Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 107890 times)

hauxon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #80 on: December 04, 2008, 07:27:38 pm »

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
I dont think this is correct

with a piddly little focusing screen one just cant see as much than at 200% on a monitor - we just cant see the blur as well in camera

the 85 1.2 can give less DOF than any MF but not the same DOF IMO

S

Using my 50mm f/1.2 lens (on 1DsII) I can often read letters or logos through the viewfinder that render totally out of focus in the captured image.
Logged

juicy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #81 on: December 04, 2008, 07:29:44 pm »

Hi,
Chuck Westfall has something to say about dof and different focusing screens HERE.


Quote from: gwhitf
I tested my 1ds3 today, to compare the apparent depth of field that I see in the viewfinder, versus what is rendered in the file. I've tested this before and it seems like digital has so much less depth of field than film, for some reason.

Today, I tested fstops, and to get sharp in my 1ds3 viewfinder, (viewing thru the 50 at f1.2), I had to stop down to f8 or even 11 to get the file focus depth to match the viewfinder depth.

1.2 viewing, versus f8 in the file. A massive difference.

So we can no longer say WYSIWYG about the viewfinder.

Test it yourself, you'll be shocked. Yet another reason to have a high quality LCD out in the field, if you're not shooting tethered.

Hell, maybe it's always been that way, even with film, but it was just too much trouble and time consuming to test it with film.
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2008, 07:38:00 pm »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:23:09 am by gwhitf »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2008, 09:55:33 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Ray,
That's why it's so difficult to do the conversation when someone doesn't understand what I (and probarbly others) mean.

When you shoot a 50mm on a FF DSLR it's not as simple as using a 75mm on a MF system.
The whole look will change.

Let's make it very simple.
MF systems make it possible to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens wide open and give you much less DOF than the same 200mm on a FF DSLR.
When you want to achieve this one could opt for a 300mm lens for example and use that on f2.8 (if possible) but still there is a different look, the 300mm will compress the scene different than the 200mm.

In other words.
Try to borrow a MF system and shoot with a 120mm lens a portrait.
Now change to a DSLR and shoot the exact same portret with a 120mm lens, see the difference.

Now do it your way.
Shoot it on MF with a 120mm lens and take a 75mm on a DSLR and shoot again the same portrait.
You will find that BOTH cameras will give you an unique look.
I don't say one is better or the other is worse.

I can just talk for myself and I absolutly LOVE the look I get from the large sensors, that's also the reason I still use the Aptus22 and am now seriously looking at the Aptus II 10, I would probarbly never invest in a crop of 1.3 for MF (although in the RZ I don't have a choice  yet.... would love a 6x7 digital back)


Don't try to get me on calculations, I post this very quickly so probarbly the mm's are wrong but you know what I mean.

Frank,
Well first let me say that it's a pity that some folks feel the need to resort to insults when when expressing a difference of opinion. I always try to be polite. I hope you learn to develop a thick skin   .

I understand that there can be subtle differences when using different lenses with different formats, even though one has attempted to equalise matters by changing F stop and focal length in proportion to differences in sensor dimensions.

These differences are also likely to be confused when comparing cameras that also have a different aspect ratio since one can't exactly match FoV to both sides simultaneously. One camera's image has to be cropped to the other's aspect ratio.

These rules, that one should change focal length and f stop by 1.5x when moving from 35mm to MFDB ( or 1.33x depending on which side of the frame the FoV applies to), are only guidelines.

The size difference between the Canon cropped format and full frame 35mm is actually greater than the size difference between 35mm and MFDB, but comparisons are easier because the aspect ratio is the same. MFDB users are not the only photographers who may use different formats from time to time. The same laws of optics should apply.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the focal length and F stop multiplier, when moving up from the Canon cropped format to full frame 35mm, is 1.6x, this figure is not always accurate with regard to DoF. For example, a 50mm lens at F4 on a Canon 50D should produce a very similar result to an 80mm lens at F6.3 on the Canon 5D. However, my own tests have indicated that the larger format 5D still produces a shallower DoF in these circumstance when shooting at fairly close distances, the sort of distances that might apply in a studio. To get the DoF looking very close with both cameras, I have to use F8 with the 80mm lens on the 5D, that is, a 1.6x multiplier for the focal length, but a 2x multiplier for the F stop.

Logged

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2008, 11:32:57 pm »

to me the real MF "look" starts at 6x7, 6x8, 6x9....6x4.5 or even smaller always looked pretty much like 35mm to me....

i am not into optical/technical data too much but i know that the only way to get the DOF of a 35mm 1.4 or 1.2 lens is to go with the fastest schneider lenses out there on rollei....

which brings up another point...has anyone here actually shot with a MF 2.0 lens? with a DMF back? relying on AF? straining your eyes to get focus manually? even at studio shoots at f8 i used to have an assistant sitting hunched over the C1 focus window....with the RZ i simply constantly focused and shot....you can imagine the ratio of in focus shots.....i am talking about in focus, not acceptable focus which can totally be handed off to clients because you are shooting 30mpix anyway and the thing will be printed 8x10 and nobody can tell the difference...
i shoot 1.4 and 1.8 with the canon and ever shot is crisp where i want it....and the background falls off beautifully....you just can't do that with  MF at least not with a decent success rate.....i was able to shoot MF with the gx680 handheld and get focus, but those lenses are slow as hell and that was a 6x8 finder....no DMF back is anywhere near there....

there was a thread here where someone said that the canon screens pretty much show 2.8...there are some other ones that show the faster f-stops more accurately..... in my experience it works fine, shooting tethered helps for critical oof areas....

anyone who shoots with pretty much any zoom and expects beautiful oof areas is kidding themselves....

there is a reason images made with leica lenses just look different...it is funny to me that in this forum everybody is so focused on the sensors and camerabodies, when the lenses really "draw" the image.....i don't want to get all artsy, but some of the old and (considering their horrible technical data) bad lenses draw amazing images....and some lenses really let you show what you want to show and let the background be as supportive to the whole composition just like you "saw" it in your mind or in reality....and zooms usually butcher that very aspect of imagetaking....i am not talking about corner to corner sharpness here....

i really don't think this thread is supposed to be like the old 35 vs MF threads, but it turns out like that.....
i think was is amazing is that at base speed the 5dII file can actually be compared to the aptus file.....there are differences, anyone in their right frame of mind would choose the aptus, but you have to consider EVERTHING else about both tools when looking at those 2 files as well....
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2008, 11:54:18 pm »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:23:26 am by gwhitf »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #86 on: December 05, 2008, 02:32:26 am »

Quote from Chuck westfall:
However, because of the design of the microlenses on the surface of the Ee-A, the depth of field shown through the viewfinder never appears be shallower than approximately f/2.8.

I think that supports what I posted about the change in the optical path and the magnification of the viewfinder.
But again I never looked at it because I did not notice it, I think when you run into it the problems it can indeed be frustating.
The thing that could also be debit to it is the CoC, when viewing to a viewfinder the distance + size of the image you see is different than on a monitor or print.
Think about printing a photo on 10x15cm and viewing it from 1 mtr or viewing a 50x70cm shot from a meter there is a big difference in what appears sharp and is soft. (I know the viewfinder is watched from a very close distance)
By changing the focus screen for a more matte one could have to do with the perceived contrast, our eyes need contrast to see depth.
Could be that it's something else, but this is what popped into my mind

@Ray,
I'm always trying to be honest and gentle and try not to step on toes, it's a shame that it's sometimes explained as that.
I'm just explaining what I see, and that there is no real simple formula to let a DSLR behave as a MF there is much more going on.

@James,
Thanks for the explanation, as mentioned in top of the test I never shot a situation as you describe and I can imagine it can drive you nuts.
On the 85mm 1.2L don't get me wrong I loved that lens, but the fall off at least for my eyes was completly different than what I'm getting with MF.
Not to say the Canon lens is bad or whatever it just looks different, and that's what I'm trying to explain all along
There is no simple way to compare the two systems because the sensor size is different.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 02:34:50 am by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #87 on: December 05, 2008, 03:51:43 am »

hasselblad had a nice in deep article in V magazine about lens design differences and how they effect an image. i think this issue is online available,  very recommended.
Logged

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #88 on: December 05, 2008, 04:05:35 am »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@James,
Thanks for the explanation, as mentioned in top of the test I never shot a situation as you describe and I can imagine it can drive you nuts.
On the 85mm 1.2L don't get me wrong I loved that lens, but the fall off at least for my eyes was completly different than what I'm getting with MF.
Not to say the Canon lens is bad or whatever it just looks different, and that's what I'm trying to explain all along
There is no simple way to compare the two systems because the sensor size is different.


The only lens that I use and own that gets close to the Canon 85 1.2 is the 110 F2 blad lens I stick on the Contax.

It does have a different look wide open but it's not that different than the 85 1.2 to the point I don't use it that much.  It's just a pain manually stopping down and honestly compared to the Canons I don't use the medium format backs that much period, they're just slow and complicated and the difference, once an image goes through heavy post, is so small it's not worth the slowness in shooting.

When the conditions are right medium format can produce a great look, but they require a lot of light, tethering and I find the session begins to get stiff.

To segway this into the color thread that's started I find all the digital cameras to have a different look and I shoot a lot of them side by side, Contax to Leica, Leica to Canon, Canon to Nikon.

Right now I am processing 19,500 files from all four systems and even in the same conditions and lighting they look different and require a lot of adjustments.

Under certain conditions each one has a place, but they all render different color and contrast and then there is just some things digital doesn't do well.

I just shot in the Moscow train station, models backlit wanting that pretty flare you get from film and with digital it's just different.  It's either blow out or softness or something but not that direct flare I use to get with film.  And this is not just with the Canons or Nikons as I've tried this with the phase and leaf backs also.

Also I find all digital cameras to be very sensitive to ambient color, the Canons and Nikons less so than the Aptus and Phase digital backs I have owned.  The canons can have their issues but so can the backs.

Shoot a digital back with hard light, like the profoto hard box and you will see a magenta banding on skin as it transitions from highlight to shadow.  My Aptus 22 did this more than the phase even less with the Canons but they all do it to some extent.  Consequently the Canons don't like shadow detail without pulling up clumps of noise, though a digital back, shot in continous light at high iso will also noise up in the shadow areas a great deal, to the point it takes a round of post work to fix it.

Also underexposing digital like we did film for that "look" is just difficult to do without a lot of post work and I find the post work in digital to usually be much more of a need rather than a want .

It doesn't mean film was perfect, but for a lot of subjects it was consistent and was kind of color dumb where it didn't see every bit of ambient color in the room.  

Actually, maybe film was just smart and was engineered for a look rather than the way digital seems to be engineered to be color perfect.  

I really would love for Kodak to go find those film guys that they probably layed off 5 years ago and hire them back to teach the sensor guys or the software guys how these sensors should perform, so we can build a cohesive look regardless of the ambient color or the light source.

Someone on one of these threads posted that Dubler link and his lighting and look is nice, but I found it interesting that he shot those images with an Olympus.  Maybe it's because some sponsor deal with Olympus as it is mentioned on his site, along with Epson, but the images looked good and that is all that matters.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 10:36:23 am by James R Russell »
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #89 on: December 05, 2008, 04:43:10 am »

Quote from: hauxon
135mm@f/2.8 on FF DSLR and 210mm@f/4.5 on 645 is not the same.  FOV and DOF may be the similar but the f-stop is different, the lights act different, the oof area may render more pleasantly on his prime than the Canon zoom etc, a lot of variables come into play.  One thing I've sometimes thought about is if the amount of OOF is linear or in parabolic relation to the sensor size.  .....what I'm trying to say is that even if the in-focus area is the same, is it possible that the larger sensor makes the rate of OOF somehow steeper?

Best, Hrannar


no,  the focus on sensor sizes is totally misleading. the  more important factors imho are  how (local) contrast  is rendered in the raw conversion process  and lens design.
Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #90 on: December 05, 2008, 07:21:43 am »

This has turned into a really interesting discussion for me. I don't have much knowledge about DoF characteristics, but do have some previous thoughts and observations on the matter. There was once a long and interesting discussion on FM about the different looks from different lenses. There are few MF guys over there, so it was mostly about various adapted lenses on Canons, and the discussion at some point turned to the different DoF look between Contax and Leica R lenses. Some preferred one, some the other, but trying to nail down the reason for the very visible differences was hard, for example on the Leica 180/2 and the Zeiss 200/2. In the end, we thought that the optical design characteristics tended to emphasize a very fast DoF roll-off on the Leica lenses, and a much more gradual roll-off for the Contax lenses, giving the Leica lenses their isolation ability, and the Contax lenses their greater feeling of 3D. The Canon lenses were all over the place, many with DoF like mud or broken glass, but a few, like the 85/1.2L looking quite beautiful (apart from the greater presence of CA).

I wonder if this is what is also going on with MF. I don't know if the look of MF is due to some optical characteristics in the physically larger designs, or if it has more to do with the optical design philosophies of the MF companies. I wonder if there are visible differences between the DoF looks of lenses from different companies, but for the same format size, similar to Leica vs. Contax on 35mm? I also wonder if the coming Leica MF lenses will look different than the M and R lenses?

Out of curiousity, James, you have mentioned the M8 as being one of your favorite cameras. Mine too. Which lenses do you prefer?

-

About the focusing screens and DoF, gwhitf, have you tried different Canon focusing screens and compared them? Have you tried a Brightscreen or Maxwell focusing screen and compared?
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #91 on: December 05, 2008, 11:08:54 am »

I have read the thread on FM, and participated.

The whole 3D look of a system has for some always been something weird or not excisting.
However when we look at how depth perception works it's maybe quite easy to explain.

To see depth we need good blacks, and good contrast.
To see more detail (more real) we would benefit from microcontrast and the lack of AA filters.

When we translate this to lenses a lens that is very lensresistant WOULD render better blacks and contrast.
A lens that is perfect would also render alot of microcontrast.

The thing I could not put together in this is that the lenses on the RZ67ProII are not that flare resistant but still have tremendous 3D quality.
Untill someone told me this was mainly due to the bellow focus, by using that system you can get a very simple/easy to build lens and have optimum quality.
Add with that, that on the RZ we only use the center part of the lens with digital (which is the best in terms of contrast and sharpness) and it's almost logical that the RZ renders more 3D like images than for example a 645AFD/III.

The nice things was that when I indeed bought the RZ67ProII it was indeed exact as told, but I have to be very carefull with lensflare, so I use a big lens hoods and flags in the studio, the lenses are more flare sensitive than the 645AFD/III or canon lenses.
When the flare sets in the 3D effect is totally gone.

But this a bit off topic......
Logged

lisa_r

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2008, 11:40:29 am »

Quote from: gwhitf
I tested my 1ds3 today, to compare the apparent depth of field that I see in the viewfinder, versus what is rendered in the file. I've tested this before and it seems like digital has so much less depth of field than film, for some reason.

Today, I tested fstops, and to get sharp in my 1ds3 viewfinder, (viewing thru the 50 at f1.2), I had to stop down to f8 or even 11 to get the file focus depth to match the viewfinder depth.

1.2 viewing, versus f8 in the file. A massive difference.

So we can no longer say WYSIWYG about the viewfinder.

Test it yourself, you'll be shocked.

I think these issues are mostly solved by purchasing the $35 precision focusing screens Canon makes. They make the viewfinder slightly dimmer, but the focus snap is much improved. I use them in all of my Canons, and they work great - it's a very cheap solution. Read this:

Chuck Westfall:
That said, it is true that most standard focusing screens for modern SLRs such as the EOS 5D are designed to provide a reasonable balance between viewfinder brightness and manual focusing capability. The Ee-A standard focusing screen for the EOS 5D is bright enough (and accurate enough) for manual focusing under most lighting conditions with virtually any EF lens regardless of maximum aperture. However, because of the design of the microlenses on the surface of the Ee-A, the depth of field shown through the viewfinder never appears be shallower than approximately f/2.8. Therefore, when using a lens faster than f/2.8, the depth of field in the resulting photograph may be shallower than what's shown in the viewfinder if a working aperture larger than f/2.8 is selected. This effect can be readily seen when comparing the viewfinder image to the LCD screen during replay, if you take time to look for it.

If this is an issue for you, Canon offers an optional focusing screen called the Ee-S Super Precision Matte Screen. This focusing screen uses more powerful microlenses than the standard Ee-A screen, with the result that out-of-focus areas in the viewfinder are more accurate to the actual depth of field in the resulting image. This has the effect of making it easier to determine the exact point of focus during manual focusing, especially with high-speed lenses like the EF50mm f/1.4 USM or EF50mm f/1.2L USM. However, it also has the effect of making the Ee-S focusing screen noticeably darker than the Ee-A screen when using lenses with maximum apertures smaller than f/2.8. (No free lunch!)

In short, they make the apparent depth of field in the viewfinder look more narrow - thus more closely matching the actual depth of field of the fast lenses. They are only $35! Buy one.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 11:44:34 am by lisa_r »
Logged

Raphael

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #93 on: December 05, 2008, 12:36:20 pm »

Tks for the hint Lisa, will get one soon.
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #94 on: December 05, 2008, 12:47:29 pm »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:23:53 am by gwhitf »
Logged

lisa_r

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #95 on: December 05, 2008, 12:55:39 pm »

Quote from: gwhitf
When you solve one thing by installing them, do you create another problem simultaneously?

Not that i know of. Just make sure to tell the camera which screen is installed (in custom functions)so the metering remains accurate.
Logged

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #96 on: December 05, 2008, 02:04:03 pm »

Quote from: gwhitf
Yes, I own them all, even the square and 4x5 black-crop screens. I've got to check which screen is installed in what bodies right now. (I hope there's a marking!) Thanks for the reminder. I use the 85 and 50 so those "fast" screens seemed like appropriate purchase. The question is: When you solve one thing by installing them, do you create another problem simultaneously?

Also just realized, with the 1ds3, there is a CustomFunction IV-11, that forces you to specify which screen is installed. So to anyone else with this issue, make sure that is set properly too. Wish I'd never opened this can of worms.

do they make those more accurate screen with the 4x5 crop marks? i can't live without those anymore....
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2008, 02:22:38 pm »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:24:05 am by gwhitf »
Logged

paul_jones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
    • http://www.paulrossjones.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #98 on: December 05, 2008, 03:01:01 pm »

Quote from: gwhitf
This is really splintering off, and I fear the wrath of the country of Estonia, but here is an email that just arrived, from someone very knowledgeable about Canon screens. (I thought the EEs was compatible with the 1ds3, appears it is not. But I did not have the EEs installed. For sure I won't install it now).

----

The "Ee" screens are not compatible with EOS-1 class cameras, so unless you've got an original 5D, you should sell them or return them for credit.

The screen with CIV on the tab is the Ec-C IV, which is intended for use with the 1Ds Mark III and 1D Mark III. If you install this one to your 1Ds Mark III, set C.Fn IV-11 to 0, the default. If you install the Ec-C III (the screen with CIII on the tab) to your EOS-1Ds Mark III, set C.Fn IV-11 to 1.

Hope that helps!


ive been trying to solve this problem as well, i regularly shoot at 1.2. i have been in touch with bill maxwell (the focusing screen people) to make up one. there options are- modify a 5d screen to fit a 1dsmk3 (he hasnt got a mk3 screen to try yet), make a plastic screen from scratch, or try and resurface a mk3 screen. i just have to send him a mk3 screen so he can see what the best option is.

paul
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 03:01:41 pm by paul_jones »
Logged
check my new website
[url=http://www.pau

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #99 on: December 05, 2008, 03:29:23 pm »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:24:15 am by gwhitf »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Up