A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A serious equipment question.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 09, 01:48 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default A serious equipment question.

D.Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2009 7:41 PM:

I agree entirely. That's why I use an 85mm F/1.4 for all portrait work
and most of my wedding shots. 200 mm is simply too long. It's too long
for portraits, too long for group shots and not long enough for candid
portraiture.

For a wedding photographer, I couldn't think of a worse lens to use than
a 200 mm prime on anything less than a 6x9 CM Medium Format camera.

I don't know where you got the notion you could "make a pano" for a
wedding album. Maybe the same place you came up with the bull**** about
photographers buying Nikon speedlites to use on their Canon DSLRs?

Your "supposed" information is about as useful as a hole in a rubber boot.


and here we have another example of a moron impersonating Dougie.
Wait until the crap starts flying...
  #2  
Old January 28th 09, 01:56 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
^Tems^[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default A serious equipment question.

Noons wrote:
D.Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2009 7:41 PM:

I agree entirely. That's why I use an 85mm F/1.4 for all portrait work
and most of my wedding shots. 200 mm is simply too long. It's too long
for portraits, too long for group shots and not long enough for candid
portraiture.

For a wedding photographer, I couldn't think of a worse lens to use
than a 200 mm prime on anything less than a 6x9 CM Medium Format camera.

I don't know where you got the notion you could "make a pano" for a
wedding album. Maybe the same place you came up with the bull****
about photographers buying Nikon speedlites to use on their Canon DSLRs?

Your "supposed" information is about as useful as a hole in a rubber
boot.


and here we have another example of a moron impersonating Dougie.
Wait until the crap starts flying...


You better call the security guards in Doggy's Tangalooma resort home as
the impersonator is using Doggy's computer
  #3  
Old January 28th 09, 02:37 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default A serious equipment question.


"D.Mac" wrote in message
...
35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to
have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some
less than others.

I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at
about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt
to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp
than I get with film and something I didn't expect.

The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs than with Nikon which
could possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias (de-focus) filter
in the Canon's.

The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya glass
and oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma SD9 which uses
an entirely different sensor system to either Canon or Nikon.

My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor (due perhaps to
the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later sharpening) or the
lack of resolving power of modern day APS size lenses.

Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely it would
affect landscape shooters as much as group shooters?


No official testing, but I get better results shooting "team" shots with the
5D then I ever got with film. Maybe you're seeing the image degradation that
seems to occur when you simply don't have enough pixels and fine details
seem to fall apart much quicker than film?

With any luck, I'll be able to test a 5D II in a couple of weeks.

  #4  
Old January 28th 09, 06:44 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Ken Hart1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default A serious equipment question.


"D.Mac" wrote in message
...
35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to
have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some
less than others.

I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at
about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt
to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp
than I get with film and something I didn't expect.

The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs than with Nikon which
could possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias (de-focus) filter
in the Canon's.

The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya glass
and oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma SD9 which uses
an entirely different sensor system to either Canon or Nikon.

My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor (due perhaps to
the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later sharpening) or the
lack of resolving power of modern day APS size lenses.

Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely it would
affect landscape shooters as much as group shooters?


You didn't specify the circumstances-- obviously, if it's a candid group,
you have to shoot it with what you got as it is. But if it's a posed group
such as a reunion or wedding, I can't think why you would have to be back
100 feet. (You do say "people spread around", so I'm guessing that it's a
candid group, rather than posed.)

That the problem doesn't exist with a medium format 6x7 seems right. It's a
matter of real estate. A 35mm frame (24x36mm) is 864 square millimeters,
allowing each person to occupy up to 14 square millimeters. A 6x7 frame is
4200 square mm, allowing each person to occupy up to 70 square mm. Each
square millimeter of film (or image sensor) is going to be able to resolve a
certain amount of detail.


  #5  
Old January 28th 09, 09:25 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,232
Default A serious equipment question.



bowser wrote:
"D.Mac" wrote in message
...
35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all
seem to have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some
more and some less than others.

I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread
around at about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post
processing any attempt to 'pick out' individual people invariably
results in an image less sharp than I get with film and something
I didn't expect. The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs
than with Nikon
which could possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias
(de-focus) filter in the Canon's.

The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya
glass and oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma
SD9 which uses an entirely different sensor system to either Canon
or Nikon. My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor
(due
perhaps to the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later
sharpening) or the lack of resolving power of modern day APS size
lenses. Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely
it
would affect landscape shooters as much as group shooters?


No official testing, but I get better results shooting "team" shots
with the 5D then I ever got with film. Maybe you're seeing the
image degradation that seems to occur when you simply don't have
enough pixels and fine details seem to fall apart much quicker than
film?
With any luck, I'll be able to test a 5D II in a couple of weeks.


