putting this into the hyperfocal distance formula H = f^/Nc you get 50 * 50 / ( 8 * 0.0067) = 46642 mm, that is 46 m, so the hyperfocal distance for your print size with 20/20 vision would be 46 m on 50 mm lens at f/8. I have not seen any 50 mm lens ever with a marking at 46m (or 50m) on the focusing scale. The one I happen to have close by has markings for infinity and 5m.
The 6.7 microns would correspond to around 20 MP on a full frame DSLR. So that is all you need for 60" wide print, when viewed at 1m.
Actually, it is much smarter to look at the sensor side of the thing. If you need a CoC of 6.7 microns and use aperture f/8 the amount of acceptable defocus would be 0.0067 * 8 = 0.054 mm. That figure will be the same for any lens at f/8, regardless if it is an ultratelephoto or an ultrawide.
So, what does this give us?
- You need about 20 MP for that print, viewed at that distance
- Focusing at around 50m on a 50mm lens at f/8 will give you an image that is sharp at that print size and viewing distance from 25m to infinity.
- To achieve the same above you need a focusing accuracy of about 0.05 mm in the focusing plane, at f/8. That figure does not depend on the focal length.
Best regards
Erik
What is typical FF mounting yaw tolerance?
-
If that is the case, that PDAF and CDAF would suffer equally from this in focus accuracy.
Hi Chuck,
Perhaps they do, perhaps not - I only know about the one lens on the body where I tried to make that infinity shot. My other af lens is a very seldom-used 2.8/180mm Nikkor that has never been used for distance shots - just for closer subjects where I wanted to make tighter images, sometimes deliberately OOF to some extent or the other.
I'm not a landscape shooter and so infinity's a bit far away for me. At least, photographically speaking.
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob,
I'm not a landscape shooter...
Thanks (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104565.msg861223#msg861223).
-
Hi,
I don't know, would like to know. The only figures I have seen specified was:
30 Microns for the Hasselblad V series
12 Microns Phase One backs
+/- 20 microns for Leica (possibly +/- 10 microns for digital Leica)
That figure is of course not for yaw. Some yaw may also come from flexing of the springs in the mount.
I would expect that later generation cameras would have less variation.
I don't think that yaw is a major issue, at least if lenses like the Otus 85/1.4 can achieve uniform sharpness over the field at f/1.4 when mounted on camera and that often seems be the case.
Something I have seen specified that Canon AF-systems are accurate to 1/3 DoF on professional systems. Roger Ciala looked at this and essentially found that modern Canons (5DIII) combined with same generation lenses focus pretty accurately and with good repeatability. Still according to Roger Ciala, Nikon not as good.
This article by Roger is somewhat geek oriented, but offers good insights: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras
What that article shows is that Canon has significantly improved the AF accuracy on the 5DIII, but it needs late generations lenses.
Best regards
Erik
What is typical FF mounting yaw tolerance?
-
I have not seen any 50 mm lens ever with a marking at 46m (or 50m) on the focusing scale. The one I happen to have close by has markings for infinity and 5m.
Best regards
Erik
Pedantically ;)
My 50mm Voigtlander S Nokton ASPH f1.5 Nikon RANGEFINDER lens is marked at 5, 7, 10, and 20m but I grant you not at 50m but then the camera focussing system dates to the 1950s and we have progressed haven't we?
-
That was a nice focusing ring…
Erik
Pedantically ;)
My 50mm Voigtlander S Nokton ASPH f1.5 Nikon RANGEFINDER lens is marked at 5, 7, 10, and 20m but I grant you not at 50m but then the camera focussing system dates to the 1950s and we have progressed haven't we?
-
You may need to correct me but "reverse telephoto" designs can accept much more yaw than designs with an exit pupil close to the film plane.
The distance of the exit pupil to film on eg. an 8mm SLR lens is ... a bit larger than 8mm :)
And so presumably the depth of focus (and hence the amount of acceptable yaw) is much greater on SLRs.
So in a way, SLRs can be made to lower tolerances than rangefinders ...
All of this is just a conjecture based on elementary geometry ...
Edmund
Hi,
I don't know, would like to know. The only figures I have seen specified was:
30 Microns for the Hasselblad V series
12 Microns Phase One backs
+/- 20 microns for Leica (possibly +/- 10 microns for digital Leica)
That figure is of course not for yaw. Some yaw may also come from flexing of the springs in the mount.
I would expect that later generation cameras would have less variation.
I don't think that yaw is a major issue, at least if lenses like the Otus 85/1.4 can achieve uniform sharpness over the field at f/1.4 when mounted on camera and that often seems be the case.
Something I have seen specified that Canon AF-systems are accurate to 1/3 DoF on professional systems. Roger Ciala looked at this and essentially found that modern Canons (5DIII) combined with same generation lenses focus pretty accurately and with good repeatability. Still according to Roger Ciala, Nikon not as good.
This article by Roger is somewhat geek oriented, but offers good insights: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras
What that article shows is that Canon has significantly improved the AF accuracy on the 5DIII, but it needs late generations lenses.
Best regards
Erik
-
Rob,
Thanks (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104565.msg861223#msg861223).
Ooops! Hadn't imagined you were really expecting a reply; a quick look at my website would have shown you my interests.
Actually, not strictly unconcerned with landscape, as I do find some things interesting but not in any sort of traditional sense of the definition of landscape, if there is one.
Here's the kind of thing I find intriguing, especially as I pass it at last three times a week. You should see the place in the rain...
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1589530_orig.jpg)
-
Ooops! Hadn't imagined you were really expecting a reply; a quick look at my website would have shown you my interests.
Actually, not strictly unconcerned with landscape, as I do find some things interesting but not in any sort of traditional sense of the definition of landscape, if there is one.
Here's the kind of thing I find intriguing, especially as I pass it at last three times a week. You should see the place in the rain...
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1589530_orig.jpg)
HALLOWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edmund
-
HALLOWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edmund
Well, Edmund, it's not easy staying topìcal; I deserve a medal!
;-)
Rob C
-
Make your own!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNjjEhD-Aig
E.
Well, Edmund, it's not easy staying topìcal; I deserve a medal!
;-)
Rob C
-
Make your own!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNjjEhD-Aig
E.
Ah... my fingers aren't as pretty. But hey, I appreciate the suggestion, which reminds me of the Rolling Stones.
;-)
Rob
Oh, I don't know: maybe the fingers ain't so bad after all:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/8867667_orig.jpg)