Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: which is best: view camera vs ts-e lens vs 17mm + photoshop  (Read 32970 times)
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #100 on: November 18, 2009, 04:07:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I've used a Bogen 410 geared head for years. Does everything I need and handles my 4x5 too=but costs just $219. 410


Same here, Kirk.  While the 410 is not as sweet as the Cube, it is dirt cheap and has a geared pan, which I use constantly for fine tuning oblique shots.  Btw, I have never seen a head's built in level that agreed with the cameras bubble levels.

-C
Logged
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #101 on: November 18, 2009, 04:29:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
Same here, Kirk.  While the 410 is not as sweet as the Cube, it is dirt cheap and has a geared pan, which I use constantly for fine tuning oblique shots.  Btw, I have never seen a head's built in level that agreed with the cameras bubble levels.

-C

my Alpa's and Cube have a common understanding of verticals and horizontals...... In a way ironic because my beloved Arca's could never agree between them self - and here I'm talking front standard vs. rear standard - a contstant fight....  
Logged

jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


« Reply #102 on: November 18, 2009, 04:43:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The LEVEL in the image below fits the lens barrel and is wonderful.

Best,
Johannes
P.S.: Sorry, I uploaded the image twice.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 04:44:04 PM by jsch » Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #103 on: November 18, 2009, 04:43:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: adammork
In a way ironic because my beloved Arca's could never agree between them self - and here I'm talking front standard vs. rear standard - a contstant fight....  


Heh...the M Line 2 is my fourth Arca and I was pleasantly surprised to find all the levels to be accurate.  : )

Johannes, I have been scouring the net forever trying to find the perfect level.  Where can I get that one?!!!!!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 04:45:13 PM by CBarrett » Logged
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #104 on: November 18, 2009, 04:55:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
Heh...the M Line 2 is my fourth Arca and I was pleasantly surprised to find all the levels to be accurate.  : )

So that's the trick.... I only had 3  
Logged

asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #105 on: November 18, 2009, 05:24:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I had 3 Arca's also (all F line metric), the levels never agreed with each other much less the cube. Somehow the Alpa and the cube do agree.

I also have a closet shelf filled with acrylic levels like the one Joe posted, used to carry them at all times. But no matter how good they were it really mattered exactly where on the camera you checked the level. It's really hard to find a fully flat surface on most cameras. Also for checking fore-aft tilt it also matters where and how you put the pressure on the level (esp with the more sensitive levels).

Now I've tested my Alpa and it was perfect from the beginning. The 3 cheap (relatively) shoe levels I use on the Canon are also perfect - but it seems in that regard I'm lucky.

The 410 is all the head anyone will ever need for arch/interior photography. That said I switched to the cube as soon as it was announced and still consider it money well spent. For me. I would never recommend it to someone.
Logged
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #106 on: November 22, 2009, 10:58:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quick Update, I just got my newly bought used 24mm TS-E MKI lens today. My first impression is "WOW" I never knew 11mm of shift can make so much difference on a 24mm. Really, I find the lens to be very practical and I don't think I am going to run out of shift very often. That being said there was one thing that surprised me, which is the extent of vignetting. Shifting beyond 6mm creates some serious vignetting, which leaves me wondering how are people countering this problem? Given this is a very old design I bet the new MKII lens was designed with a solution for this problem in mind. I guess using the MKI on a 22mm camera is very advantageous because the crop factor would isolate the vignetting and 11mm relative to 22mm offer much greater shift.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 11:17:17 AM by Abdulrahman Aljabri » Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 22, 2009, 11:17:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from:  Abdulrahman Aljabri
Quick Update, I just got my newly bought used 24mm TS-E MKI lens today. My first impression is "WOW" I never knew 11mm of shift can make so much difference on a 24mm. Really, I find the lens to be very practical and I don't think I am going to run out of shift very often. That being said there was one thing that surprised me, which is the extent of vignetting. Shifting beyond 6mm creates some serious vignetting, which leads me wondering how are people countering this problem? Given this is a very old design I bet the new MKII lens was designed with a solution for this problem in mind. I guess using the MKI on a 22mm camera is very advantageous because the crop factor would isolate the vignetting and 11mm relative to 22mm offer much greater shift.

The old lens, 24 tse Mark I, can shift the full 11mm but is not recommended to be shifted fully if you want optimal quality.  If you look on the shift scale on the lens you'll see that the outer 4mm of shift are marked in red.  That's Canon's way of saying - hey, don't beyond 7mm.

The new lens, the Mark II, has more shift and doesn't suffer from the vignetting, etc.

24 Mark I vs. 24 Mark II

To work with the old lens, I'd keep the shifting to 7mm.  You can then use Ptlens to correct for the lens barreling and the CA. You can also use Photshop's lens filter to correct for the CA but you'll want to make another layer to run it on.  If you have shift a lot it's possible that correcting for CA will correct it one part of the frame but introduce it another.  Working on another layer will allow you to correct it where needed.  

The new lens doesn't have these issues so it saves you these post-production steps.
Logged

Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #108 on: November 26, 2009, 04:59:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JonRoemer
The old lens, 24 tse Mark I, can shift the full 11mm but is not recommended to be shifted fully if you want optimal quality.  If you look on the shift scale on the lens you'll see that the outer 4mm of shift are marked in red.  That's Canon's way of saying - hey, don't beyond 7mm.

The new lens, the Mark II, has more shift and doesn't suffer from the vignetting, etc.

24 Mark I vs. 24 Mark II

To work with the old lens, I'd keep the shifting to 7mm.  You can then use Ptlens to correct for the lens barreling and the CA. You can also use Photshop's lens filter to correct for the CA but you'll want to make another layer to run it on.  If you have shift a lot it's possible that correcting for CA will correct it one part of the frame but introduce it another.  Working on another layer will allow you to correct it where needed.  

The new lens doesn't have these issues so it saves you these post-production steps.


Thanks, very useful feedback and link.
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #109 on: November 26, 2009, 05:01:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I've used a Bogen 410 geared head for years. Does everything I need and handles my 4x5 too=but costs just $219. 410


does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #110 on: November 26, 2009, 07:36:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from:  Abdulrahman Aljabri
does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?


I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

-C
Logged
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #111 on: November 26, 2009, 08:24:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

An RRS L bracket should be included in the box with every camera regardless of format.  Once you start working with one you won't want to work any other way.

Site | Blog

Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #112 on: November 26, 2009, 08:50:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

-C
This, with a pistol-grip żand a balance rail? would solve the vertical grip problem on the Hasselblad.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551


WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 26, 2009, 01:07:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from:  Abdulrahman Aljabri
does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?

i t works great for a DSLR vertically for AP and landscape. I'm not quite sure what "slow-movement vertical portrait photography" is?
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 06:31:48 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #114 on: November 27, 2009, 02:15:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

-C


that looks very convenient on the tripod, but doesn't the L-bracket make a 35mm camera awkward to handhold?
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 27, 2009, 02:19:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
i t works great for a DSLR vertically for AP and landscape. I'm not quite sure what "slow-movement vertical portrait photography" is?


its just portrait photography in vertical orientation shooting a none moving subject (barely moving). I guess if it works nicely for AP and landscape it should work fine for that type of portrait photography.
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #116 on: November 30, 2009, 12:53:06 PM »
ReplyReply

'Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus.'
How about shooting several frames from exactly the same position with the focus pulled between each shot and then combining them in PS using layer masks and a soft edged brush? That works doesn't it?
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #117 on: November 30, 2009, 02:24:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drew
'Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus.'
How about shooting several frames from exactly the same position with the focus pulled between each shot and then combining them in PS using layer masks and a soft edged brush? That works doesn't it?
In theory. There are even programs to automate the "focus stacking" process. But there are a few problems. The biggest one is that most modern lenses "breathe", which means that the actual focal length (and hence FOV) changes as the focus distance changes.

Some folks claim to get very good results with this approach. I guess it depends on the types of scenes you shoot. My experience is that it doesn't work so well, as you will often get artifacts from the blending process. It also can dramatically increase the number of exposures you have to take (especially if you're already bracketing for dynamic range).
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551


WWW
« Reply #118 on: November 30, 2009, 02:28:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I have had pretty good results from focus stacking with architecture and architectural models (and models in architecture...see below). It works best when there are zones of like focus, such as foreground, mid ground and background without something like a large tree in the foreground piercing the zones of focus. Like a view camera tilt, It also works well when there is single plane that needs to be brought in focus.

Example, shot for an upcoming show, three frames, camera horizontal, with a Canon 45 T/S, top of diverging beams, cross beams and model. The top two frames were shot first and then on the third many positions for the model were tried over the course of say an hour. The light changed a little but the stack still worked after tweaking the exposure on the model frame. IME, I couldn't have done better with a view camera.

[attachment=18255:Convergence__2009.jpg]
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 03:16:48 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
MarcusNewey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #119 on: November 30, 2009, 06:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from:  Abdulrahman Aljabri
that looks very convenient on the tripod, but doesn't the L-bracket make a 35mm camera awkward to handhold?

No not really, I only ever take mine off when I'm going as light as possible with a small prime, but really you hardly notice it day to day, and once you've shot with one  you'll never want to go back to flipping a head over 90 deg to shoot portrait. Well worth the investment [you'll need to have a bunch of 'arca-swiss' style clamp plates too to replace / add to your original heads QR's]

Also...I've been a happy ball head user for a while, just got a manfotto 410, it bugs me that the camera isn't aligned with the center of rotation [panning].
I've found a nice work around using a macro adjustment plate and turning the head 90deg, which can actually put the nodal point of the lens directly over the center of the panning point. But I think it adds too much flex, and the bubble level is obscured.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 06:28:19 PM by MarcusNewey » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad