•  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7(current)
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I'm almost wondering ...
#61
(04-03-2020, 08:07 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: The website you're talking about is PZ's smugmug page, right? I'm not on FaceBook, but looking at all the super-static shots in the sample pictures I do not wonder why "in your photography you can rely on focus and recompose". I mentioned it a couple of times now, that this technique just doesn't work in dynamic situations - it also doesn't work when the object leaves the comparatively small region of focus points - talking about FF bodies. This region is limiting all the time, denying or ignoring it doesn't help. But feel free to go on with static shots and if you believe your technique is of any help with them, keep on thinking that way.

I never claimed it works for dynamic shots. I was answering to your example, where you could not focus with an outer AF field, and in such a situation I would opt for focus and recompose instead. Of course I know how to handle dynamic subjects. If you were on FB, you'd know.

In any case, you obviously still either did not get my message or chose to ignore it. You just keep going on claiming that limitations you see are everyone else's limitations, too, and if someone claims it's not, you arrogantly imply those people have no clue.

I asked for civilized tone and respect for each other's opinions here, that's all.
Editor
opticallimits.com

#62
(04-03-2020, 04:31 AM)ioled Wrote: I personally find "eyelashes in focus only" photos lame. Miroless have a superior focusing system for most uses but a lot of DSLR critism is build on top of bad photography techniques. Bokeh is overrated.

Edit if I was buying again today I would probably prefer Fuji for a system. But hopefully I won't have to buy a camera for the next 15 years. Then I might have to drop Pentax.

I have to agree with you but that's, of course, just a matter of personal taste.

Extremely shallow DoF doesn't give me much really. It eliminates the context and context gives meaning.
That doesn't mean that I don't like a bokeh shot but if the background is completely zeroed out, it's just too much.

But then ... I'm famous for being utterly bored by portraits. ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#63
I am surprised nobody talked about focusing screen, normal focusing screens on DSLR when using fast lenses will show you more DOF than you would have in the final shot, and that would make it harder to focus, use any f1.4 lens, check the vewfinder and check the final picture you will see that there's more DOF in the viewfinder, so how to do manual focus with a fast lens on a DSLR wihtout changing the focus screen ???
of course with a well calibrated matte focus screen especially with split screen and microprism you can have excellent results but it needs experience and dexterity, it's so much easier on mirrorless
#64
(04-03-2020, 11:29 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: [quote pid='50532' dateline='1585899827']


(04-03-2020, 05:44 AM)davidmanze Wrote: PS. Over the years I've heard many togs say that using AF fine tune causes more issues than it solves and as a consequence never tune their lenses ...... were these people getting the best from their lenses ?? .........80% of mine needed tuning!

AF fine tuning as in AF micro adjustment? That is not the same as lens calibration.
AFMA is really only a band-aid to be able to overcome an AF issue in the field. 

AF on DSLRs can be "miss" due to different wave lengths not focusing on the same plane. It depends on what the AF sensor is sensitive to. "Recently (last few years)", I have seen many complaints regarding Nikon cameras and different AF results in daylight and in artificial light. I bet that is due to a certain band of "invisible" light (IR/UV) that the AF sensor sees in focus before it would see visible light in focus.
You can't AFMA that away.

A

  What would you call "calibration" ...... are you saying that Canon or Nikon would offer a calibration service?
Dave's clichés
#65
(04-04-2020, 06:44 AM)davidmanze Wrote: What would you call "calibration" ...... are you saying that Canon or Nikon would offer a calibration service?

Both do, yes.

(04-04-2020, 06:01 AM)toni-a Wrote: I am surprised nobody talked about focusing screen, normal focusing screens on DSLR when using fast lenses will show you more DOF than you would have in the final shot, and that would make it harder to focus, use any f1.4 lens,  check the vewfinder and check the final picture you will see that there's more DOF in the viewfinder, so how to do manual focus with a fast lens on a DSLR wihtout changing the focus screen ???

Well, personally I simply don't Wink But yes, there is a little more DOF in the viewfinder, which makes focusing a fast lens wide open a challenge. On Canon cameras with replaceable screens, the matte screens are awesome, on Nikon cameras there are no such screens, but the "digital rangefinder" (the focus indicator in the viewfinder) is very helpful.

(04-04-2020, 06:01 AM)toni-a Wrote: of course with a well calibrated matte focus screen especially with split screen and microprism  you can have excellent results but it needs  experience and  dexterity, it's so much easier on mirrorless

True. Especially for the mother of all mirrorless systems: a rangefinder camera Wink

On the other hand: some ML cameras do not show you the actual DOF either, until you press or half-press the shutter. Fuji doesn't, for example.
Editor
opticallimits.com

#66
(04-03-2020, 10:33 PM)mst Wrote: I never claimed it works for dynamic shots. I was answering to your example, where you could not focus with an outer AF field, and in such a situation I would opt for focus and recompose instead. Of course I know how to handle dynamic subjects. If you were on FB, you'd know.

In any case, you obviously still either did not get my message or chose to ignore it. You just keep going on claiming that limitations you see are everyone else's limitations, too, and if someone claims it's not, you arrogantly imply those people have no clue.

I asked for civilized tone and respect for each other's opinions here, that's all.
My example. Aha. I didn't say it was a static shot - at first. So no way for focusing and recomposing. It's my finding, that focus and recompose gives me and other people much more trouble than using the proper AF-point, but then I never use AF-S - so I leave it to the readers to judge who ignores what. I think I gave pretty good examples when it's not working (which happens to be the majority of situations I take a picture).

https://youtu.be/4bCpj0HXyyw?t=238 as if Chris would have heard the whole focus and recompose debate

"I would personally always rely on focus and recompose and an OVF, for sure". That were your words. The big ALWAYS is what upsets me first, the OVF second and the sarcastic comment after my "not all DSLR-AF-points work equally well" was third. You ignore each situation an OVF is not helping a bit and you wonder that you get criticized for that?
#67
(04-04-2020, 07:09 AM)mst Wrote:
(04-04-2020, 06:44 AM)davidmanze Wrote: What would you call "calibration" ...... are you saying that Canon or Nikon would offer a calibration service?

Both do, yes.
   I take it you are talking about calibrating a lens on a reference body ........ without any disassembly?   
This basically amounts to "the standard zero offset"   (offset being amount added or subtracted to the norm).
 
  The whole point of AFFT is that you don't have to return the lens to the manufacturer because he has an exact mirrored AF scale within the camera's menu ....... two in fact, one only accessible by the manufacturer ......  the other by the user ..... so whether you offset the AF within the camera or the lens it's the same. .......
 A hacking program could access the Pentax K5's actual AF calibration menu and in there was found exactly the same AFFT as was in the camera's menu ....... so in effect there were two scales of adjustment ... both could offset the other!

 I wouldn't return a lens for calibration unless it could not be corrected within the AFFT facility.
Dave's clichés
#68
(04-04-2020, 08:45 AM)davidmanze Wrote: I take it you are talking about calibrating a lens on a reference body ........ without any disassembly?   
This basically amounts to "the standard zero offset"   (offset being amount added or subtracted to the norm).

I assume they can do both, with and without assembly.
 
(04-04-2020, 08:45 AM)davidmanze Wrote:  I wouldn't return a lens for calibration unless it could not be corrected within the AFFT facility.

Similar here, I have used the Service for very few lenses so far.

However, I also understand those who switch camera gear regularly or use several bodies do prefer to have all lenses calibrated to default vaules.
Editor
opticallimits.com

#69
(04-03-2020, 10:33 PM)mst Wrote: I never claimed it works for dynamic shots. I was answering to your example, where you could not focus with an outer AF field, and in such a situation I would opt for focus and recompose instead. Of course I know how to handle dynamic subjects. If you were on FB, you'd know.

In any case, you obviously still either did not get my message or chose to ignore it. You just keep going on claiming that limitations you see are everyone else's limitations, too, and if someone claims it's not, you arrogantly imply those people have no clue.

I asked for civilized tone and respect for each other's opinions here, that's all.
Dynamic shots at f/1.4. Recomposing center to corner.
Those are just excuses to push a technology which, yes, is better than DSLRs at coverage - but did we forgot the premise? It was claimed the DSLR AF is so bad, Pentax should stop making faster than f/4 lenses.

Respect for each other's choice as well, I'd add. Sadly, not a trait of some "latest-and-greatest" fans...

(04-04-2020, 06:01 AM)toni-a Wrote: I am surprised nobody talked about focusing screen, normal focusing screens on DSLR when using fast lenses will show you more DOF than you would have in the final shot, and that would make it harder to focus, use any f1.4 lens, check the vewfinder and check the final picture you will see that there's more DOF in the viewfinder, so how to do manual focus with a fast lens on a DSLR wihtout changing the focus screen ???
of course with a well calibrated matte focus screen especially with split screen and microprism you can have excellent results but it needs experience and dexterity, it's so much easier on mirrorless
The "high-resolution" EVFs can't show properly the EVF either; with a mere 1.4m dots, I'd say they are worse than a good standard OVF screen.
Now, how precise is the focus peaking? Maybe they improved it on the latest models, but IMO you'd have to rely on magnification to focus precisely with fast lenses.
Which gets us to... dynamic shots Tongue
#70
[/quote]
The "high-resolution" EVFs can't show properly the EVF either; with a mere 1.4m dots, I'd say they are worse than a good standard OVF screen.
Now, how precise is the focus peaking? Maybe they improved it on the latest models, but IMO you'd have to rely on magnification to focus precisely with fast lenses.
Which gets us to... dynamic shots Tongue
[/quote]
__________________
I think you will find the days of the 1.4 million dot EVF are confined to older cheap cameras such as the Sony A6000 ..... the Nikon Z6/Z7 have 3.6 million dots ..... the Z50 2.6 million dots.
 I tried the Z6 and the EVF was shall we say ....... not to my taste!
Dave's clichés
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7(current)
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)