Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New to site and DMF... Just in time with H5D ! Help Please.  (Read 27365 times)
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #120 on: October 12, 2012, 09:48:10 PM »
ReplyReply

47 mm, does it need center filter and has it issues with lens cast?

Center filter is not needed on 47XL Digitar. Lens casts can be stored for Aptus backs updated with latest GUI, thus ideal for tech camera since you can save lens casts for different shifts and tilts and select them during a shoot rather than make the lens cast for each exposure in field. Suggest to Google.

Could you please provide more details about what you have in mind?

- what components would make up this system: back - Aptus22?, camera, lens,
- how much does each component cost: Back at 5,000 Us$ it seems, how about camera and lens?
- how much does each component weight and how bulky is it?

(note Nick and I have spoken about a tech camera outside of this thread - so it's not out of context)
+ Google ?? (http://www.captureintegration.com/2012/09/28/new-cambo-rc400-1st-usa/)


Finally, have you ever owned the Aptus 22 you are recommending?

Nope, I looked at it years ago and picked Aptus 65 because I preferred one newer generation. I know Aptus 22 is a stellar back, yet it is a generation of back, 22MP @ 48x36mm vs 28MP @ 44x33mm consideration. Frank Doorfhof used Aptus 22 for years. Do a search. The Aptus 22 listed on CI current only have 8000 exposures... my AFi-II 12 is already at 6,500 after less than 18 months...

« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 09:54:47 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7905



WWW
« Reply #121 on: October 12, 2012, 10:07:23 PM »
ReplyReply

A summary would be great, you must have an rough idea since you recommended it? Total price, weight and bulk?

Unless I am mistaken, the "cheaper" Cambo (camera at 2,400 US$ - nearly the price of the D800) that you recommended above doesn't offer tilt capability, does it?

What makes you think it is a better solution for landscape work?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 01:14:51 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1415


« Reply #122 on: October 13, 2012, 05:10:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Going in "cheap" tech cam-wise I'd recommend look into Arca-Swiss mf-two, or Linhof Techno. Not needing those expensive calibrated lens mounts makes a difference when you start having 4 - 5 lenses. You'll have to live with ground glass focusing and sliding back though, which some really detest, but I think it is okay although it has its limitations.

It will still be significantly more expensive than a basic D800 system of course, even before you get the digital back, and if you cannot afford the latest backs resolution will not be better. I use it because I like to use tilt/shift in most compositions and find it charming to work with those 100% mechanical cameras.

Another factor is that I appreciate tilt feature very much and since my favourite landscape focal length is ~35mm in 135 terms the lack of lenses in that focal length for DSLR systems is a fat minus. If one's shooting style is such that tilt/shift is not that important I think the tech cam argument falls pretty flat though, unless you can afford 80 megapixels and appreciate that extra resolution.

If you have a tech cam you will most likely need a DSLR system as well (I have a Canon system) to have something when you need the flexibility or do other types of photography, so one needs to come up with some fantastic math to make a tech cam a wise economic investment Smiley. It actually seems to me that perhaps the majority of MF users have a DSLR too, so MF is not something you get to throw out your DSLR but something you get in addition. This is especially true for me as an amateur as I do various types of photography, whatever I find fun and rewarding to do.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 05:55:00 AM by torger » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #123 on: October 13, 2012, 06:23:38 AM »
ReplyReply

does it need center filter and has it issues with lens cast?
Center filter is not needed on 47XL Digitar.
it depends. At f11 without movements light falloff on a P45 (sensor size = 49.1 x 36.8 mm) is about 0.8 f stops in the corners. With large movements the falloff increases significantly (above 2 stops). You can correct light falloff in software ... but this adds noise, of course. So with large movements a center filter is required ... IMO.

re color cast: this is actually not a characteristic of the lens but the sensor. The same lens shows very different color cast on different sensors.
Actually the term "lens cast" is pretty misleading. It should be called "sensor cast". (Of course there might also be "lens cast"... but the color cast we mostly are referring to with wide angle lenses on DBs is 'sensor cast'. You'll see the same with wide angles for instance on a Leica M9. But software correction of color cast is really a non issue...).


« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 06:26:40 AM by tho_mas » Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 13, 2012, 09:12:56 AM »
ReplyReply

If I may ask, why did you sell these DSLR bodies? My guess is that you sold them because DSLR were still in a phase of their evolution where their performance was not yet at the required level for your applications. This is clearly not the case anymore.

If you can keep a P30+ 6 years, you can also keep a D800 6 years.
It's funny.  My assistants all have dslrs.  The latest versions, 5d3's and one has a Nikon D800.  They all use them, but when they're shooting something that they really find important, they ask to use my digital backs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK7OqKm2xac


A summary would be great, you must have an rough idea since you recommended it? Total price, weight and bulk?

Unless I am mistaken, the "cheaper" Cambo (camera at 2,400 US$ - nearly the price of the D800) that you recommended above doesn't offer tilt capability, does it?

What makes you think it is a better solution for landscape work?

In all respect, I am not running a dealership but am mere a shooter who post friendly advises. Thus please Google for further, e.g. forum.getdpi.com is a good source. Each of us need to do our own research to make minds up. Weight wise the RC400 is as low as you can get with shifts on a tech camera, and similar in weight to the Alpa STC but at seems near half its price. Cambo offer their mounts with tilt/shift, while Alpa require a tilt adapter and short lenses. With each system if one get hold of a used lens and have them put it into their mount it is cheaper than buying used lens already in their mount.

What makes you think I am considering tech camera myself, even with my sharp Rollei lenses? My reasons: Quality of image. Methodology for seeing and working an image. Also more pixels @ flat stitching. Shift/tilt and panoramic.

Also an Aptus 22 with a SK Digitar lens will result in very sharp images indeed and with a complete different aesthetic than a D800 with tilt/shift lens. Something I remember from my SLR/DSLR days was also the temptation to add yet another lens... which added weight and cost...

Going in "cheap" tech cam-wise I'd recommend look into Arca-Swiss mf-two, or Linhof Techno. Not needing those expensive calibrated lens mounts makes a difference when you start having 4 - 5 lenses. You'll have to live with ground glass focusing and sliding back though, which some really detest, but I think it is okay although it has its limitations.

It will still be significantly more expensive than a basic D800 system of course, even before you get the digital back, and if you cannot afford the latest backs resolution will not be better. I use it because I like to use tilt/shift in most compositions and find it charming to work with those 100% mechanical cameras.

Arca Swiss requires to look up in a table to set each focus distance. Cambo and Alpa mere requires to set the distance in meter or feet.

Linhof Techno is not a tech camera but view camera. A tech camera even with tilts is far simpler to set up for each shot, and does not require focusing on groundglass.

Cost? Will more lenses be added to D800 system, and that system sold after few years...?

For tech camera, you do not need more than one lens. That is a route I look at myself - one lens. Why? Using the Cambo RC400 as example, you can set it up for single frame shot (movements or no movements), double frame rectangular shot, double frame panoramic shot, each of which yield different field of view.


It actually seems to me that perhaps the majority of MF users have a DSLR too, so MF is not something you get to throw out your DSLR but something you get in addition.

Individual. Depends on what and how one shoot. I personally do not use DSLR and see no point to. DSLRs are way too bulky for what they do and have too many buttons. My Hy6 with one or two lenses fits in a small shoulder bag that is smaller than most DSLR shooters carry  Grin. Same time if we limit to tech cam, perhaps most need something else to also shoot other type of images with...
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 09:25:14 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1415


« Reply #125 on: October 13, 2012, 10:44:33 AM »
ReplyReply

If one can accept stitching one can indeed reduce the amount of lenses.

I think myself it is a very subtle difference between stitching inside image circle and turning the whole camera on a pano head though, so I don't really appreciate it other than as an emergency solution. Before getting my Techno I was considering 4x5" with a stitching back which I discussed on this forum, but now I'm pleased I went for a one-shot solution, I prefer working that way. But that too is very personal of course.

My shooting style is such that I very often take several images of one composition. If flowing water is involved I may get shoot as much as 15 images or so and then I pick one that has the most pleasing shape of the waves. If it is windy I take a few extra so I can pick out the sharpest. If light is changing quickly I can stand still for quite a while and shoot several and then pick the most pleasing either on site or in post. Stitching is not compatible with this. LCC shots also gets a bit tedious with stitching involved.

View camera lenses are rather light, if at least Schneider Digitar, since there's not much weight added by the mount especially when considering the longer lenses. So if one likes multiple lenses (to have many perspective choices in one shot) like I do it is not too bad. I think most count in view cameras under the "tech camera" umbrella these days, the word has changed meaning. In the view camera days a "technical camera" was referring to some highly specialized camera used for scientific or industrial applications. Today I think most associate it to an MFDB camera that can do movements and accept schneider digitar and rodenstock digaron lenses, but I guess it's no standardized term yet Smiley.

How well lenses keep value is very product specific. Overall I find DSLR lenses keep value relatively well and it is easy to find buyers, there are so many buyers out there in many different segments which helps in getting sane pricing. Large format digital is okay too, but market is small so it can be hard to find a buyer, and for some products the market can go near-dead, like for many Apo-Sironar digital lenses which very few wants since many consider them not sharp enough with today's standards. The same can happen in a few years with some Schneider Digitar products. The next base level resolution for MF is probably going to be 60 megapixel, and say a Schneider 35 XL is not too sexy with that. If MFDBs get CMOS and DSLR-like live view in the next few years I think we may see some interesting effects on the second hand market.

It's like with cars, buy second hand and/or keep for a very long time, that's the most economical way. If you never sell, you never lose any money Smiley. Of course all this is an amateur's way of looking at it, when you are a full-time professional you count in other ways and can accept much higher gear costs, since gear is much cheaper than salary anyway.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 12:31:02 PM by torger » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #126 on: October 13, 2012, 04:29:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Since that shoot I did for Phase One and the subsequent video is mentioned, I freely admit I wasn't prepared for it,  or liked the results very much, because we we're all exhausted at the time of taping and we looked and felt like hell.

In fact we edited our own video of the process from production stills, as I thought it was more stylized and showed a more positive view than the Phase One video.  

http://spotsinthebox.com/paris_prod2.mov/

I guess I should clarify my relationship with Phase One or any camera company, so nobody here thinks I'm getting something in return.

#1.  No camera company really sponsors me.  I receive no money, no extraordinary treatment.  

#2  When we shot that image for Phase we were on a very, very heavy schedule and had just finished shooting 18 hour days in Barcelona, then made the overnight drive to our Paris studio and in two days went into production of that session and shot on day 3. We produced the shoot like a commercial job, with ad agency input.  No excuses, just the facts.

My renumeration from Phase one was not and didn't plan to be a profit making endeavor.  Actually less than profit making but that wasn't our studio's goal.

In my personal opinion I like the Phase engineers, wasn't that overwhelmed by the marketing effort, at least in this instance, so when I say how well my phase backs have performed for me, I do so with the opposite view of personal gain or favoritism.

In the few moments I had  Phase One's ear  I gave them my complete unvarnished opinion of what I liked and didn't like about their product, with the biggest issue being the color sensitivity of the files.  

I thought they were way too receptive to ambient color pollution for photographing people and the Phase engineer I spoke to listened and responded in the positive.

In the last two years this has been fixed and we have used our phase backs more and more.   Some of this I can attribute to better processing in C-1, some of it is probably our ability to come to grips with our own post production of the phase files and some processes in photoshop that let's us kill noise at higher isos, without cutting sharpness.

Bottom line is I like the backs, for me the've been the most bullet proof and cost effective equipment our studio owns except for grip.  

Now, Bernard asks if we moved through series 35mm dslrs because of the changing evolution of that format.  The answer to that is of course.  

We've done the same with video cameras, computers, drives, storage, dam systems, software, sound recorders, monitors, etc. etc.,

The only "dated" dslr I've kept was one of my original 1ds 1's, because i believe that camera was ground breaking and I still think the files are the sharpest and offer the best look of any dslr system we've ever used, including later Nikons and Canons.

The only reason we don't use the 1ds1 routinely is it doesn't tether fast or easily.   Ok, we also kept our 5d2, because I don't like the look of the 5d3.  It's just personal preference but I really have issues with the over smooth look of some cameras especially ones with high density sensors.

Now as I've also said for the record I've never used a D800.   I know I'll test it because there are about 4 professionals on this forum whose opinions I really respect, so if it works for them, it might work for us. We have a large Nikon lens set of new and older glass so the costs of a D800 is not high for us.

