scott_ferris

David,

 

I wouldn't, the in camera HDR is a jpeg, even if you shoot three RAW files the HDR file is still a jpeg, I am pretty sure I

can do a much better job of realizing my idea than the camera can, even if that means using another piece of software to

do it.

<p>Like I said, Adobe give you two paid options for editing RAW files, Lightroom and Photoshop, the fact that you can access ACR, an integral part of Photoshop, via Bridge is irrelevant. What you are saying is, because this program (Bridge) allows me cross program functionality (opening a file in ACR, a key part of PS) I should be given the second program (ACR via Photoshop) for free. You can open images in any number of programs from Bridge, but if you don't buy them you can't use them, if you don't purchase ACR why should you be able to use it?</p>

<p>If you have a need for Photoshop, then buy it.</p>

<p>The overwhelming majority of people needing to use RAW files are well serviced by purchasing Photoshop or Lightroom, or using the totally supported and free DNG Convertor.</p>

<p>Waterhouse stops are much thicker than modern aperture blades, with modern blades no light travels past more than two thicknesses of it, and that is only at the very small intersection point, the vast majority of the light passes only one very thin blade.</p>

<p>I also prefer screw clamps, but that might be because I am so used to them, I just don't trust lever clamps as they can need adjusting for different manufacturers plates. The Acratech has a patented double speed thread so it takes about a full turn to go from fully open to fully closed, but to actually attach a camera securely it takes around 180°.<br /><br />But for me the real big difference is the unique upside down feature, I can't imagine why every manufacturer has not seen the benefit of this idea and come out with their own implementation of it. I shoot a lot of real estate and it saves me so much time. The designers at Acratech are obviously photographers.</p>

<p>Richard:<em> "Both, Jeff and Scott are quickly assuming here that I actually use Lightroom to edit RAW image files"</em><br /> <br /> Scott:<em> "It makes no sense to buy CS6 because you like the RAW engine in LR4 <strong>if you have LR4</strong>."<br /></em><br /> <br /> Your myopia is not limited to editing software. <em><br /></em></p>

<p>Camera RAW is perfectly accessible via LR4 if you have it and want it to be, it amazes me the complaints that people have about software when their own convoluted workflow won't allow them to do something the software is not designed to do. Neither InDesign nor Bridge are RAW image manipulating programs, PS and LR are. If you want RAW processing capabilities from Adobe pick one, if you have LR4 then there is zero need to buy PS/CS6 just for ACR.</p>

<p>Lightroom can't handle anything like the file types InDesign or Bridge or PS can, but it can manage and handle all RAW flies, if you have LR4 and like the processing just adjust your workflow to match the software capabilities, or don't and moan about it on the internet.</p>

<p>So pass the worked RAW from LR4 to CS 2/3/4/5, it doesn't matter if you work the RAW in LR or ACR, neither are CS6, the output to PS is the same. It makes no sense to buy CS6 because you like the RAW engine in LR4 if you have LR4.</p>

<p>Sravan,</p>

<p>Don't fall into the "pixels on duck" fallacy, it is only true if all pixels are equal, and it has been shown time and time again, smaller pixels are not as good as bigger pixels. MP's are a numbers game that does not add up.</p>

<p>Here are two unedited images, shot with the same lens from the same place under totally optimal conditions, one contains over twice the number of pixels and should add up to a major increase in resolution. There is a difference, but not anywhere near as much as the numbers say there should be. Both are considerably over 100% crops, that is a human hair from 45' away and other than upressing and cropping I haven't touched them, the one with more detail also has a lot more noise, if you reduce that in post and up the contrast on the other one it makes them so close it is much more difficult to tell them apart. And remember, this is totally optimal conditions, if you were using AF then the differences would be non existent.</p><div></div>

Charles,

 

This is a casual photo conversation, I can understand it not holding any interest for the majority of people, I can't

understand people taking the time and trouble to be so uninvolved, your input is a telling reflection of you, simplistic

enough for you?

100% theTC.

<p><em>"It's more susceptible to diffraction for the same reason."</em><br /> <br /> <em><br /></em>No, it suffers diffraction at the same rate as every other capture medium, the 7D (or any other APS-C sized sensor) suffers noticeable degradation of image quality sooner than the 5D MkII (or any other larger sensor) purely because it is less than half the size so needs enlarging over twice as much for the same sized reproduction.</p>

<p>I'm not saying the 7D isn't a great camera, it is, just that diffraction has nothing to do with pixels.</p>

<p><em>"And it isn't like Adobe is lowering their prices as virtually every other software company has done"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Adobe cut the price of Lightroom 4 to $149, Lightroom 3 was $299.</p>

<p>I don't know any "pros" fed up with Adobe. Adobe operate in a far better way than most software companies, they never force you to upgrade and they provide free programs to enable you to use newer cameras with older software. Give me one example of any other software company that writes and fully supports a completely free program that enables you to not upgrade their software.</p>

<p>FCP used to be the industry standard, now it is a dumbed down joke, but Apple don't care about the Pro market, they want the average consumer now, and there is nothing wrong with that. It used to be worth $1,000 as a cutting edge pro videography tool, now it isn't, I know more video orientated shooters that have dumped FCPX for Premier Pro than any other software. If Adobe can charge well over twice as much for an on the face of it similar product, it takes more than an on the face of it look to realise why people will pay that extra.</p>

<p>Adobe are no different from any other company in their desire to maximise revenue, I rather like the monthly payment idea, imagine being able to use every Adobe product for a special project for a comparatively lowly fee as opposed to laying out $1,000's or stealing it.</p>

<p>Sarah,</p>

<p>Look at the apparent aperture from both sides of your lens, to do that with EF lenses put it on the camera, power it up, select an aperture and push the dof preview button, whilst pushing that take your lens off, it will maintain the selected f stop. When you look in from the front the apparent aperture is correct, when you look from the back it is dramatically different. For my ultrawide retrofocus lenses the apparent aperture from the sensor side is much too big, but it is further away, so it evens out.</p>

<p>The point is, <strong>to the sensor</strong> the apparent aperture and focal length are correct, therefore the airy discs are the right size.</p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>That Emmanuel certainly knows his stuff, thanks for the link, but the thread was only dealing with simple lenses, not retro-focus or tele-focus.</p>

 

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>Because diffraction calculations take reproduction size into account. Your bigger sensor needs less enlargement, hence the larger format airy disc is enlarged less so you don't see it as soon.</p>

<p>The diffraction on the sensor/film is the same whatever size that sensor or film is, the amount you enlarge that diffraction to make a same sized reproduction, either print or on screen, is not, so the bigger the format the larger the airy disc can be before you see it <strong>in a same sized print</strong>.</p>

<p>Surely it is irrelevant what the retro-focus or tele-focus of the lens is, you are always dealing with apparent aperture and apparent focal length. This would mean the airy disc stays constant for the various apertures as they would be increased, or reduced, in size as if they were simple lenses.</p>

 

<p>Jamie,</p>

<p>I just looked up eBay UK completed listings, it seems £999 is a fair price for actual sold items. I'd take a look at it for sure.</p>

<p>Good luck, Scott.</p>

<p>Jamie,</p>

<p>Thanks for coming back. Just to be clear though, the 5D does not have Live View, the 5D MkII does. Similarly, the TS-E 24mm f3.5L does not have user changeable tilt/shift axis and suffers bad CA, the TS-E 24mm f3.5L MkII is the good one.</p>

<p>David:<em> "Scott, your narrow focus assumes that the OP asked an absolute question, limiting usage to landscapes."</em></p>

<p>Jamie (the OP):<em> "I'm not interested in video or new fancy gizmo's, just what's going to be best for landscape."</em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kirsten,</p>

<p>If you do landscapes and panoramas I can't recommend the Acratech GP or GP-s enough, it is a bit more money but very well worth it. The unique reverse mounting, that effectively gives you a leveling base, is a superb feature and makes setting up the tripod effortless as you don't need to level it.</p>

<p>So, totally irrelevant for the thread, we are in agreement.</p>

<p>In a thread titled "Which full frame body for landscapes?" that went on to specify use of manual focus only lenses the various <strong>relevant</strong> differences in full frame body functionality are the ones we need to point out. Obviously your idea of relevant is very different from mine.</p>

<p>Canon Live View implementation is the key feature here for effective T/S use on small sensor digital bodies. Jamie expressed an interest in early FF Canon cameras, I pointed out they are not good tools for this use as they do not have Live View.</p>

Marcus,

 

It depends on which tests you have seen and your personal experience with the camera and lenses in question.

 

But, whilst the D 800 does have a DR advantage, it is not far better, if you expose for the specific sensors strong points

then the difference is very small. The Canon is far better at recovering highlights, the Nikon far better at recovering

shadows, the Canon needs deliberate "expose to the right" technique with specific attention to the dark tones, the Nikon

needs more even exposures with very careful attention to the very light tones. Further, it has been demonstrated that

uprezzed Canon files come rediculously close in resolution to the Nikon too. The difference in sensors is not the main

difference in the decision making process here.

 

With regards the TS-E/PC-E lenses, there is a noticeable difference between the IQ of the manufacturers that very much

does show up in even 12x18 prints. Due to the off center nature of shifted lenses CA, it is very time consuming to

effectively eliminate, the Canon 24 MkII has virtually no CA. The corners, particularly when shifted, are much much

sharper with the Canon too.

 

But the real kicker for both systems is in usability. The Canon lens functionality is vastly superior in that the tilt and shift

axis is infinately adjustable, the Nikon is factory adjustable by 90°! The Canon implimentation of Live View, the feature

that actually makes accurate use of T/S lenses on small sensors workable, is faultless and a joy to use. The Nikon is not,

Live View implimentation is not good.

 

David,

 

Whilst I am a strong advocate for the 5D MkIII over the 5D MkII in many threads, in this one AF performance is totally

irrelevant as all tilt shift lenses are manual focus only.

<p>What is wrong with the 50 you have as a portrait lens? I use mine a lot, if it isn't long enough for you the 85 f1.8 is, perhaps, even better then the 50 f1.4 and is reasonably priced. If that is too close to the 50 then the 100 f2 is a great "portrait" lens that is widely overlooked. If that is not long enough then the 135 f2L has an unmatched reputation as one of the greatest portrait lenses ever.</p>

<p>For landscapes nothing beats, or comes close to (with the possible exception of the 17mm TS-E), the TS-E 24mm MkII. Expensive but worth every penny and some.</p>

<p>It depends on how large you want to print. The 5D MkII and the TS-E 24 MkII make a very high quality combination.</p>

<p>The huge advantage of the 5D MkII over the MkI, or the 1DS's Mk's I & II for your use would be Live View, don't even think about doing high quality tilt/shift work without Live View. The first Canon full frame cameras to do that were the 1DS MkIII (at $2,750 ish used) and the 5D MkII (still available new and reconditioned from Canon, and there are lots on the used market too).</p>

<p>DeLoyd,</p>

<p>I like this guys site and podcasts, he goes into great detail with the GE-E2 <a href="http://blog.martinbaileyphotography.com/2012/05/14/podcast-335-canon-gps-receiver-gp-e2-review/">here</a>.</p>

<p>Sorry Kathleen, I got my acronyms mixed up, too much thinking about the EOS-M! I meant the new IS lenses, not STM.</p>

<p>Here is the EF <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=USA&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=843009">24mm f2.8 IS</a>, and here is the EF <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=USA&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=843011">28mm f2.8 IS</a>.</p>

Saying I don't mind manual focus and manual aperture control is very easy. Living with that choice with an everyday lens

on an AF optimized body is quite another.

 

Did you look at the new STM 24 and 28 lenses from Canon? The MTF charts for them are very impressive.

 

Other primes might bench test sharper, but if you can't focus them accurately or fast enough it is moot.