Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 51126 times)
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #300 on: March 15, 2013, 07:39:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred,
I would really like to see how the model shots appear in print. What magazine will they be reproduced in?

Thanks,
Ed

They looked fine in print.

The black and white is a model and was a test for my daughter (makeup artist).
The color is not a model, it's Kristen Cavallari from the TV show the Hills.
They already came out (or I could not post them here)

It was for TCHAD Magazine that is distributed in Toronto, Vancouver and Hollywood LA..... the movie cities.

Here are some lousy cell phone snaps of a few of the pages.







I guess I could send you a tear sheet... have a few extras...
Logged
Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #301 on: March 15, 2013, 07:48:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

If the photographs were all made with the D800, I would appreciate that. I'll send you a PM.

Thanks,
Ed
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #302 on: March 15, 2013, 07:52:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

If the photographs were all made with the D800, I would appreciate that. I'll send you a PM.

Thanks,
Ed

Nope this was shot with the Canon 5D Mark II
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #303 on: March 15, 2013, 08:24:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I think I said this at least three times now the AF point on a horizontal that is above the center point not the right or left side which on every test you done is on the same plane of focus. Mine is off do not understand plan English here. My issues are a center point that hits a neck and moving that AF point to a upper level to hit the eyes is Not let me repeat it not critically sharp be it the subject is still or not .its simply Not giving me accurate focus. If I focus and recompose I nail it every time . Basically lift AF center point to eyes than drop camera down for composition. This has shit to do with left and right AF points which I said mine seem to be okay. Stop dancing around the actual problem I'm having which if you actually read what I wrote several ties now its hold the camera in a landscape position and the upper center point. My subject between center and upper center is not on the same focus plane. Okay I'm done with this. Have a nice weekend everyone.

Yes you have made it clear that yours is off, but you are also saying that D800 and pretty much all other AF systems are crap.


.... but like always AF sucks on every camera known to man ....

I'm simply posting examples and tests to show others that it's not the case at least for my Canons and Nikons.

Now the focus and recompose you are describing is a moderate recomposition compared to a full length vertical which is what I was describing.
In a moderate recomposition the change in camera angle is less and the error is less. You are moving from the center to the second AF point above,
the AF point you are saying is off.

I'll do a quick test with the focus point right above the center focus point in holding the camera in landscape.


Center focus point with no recomposition 100% crop @ 2.8



Outer top AF point with no recomposition 100% crop @ 2.8



Excuse the sleepy expression... he just got up from a nap  Wink

Top outer middle focus point no recompose



Center focus point with image recomposed moving the head up in the frame.


It seems clear to me that my top middle focus point is more accurate than focus and recompose using the center focus point.
The focus is moved back in this shot despite the moderate recomposition.

There were also lower light as the sun had already gone behind the horizon.

And one very low light.
Top outer middle focus point in landscape mode. Low light  ISO 6400 and me moving forward and moving the camera around
shooting the shot when the focus point hits the medium brown area to the right of the disc. Camera on continuous AF.



Top outer middle focus point camera in landscape and moving in and out in continuous focus.
 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 09:31:09 PM by FredBGG » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1126


WWW
« Reply #304 on: March 15, 2013, 09:22:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred seriously I could give a rats ass what your tests show. It's your cam not mine. Yours is perfect we all know that as you remind of us how perfect Nikon is. If I think AF. Systems are crap it's my opinion. I think your opinion of Phase is extremely flawed for instance but its you opinion which I could really care less about. I don't look to you for any opinion on anything please stop giving it to me and I'm not going to sit here and try to prove you wrong on Phase gear like you constantly remind us of how good Nikon is and how Phase sucks. No one seriously gives a shit to be honest. Sitting here trying to prove me wrong on my Nikon is frankly about as lame as it gets. It's like the guy who says he has a problem with something than 24 morons try to prove the guy wrong. It's pretty fucking stupid dont you think.

Your still on the same plane of focus. Forget it I said it 3 times and you still do the same thing ignore what people say to prove your own point. Neck to eyes which is a totally different and I'm 30 ft away . Your not even close to where my issues are. BTW we all know focus and recompose does not work as well very tight to subject which you have done on every test to prove it don't work, we already know that. At distance its totally different.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 09:34:45 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #305 on: March 15, 2013, 09:42:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred seriously I could give a rats ass what your tests show. It's your cam not mine. Yours is perfect we all know that as you remind of us how perfect Nikon is. If I think AF. Systems are crap it's my opinion. I think your opinion of Phase is extremely flawed for instance but its you opinion which I could really care less about. I don't look to you for any opinion on anything please stop giving it to me and I'm not going to sit here and try to prove you wrong on Phase gear like you constantly remind us of how good Nikon is and how Phase sucks. No one seriously gives a shit to be honest. Sitting here trying to prove me wrong on my Nikon is frankly about as lame as it gets. It's like the guy who says he has a problem with something than 24 morons try to prove the guy wrong. It's pretty fucking stupid dont you think.

Your still on the same plane of focus. Forget it I said it 3 times and you still do the same thing ignore what people say to prove your own point. Neck to eyes which is a totally different and I'm 30 ft away . Your not even close to where my issues are.



I'm simply showing other readers on this thread that the AF points work at least on the two D800s I have.
You could also moderate the language.... rats ass... calling me a moron... now now... Wink
Quote
Moron is a term once used in psychology to denote mild mental retardation.[1] The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement.[2] Once the term became popularized, it fell out of use by the psychological community, as it was used more commonly as an insult than as a psychological term.
Also the comment you make about me going on about how perfect Nikon is ... is well really childish in this context, because the simple fact that I am discussing this at length
brings up the issue that some Nikon's appear to have a problem.

Also these last 2 shots are from 20 feet and are from neck to eyes. They are 100% crops, not closeups. 

I'm not trying to prove you wrong regarding your camera, I already stated that. I'm not saying you don't have a problem with your camera.
I'm not testing your camera, I'm testing mine and going out of my way to share it.

Your still on the same plane of focus. Forget it I said it 3 times and you still do the same thing ignore what people say to prove your own point. Neck to eyes which is a totally different and I'm 30 ft away . Your not even close to where my issues are.

So are you saying that this is the only situation where you are having problems? If there is an AF point problem it would be in various situations, not only one.

Look I did these today to also check that all is working fine on my camera.

To conclude all I want to say is that i find the AF on the D800 very good and I like using it
because it lets me focus (pun unintended) on the more creative side of my picture taking, dealing with clients etc etc and
deal less with the camera operator side of things.

There are things that bug me about the D800. For example I wish Nikon would make a nice clip on live view loup that clips on instead of the screen protector
as well as a folding one. I would like the 5x4 crop mode to have the option of moving it down when doing verticals so as to make better use of focus points.

 




 
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 01:54:36 PM by FredBGG » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8024


WWW
« Reply #306 on: March 16, 2013, 01:06:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

At close range I'd suggest that at close camera movement also play a major role and at a longer distance the angular error may play a lesser role.

I tried to look into this once, but it is very significant around which plane the camera is rotated. Would it be film plane, inlet pupil, exit pupil, first or second principal plane? What about field curvature, it may be with you or against you?

If you miss focus to often I guess you would loose customers. I guess that professional photographers develop a technique good enough to deliver the image quality the customers expect.


Best regards
Erik

Fred seriously I could give a rats ass what your tests show. It's your cam not mine. Yours is perfect we all know that as you remind of us how perfect Nikon is. If I think AF. Systems are crap it's my opinion. I think your opinion of Phase is extremely flawed for instance but its you opinion which I could really care less about. I don't look to you for any opinion on anything please stop giving it to me and I'm not going to sit here and try to prove you wrong on Phase gear like you constantly remind us of how good Nikon is and how Phase sucks. No one seriously gives a shit to be honest. Sitting here trying to prove me wrong on my Nikon is frankly about as lame as it gets. It's like the guy who says he has a problem with something than 24 morons try to prove the guy wrong. It's pretty fucking stupid dont you think.

Your still on the same plane of focus. Forget it I said it 3 times and you still do the same thing ignore what people say to prove your own point. Neck to eyes which is a totally different and I'm 30 ft away . Your not even close to where my issues are. BTW we all know focus and recompose does not work as well very tight to subject which you have done on every test to prove it don't work, we already know that. At distance its totally different.


Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #307 on: March 16, 2013, 12:29:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

At close range I'd suggest that at close camera movement also play a major role and at a longer distance the angular error may play a lesser role.

I tried to look into this once, but it is very significant around which plane the camera is rotated. Would it be film plane, inlet pupil, exit pupil, first or second principal plane? What about field curvature, it may be with you or against you?

If you miss focus to often I guess you would loose customers. I guess that professional photographers develop a technique good enough to deliver the image quality the customers expect.


Best regards
Erik


When it comes to portrait, Fashion and everything in between the eyes are the mirror of the soul so to speak. Whenever you look at someone in reality and interact, converse with them etc you look at there eyes. You brain focuses right on the eyes ans takes in all the subtleties of the expression. If the eyes are crisp in your picture you get more of this reality and communication of sorts. There is a lot more to it than simply passing the clients "checkup". Also an important thing to remember is that if something is more in focus than the eyes it throws things off. There are of course times when deliberately throwing the eyes out of focus or even the whole face works from a creative point of view.

The best advice I was ever given about fashion photography was that it's all about the woman....
The woman has to be there all throughout the creation and consumption of fashion.
This advice was given to me by Gisella Boriolli director of many magazines during her career including Italian Vogue.

So it it's about the woman there is nothing like seeing everything in the eyes, that's if you cast the very best. There
are lots of models with all the other bits, but rather empty eyes.

To give you an idea of the importance of this concept the single photo that got me more fashion gigs is a portrait
where you can barely see the cloths...

Here it is.



even from far away.. for me it's all about the eyes



They tell so much




these last two are bad scans (sorry)

And then there is the power of the eyes... but also real skin.



I have an aversion for photos with to much skin processing and visible retouching.
I also find it ironic that many of those that go on and on about skin tones of this or that CCD vs cmos sensor
are the ones that process the hell out of their files working them "deep". It gets to the point where it is illustration rather than photography.
Whats also ironic is that in some fields such as cars and watches this trend by photographers to over retouch has lead clients to go all out with 3D
rendering and skip the photography.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 12:44:19 PM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #308 on: March 16, 2013, 12:55:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

At close range I'd suggest that at close camera movement also play a major role and at a longer distance the angular error may play a lesser role.

I tried to look into this once, but it is very significant around which plane the camera is rotated. Would it be film plane, inlet pupil, exit pupil, first or second principal plane? What about field curvature, it may be with you or against you?

Best regards
Erik


You bring up an interesting point. While B Cooter in this discussion of focus and recompose rather sarcastically recommends using a tripod for maximum shapness.


But here's a hint.  If you really want to have sharp images and pixel peep until your eyes bleed, I suggest using a tripod.

Nothing improves sharpness like a tripod.


However he fails to mention that focus and recompose on a tripod is actually going to be worse because the axis on which the camera tilts with a tripod head is a few inches below the lens. This means that as the camera tilts down the camera also moves forward thus moving the focus plane even a bit more further back.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 01:55:19 PM by FredBGG » Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #309 on: March 16, 2013, 02:21:50 PM »
ReplyReply

The best advice I was ever given about fashion photography was that it's all about the woman....

Come on Fred !
You've got experience in this business right? Those sentences are empty words and you know it perfectly.

You know as well as me that in the art milieu, every master, every minimally successful person has his-her own magic phrase(s) for the gallery that supposedly contain some sort of wisdom to make them shine.  That's part of the show, of the theater. I don't count the number of those "magical sentences" in the mouth of the elite; it's the parade, it's great in a dinner, always has a strong effect over satelites gravitating arround the stars, and are shortcuts for the press crowd.

Look at the NY Vogue. (no need to give names here, we all know who I'm refering to). Professionaly, I have a great, an inmense respect for her. But then, as a person who pee like everybody else by the way, she acumulates surch an amount of psy problems than 100 years of psychotherapy wouldn't be enough to cure just the 1% of the BS. If she doesn't suicide is just because her ego is too strong and maintains her at the top, in the elite position, deeply unhappy and ruling the boat with an iron hand very much like Louis 14 ruled Versailles. She's good at what she does, she's incredibly good, but she's fucked-up as a person. 90% of the advices and "great" quotes from the arty snobbish elite theater comes from people like that and tend to over-simplify realities. It's just the show.

The quote you're giving isn't wrong, not at all, but only a part of it. How many "fashion" photographers really know about woman, in fact, the vast majority of aspirant to fashion really understand woman, but very few have real clew of what fashion is about (and certainly not about just women), less few have real clew of the fabrics etc...a fashion photographer that has never ever enter a couture factory, that is unable to understand a brand trajectory, philosophy, and can picture clear differences between each brand, never will be a real fashion photographer. I met some of the top guys actually shooting fashion, in Spain we have 2 world wide fashion photographers and one the thing that impressed me a lot is their knowledge on the fabrics of the brands and what kind of issues they will have to deal with. Most of the time, they know and see things stylists do not see and can anticipate just by the name of a brand. And that's because they know how it's made, they fully understand the all process to the point that they almost could cut fabric in the factory. Someone who's not interested in fashion itself can not succeed in it with just understanding women. IMHO.

You're making good points, but there are oversimplified according to me. You can make a car campaing without a car (BMW for ex), but then it's not photography any more, it's advert. You can shoot Armani campaign without any clothes, but again, this isn't fashion, it's advertising.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 02:43:38 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #310 on: March 16, 2013, 03:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The best advice I was ever given about fashion photography was that it's all about the woman....
Come on Fred !
You've got experience in this business right? Those sentences are empty words and you know it perfectly.

Yes I have plenty of experience in the business. Also it was not an empty phrase. I worked for her for many years.
It was not some silly catch phase that she would throw around. Many iconic campaigns are an indication of this as are the huge contracts that are awarded
to the models.

The model in the the first picture I posted to underline my comment that it's all about the woman went on to get the Elizabeth Arden Campaign
with a huge contract. I remember sitting in my studio with her in Milan where I had a big stack of magazines and going through them with her
as she pointed out the type of pictures she wanted to do in the future of her career. She picked out all the images of great models that were
more personality driven than just looks.

The great and very matter of fact Peter Lindbergh said it's all about the casting... the woman.

But let me tell you one other dirty secret of mine that reinforces why it's all about the woman.
It's very important to get your images infront of clients before you ever meet them.
There is no better way that making it all about the woman. Why you might ask...
Well it's very simple. Every modelling agency has many copies of each models books.
They have their own little army of runners that endlessly deliver these books to clients.
And guess what ... if you take photos with the "it's all about the woman" philosophy
you images end up in models books. What is most important is that models books get looked at by clients
right when photography is their priority. Also there are times when a client will use a model and she won't come out as she did
in the book. I have been contacted more than once to reshoot for a designer after they had obsessively decided on a model.
Again a case of it's all about the woman.
My first international ad campaign (in Time magazine) was from a client seeing a specific photo of a model (male) on a composite.
They did not even ask to see my book. I shot it and only afterwards found out it was for an international ad campaign... I almost fainted
when they told me what to bill them! I had only previously negotiated my day rate.

I actually think that my "all about the woman" way of doing things was instrumental to me getting into celebrity photography
and shooting some of the most interesting people around.

Just look at the fashion magazines these days. Whose on the covers. Singers and actresses because it is about the woman.

Personally I find it rather inappropriate and missinformed that you jump on this advice that I chose to share. It was given to me by a WOMAN
that had put faith in me and I put faith in her. I owe a lot to her including putting up with my antics as a young photographer including
going way off in my own direction on my second shoot for her. My first shoot was color and very graphic, my second was moody shadowy black and white.
She was not expecting that.
BUT the casting was right one the nail for the mood. Two unusual models. One that looked like a Disney Persian princes
and one that had a curvy very feminine look. Gisella ran the spread ... a 10 page beauty spread and one of the featured brands
took out a multi publieditorial contract with the magazine.. all of which I shot.

Take it as you may, but I have had so many experiences that confirmed this "all about the woman thing".

Now with that I'm not saying you don't light well for the cloths or shoot them out of focus.

I was also given another piece of advice by Mr Newton himself. Never let photography get between what is in your head and the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wmonxTjX0&feature=share&list=PLD22E66923E2F8D9C


 




« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 04:15:31 PM by FredBGG » Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #311 on: March 16, 2013, 05:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

...Also it was not an empty phrase. I worked for her for many years.
It was not some silly catch phase that she would throw around...

Ok, I give you credit on that she didn't thrown the phrase for the parade, I wasn't there and you know her.

The great and very matter of fact Peter Lindbergh said it's all about the casting  Totally thruth ... the woman  but here is what I find it too shortcutted
the casting is not just the woman, it's the right woman for the righ brand, wich impllies deep knowledge on what the brand is actually making. Not just the hability to treat the
woman's essence.


But let me tell you one other dirty secret of mine that reinforces why it's all about the woman.
It's very important to get your images infront of clients before you ever meet them.
There is no better way that making it all about the woman. Why you might ask...
Well it's very simple. Every modelling agency has many copies of each models books.
They have their own little army of runners that endlessly deliver these books to clients.
And guess what ... if you take photos with the "it's all about the woman" philosophy
you images end up in models books. What is most important is that models books get looked at by clients
right when photography is their priority. Also there are times when a client will use a model and she won't come out as she did
in the book. I have been contacted more than once to reshoot for a designer after they had obsessively decided on a model.
Again a case of it's all about the woman.

