Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 08:11:05 PM 
Started by Here to stay - Last post by dwswager
I have no idea what minimum pixel size is technically feasible within all the constraints.  That is beyond my expertise! But I suspect we will arrive back at the situation where if you want more pixels, then a larger sensor is the technical, if not the practical, answer and not higher pixel density.  That there will be other advantages to more total pixels at a lower density than packing higher pixel density into the 135 size sensor. Basically, we will be back to the MF/135 trade-offs and debate.  I am only thankful that the performance of the D810 will more than meet my needs from a total pixel count standpoint.

 on: Today at 08:09:51 PM 
Started by chbla - Last post by Pic One
A bit off the beaten path.. but I thought worthwhile is "Train your Gaze" by Roswell Angier.   Another book.. not by any means an instruction manual, but I thought was great is a coffee table book I bought a few years ago called "Book of 101 Books" or something like that.  It's a recollection and history of the art of photography.   Not sure if it's in print any more though.

 on: Today at 07:49:33 PM 
Started by Here to stay - Last post by dwswager
Not to be obvious but that depends on the lens and the sensor. Using camera  identical sensor area,  the same individual lens at a given aperture may yield fine results on a12mp sensor, good results on 24mp camera, and only so-so results on a 36mp sensor.

This is the original statement to which I was responding.  To which I simply explained that the ;ens would give the same results on all 3 sensors though the sensors will handle what it is given differently.  While the final image is dependent on the lens, any DIFFERENCES in final output will not be caused by the lens, but by the sensor, in camera processing, post processing, printing or display process.  I believe what the original poster was trying to convey was that if you look at 100% pixel size (pixel peep), what you might find is that the per pixel data isn't what you thought it might be and the higher pixel density senor may reveal weaknesses in a lens that looked just fine on a 12MP sensor.

I have a lens that is speced as diffraction limited. If you put any sensor behind it you think you get all you are going to get. I also have a corrective element for it, a coma corrector, that improves the quality of the pixels on APSC at the expense of the edges on FF. The rim tends to distort a bit. When I use this lens on large pixel FF I tend to not use the corrector. When I use it on finer APS-C I use the corrector.

So it is not necessarily true that the lens always gives you the most with other devices subtracting.

The fact that the lens performance...what the lens outputs is independent of anything behind it in the imaging chain is so blindingly self-evident, I almost didn't post it.  The image below demonstrates.  If you wish to try to refute this, please explain how this works, because it will be amazing.  I would love to hear how a sensor or correcting lens gets into the lens and changes it's optical characteristics!

 on: Today at 07:19:54 PM 
Started by Vlad3 - Last post by Vlad3
Hello Pieter,

Thank you kindly for your speedy reply!

I know about Youtube and some other sources of knowledge, I just don't trust myself to successfully carry such a complicated procedure. Obviously, if everything else fails I might attempt it... with my shaking hands...

All the best,


 on: Today at 07:18:36 PM 
Started by Here to stay - Last post by Jim Kasson
Someone should take pictures of a straw man with the same lens on a A7s, A7 and A7r.

Zony 55FE on the a7R:
Zony 55FE on the a7:

Handheld a7/a7R comparisons:
Rangefinder lenses on the a7S:

General a7R stuff:
General a7R stuff:
General a7S stuff:


 on: Today at 07:13:44 PM 
Started by Slim - Last post by luxborealis
+1, too. I particularly find Slobodan's query about it being a composite quite telling.

I often think my own wilderness landscape photography glorifying the beauty of nature is wasted when shots like this come along exposing the what we are doing to the diminishing wilderness we have. I expect photographs like this have a far greater impact on people's willingness to protect nature than even a hundred or a thousand "pretty scenes" like the ones I tend to make.

Well seen and captured!

 on: Today at 07:09:34 PM 
Started by Vlad3 - Last post by kers
I have done it myself- as many others

belt 40$

1 day work ; make a lot of photographs and when you take something out put it in an order so you know in what order to put it back

video :
my printer works fine ... it is not difficult- just work tidy.

 on: Today at 07:02:33 PM 
Started by Nick Walt - Last post by luxborealis
I am pleasantly surprised to read of the overwhelming support for zoom lenses amongst such an accomplished group of photographers. So often we hear the clarion call of primes (as I once professed as well); it's refreshing to hear the more practical side, along with a dose of "taking care not to get lazy with zooms", as is so easy to do.

I made the switch back to zooms for my landscape and nature work earlier this year with the addition of the "newish" Nikkor 18-35 f/3.5-4.5. Before buying this comparatively inexpensive zoom, I checked the DxOMark ratings and found it to be superior to the Nikkor 16-35 and my Nikkor 20/2.8 and as good as my Nikkor 24/2.8. Doing side-by-side comparison shots convinced me to sell the two primes and not look back. The 18-35 is surprisingly lightweight and far outperforms its price point.

Making landscapes using a tripod, mostly at f/11, means that image stabilisation is irrelevant, as are large apertures.

 on: Today at 06:59:40 PM 
Started by Nick Walt - Last post by Slim
I mostly use primes for anything 50mm and wider.  Not for resolution, but I find primes to have better contrast and more pop.  I sacrifice portability and carry a lot of weight on my back for this.  I also carry the 70 200 zoom canon mk ii for anything tighter.

 on: Today at 06:59:12 PM 
Started by Here to stay - Last post by Torbjörn Tapani
Someone should take pictures of a straw man with the same lens on a A7s, A7 and A7r.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »