Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: gwhitf on December 06, 2008, 12:32:57 pm
-
.
-
You are right the thing is to have 'your method' or a bunch of different methods test them and know them
I certainly dont think the eye can resolve beyond 12mp in a 35mm viewfinder or 16mp in a H1 viewfinder unless the subject is very brightly lit
fine if you are shooting 8mp or less
Some methods
D3 - single middle spot focus and recompose
Hassy H1 single middle spot focus and recompose (up to 5.6)
Hassy wide open focus bracket - rock the body between shots assume some will be out
Hassy safe mode - three lights F11
D3 - auto everything setting - this one scares me
etc
I always say the AF works until you need it - in dark and backlit situations
Using the cambos etc are fine choose F11 focus at 5-10m - that is what they are designed for
I am of the opinion that current technology when used in challenging scenarious - movement low light etc you must bank on a low hit rate
I know my hit rate and change methods accordingly - say shooting one portrait session you may only need 5 sharp frames from the whole shoot so can be risky wheras with cataloge you need a 95% hit rate which will require F4 or 5.6 and lots of light...
Try a waterhousing half in half out when the 'media' air and water have different focus points !
The attached are all sharp apart from the pool diver which needs redoing , mainly H1 at 25 ISO
-
I think maybe this forum should be re-titled "16+mp commercial"
so it wouldn't matter if it was an H, or a S or a P or even a C.
-
Can you imagine being one of those Cambo/Arca guys, and you drop untold thousands on a body, and then another $25k on a P45+, and then you read the manual and it says "Uh, you've gotta GUESS the focus.
(...) No idea what I'm going to do with my T/S 24 and 45; I guess I'll test that today and try to find a method.
For the view cameras you can use a groundglass and a loupe for focussing and/or a laser distometer... so guessing distance is not inevitable.
Manual focus with 35mm AF lenses is tricky as the angle of rotation of the focus ring is extremely narrow. Small movements on the focus ring have a huge effect on focussing.
The contrary with manual focus lenses... especially the helical focus of Schneider/Rodenstock for the Cambos, Arcas, Sinars ... have an expansive angle of rotation.
But... though e.g. the Contax AF-lenses have quite a comfortable angle of rotation me too sometimes I find it hard to focus accurate manually... with the regular finder screen.
But I use screens with split image (and microprism collar) and still do manual focus. Even in my APS-C DSLR I use a split image screen. And focus failures are zero (for stills ... moving subjects are different for sure).
Without split image screen I totally feel lost because AF (of my cameras) is not (always) that perfect - especially at distances close to (but not quite) infinity and above all with wide angle lenses...
-
.
-
Here's another scary test
I know what you mean and it drove me crazy... until I decided to use a split image screen ;-)
What you have figured out in your last scary test has something to do with the AF construction inside the lenses (with the range in the coupler or whatever) I guess. But a split image screen (with microprism collar) really helps a lot even with regard to this problem.
Nevertheless I always adjust focus of AF lenses by turning the focus ring just in one direction (not back and forth) to avoid those problems (but again: just for stills).
-
That's exactly what my tests showed. Even the slightest touch on the manual focus ring had a massive effect on the actual focus in the file. As though the ring is too crude to the tiny tolerances in the file itself.
Here's another scary test:
1. Put camera on tripod.
2. Tether.
3. Put lens wide open, manual focus.
4. Spin the ring out of focus, then refocus, and shoot.
5. Spin the ring the other way out of focus, then refocus, then shoot.
6. Do that twenty times. Make SURE that you shoot ONLY when you're sure it's sharp.
7. Out of those twenty frames, count how many are truly razor sharp.
8. Do not report the answer back here on this forum.
Issue: what the viewfinder shows is many times nowhere CLOSE to being in focus, especially at f4 or wider.
Did this with my Contax 645 gear, then went through and repeated it with two different bodies, two different prisms and three different styles of screens. Finally came up with some combination that was consistent. I have a priority list of components so that if something stops working I can use a replacement and have an idea of what the success ratio will be. These days I'm believing that a high-mp back is just too precise for cameras and/or lenses that were designed for film tolerances.
-
Did this with my Contax 645 gear, then went through and repeated it with two different bodies, two different prisms and three different styles of screens. Finally came up with some combination that was consistent. I have a priority list of components so that if something stops working I can use a replacement and have an idea of what the success ratio will be. These days I'm believing that a high-mp back is just too precise for cameras and/or lenses that were designed for film tolerances.
Maybe your right. I have this old Nikon manual 1.2 lens that produces the most beautiful look.
I've done this test a dozen times where I put it on a D-3 and leave it in the studio. Everytime I walk past it, I turn it on, focus on something and fire a frame.
At the end of the day only about 1 in 5 and tack sharp.
The wierd thing is I have this old Fuji S3, what is that 6mpx or something with the smallest viewfinder ever made.
I can put that lens on the fuji and 8 out of 10 times it's in focus. Now the problem is I never use the fuji, but that either tells me that something is not right with this lens on the d-3 or the d-3 just resoves so much more than the fuji that it is more obvious.
With my contax's I have a different experience. If it works on autofocus then it won't focus on manual, or if doesn't focus tight on auto, then I can always hit it on manual.
Makes no sense but we've gone through this about 20 dozen times and each time the process is the same.
-
Maybe your right. I have this old Nikon manual 1.2 lens that produces the most beautiful look.
I've done this test a dozen times where I put it on a D-3 and leave it in the studio. Everytime I walk past it, I turn it on, focus on something and fire a frame.
At the end of the day only about 1 in 5 and tack sharp.
The wierd thing is I have this old Fuji S3, what is that 6mpx or something with the smallest viewfinder ever made.
I can put that lens on the fuji and 8 out of 10 times it's in focus. Now the problem is I never use the fuji, but that either tells me that something is not right with this lens on the d-3 or the d-3 just resoves so much more than the fuji that it is more obvious.
With my contax's I have a different experience. If it works on autofocus then it won't focus on manual, or if doesn't focus tight on auto, then I can always hit it on manual.
Makes no sense but we've gone through this about 20 dozen times and each time the process is the same.
I think there are two issues to correct focus..
Is my kit working ? - Teachnical issues - does my kit do what it says it should
Can I focus ? User Issues/Expectations
For example expecting AF to keep up with a black greyhound (dog) running through a disco strobing light show - it wont happen - a different approach is needed
----------
Technical Issues
Camera build tolerances
-is the chip in the right place for the AF
-is the mirror at 45degrees andthe GG in the right place
Digiback build tolerances
-third party devices eg phase on hassy
Clean interfacing
Any dust/sand under your focus screen or between the Digiback and Camera body will cause missalignment
I think any system where where these issues cannot be tuned out will not provide good focus
D3 can 'tune'
CanDSIII can 'tune'
Sinar Backs can tune with foilstack or could
I am not aware of any other systems that allow 'user tuning' although I am sure repairers/makers can do it
My Mam645 and Proback used to be totally off even though both devices were serviced and described as 'in tolerance'
My Sinar/BLad is mildly off I keep meaning to try sticking some Rizla paper between the camera and the back to raise the chip a little
Testing ones own equipment is therefore critical
One could have a camera where the chip and mirror/gg are all misaligned creating perfect manual focus and duff AF
One could have a camera where the mirror/gg are off but the chip is where the AF expects it to be creating great AF and Duff manual
For the whole pile of cards to stand up across two manufacturers (three if you have custom screen) seems from an engineering point of view unlikely at 60mp and likely at 8mp
I have shots that are 'ear focussed' that once downsized to the client requirement look fine
Alignment of the lens is not that important however unless you need the distance scale to work - like on a cambo where the distance scale is important - the lense must of course be square onto the camera and centred to aviod unintentional 'micro tilt and shift'
S
-
Who knows -- maybe it's just a Canon Thang. Maybe it doesn't apply as much to Hasselblad H, or Contax, or AFI, or Hy6. Maybe you just manual focus and it's perfect. But from what I learned yesterday, testing this Canon, I'll never manual focus again. No idea what I'm going to do with my T/S 24 and 45; I guess I'll test that today and try to find a method. But I'd advise everyone to set up a simple tethered situation, where you can REALLY see what's going on -- none of that zooming in on the LCD -- and really do the test see if AutoFocus improves. It was as if I'd actually bought new sharper lenses, when I shot Autofocus. Maybe there's something in this Technology that just says "Trust Us -- We know how to focus".
[/quote]
i shoot alot at 1.2, and still use auto focus. i use the seperate af button on the back (not the shutter) on one mostly. ive got pretty quick moving the square with the little joystick above the back dial. even with manual focus lenses, just set little square where you want it, and wait until the "beep". you still focus by eye manually, but the beep just confirms it.
i just havnt figured out how to move square to square on the focus grid- it jumps a couple of squares each time. is there a setting that all the focus points available on a mk3?
paul
-
When I use manual focus lenses on my 35mm bodies I almost never have problems getting a pretty high hit rate on the D300. The D200 was much harder to get it 'right'. Most autofocus lenses are a nightmare to focus manually.
When I use the manual focus lenses on the Horseman Digiflex II I get a ridiculous high hit rate. The finder of this thing is kind of horrible, like looking through a small pipe that vignets like crazy. The focus does snap into place everywhere on the focussing screen. I hate the prism in the center because it distracts.
I found it also depends on the lenses. My Zeiss ZF50/1.4 is virtually impossible to focus properly, while my AIS50/1.4 or 1.2 is fairly easy to get it right. Other ZF's like the 35, 50macro or 85 are a lot easier to focus manually.
BTW, I can do most things with AF as well but depending on what I do I find manual focus sometimes giving me better results or more control other times I have no other option than MF.
A good screen makes a world of difference is my experience. A bright & big screen is no guarantuee of an easy manual focus. The other thing that helps is, lots of practice.
-
Maybe your right. I have this old Nikon manual 1.2 lens that produces the most beautiful look.
I've done this test a dozen times where I put it on a D-3 and leave it in the studio. Everytime I walk past it, I turn it on, focus on something and fire a frame.
At the end of the day only about 1 in 5 and tack sharp.
The wierd thing is I have this old Fuji S3, what is that 6mpx or something with the smallest viewfinder ever made.
I can put that lens on the fuji and 8 out of 10 times it's in focus. Now the problem is I never use the fuji, but that either tells me that something is not right with this lens on the d-3 or the d-3 just resoves so much more than the fuji that it is more obvious.
I would bet on the resolution being the determining factor here, but perhaps the focusing screen in the S3 is also meant for manual focusing, with the typical Canon screens (other than the -S) being meant for bright viewing with AF. These screens make a huge difference.
I went through this whole thing in 2006 with a Canon 5D when I started buying Leica R lenses, culminating in the 80 Lux. I just couldn't get focus with any consistency. I went online and started reading various forum, and after reading FM's Alternative forum for a while, I bought the Brightscreen focusing screen. Nice screen, and my keeper rate jumped, but I was never really happy with it. Then I got the cheapo Canon Ee-S and though my keeper rate initially dropped, once I had learned how to focus with it (I used the shim from the Brightscreen and always focused from infinity and down), my keeper rate with the 80 Lux wide open was well over 50%. Focusing with the Leica R8/R9 in comparison is a total revelation, and the original Leicaflex SL is meant to be the best ever made, with the cost of the focusing screen being insane. Apparently it is some kind of tiny microraster over the whole screen, and focus is just meant to snap.
Once you do learn to read the screens, you can transfer it to other setups. One of my buddies wanted to try his 450D with a Leica 180 Cron I was testing, and I was able to get about 1 in 3 with that setup, and boy, is that ever a shitty manual focus screen.
I always meant to try one on Maxwell's mods, but didn't get around to it. He is kinda hard to contact, and I live in Berlin, Germany. I wish he would make his website more interactive, but at least he has one now, even though it is run by someone else. I might send him my Contax 645 screen for tweaking. It is nice, but I find it a bit dark and slow to manually focus.
-
Live views can be set to show pixel leve sharpness on some bodies like the D3/D3x, I don't know whether the 1ds3 offers this option, but it is IMHO the easiest way to get tack sharp focus, especially when using T/S lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here's a radical thought: post Canon QC issues in the Canon forum.
-
Here's a radical thought: post Canon QC issues in the Canon forum.
this i time i vote for you again foto z.
pure 35mm discussion should be in other forum.
-
Here's a radical thought: post Canon QC issues in the Canon forum.
Talk about killing a thread in one sentence, thanks for that. One of the more interesting and informative threads that has appeared here for a long time in my opinion. Who cares where it was posted. Some people need to get a life.
Again IMO.
Pete
-
As we say in the US, you are a one trick pony, 'Sinar, leaf shutters, wrong forum.'
Attacking a poster rather than the post shows a lack of class. Don't expect to be taken seriously.
And apart from the fact that you are wrong, that would be a 3-trick pony.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/learningtocount.jpg)
-
Who knows -- maybe it's just a Canon Thang. Maybe it doesn't apply as much to Hasselblad H, or Contax, or AFI, or Hy6. Maybe you just manual focus and it's perfect. But from what I learned yesterday, testing this Canon, I'll never manual focus again. No idea what I'm going to do with my T/S 24 and 45; I guess I'll test that today and try to find a method. But I'd advise everyone to set up a simple tethered situation, where you can REALLY see what's going on -- none of that zooming in on the LCD -- and really do the test see if AutoFocus improves. It was as if I'd actually bought new sharper lenses, when I shot Autofocus. Maybe there's something in this Technology that just says "Trust Us -- We know how to focus".
i shoot alot at 1.2, and still use auto focus. i use the seperate af button on the back (not the shutter) on one mostly. ive got pretty quick moving the square with the little joystick above the back dial. even with manual focus lenses, just set little square where you want it, and wait until the "beep". you still focus by eye manually, but the beep just confirms it.
i just havnt figured out how to move square to square on the focus grid- it jumps a couple of squares each time. is there a setting that all the focus points available on a mk3?
paul
I think it's just strange how most of us could manually focus a Nikon F3 all day long and though we'd miss some, what you would see on the ground glass translated very well to film. Same with almost any medium format camera though some were more difficult to focus than others.
Now with digital something is different and I don't really know if it is the digital tolerances are so demanding, or we are just much more critical of digital than we were of film. After all we see digital files on a 30" loupe.
Last months cover of a very high profile magazine was out of focus and it wasn't the printing it just was the fact that probably that one frame was the one the editor, publicist and manager selected so it ran. I bet the frame before and after that was sharp.
I do know we are still in the film to digital transition. New Nikons, Canons and Rolleis still look like film camera dirrevatives and in a lot of cases we are still using film camera lenses, so maybe that's the reason.
(I mentioned Rollei so the hall monitor would be happy).
Not actually knowing what RED is doing, I do think the next good "ground glass" we will use will be some kind of live view lcd screen. It just makes sense and seems that the possibilities of what you see is accurate.
I also find it interesting when I read that Sigma has lenses that out perform Canon and Nikons. I never would have thought that possible in the past and actually never would have even remotely contemplated buying a sigma lens. Maybe it's because the new lenses, Sigma included are built to tighter tolerances than their previous film counterparts.
Recently I did a "challanged" end of the day photograph of a model sitting on a train in virtual total darkness. I first tried he Canons and manual or auto it just wasn't there. It wasn't even close, not one frame and I even bracketed the focus. Then I shot the Nikon with an 85 1.4 wide open set on auto focus and found this tiny, tiny little sliver of contrast that it locked on and though I was shooting hand held at 1/15th crammed into a corner to make myself into a tripod, it was sharp so maybe it's just an autofocus world.
Regardless I think in 4 years when were shooting with cameras that are entirely meant for digital capture using a 20billion pixel lcd screen to focus with all of these conversations will be in the past.
-
F##K! I was just about to post my experiences focusing with my 503CW (digital vs. film).
Sad...
-
The conversation about autofocus in the Canon can easily be something that applies to medium format cameras which in all comparison SUCK as far as autofocus. So people here are sophisticated enough to perhaps apply a concept to another piece of gear.
And in fact the discussion was intended as autofocus vs. manual focus in general by "ghwitf". So the stuffy "wrong forum" statement was totally out of place here.
-
Actually the original post said something like "if you're allergic to Canon stop reading here...". Some people just prefer the fuzz...
-
And in fact the discussion was intended as autofocus vs. manual focus in general by "ghwitf". So the stuffy "wrong forum" statement was totally out of place here.
well, i normally dont like this strictness too which showed up sometimes here, but a treat like this which is goind to 100% over canons has i.m.o. just a better place in the 35mm section. so why not to say this? more so as i understood the comment of foto z was written with enough self irony and not in a way that should be taken as personal "attak".
to the valuable posts of gwith.... i really like his photographs a lot and for sure he is one of the best photographers hanging around in this forums and sharing his experiences which are large and valuable. but after coming in the last years with several names in this forums, posting a lot and intense, after a while usually happened the same thing: something offended the person behind gwith and he left the place, not forgetting to remove all posts before.
everybody can behave here in relative "anonymity" how he wants but for me there is no reason to blame foto z, it seems to happen with some regularity.
at all it is to consider that this forum works pretty well and is probably the most valuable and best forum for mf photography. this might be the reason why people leave it but sometimes they come back after a while .... i personally would like to see gwith back here ( although i cant see anything which was offending him except his own expectations how a forum "should be" ). but even more i would not like to see foto z leaving this forum for being attacked in a very unfair way here as it seems to happen just now for wrong understood "star cult"..
-
F##K! I was just about to post my experiences focusing with my 503CW (digital vs. film).
Sad...
Well keep the thread going in the true spirit of the topic creator. Don't let one person spoil everybody else's enjoyment and interest.
Pete
-
And in fact the discussion was intended as autofocus vs. manual focus in general by "ghwitf". So the stuffy "wrong forum" statement was totally out of place here.
i cant read it again to check if my impression was wrong.... because its removed.
-
i cant read it again to check if my impression was wrong.... because its removed.
All of these categories are just bloody silly. On the dslr section (which I think mentions "shooting gear", people talk about software, firmware, monitors, computers and it doesn't bother anyone because it's just knowledge.
If you put everything in the exact place some self proclaimed hall monitor wanted it, you'd never find anything and the conversations would never evolve.
Ranier, back in the RG days you posted at length on the Kodak 14 or whatever that camera was called and nobody cared, because it was useful information and stimulate discussion. I don't remember anybody saying it should go into the 35m section or the almost as good as medium format heading.
Let's be realistic about this, for a lot of photographers that own medium format back(s) nearly to a person they have a Canon or Nikon and do a lot of cross use. That's the plan . . . right . . . to use your cameras.
Discussions like this on any public forum just forces people underground or to leave because nobody wants their name associated with some kind of argument or negative blowback. Google has a 7 year memory.
We can keep this going and sooner or later it just all turns bad and everyone leaves or goes private.
Like it or not, they're are a lot of very good photographers that would never be open to sharing their experience with anyone. Do you have any idea why you can't go onto some of the world's best retoucher's sites and see images? It's because the photographers have demanded that the world never see the original images. Do you know the number of photographers that retouch light reflections out of eyes so nobody can tell the source, or have assistants and crew sign nda's so they can't tell anyone how, what, where, when and why a photographer works?
Feel lucky that someone that shoots as well and as prolific as gwtif shares with anyone, in public or private and don't pat anyone on the back for sending him/her away.
Also get real about this medium format vs. 35mm thing. In digital there really is no format difference like we had with film. in fact if you wanted to name this section correctly it would be "the almost medium format section".
Let's also get real about what photography is about and the camera is like number 22 on the list of importance.
Ranier, your a good photographer and you and I both know that you could shoot film, 35mm, 645, a cambo, artech or any camera and get the results you want.
The size of the hole in the back of the camera really doesn't make that much difference.
A lot of camera makers would probably love it if this forum only was full of medium format fanboys that sung their praise, but honestly for every manufacturer that monitors these forums, if it was all just a PR section they'd never learn anything and their participation would eventually be limited.
Since most of us are in the advertising business we know that the only way to control a message is to take out an ad.
-
Dear Rainer,
a treat like this which is goind to 100% over canons has i.m.o. just a better place in the 35mm section
Maybe it was by accident that so much Canon users replied. But there are some few answers with regard to Hasselblad and Contax and view cameras, too.
I don't know "ghwift" or his other usernames or his real name nor his photographs (unfortunately)... and I do not know anything about the previous history so I can't comment on this. But I read his posts thoughtful.
The same with those of "foto-z" and I don't want to miss him (and his works) here, too.
Beside this: usually I just read over "foto-z'" "wrong forum" comments and ignore them.
Because I don't like this kind of concierge attitude and finally I just find it clownish.
Why don't he just read another topic if there is nothing interessting for him in this thread? I really can't get it.
To me the AF/MF topic is totally cross platform... so instead of the insisting repetition of "wrong forum" (with or without irony) it would have been much more constructive to share experience from focussing his MF-camera, no?
Either way... the ordinary forums skirmish.
Best Regards,
Thomas
-
All of these categories are just bloody silly. On the dslr section (which I think mentions "shooting gear", people talk about software, firmware, monitors, computers and it doesn't bother anyone because it's just knowledge.
If you put everything in the exact place some self proclaimed hall monitor wanted it, you'd never find anything and the conversations would never evolve.
Ranier, back in the RG days you posted at length on the Kodak 14 or whatever that camera was called and nobody cared, because it was useful information and stimulate discussion. I don't remember anybody saying it should go into the 35m section or the almost as good as medium format heading.
Let's be realistic about this, for a lot of photographers that own medium format back(s) nearly to a person they have a Canon or Nikon and do a lot of cross use. That's the plan . . . right . . . to use your cameras.
Discussions like this on any public forum just forces people underground or to leave because nobody wants their name associated with some kind of argument or negative blowback. Google has a 7 year memory.
We can keep this going and sooner or later it just all turns bad and everyone leaves or goes private.
Like it or not, they're are a lot of very good photographers that would never be open to sharing their experience with anyone. Do you have any idea why you can't go onto some of the world's best retoucher's sites and see images? It's because the photographers have demanded that the world never see the original images. Do you know the number of photographers that retouch light reflections out of eyes so nobody can tell the source, or have assistants and crew sign nda's so they can't tell anyone how, what, where, when and why a photographer works?
Feel lucky that someone that shoots as well and as prolific as gwtif shares with anyone, in public or private and don't pat anyone on the back for sending him/her away.
Also get real about this medium format vs. 35mm thing. In digital there really is no format difference like we had with film. in fact if you wanted to name this section correctly it would be "the almost medium format section".
Let's also get real about what photography is about and the camera is like number 22 on the list of importance.
Ranier, your a good photographer and you and I both know that you could shoot film, 35mm, 645, a cambo, artech or any camera and get the results you want.
The size of the hole in the back of the camera really doesn't make that much difference.
A lot of camera makers would probably love it if this forum only was full of medium format fanboys that sung their praise, but honestly for every manufacturer that monitors these forums, if it was all just a PR section they'd never learn anything and their participation would eventually be limited.
Since most of us are in the advertising business we know that the only way to control a message is to take out an ad.
sounds quite reasonable. convinced.
-
I dont know where the wrong forum bit came from
It seemed to be about all cameras to me certainly my posts
We all know that this board is where good photo chat is or was
Why do these thinigs all fall apart nowadays
I think 'I have canon error code 123654' could be somewhere else but mostly its about the most approproate tool for the job for professional use - something that just happens to be canon quite alot
I dont own a canon but sometimes think I should just all my glass is nikon and hassy
cant we quit the backstabbing esp of the great image makers - to lose them is to lose all
the MF title was great because it kept the idle dentists out - maybe the forum should be renamed Tax and Accounting then it would stay a lovely haven
I have been thinking of posting some EX1 footage in the Professional Works thread...
S
-
Perhaps some might find useful the following essey titled "Focus Fallibility: Lens Test Fallacies " that you can find here (http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm).
Here is a part of its Summary:
"... For critical lens testing, trying to precisely set the focal distance of the lens can be an exercise in futility, regardless of how you try to do it. Rather than relying on setting focus accurately, it's vastly preferable to set it approximately, and then determine the actual focal distance through direct measurement of image sharpness. Once you've determined the correct focal distance, perform the rest of your measurements at that lens/camera position...."
Also of interest might be the following subtitle from the article: "Close, But No Cigar: Manual Focusing via Magnified Live View"
As a side note, and as far as I know, Contax N series of film and digital cameras (introduced in 1999, but short-lived) were the first to offer a unique feature: focus bracketing. These days some Canon p/s (the last one to be G10) offer the same.
-
I think it's just strange how most of us could manually focus a Nikon F3 all day long and though we'd miss some, what you would see on the ground glass translated very well to film. Same with almost any medium format camera though some were more difficult to focus than others.
Now with digital something is different and I don't really know if it is the digital tolerances are so demanding, or we are just much more critical of digital than we were of film. After all we see digital files on a 30" loupe.
I have been thinking and reading about this, and have come up with the following hypothesis: film records the image in a sandwich of many partially transparent grains, i.e. at multiple depths, whereas digital records at a single depth. The tolerances of the placement of a sensor are much finer as a result, and as soon as you miss, you are not just shifting the focus from one place in the sandwich to another, but missing it completely.
This would also explain why so many lenses had to be redesigned for digital. In film days it was possible to design lenses which focused the various wavelengths of light at different depths, as long as they were all focusing somewhere within the film emulsion, but with digital, this would yield blurs in colour channels, and so the tolerances had to tightened up considerably.
This is all just educated guesswork, however.
-
As a side note, and as far as I know, Contax N series of film and digital cameras (introduced in 1999, but short-lived) were the first to offer a unique feature: focus bracketing. These days some Canon p/s (the last one to be G10) offer the same.
[/quote]
The Sinar Hy6 and Leaf AFI have focus bracketing.
Best,
Mitchell
-
To me the AF/MF topic is totally cross platform... so instead of the insisting repetition of "wrong forum" (with or without irony) it would have been much more constructive to share experience from focussing his MF-camera, no?
Best Regards,
Thomas
Getting some know how and experiences by a colleague using a different system, can be helpful to solve problems with a different camera or platform, especially on something that is "mechanic" and human dependent as focusing is. Sometimes someone else experience with a different tool, can be very revealing and can lead to a solution.
Any time I look back to my old scans, I realized that what was considered in focus and sharp by an AD, printer tech or a fashion/beauty editor, it looks pretty out of focus to me today, when I watch it on the 30" monitor. Yet, few years back on a smaller monitor with a larger and not as crisp dot pitch, I though was sharp enough to be proud of my focusing capabilities and those images printed pretty well.
Since when I have been able to look at my images on a large crisp screen, right after they were shot, I slowly became more obsessed with sharpness and the quality of my lenses. Earlier I was not paying much attention to that, as since i was shooting Hasselblad or Mamiya, I knew that as long that they were in "focus", it would have been good enough. Today, i'm still shooting he same brands of cameras +canon, but I have learned so many things about the optics that I use, that i'm always in doubt if something better should be used. Surely my images are some how technically better today, but they may miss the spark they had when they were not so razor sharp and i was just shooting without many worries.
In any case when I got familiar with the AF of a new camera I'm using, and I have learned the strengths and weaknesses, I get better results than focusing manually. I think I'm still good a focusing manually, it is just that the information delivered by these new cameras, shows how good I am. Before I did not exactly know how good i was. definitively tolerances, technical and hardware tolerances have tightened up and therefore also out tolerance has evolved. but more than that i think is the capability that we have of seeing what we could not see few years back. yes we could look at a large photo print and get an idea of what we had achieved on term of quality, but we could not pan that print around at 100% magnification using the "cursor hand" few second after we shot it. And we could not see, within a snap of a sec, the frame we shot right after and the following ones.
For me that I shoot people (mainly fashion models) with at least a bit of movement, I think a good use of AF is preferable, rather than getting nut on focusing manually, because by focusing manually we will never reach the degree of reliability and accuracy that an Af system can give if the camera is pointed at someone walking around. I think that a 20 or 30mp advantage, can be immediately negated if the clothing or eye brows are front focused by 3 or 4 centimeters.
I eventually relay on manual focus, when i shoot beauty close ups and I cannot place the AF sensors where I would like. Also by incident when I'm so close to the face, I can clearly discern eye lashes and wrinkles that I can actually be sure if i'm tack sharp. With a medium format, is nearly impossible to shoot beauty close ups in AF, at least for me.
-
Thanks all; this topic is very interesting and timely for me.
Bruce
-
Any time I look back to my old scans, I realized that what was considered in focus and sharp by an AD, printer tech or a fashion/beauty editor, it looks pretty out of focus to me today,
..but they may miss the spark they had when they were not so razor sharp and i was just shooting without many worries.
Yeah I did an a job at a school I think it was 1/30th with the D3 on an 80-200 non VR - partly testing 'how low can I go' with the high ISO ' - can I just capture some moments rather than concentrate on lugging all my flashes around
I was trying to rediscover my photographic joy from when I was a kid with a Nikkormat and a roll of self rolled Tmax that was probably fogged at the edges and would be developed for 'one beer' if it was sunny or 'two beers' if it was dark
I got a picture with a bit of emotional spark and also a bit of movement
The picture editor who also happens to be a Canon using Flash 'guru' when not picture editing was most displeased with the technical imcompetence of the picture I think they had forgotten
1) that it was a pleasing image
2) that it was only going to be printed on toilet roll
I think that anyone who wants technical perfection at high MP will be let down by most current technology, AF , GG whatever - you need tripod live view/tethered to shoot at the resolutions of current cameras
And nothing kills spark like a tripod and tethered computer for me !
The MP race is therefore futile (unless you are Rainer or in a studio) IMO because you just get to look at shit better
ps I have been focus bracketing with my body since owning my 'off' mamiya/proback combo which is now gone
S