That's exactly how Testino made it. I agree with that above


I actually think that my "all about the woman" way of doing things was instrumental to me getting into celebrity photography
and shooting some of the most interesting people around.
mmm...nothing to do with photography and this topic but "interesting" is a very relative concept. There are many celebs who are far from being interesting,
but I'm going away from the subject here.



Just look at the fashion magazines these days. Whose on the covers. Singers and actresses because it is about the woman.
What about Lady Gaga then? She is NOT the arquetype of the supermodel and the ideal of beauty. (I love her personaly and know you shooted her). I don't see the woman, I see a highly thought, designed and shapped character. It's a bit like Kiss. This is basically marqueting. In the case of LGG, I think she's talented, she works hard and she deserves her success.
Really greatly done.


Personally I find it rather inappropriate and missinformed that you jump on this advice that I chose to share.

You know Fred, I've been into the art milieu since my birth in France, and seen so much BS and crazy egos so far and so on that I tend to be very very cautious with given words and legendaries quotes. I've been learning that if there are some really really serious folks, there is also all the snobery and mystic involved.
In the end, the only real voice once can follow is the inner one. My intention wasn't to destroy your statements, but accept the fact that if I read "it's all about the woman", point, It might have
reminds me some of the parade I was talking about, and you know that those are legions. Well, in this case you precise that it is an important person you respect and
that you have been able to verify in your experience many times; this precision is now given and as I pointed above, I trust that you are sincere and didn't want to be effectist.



Cheers


 





Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #312 on: March 16, 2013, 08:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Re. focus and recompose,
If I may be allowed an explanation for the trigonometrically challenged
For each lens, subject (and aperture), if you are far enough foc and rec works, if you are closer it don't.

Unfortunately, the distance at which it works is well above portrait distance with medium format, throwing focus off for portraits, but (stop me from a mistake, guys) it mostly works when you are doing full-body shots with good lights with a 35mm. Somewhere between those two comes a point when focus on the eyes with focus and recompose becomes a matter of chimping and checking.

Whether any of the secondary focus points on your average dSLR really improves on focus and recompose at f5.6 probably depends on your lottery number.

Edmund
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 08:16:09 PM by eronald » Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 671


« Reply #313 on: March 16, 2013, 09:29:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Re. focus and recompose,
If I may be allowed an explanation for the trigonometrically challenged
For each lens, subject (and aperture), if you are far enough foc and rec works, if you are closer it don't.

This mirrors Canon's advice.  Canon recommends against focus - recompose at close range with shallow DOF.  My experience too.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #314 on: March 17, 2013, 03:08:24 AM »
ReplyReply


Whether any of the secondary focus points on your average dSLR really improves on focus and recompose at f5.6 probably depends on your lottery number.

Edmund

If your cameras secondary focus points are accurate you are more likely to get more accurate focusing that focus and recompose for several reasons.

First of all with fast focusing lenses you focus right up to the instant in which you shoot the image.
With focus and recompose you have a delay while you recompose so if the subject moves forward the focus locked before
re-composition will be off. Also in my experience a model that is going through different poses always creeps forward.
When focus and recompose is used when the photographer his head has to tilt down. The fulcrum on which it tilts down is
below the cranium and a few inches behind the camera. Due to this the camera is going to move forward and the head tilts down.
This moves the focus plane even further back. Using a tripod will be similar as the rotation point is well below the camera.

There is also another reason why this whole focus and recompose issue is a problem and it is the high resolution of
the files. Art directors expect to be able to crop images quite a bit and we all know the closer you crop in on an image the more you see and focus errors.

It also depends somewhat on what you photograph.
If you shoot models they don't have much to do with the final selection of what is published.
No problem for the photographer to ditch the slightly off focus ones.
If you shoot celebrities for example it is not uncommon for the publicist to insist on reviewing
the images and choosing the one's to run or at least participate in the choice.
It's really annoying to have to tell them that an expression or pose they like should be rejected because of a focus error. 

Then there is the issue of wiggling the camera infront of your subject. Focus/recompose again and again... wiggle wiggle wiggle.
Personally I don't find it conducive to creating a mood or atmosphere.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #315 on: April 16, 2013, 12:33:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I am still testing the H3D versus the D800 (not necessarily for this forum, I would do it for myself alone) and I tried to compare the bokeh of the two systems. This time I will not be criticised for using a zoom lens, but I will probably be criticised because the two focal length do not match  Roll Eyes I used the HC 80mm f/2.8 on the H3D-31 and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on the D800. The pictures are taken from the same point: I took one camera from the tripod and mounted the other one in its place.

The whole set with the pictures is here. There are two tests, one with flowers and one with a tree.

I added more pictures to that address. This time, I compared the HC 80mm f/2.8 to the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 (the focal lengths match better) and the HC 150mm f/3.2 to the DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D. Here also the focal length match very well and the DC-Nikkor was chosen as a lens designed to render beautiful bokeh. The DC feature allows to adjust the bokeh either to the front or to the rear of the focus plane.

I try to summarize the finding in a single picture here:


Bokeh-compare by jerome_Munich

As I already said, I am not doing this test for this forum, but to learn about the lenses myself. My conclusion is that the Hasselblad system gives much more natural results, but anyone is welcomed to download the pictures (the full resolution can be reached using the magnifier in the flickr interface) and come to their own conclusions.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 12:37:13 PM by jerome_m » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #316 on: April 16, 2013, 11:47:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I added more pictures to that address. This time, I compared the HC 80mm f/2.8 to the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 (the focal lengths match better) and the HC 150mm f/3.2 to the DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D. Here also the focal length match very well and the DC-Nikkor was chosen as a lens designed to render beautiful bokeh. The DC feature allows to adjust the bokeh either to the front or to the rear of the focus plane.

I try to summarize the finding in a single picture here:


Bokeh-compare by jerome_Munich

As I already said, I am not doing this test for this forum, but to learn about the lenses myself. My conclusion is that the Hasselblad system gives much more natural results, but anyone is welcomed to download the pictures (the full resolution can be reached using the magnifier in the flickr interface) and come to their own conclusions.

I downloaded the two files and it's quite clear that the hasselblad is focused closer and the scale of the subject in the Hasselblad image is larger.
The closer focus favors the Hasselblad lens as it blurs the background more as you can see in this crop.
It is clear in the crop that the Hasselblad is focused on the flower closer to the camera.



Also the lighting has changed between the shots and the out of focus background in the Hasselblad shot is more in the shade and less contrasty while
in the Nikon shot it is in the sun and more contrasty and lighter. Shade will always look softer and favor bokeh.



As far as sharpness goes the 105mm DC is an older lens and not really designed for the newer generation cameras.
Here is the difference between the older 105 DC and the 85mm 1.4G


Nikon 105mm DC


Nikon 85mm 1.4G

The newer 85mm 1.4G has nicer Bokeh and detail compared to the 105 DC

here is a good example of the dimensional quality of the 85mm 1.4 and it's smooth bokeh.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_robert/8519631830/in/pool-nikkor85g/

and this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankvilsack/8030971453/in/pool-nikkor85g/]]http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankvilsack/8030971453/in/pool-nikkor85g/

even stopped down 2 stops it's still smooth thanks to the 9 blade iris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/79225109@N08/8084214646/in/pool-nikkor85g/

That said the Fujinon  / Hassy 150mm is a very nice lens. It's also better with film or a full frame MF sensor where you see more of it's bokeh potential.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 12:59:05 AM by FredBGG » Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #317 on: April 17, 2013, 12:23:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, there is a minute difference in focus between the two cameras, as is to be expected when one photographies a real life subject as this one. There is also a little difference in size, as is to be expected from the focal lengths.

Is this all what you have noticed from the pictures? Here a crop (clic the picture to see it bigger):


105f4.0-150f5.6 by jerome_Munich
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #318 on: April 17, 2013, 12:39:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, there is a minute difference in focus between the two cameras, as is to be expected when one photographies a real life subject as this one. There is also a little difference in size, as is to be expected from the focal lengths.

Is this all what you have noticed from the pictures? Here a crop (clic the picture to see it bigger):


105f4.0-150f5.6 by jerome_Munich

Same difference in focusing distance.

Out of curiosity how did you process the Hasselblad images?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 12:46:39 AM by FredBGG » Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #319 on: April 17, 2013, 02:05:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Out of curiosity how did you process the Hasselblad images?

All images were processed identically with Apple Aperture. Had I used Phocus, the aberrations of the HC lenses would be automatically corrected. I wanted to avoid that.
The colors were matched by eye, the automatic WB on the D800 gave much cooler results.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad