A serious equipment question.

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Noons, Jan 28, 2009.

  1. Noons

    Noons Guest

    D.Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2009 7:41 PM:
    and here we have another example of a moron impersonating Dougie.
    Wait until the crap starts flying...
     
    Noons, Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Noons

    ^Tems^ Guest

    You better call the security guards in Doggy's Tangalooma resort home as
    the impersonator is using Doggy's computer
     
    ^Tems^, Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Noons

    Ken Hart1 Guest

    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.
     
    Ken Hart1, Jan 28, 2009
    #3
  4. Noons

    Noons Guest

    ^Tems^ wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2009 11:56 PM:
    Really? Proof?
     
    Noons, Jan 28, 2009
    #4
  5. Noons

    D.Mac Guest

    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?
     
    D.Mac, Jan 29, 2009
    #5
  6. Noons

    Jeff R. Guest

    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?

    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., Jan 29, 2009
    #6
  7. Noons

    Jeff R. Guest

    Jeff R., Jan 29, 2009
    #7
  8. Noons

    D.Mac Guest

    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 bullshit 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.
     
    D.Mac, Jan 29, 2009
    #8
  9. Noons

    Jeff R. Guest

    An answer, Doug?

    Hey!
    Good guess, Doug.
    That is indeed where I got my degree.
    That's the *first* thing you've guessed about me that is correct.

    Well, yes - I guess so, Doug.
    Do you know what "moiré" means?

    (Lurkers should look at: http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/wedport/index.htm
    for a giggle.)

    Aw Geez, Doug. Now I'm hurt.
    Here I am showing concern about your health and kindly pointing out some
    silly mistakes in your publication - mistakes which seriously call your
    credibility into question (!) - and all you can do is insult me in your
    usual vulgar fashion.

    I'm starting to think you're not a very nice man, Doug.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 29, 2009
    #9
  10. Noons

    Jeff R. Guest

    By your own admission, Doug:

    You have altered the ladder, presumably without the manufacturer's approval,
    and have almost certainly rendered it illegal to use. Yes, I do understand
    OHS. Give Workcover a buzz and ask them if its OK to "...alter the
    ladder... ... so I can now sit on top of it" (your words.)

    We'd hate it if you were fined by Workcover, or worse! If you had a fall and
    hurt yourself.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 29, 2009
    #10
  11. Noons

    Jeff R. Guest

    Ummm - that was a joke, Doug. There is no "Dr Moiré".
    ....but there certainly are moiré patterns.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 29, 2009
    #11
  12. Noons

    ^Tems^ Guest

    ^Tems^, Jan 29, 2009
    #12
  13. I agree with Ken Hart1.

    In the motorhead world, the old saying goes that "there's no
    substitute for cubic inches." For this sort of photography, it's
    sensor area and not volume, but the concept is essentially the
    same.

    Compared to a medium format camera not only does a 35mm-based dSLR
    give you less "real estate" for each person, but the higher final
    print magnification makes the results more sensitive to vibration.
    So while a top-of-the-line Canon, Nikon, or Sony may, in theory,
    outresolve a medium format film camera, when you are out in the
    field it takes a lot more work to achieve those resolutions.

    A medium format photographer might be able to "get away" with
    locking things down on a solid tripod system, where as the dSLR
    user will not only need the tripod, but add mirror lockup and
    vibration damping technique as well.

    The other "hard limit" that may come into play is diffraction.
    Unlike landscapes, where the viewer tries to take in the whole
    of the shot, in a group shot viewers focus on individuals. As
    a result, you must stop down further than traditional DOF
    calculations would imply. At f/11 and a 50% MTF, no matter how
    many megapixels you have in the sensor or how good a lens you
    have, you're only going to get 58 lp/mm or so of resolution for
    human skin tone.

    All of that is before taking into account things like anti-
    alias filters or sharpening algorithms. While I've seen some
    fine group work done with a D2x, the shot you show and conditions
    you describe are much more challenging than that pro would even
    attempt.

    In summary, client expectations for group photography have risen
    to the point where hard physical limits are coming into play,
    and you're running into those limits.

    I leave medium-to-large group shots to the professionals, not
    because I don't have the equipment to attempt them, but because a
    pro earns their money for both judgment of conditions and people
    management skills.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Jan 29, 2009
    #13
  14. Noons

    Alienjones Guest

    D-Mac here on the studio PC.

    It's a funny thing... I've been using Digitals for weddings since about
    2004 but to this day, I still take my RZ67 and a couple of rolls a film
    for group shots.

    Even a 645 can't resovle the same detail as my 20 year old workhorse. I
    had hoped by now digital cameras had reached the point of high
    resolving power but I am yet to find one that has the same middle
    distance resolving ability as Portra film and a 20 year old Mamiya.

    I think the subject to camera distance coupled with shake/vibration etc
    will prevent small sensor cameras from ever equaling "real estate" for
    fine detail.

    D-Mac
     
    Alienjones, Jan 30, 2009
    #14
  15. Noons

    D.Mac Guest

    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 here:

    http://www.auspub.com.au/proofs/cherbon/index.htm

    The days of lining up a bunch of heads for photos are long gone. I use a
    ladder to get above the crowd and spread them out in small groups and
    couples, taking in the atmosphere of the landscape in the shots as part of
    the portraits. (That one's not mine incidentally).