I've had excellent handheld 'pick out' results next to disastrous ones
in sequential images taken a second apart with the same settings. My
only explanation would be natural hand-tremor tolerances piled up
together, or shifty focus. That 5D really allows for some impressive
crop-room if your goal is small prints or Web display.

--
Frank ess

  #6  
Old January 29th 09, 12:00 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default A serious equipment question.

^Tems^ wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2009 11:56 PM:


You better call the security guards in Doggy's Tangalooma resort home as
the impersonator is using Doggy's computer


Really? Proof?
  #7  
Old January 29th 09, 04:15 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
D.Mac[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default A serious equipment question.

35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem to have
a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and some less than
others.

I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around at about
35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any attempt to
'pick out' individual people invariably results in an image less sharp than
I get with film and something I didn't expect.

The issue seems more pronounced with Canon DSLRs than with Nikon which could
possibly be explained with a stronger Anti-Alias (de-focus) filter in the
Canon's.

The problem does not exist with film in a Mamiya RZ 67 and Mamiya glass and
oddly enough, neither does it exist with an old Sigma SD9 which uses an
entirely different sensor system to either Canon or Nikon.

My question is probably self answering. Either the sensor (due perhaps to
the de-focusing of an image to avoid jaggies and later sharpening) or the
lack of resolving power of modern day APS size lenses.

Has anyone done any definitive testing in this area? Surely it would affect
landscape shooters as much as group shooters?

--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!

  #8  
Old January 29th 09, 07:26 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Jeff R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 769
Default A serious equipment question.

D.Mac wrote:

Well Ken, the circumstances are casual to be sure but posed casual.
There is an example of what I'm talking about in my latest magazine
he
http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/cherbon/index.htm


Ummm... Doug?
You're not *seriously* suggesting the image shown in the link above is in
the category of "portrait" are you?

Its a very nice "atmosphere" shot (and all that), but "portrait"?
Be reasonable.
Who wants to blow up a shot to 9 feet wide just to work out who is who?

Another thing. Serious question - not a flame. Why is Gillian Hirst's name
presented in quotation marks? You do know what that implies, yes?


I had a local aluminum worker alter the ladder yesterday so I can now
sit on top of it


Do be careful Doug. No aluminium step-ladder is designed to sat on, on the
top step. The penultimate step is the highest you should go. Check with
OHS. I'm not sure the Brisbane photographic community could take it if you
fell and were injured.

(Just picture where the monopod might end up... :-( )

Cheers for now

--
Jeff R.

  #9  
Old January 29th 09, 07:32 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Jeff R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 769
Default A serious equipment question.

D.Mac wrote:

There is an example: http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/cherbon/index.htm


Oh Crikey, I can't resist this one.

Surfing around that link, Doug, I came across
http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/wedport/index.htm ,
your very own Wedding'n'Portraits page.

Dr Moiré just called.
He wants to talk to you about copyright infringement (on the mens' coats),
or at least to negotiate a royalty fee.

--
Jeff R.

:-)



  #10  
Old January 29th 09, 09:41 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
D.Mac[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default A serious equipment question.



"Larry Thong" wrote in message
m...
D.Mac wrote:

35mm size SLRs including digital (or perhaps their lenses) all seem
to have a problem resolving detail at middle distance. Some more and
some less than others.

I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people spread around
at about 35 meters (100 feet) from the camera. In post processing any
attempt to 'pick out' individual people invariably results in an
image less sharp than I get with film and something I didn't expect.


This is why you shoot large groups with the 200/2 and make a pano. No pro
photog will be stupid enough to use a WA lens in this application.


I agree entirely. That's why I use an 85mm F/1.4 for all portrait work and
most of my wedding shots. 200 mm is simply too long. It's too long for
portraits, too long for group shots and not long enough for candid
portraiture.

For a wedding photographer, I couldn't think of a worse lens to use than a
200 mm prime on anything less than a 6x9 CM Medium Format camera.

I don't know where you got the notion you could "make a pano" for a wedding
album. Maybe the same place you came up with the bull**** about
photographers buying Nikon speedlites to use on their Canon DSLRs?

Your "supposed" information is about as useful as a hole in a rubber boot.

--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wedding photography- equipment question please Caesar[_2_] 35mm Photo Equipment 16 July 10th 07 10:26 PM
Equipment Question nk Digital Photography 2 June 18th 06 12:33 AM
FA: Darkroom equipment, Hot light, Studio equipment accessories Gordon Medium Format Equipment For Sale 0 December 7th 05 06:05 PM
ULF equipment question brook Large Format Photography Equipment 8 February 1st 04 04:46 AM
Question about selling equipment Infocus 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 August 4th 03 01:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.