The main issue I have with 35mm, is when shooting vertical I tend to compose right on the limit.  Maybe it's a mindset from the film days when shooting 35mm we had to shoot tight and I find I shoot 35mm just on the very edge, which doesn't allow for a lot of room.  I know as sensors increase in size and detail this shouldn't effect me, but it does.  Also I'm not that wild about AA filtered cameras.  It's not sharpness, but the grit or something that I really like with non AA filtered CCD cameras and not just medium format.  I see the same look with my M-8 and saw it with our first digital camera the Kodak dcs 760.

Regardless, even if the D800 is the best camera every made, I doubt seriously if I would shoot the bulk of our still work with it because I like what I currently use and since we tether, C-1 is generally recognized as the gold standard in the industry.  My contax and plus backs shoot slow to medium speed, but the beauty is when tethering I never hit a buffer.

But . . . once again I "like" what I use and liking something goes a long way.

I also don't like tethering our Nikons because the camera LCD blanks out.  Not that I need the camera lcd to judge critical focus or look but I do need to check every now and then for composition.

I respect that everyone has different opinions, but what I don't understand why there is such a heated and personal response to what anyone likes or uses to produce a photograph.

IMO

BC

One other thing of note, is I have had amazing service from the Phase dealer (CI) on any support issues and previously when I owned Leaf backs, direct response from Leaf and their representatives.

They both offered professional service for professional equipment.  

And once again . . . no I don't get any deals for saying that.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 05:28:28 AM by bcooter » Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 13, 2012, 04:58:43 PM »
ReplyReply

How do you produce a hi-rez wide angle non panoramic image with stitching Huh
Eduardo
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7905



WWW
« Reply #128 on: October 13, 2012, 06:04:04 PM »
ReplyReply

In all respect, I am not running a dealership but am mere a shooter who post friendly advises. Thus please Google for further, e.g. forum.getdpi.com is a good source. Each of us need to do our own research to make minds up. Weight wise the RC400 is as low as you can get with shifts on a tech camera, and similar in weight to the Alpa STC but at seems near half its price. Cambo offer their mounts with tilt/shift, while Alpa require a tilt adapter and short lenses. With each system if one get hold of a used lens and have them put it into their mount it is cheaper than buying used lens already in their mount.

Also an Aptus 22 with a SK Digitar lens will result in very sharp images indeed and with a complete different aesthetic than a D800 with tilt/shift lens. Something I remember from my SLR/DSLR days was also the temptation to add yet another lens... which added weight and cost...

Cost? Will more lenses be added to D800 system, and that system sold after few years...?

For tech camera, you do not need more than one lens. That is a route I look at myself - one lens. Why? Using the Cambo RC400 as example, you can set it up for single frame shot (movements or no movements), double frame rectangular shot, double frame panoramic shot, each of which yield different field of view.

Individual. Depends on what and how one shoot. I personally do not use DSLR and see no point to. DSLRs are way too bulky for what they do and have too many buttons. My Hy6 with one or two lenses fits in a small shoulder bag that is smaller than most DSLR shooters carry  Grin. Same time if we limit to tech cam, perhaps most need something else to also shoot other type of images with...

Respectfully, here are a few friendly questions then:

- why claim that the Cambo + Aptus 22 will offer a completely different aesthetic than the D800 + T/S lens when you have not shot with either of them?
- more generally speaking, why comment on DSLR image quality when you have not shot any since the Nikon D200... announced 7 years ago?
- why compared the cost of a MF system with one lens to that of a DSLR with several lenses?
- why claim that DSLRs have a shorter life span than MFDB when yourself have been using 3 different backs in the last 6 years (if my memory serves me well Mamiya ZD, Leaf 65 and now 12)?
- why call a D800 bulky when it is 1 full kg lighter and overall has the same size as the Afi you shoot with (but lenses are more compact)?

Leaf Afi: 2,180 kg (including standard lens), 157 x 112 x 78 without lens
http://www.cameracollection.net/leafafi-iispecification

Nikon D800: 1,185 kg (including standard lens), 146 x 123 x 81.5 without lens
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/spec.htm

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7905



WWW
« Reply #129 on: October 13, 2012, 06:06:33 PM »
ReplyReply

How do you produce a hi-rez wide angle non panoramic image with stitching Huh
Eduardo

You do multi-row stitching with a dedicated pano head and use a planar projection method.

I have done the excercice a few times, comparing a single 24mm image with one shot with a 60mm lens + stitching.

If you overlap the 2 images at the end (after downsampling the stitched one of course), you end up with a slight difference... which corresponds roughly to the distorsion of the 24mm lens.  Wink

One example of the technique described above:



Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 07:47:05 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #130 on: October 13, 2012, 07:42:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Bernard. I thought it was not possible. Only you don't get a wide (most anything in focus.) angle effect. You rather end with a Brenizen effect.
Eduardo
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 07:54:46 PM by uaiomex » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7905



WWW
« Reply #131 on: October 13, 2012, 09:33:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Bernard. I thought it was not possible. Only you don't get a wide (most anything in focus.) angle effect. You rather end with a Brenizen effect.
Eduardo

Well, it depends on the focal length you use to stitch. This is shot with a 100mm lens.

Stitching creates a virtual large sensor, so depending on the number of frames you get something closer to a 4x5 look.

You can of course combine this with DoF stacking if you need more DoF or stitch with a T/S lens (works better for single row).

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #132 on: October 13, 2012, 10:24:25 PM »
ReplyReply

....

Individual. Depends on what and how one shoot. I personally do not use DSLR and see no point to. DSLRs are way too bulky for what they do and have too many buttons. My Hy6 with one or two lenses fits in a small shoulder bag that is smaller than most DSLR shooters carry  . Same time if we limit to tech cam, perhaps most need something else to also shoot other type of images with...



I have some bad news for you. Medium format cameras that have one lens, an automatic moving mirror and shoot digital are DSLR cameras.

Digital Single Lens Reflex

 Wink
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #133 on: October 13, 2012, 11:49:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That is quite true. But it's like the term "American" it means US, not Canada or Mexico.

Joke aside, Anders has presented an economical alternative to a low end MF SLR with an MFDB. Cambo + preowned Aptus 22 and an Schneider Digitar of suitable length.

I don't know if such a combo outperforms a Nikon D800. It may or may not. I have not seen comparable shots. Digital imaging is complicated as sharpening is a part of the digital workflow.

I also think that it is much about the way we use a camera. I guess that it is not very practical to shoot handheld with a technical camera. On the other hand it is very much possible to put a DSLR on tripod and work deliberately using live view. The live view option has the advantage that you don't need to look trough the viewfinder.

Actually, I much prefer zooms. Often I find only one position giving the view I want. It may not be practical to walk forward or go back. With a zoom I can often stand in the only possible point and make the crop in the camera.

I often put a DSLR on the tripod waiting for the light while shooting handheld with another DSLR. Later that day I may shoot some mule deer with at 400 mm to finish of by taking stills/movie of an osprey in his/her nest with 800 mm. The example comes Grand Teton NP.

The week I was in Grand Teton NP there were a lot of wildfires and seeing was very bad. Not much to do about, just trying to make the best of it.

As a side note I guess I have a couple of thousands images published on SmugMug, essentially all in full resolution. I have seen very few samples of MFD images published in full resolution.

The enclosed images are not intended the excellence of the DSLR used just to illustrate the variety of pictures I was making. That day most of the shooting was on Sony Alpha 77, an APS-C camera, although I also shot a full frame DSLR. Why?

- The full frame camera doesn't have live view
- The APS-C camera can record video
- Image quality between the two is close APS-C camera is three years younger
- Seeing was not very good because smog from wildfires the small sharpness advantage of the full frame would be wasted

Best regards
Erik



I have some bad news for you. Medium format cameras that have one lens, an automatic moving mirror and shoot digital are DSLR cameras.

Digital Single Lens Reflex

 Wink
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 03:05:14 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #134 on: October 14, 2012, 12:31:57 AM »
ReplyReply


Typical marketing bull shit.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #135 on: October 14, 2012, 02:55:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

James Russel explained about the Phase One video and has also published a much better video about the event.

I share that marketing materials are not very relevant in this discussion.