    I had a local aluminum worker alter the ladder yesterday so I can now sit on
    top of it with the top shaft of a monopod in a socket between my legs. I did
    some shooting earlier today on a sports oval of some kids playing football
    and the results are much clearer.

    When I use the Mamiya I always use mirror up and a sports frame for
    composure. Today I shot a few frames off with the Mamiya and my new (arrived
    yesterday) D 700. I took some with the s5 Fuji too. All with the mirrors
    locked up. All were much improved but still not as good as I got from the
    Mamiya.

    It would seem the distance between the camera and the subject along with
    minute movements of pressing the shutter is enough to blur or defocus the
    scene. I think after a few hours of hefting a DSLR with a battery pack and
    flash takes it's toll on how steady I can hold it to!

    Mamiya users all know it's playing with dynamite to let a 60mm x 90mm mirror
    bounce into the stops and waits held you get to brace your elbows against
    your side too.

    What I didn't put into perspective with DSLRs is the minute amount of
    movement a 35mm mirror creates - spring loaded or motor driven - will also
    blur a shot once the camera to subject distance goes past a certain point.

    All I need to do now id discover what the distance is that mirror slap
    effects blur and I can predict when to use a steady and when to keep
    shooting freehand.!
     
    D.Mac, Jan 30, 2009
    #15
  16. Noons

    D.Mac Guest

    Until about a year ago I thought you were harshly judged by other Usenet
    readers who were a bit quicker on picking up an idiot ...as I (wrongly)
    thought you might actually have had a clue.

    Then I discovered you're just another idiot wasting time amusing yourself by
    making out you've got some serious hardware and know how to use it but post
    photos about as good as happy snaps from a Kodak that prove you both lied
    about the gear you claim to own and have never taken a photo in your life
    anyone would pay money for.

    Go ahead and amuse yourself idiot ...just keep your bullshit and useless
    advise to yourself. Hell will freeze over before I'll forget your load of
    bullshit that I took seriously and blew a few grand buying some really
    expensive and totally useless speedlites you lied to me about.

    Your attempts to light up a flame war with me are about as pathetic as the
    wannabe morons who killed off aus.photo You and them are pathetic trolls
    destroying the very thing you came to enjoy.

    My customers don't need "convincing" about anything to do with me. Unlike
    anonymous Usenet trolls (which you are one of the worst) they get to know me
    personally and see examples of my photography right beside those of my peers
    when they decide to sign with me and not them.

    The day I need to convince an idiot like you of anything has yet to dawn.
     
    D.Mac, Jan 30, 2009
    #16
  17. Noons

    D.Mac Guest

    What can I say mate?
    Like your fellow sheep Mark Thomas (Charlie Stevens from Port Lincoln in SA)
    you seem to be able to see things that aren't there and know stuff about my
    photography no one else does. I'd get on down to the Sydney University if I
    were you. They need psychics with genius minds like yours to work with ...in
    the animal lab.

    "I'm talking about shooting a group of 60 or so people"

    I'm not exactly sure where in that statement you found the word "portrait"
    but then I'm expecting nit picking from an idiot like you to come into every
    comment you make about me or my photography or my posts. Watch out... You
    prematurely ejaculate - again!

    You haven't seen my ladder Jeff so you're just speculating about it - as
    usual. Workplace, Health and Safety approved the ladder in the first place
    and it came with a seat on it... It's a purpose designed and built product.
    If you were a professional photographer you'd know about them. It's not like
    they just burst on the market mate. They've been on sale for 20 years. Made
    near you too. At Ebenezer.

    What do think? I'm some sort of back yard cowboy who goes around stealing
    copyright images from other photographers and denies any wrong doing? Oh
    sorry... That's you isn't it? More of your genius at work, eh?

    At the top of the page you refer to is: (advertisement) I would have thought
    even your deranged mind would realize that means it's an *advertisement*.
    But I was wrong. The pure genius of the Ralph gene pool surfaces again.

    You clearly know something about that advertisement no one in my office or
    at the office of the advertiser - or for that matter , the agency that
    composed it - does. I suppose you gotta expect that sort of stuff from
    someone inheriting from a gene pool like yours. LOL. You did actually meet
    your father didn't you?

    If you had a clue about advertisements you'd know someone had to compose it.
    I'm the publisher mate. The editor too. My advertiser is where you should
    send your questions about their advertisements. Duh!

    I'd just love to hear her response to a jerk like you too! ROTFL. Give her a
    ring mate, she just loves idiots.

    Watch out... It's the idiot Jeff Ralph... Genius at work - again! ROTFL.
     
    D.Mac, Jan 30, 2009
    #17
  18. Noons

    Jeff R. Guest

    Just trying to help, Doug.
    Sad you can't see that.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 30, 2009
    #18
  19. Noons

    D.Mac Guest

    Yep... You got that part right but...
    From the number of replies you make, I have pretty good aim and you make a
    large target. LOL.
     
    D.Mac, Jan 31, 2009
    #19
  20. Noons

    Robert Coe Guest

    : 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
    : > here:
    : > 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?

    That she's the great-grandniece of "Betty Crocker"?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 31, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.