Craig_Cooper11664875449

<p>I use a single sheet of FP AN glass on top of the neg with my 9000. I use the standard holder, I basically removed the rubber strips the film sits on, tighten down the big screw so the moving side of the clamp stays fixed at an appropriate width. With this done, I can lock down the standard holder as usual with the film and single sheet of AN glass. The more the neg is concave from the emulsion side, the flatter things seem to be.</p>

<p>Its always a personal thing and your views are often shaped by what you've done before and what you want to do. However, from my own personal experience, which involves living in multiple countries across Asia (including Bangkok) for the last 16+ years along with regular travel in the region (and always photographing), the SLR kit would not be my recommendation as the setup to regularly carry around. And it obviously differs from Allen's view :)<br> I started with SLRs and the full range of focal lengths in Asia as you suggest above but very quickly got rid of everything and replaced it with smaller camera systems. In Asia generally, you can easily photograph with mid to short focal lengths most of the time without wishing for more reach - personally, I use a 35mm prime (full frame FoV) 95% of the time; and 21mm and 75~90mm the rest.<br> My recommendation would be your Fuji X100 and/or maybe another mirrorless with interchangeable lenses to fill the gaps. Go light and go small (especially if you have kids in tow)</p>

<p>Hi Laura,<br> In the attached image I tried to focus on your geese. Firstly, at least the whites weren't completely blown so there is something there to work with. First suggestion for future is stop using ETTR - its an obsolete technique these days. Take the effort to protect your highlights and get the detail then pull your shadows up in post.<br> As for this image - there's always a number of paths to the same destination - here I've used Photoshop. I first made a copy layer and changed the blend mode to multiply, which put some density back into your geese then flattened this image. I then reopened your original and placed as a layer on top of this one. Then by changing the highlight blend options options of the lower layer to show through allowing the increased density of the geese in the lower layer to become visible in the original. Then selecting between layers I made some minor adjustments for black and white points and removed a little of the blue cast from the birds. More time and effort could do better but the image is potentially recoverable. As a suggestion, if you shot this in RAW, rather than go through the duplicate layer and multiply step, try and create another copy with a mix of lower exposure and pulled back highlights to become the lower layer.</p><div></div>

<p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7496/15832677050_0887f16657_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Employees from a legal firm at the Jakarta airport. Their boss was flying them to Singapore for a 3 day vacation...<br> <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7553/15737198229_1117bcb67a_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3943/15730673302_6df97a6b6d_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>Shouldn't that stay the same on a m43 or nex 7?</p> </blockquote> <p>Why does a 645 35mm have good DoF on a 645 camera? Primarily because a 35mm lens generally has good DoF and when used on a 645 you are not enlarging the 645 negative/sensor as much as you would a smaller negative/sensor for the same output, therefore smaller CoC.<br> For this argument, a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens, thats all there is to it it doesn't matter what format it was made for <em>(that is more about image circle size)</em>. The DoF characteristics will only remain the same across formats if you behave exactly the same:</p> <ul> <li>Set same aperture</li> <li>Are at the same distance to subject <em>(narrower FoV,78 degrees on 645, 38 degrees on Nex 7, 29 degrees on M4/3)</em></li> <li>Results viewed at the same size (if the 645 image is (56cm x 42cm), then Nex 7 would need to be (23cm x 15cm) and a M4/3 image would need to be (18cm x 12cm) for equivalence</li> </ul> <p>The only real value in looking at medium format lenses on small format cameras is for use with i) tilt/shift movement adaptors available or ii) Fotodiox Rhinocam type adaptors that leverage the larger image circle.</p>

<p>John,<br> Firstly decide if you're talking about same focal length or same FoV across formats. Basically, a lens of focal length "X" is the same across any format (image circle to cover the format aside). You are obviously aware of CoC; the effect being that for a given aperture the CoC increase in size as you move away from the focus plane until they "appear" as soft, out of focus, into blur.<br> Regardless of format, those CoC are "recorded" at exactly the same size, for the same lens, on the media - the sensor/film size does nothing to it. If you cropped the larger image to be the same coverage as the smaller one, both would be exactly the same - DoF, viewing magnification, etc.</p> <blockquote> <p>And since smaller sensors magnify the percieved focal length...</p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe this statement is where you're getting confused. To repeat, sensor size does NOTHING to the DoF in and of itself. The only thing sensor size does is drive user behaviour to choose a focal length and/or distance from the subject to make the image. Three things are basically at play.</p> <ol> <li>You used the same lens but had to move further back on the smaller sensor to get the same FoV, and therefore more DoF</li> <li>You used a shorter focal length to get the same FoV from the same distance - the shorter focal length at the same distance is giving you a great DoF</li> <li>You "printed" (viewed) the image at the same size (magnification) from both sensors. The smaller one required a greater enlargement which increased the observed size of the CoC moving more of the image into the perceived out of focus section.</li> </ol>

<blockquote> <p>A 35mm lens on full frame should have greater hyperfocal distance than the same lens on APS-C at the same settings because the APS-C image is being enlarged more, magnifying the out of focus effects.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not clear by what you mean by "hyperfocal distance" here. The hyperfocal distance of a particular focal length at a particular aperture is a distance "D" such that (under the assumptions of sufficiently in focus for the ouptut) everything from D/2 to Infinity is in focus. As you say, the increased magnification on the small format is the DoF limiting factor here. But because you need to satisfy "D" such that acceptable focus starts at D/2, the hyperfocal distance "D" must be greater (further away) on the smaller format. If you mean that the total distance of D/2 to infinity is greater on the larger format, for the same output size, then yes. </p> <blockquote> <p>Of course the perspective is different because of the crop factor as well.</p> </blockquote> <p>Only if the distance from the subject is different...</p>

<blockquote> <p>Mostly because of crop factor</p> </blockquote> <p>The crop factor as of itself has nothing to do with the DoF. It is only due to one of the following:</p> <ol> <li>The magnification of any enlargement differences</li> <li>The change in distance to subject in order to achieve a similar FoV with the same lens</li> <li>Using a shorter focal length to achieve the same FoV from the same subject distance</li> </ol>

<p>Following on from dave's explanation, 3 approaches:</p> <p>1) Focus is only accurate at the focal plane, perceived DoF is about what is considered visually acceptable. If you look into DoF calculations you find a parameter called "circle of confusion". These "circles" represent a level of being "out of focus" in the image but still remaining visually acceptable as being in focus when viewed. On the sensor/film, regardless of format, they are the same for any lens at a particular setting. However, the more you enlarge an image, the more some of these CoC grow to a point where a viewer perceives that part of the image as "not sharp". The logic is that you would need to enlarge a small format more than a larger one for the same size output, therefore the large format has a greater perceived DoF. If you also cropped the FF image to be the same FoV as the APS-C image - they are both exactly the same for DoF.</p> <p>2) If you follow on from point #1 and change your distance to subject to achieve the same FoV, the APS-C will have more DoF at a ratio equal to the format multiplier (ie x1.5)</p> <p>3) The above approach assumes the use of the same lens, which across formats is going to give a different field of view. Therefore, rather than comparing, for example, a 50mm on full frame to a 50mm on APS-C, its more likely you would use a lens that gave a similar FoV across formats for the same subject. Therefore, a 50mm on full frame would be replaced by a 35mm lens on APS-C. And a 35mm lens has more DoF to begin with than a 50mm, regardless of format used - but which is offset by the greater enlargement required. The basic calculation for this would be - on APS-C to FF comparisons - to use the 1.5x format multiplier on the aperture to say that a 35mm lens [at, for example, f/4] on an APS-C sensor would provide the same DoF as a 50mm lens [at f/6] on a full frame sensor.</p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3927/15274098147_697670d07b_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Ricoh GR, Bangkok<br> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3927/15166038609_7eb928d2dd_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I use multiple NAS based RAID drives for storage and backups on a Mac. However, for Time Machine, I use a single external "bare drive" enclosure (one that allows you to insert and eject a physical HD at the push of a button, example below). I then use 2 identical 3 TB HDs, both named the same, and just rotate them every week (or as frequently as you want)</p> <p><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3CR6zfb2mxM/TPyfWxFKCnI/AAAAAAAAAB0/1qwZyJZGhb4/s1600/imageview.php.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Ricoh GR - Bangkok<br> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/15352481562_f2d8750342_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>Nice one, Craig.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanx Alex, A quick grab yesterday of my young daughter playing from behind a clothes changing room in a department store...</p>

<p>Ricoh GR<br> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/15295370981_69e37e9498_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Ricoh GR<br> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3852/14917086742_d637d5d971_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<img src=https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3887/14696474409_fa604d5ac7_c.jpg>

<p>Ricoh GR<br> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3854/14706668068_2c09ec953f_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3847/14695506637_59f8ca5298_c.jpg" alt="" /><br> Ricoh GR</p>

<img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2830/9759294505_16d8e0201b_c.jpg")

<p>I'm surprised it's lasted this long. Apple's strategy has been almost totally on mobility for quite some time and Aperture is certainly not a mobility fit.</p>

<p>Of course... for any given focal length, a smaller capture area, be it film or sensor, will give you a narrower angle of view. Its always the same concept of cutting out a smaller section of the image circle. From the diagonal, your crop factor would be about 1.28 in this case</p>

<p>Thought this would be a good matching pair for you shot Jim... Nex 5n + 21mm Asph Elmarit<br> <img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5518/12436155005_395a7679f7_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>