The way I see it, there was much discussion about the purported advantages of MF but very little evidence in form of any meaningful pictures were given. Neither image quality, DR, sharpness or any relevant parameter can be judged from small jpeg images. The problem is by the way not JPEG-ness but smallness.

The discussion included references to usable comparison images, by Alex Koskolov, "TAshley" and others, but for some reason any real stuff shown is just simply ignored by the most opinionated contributors.

I'm in a business where the golden rule is that you need to learn from mistakes, it is much preferable to learn from mistakes committed by others than making your own mistakes. Using a foundation of existing experience is basically a good thing.

Without doubt, there are advantages with larger sensors. The main advantage is that they may collect more photons. A larger format also makes less demand on the lens. A technical camera with movements obviously offers Scheimpflug on all lenses, but it is certainly not a system for all users. Our contributor "bcooter" also known as James Russel loves MFD but uses on his Contax and Phase cameras, I never heard he shoots Cambo or Alpa. I would love to have an Alpa and an IQ180, but it is highly improbable I will ever have one, I have different priorities.

Different photographers have different needs. Four years ago Sony, Canon and Nikon introduced 20+ MP cameras that could compete with MFD. The best of the crop, Nikon D3X, with a price tag that was almost horrible in the DSLR market. With the D800 Nikon improved image quality a pair of notches and introduced a professional quality device at a very reasonable price.

It has been suggested that MFD equipment is made by much better precision than DSLRs. I don't think it is necessarily true. Large scale production needs good tolerances to be efficient. Simply enough, a very large part of the production needs to be within tolerances. DSLRs are supposed to work with f/1.4 lenses. To maintain focus with an f/1.4 lens you need twice the precision compared with an f/2.8 lens. Nikon and Canon would not be able to sell many of those 85/1.4 lenses if they could not be focused correctly.

Joseph Holmes wrote two lengthy articles about precision and the lack thereof in MF. Now, that was in 2009 and we now have 2012. So, everything got so much better in three years? What Joseph Holmes has found that about 2/3 of the MF equipment he and his students got into their hands was outside tolerances. That applied mainly to second hand and rented equipment. Phase One is said to have a factory tolerance of 15 microns but a few of the backs he encountered were 120 microns off. What Joseph Holmes found are facts. Why should we ignore them. Equally worrying Joseph Holmes found that many lenses were clearly substandard, not even close to published MTF data. That essentially means that you need to test every peace of equipment. Many of the issues would not show up if you shoot at f/22 and stopping down to f/22 may not be a horrible sin, but shooting f/22 is still throwing away much info.

Best regards
Erik


Typical marketing bull shit.

« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 02:59:48 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #136 on: October 14, 2012, 03:25:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Shoot with a longer focal length.

1) Turn camera vertical
2) Shoot three exposures with twice the focal length
3) Merge using rectilinear

I used this technique often instead of cropping an image. If you shoot a 24 MP DSLR the above technique will yield about 54 MP and correspond to a 36x54 mm sensor regarding DoF. The camera will collect the same number of photons as a camera with 36x54 mm sensor.

Best regards
Erik


How do you produce a hi-rez wide angle non panoramic image with stitching Huh
Eduardo
Logged

yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1124



WWW
« Reply #137 on: October 14, 2012, 03:45:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Typical marketing bull shit.


If you live in a glass house...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #138 on: October 14, 2012, 05:04:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Gentlemen, the evidence is now surely overwhelming, perhaps it is time for all of us to agree that anyone using the D800 has the advantage.

It is however comforting to know that many on this forum who choose to use inferior and disadvantaged tools to earn their keep now have the perfect excuse for their compromised images.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #139 on: October 14, 2012, 05:11:31 AM »
ReplyReply

YaYa,

Good catch!

Well I would say that it would be marketing bullshit if this discussion was about bags. But it is not about bags.

Now, I have great respect for James Russels opinion, and I have every reason that he talks about his experience.

In other contexts he said that perhaps 90% of the shooting he does is with Canon, mostly because Canon needs less light, and lighting equipment is cumbersome.

Actually, I have great respect for everyone's opinion, yours included. On the other hand, I must honestly say that the sample images I have seen indicate that the Nikon is a champ in the 30-50 MP area. Not necessarily the only champ, but nevertheless a champ.

And, horses for the courses, of course!

Best regards
Erik




Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad