nathaniel_alpert

August 26, 2016

For <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 25, 2016; 10:14 p.m.

Any decent lens will "pass" higher frequencies than can be faithfully recorded by the sensor array in today's caneras.

Without an AA filter the lens projects an image on the sensor (focused by you). If there are enough photons you

can get a useable image. If there is an AA filter, it is in front of the sensor and the lens projects that image on

the AA filter, which removes or attenuates some higher frequency information. It is the sensor that is doing

the sampling not the filter. Each sensel is averaging the signal from a little patch on the AA filter.

In the future it may be possible to make sensors with small enough sensels so that the lens no longer

passess information above the Nyquist frequency. Then no AA filter will be needed.

August 25, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499395">Allen Herbert</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 24, 2016; 06:16 p.m.

"Nathaniel, there are other factors to take into consideration "Allen

That's if I believe what you have researched...

Im sure ,if I researched, I would find contrary = opinions.

-------------------------------------------------------

Allen, I take your point. In the overall scheme of things I simplified my discussion because the claim that the ideas expressed were in accord with the physics of the situation were just wrong. Perhaps you can find fault with my explanation, the the fact that there are contrary opinions on the net is not in doubt. You have to learn how to recognize truth when you hear it :=). On the net all opinions are equal but not all are correct.

August 24, 2016

"

"Presence of an anti-aliasing filter is likely to degrade the image more for APS-C, since greater enlargement is required for display".

Allen - Likely, where did you get the "likely information from"?

</blockquote>

Quite simple, really, from a basic understanding of physics and optics. An AA filter is a low pass filter based on frequency. The principle and hardware are basically the same regardless of format. The same detail on a smaller format will constitute an higher frequency. Since high frequency detail is reduced by the filter, the greater the enlargement the greater the effect.

----------------------------------

I don't think the physics and optics are on your side: The lens will pass (or not pass) the frequencies near nyquist with amplitude sufficient for photon detection. This projects the image onto the sensor. Then the sampling (pixel size) of the sensor will determine whether or not aliasing will occur. The actual design of the AA filter will be adjusted to match the properties of the sensor. Does that make sense?

August 18, 2016

Robin Smith wrote: "All I can say is there must have been something wrong with your Canon photography then. One can make great prints with the m4/3, but there is really no need to make a claim of superiority when it comes to image quality as I really do not think there is any hard data to support this. I have an APS-C Canon and a FF Canon and there is no way the APS-C files are as good. You can usually get them pretty well to the same point after processing, which I think is what you are saying. I also don't think there is any extra secret sauce in m4/3 that makes them better than APS-C either."

Hi Robin, I can see that my writing was a little tough to follow. Let me stipulate that I was not claiming that M43 is better than APS-C or FF. I was comparing the results I got with the Canon 5Dii and my L lenses, mostly zooms versus the Olympus M43 equivalents, arguing that the Olympuss was more than good enough to produce moderately large prints. In claiming superiority of the Olympus E-m1 with, say the 12-40 zoom versus my 5dii and the 24-105 L, I was not attributing the differences to the number of pixels for prints up to 16x24 inches. 16x24 is not very large. There are other factors at play: The 12-40 zoom turns out to have higher contrast and better microcontrast, and it is sharper into the corners than the Canon counterpart. I am claiming that the intrinsic pixel level quality of my M43 gear yielded noticeably better prints, not that it could make bigger prints. Keep in mind that the 5Dii was released in 2009; whereas, the e-m1 was introduced toward the end of 2013. Many of us thought the 5Dii was a real advance. It was and is a great camera, and I made many fine prints with it, but it did have limitations like highlight clipping that made printing some files challenging.

If we did the same comparison with the 5D3 and a well selected lens, I might well prefer the Canon. However, that obscures the story, which is that M43 gear can be significantly lighter than FF while providing roughly similar image quality in a wide range of imaging situations. Inevitably, the FF camera will be able to make better really large prints. Most of do not make prints that large. There is a psychology afoot like the explicit belittling of minivans versus SUVs. Not everybody needs to haul around a FF camera with the attendant heavy lenses.

August 17, 2016

I have been reading this thread with interest and some skepticism. Truthfully, how many of you have printed a picture this year that was bigger than 15"x20"? If you answer that you have, perhaps you NEED a 36 MP camera. If you answer no, then, well, you don't. This is called MPenvy, like seeing a red Porsche in the parking lot and dreaming of zero-to-60 in 3 seconds.

My story is very similar to the originator of this thread. Canon guy, 5Dii with a load of L lenses. Getting older, arthritic neck. Why am I carrying this stuff? So, I start thinking about downsizing. At that time I was quite impressed with a series of photos published by Michael Reichmann using the Olympus E-M1. I thought, nah that camera has only 16MP. But then I thought that is more than the 'great' Canon 5D classic with 13MP that start the FF revolution. Reichmann touted the lenses available for the m43 system, so I thought why not give it a try? As a Canon guy for more than 30 years, I was shocked by what I found. I started with the E-m1 and the 12-40 mm zoom lens. This lens is roughly equivalent to the Canon 24-70 L f2.8. First, the E-m1 body has much better build quality than the Canon 5Dii; Olympus calls it splash proof and there are numerous videos showing it submerged or drenched in the shower. The E-m1 has many features that the Canon 5Dii (and 5Diii, too) does not have, such as fully functional touch screen, focus bracketing, live bulb, and in body image stabilization that provides about 4 stops improvement. There is an excellent electronic view finder that simulates your exposure, including a live-time histogram and levels and the viewfinder supports many focusing aids, including 14x magnification and zebras. Second, the 12-40 zoom is a gem, sharp wide open, corner to corner. Much lighter than the Canon equivalent. There are a full complement of excellent M43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic covering from 14-600 mm FF equivalent; many are exemplary, as good as it gets. The primes are really small and light. I print on a 17 inch Epson printer and the prints I can make with the Olympus are better than i achieved with my Canon up to a size at least 16x24." I haven't done it but I am sure I can make excellent prints up to 30x40 inches.

There is no denying that a high MP camera, can make higher quality big prints. But those are really, really big. I have large canvas prints from my old Canon 20D that still look great. But I have to tell you that for landscape work the E-m1 more than holds its own. The E-m5ii, which I also own, includes a high resolution mode useful in some landscape and product photography. The high res mode provides the equivalent of a 36MP camera, with very high image quality that supports very big enlargements.

A major m43 advantage that has not been discussed in this thread is travel. One can select a set of lenses that will cover virtually any landscape or nature assignment and put it in a small carry-on size bag. It will not break your back to carry or lift it. Try that with a full frame system.

Let's talk about the noise. In most cases, I am getting better IQ than the 5Dii ever got. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and expect very good quality with minimal noise reduction. ISO 3200 starts to show some issues but definitely usable if you expose properly. If you need to shoot at ISO 6400 or higher M43 is not for you.

December 30, 2014

The E-M1 provides ready access to all commonly used adjustments, including WB, via the touch screen and rear dials. You toggle between the adjustment screen and live view with a button the left rear of the camera body. There is no need whatsoever to dive into the menus.

It is reaally worth understanding this feature. Once understood it is most convenient, betterr than any camera I have owned.

Hope this helps.

December 28, 2014

Inge,

Do I understand correctly? Are ypu mounting a Canon FL-35 lens? If so, I wonder if that is the source of your problem. If so, it is not really a problem, if you shot in raw mode. Then you can set the white balance in post. Nothing is lost.

Hope this helps.

September 10, 2014

Edward Ingold wrote: "Feisol are Chinese-made Gitzo clones. There were some early problems with bonded parts, but no recent complaints. At half the price of Gitzo, and Gitzo's diminished warranty, they're worth a shot."

Although it may seem like picking a nit, Feisol tripods are designed and made in Taiwan not China. And while it is common to complain about Gitzo clones, I don't agree in this case. The Feisol 3442 does have three legs and shares some features with Gitzo, but if you study the specs and design you will see they are unique. For example, the 3442 features a spider milled from an aluminum block Gitzo does not.

The word warranty was mentioned. It should also be stated that a simple google search produces lots of complaints about Gitzo service.

For half the price, there are few to no complaints about Feisol service and there are many testimonials.

September 10, 2014

Hello Kerry,

I don't think you need to go to RRS to get excellent performance. I agree that you should not have to sacrifice stability for weight and price. There are certainly trade offs but as with many luxury items, getting that last 10% costs a lot. That said, I recommend you consider the Feisol 3442 CF tripod. It is a systematic design which has been offered for some time now and the vast majority of reporters are very satisfied, me to. There was a comparison on the Nikonian tripod forum comparing the 3442 to Gitzo. The results showed little difference in performance and in some cases, paradoxically it seemed to the tester, the 3442 was marginally better. In my use I find it very stable with a 5Dii and the 70-200L. Problems became apparent on windy days with the 100-400, particularly with the hood attached. These shortcomings may be due to inadequacies of my ball-head.

Hope this is helpful

January 7, 2014

I strongly suggest that you consider something other than the Velbon Rexi. Despite its weight (heavy), it does not offer much support. I bought a previous model, an ancestor of the Rexi and it was a disaster. Caveat Emptor.

Beyond my warning you should consider the purpose of the tripod, which in my opinion is to provide a stable platform for your photography. If it can't do that reliably it is worth nothing to you. Consider how the camera is mounted to the tripod head and the head to the legs. When set up tthe whole should function as a single item. Anything that wobbles or shakes is a problem. The more leg sections you have the more it may shake, the more leg locks become a serious question of quality. How the camera mounts to the head is often a weakness in cheap tripods. There is a reason for the higher price of some tripods. On the other hand, there are better trade-offs than Velbon. Check up Benro, Induri and Surui tripods. See if one of those mau suit.

January 4, 2014

The Loka backpacks are probably what you but more than your budget.

The problem with things like the Think Tank is that they are not backpacks, just a rectangular case with straps. If you are over thirty years old they are killers for hiking with a load like you are talking about. A possible solution is the Deuter Act 32, a real backpack with an internal frame. Couple that with a internal camera unit from eBay.

November 25, 2013

Hello Jessica,

I am sorry to complicate your life but I am concerned that the information you have received will not prove useful to your choice. The Manfrotto tripod legs recommended use a proprietary clamp to mount the tripod. This clamp has proven to be a weak point in the design. More modern clamps use the Arca Swiss design, now a defacto standard used by many manufactures, one which is much more convenient to use, too. Furthermore, there is a special plate that mounts to the base of your camera. It can be very simple but better custom plates have a machined lip that stops the plate from rotating around the mounting bolt. Before you reject this as overkill, something that you don't need, think about the purpose of the tripod and tripod head. It is to hold the camera steady. Any wiggle at the point where the camera is mounted can severely degrade the image quality you are seeking. You could buy the Manfrotto legs and change the clamp but you should also consider manufacturers such a Feisol (e.g 3442, wt ~ 1 Kg) and Benro. Photo Clam makes an adequate ball head with an AS clamp. You would also need a mounting plate for suitable your camera body.

March 19, 2013

I am 6' 1" tall. I use a Feisol 3442 tripod which weighs about 2.1 lb and extends to 56" without the center column.

If you figure the ball head with Arca Swiss clamp adds about 6 in and the camera about, the total height is about 67." You will not have to stoop. This tripod is very stable, not cheap (~ $400) but not the most expensive by any means. Add a (mid price) Markins or Acratech or (low end) Photo Clam, ball head and a custom mounting plate from (Acratech or Kirk) and you will not have any sagging or twisting. The trick to a stable set up is that mounting plate. If you rely on that little generic plate that goes with e.g. the Manfrotto 055xxx it is secured with a screw and a bit of cork to the bottom of the camera but the camera can rotate around the screw, loosening and thus wobbling ever so slightly. The custom plate is built to the dimension of the base of you camera and it is designed so that once it is screwed on it will not loosen. Part of the reason for its stability is the carbon fiber construction; another factor is that the spider which holds it all together is machined from a solid block of aluminum. The Feisol 3442 is very good for travel too, folding down to 19 inches. It has another little trick, too: If you buy a compatible ball head the legs fold back over the head so that the head does not extend the folded length while traveling. Do a web search for reviews of this tripod, you will see there are a lot of satisfied customers.

I hope this helps.

March 17, 2013

Sorry I am late to the party. Did a similar trip Jan. 2012. Carried a 5Dii with a 100-400 and a 5Dc with 24-105 zooms. Never changed lenses. We had a Toyota Landcruiser with the pop top. It came equipped with bean bags. That is probably quite common. You should check with your provider. Other than hotel/camp there is nowhere to spend or change money and nothing to buy, either. In my one safari experience, I generally found the 100-400 to be long enough on the 5D, therefore, I doubt that you will need a 500 mm lens on the 7D. Surprising to us was that the animals (except giraffes) paid no attention. We could come as close as we wanted in a VERY noisy landcruiser and they hardly even seemed to notice, even with tiny babies or during love trysts. The only time a long lens might have helped was for distant cats on the hunt. But honestly, these opportunities were not going to provide superior pictures no matter what lens you have -- the action is too fast to follow with such a long lens. The 500 will be useless in all cases where the animals are close by.

As interesting as photographing the animals are the people. The street scenes are extremely vivid but the people either want money to allow a photograph or they turn away. I feel I was very successful shooting from a slow-moving landcruiser with the 24-105. This was a highlight of the trip for me.

October 5, 2012

I recommend that you consider a lightweight but sturdy tripod such as the Feisol Tournament CT-3442 Rapid 4-Section Carbon Tripod. You would also need a ball head and a camera-to-tripod mounting plate. All this could weigh just over 3 lb, depending on your choice of ball head. This tripod folds down to 19 In, and you can easily strap it to your backpack. This will definitely hold your 5D2 at a cost that is about 1/2 the Gitzo. Check it up; it has a very good reputation for stability and workmanship. Feisol has a good record of customer service, too. Forget about attaching an slr to a walking stick.

October 1, 2012

The Velbon looks like a very poor choice. Stability is usually inversely related to the number of leg section. The 4-way pan head is questionable. It relies on extending the center column to achieve eye-level viewing, something that will prove to be unstable. I have owned the Velbon Maxi and it was terrible. With an SLR mounted the panning head always drooped. It did not last long, one of the legs collapsed, perhaps out of boredom.

I don't know anything about Sirui tripods. I just caution you to think about buying a real tripod. Do not fall into the same pit that I did, buying several really cheap ones. There is a big difference when you have a real tripod and a good ball head. The legs should allow useful elevation without raising the center column, as this destroys stability. In addition to the legs you should consider a custom mounting plate and ball head. The mounting plate secures the camera to the tripod clamp. If you merely rely on the screw to fix the camera to the head it is difficult avoid the camera rotating on the screw, particularly with a zoom lens. If there is wobble in the clamp or mount you will not get sharp pictures.

You should get a head with an Arca -Swiss style clamp, allowing for rigid mounting and unmounting of the camera.

A good tripod can make a huge difference in your photography. There are some that argue that you must spend a fortune on a tripod or whatsis will fall off. I argue that going real cheap is not economical; the stingy man pays many times. I can recommend Feisol and Gitzo tripods. Feisol is much less expensive but not $200 cheap.

May 3, 2011

Another recommendation for the Feisol 3442.Without the center column, the extended height is 54 in and the folded length is 19 in. The center column is optional. Very stable, well built and "only" $300.

January 29, 2011

Wrong. This is all theory. I have the YN460 on a Canon 5Dii. I have not seen any problem with light fall off.

Many others have questioned why YN denies that the 460 and related models are incompatible. There are reports of QC problems. I have seen no incompatibility and as far as i can tell, mine works just fine.

May 24, 2010

We spent a month on the South Island, with more or less the same goals as you. I would say to choose an island, you don't have enough time to do both well. Don't get sucked into the rubbish about Doubtful Sound, did that - not worth it. Not that it isn't beautiful but the overnight boat tour is expensive and rather boring. Fjordland itself is well worth it. Lake Tekkapo is a fantastic spot, be sure to take the road to the observatory, much more photogenic then driving along the lake. Queenstown area is great fun. You can stay outside and do day trips. The Central Otago wineries are nearby. Wonderful places for a luch and a bottle of wine--heaven. Blenheim > Marlborough (Food & Wine festival second Sat&Sun of Feb) again great to visit the wineries and sit out at lunch with a bottle of wine. The world is much easier to understand after lunch and bottle of Savignon Blanc.

The drive along the West Coast, the Glaciers Joseph, etc. are really wonderful. You favorites will depend on the weather you encounter.

May 24, 2010

Hello,

We have stayed in this area many times. The Lauterbrunnen Valley is beautiful, but small. You can walk along the road in the valley, or above near the railroad right of way. This is not to discourage you at all, it is really beautiful. On the other hand, we prefer to stay in Wengen, part way up to Mannlichen. Wengen is well located for walking, with overview of the LV. From the town square, you can take a cable car to Mannlichen and walk the spectacular and very easy walk to Kliene Scheidegg (about 2.5 hours). Don't forget your camera. From there one may continue back to Wengen by train or by foot.

Another poster mentioned Grindlewald > Cable car to First. This is excellent. From there, walk to Grosse Scheidegg and return to Grindlewald by bus. Specatular.

There are so many beautiful walks in this region. Do not limit to LV. Get the book Walking Easy in Swtizerland by Lipton. It will give you a lot of good advice about how to do these walks. Finally, you should know that the transportation system in Switzerland is the best (and maybe the most expensive) in the world. One need not walk up and down the mountain to reach the most scenic areas. Ride up, walk out, spiral around, ride down, unless you are young and in shape.

Hope this helps

May 1, 2010

Mus Ahktar has expressed his opinion rather forcefully about the 5D and the 5d mark ii, stating that "none of these 5DII improvements are of any real use to a reasonably skilled/ keen photographer unless one is mostly shooting under very low light conditions which on average is not what we do most of the times! But even under those low light condition 5D performs exceptionally well!." However, it seems he shoots a Canon 350D not a 5d or a mark ii. I own both the 5d and the 5d mark ii. As i noted in an earlier post, for those working on a tripod, the mark ii clearly outperforms the original because of live view, which allows the shooter to examine the focus at 5x or 10x, simulate stop down exposure, check focus and depth of fieldwhile stopped down (even in low light) and perview exposure with a real time histogram. This is a game changer for landscape photographers. Focsing the 5d mark i in low light is nearly impossible and checking depth of field in low light is definitely impossible. Everything about the mark ii is improved over the original. The mark i is a fine camera and a useful tool but if one has the money, the mark ii is the way to go.

April 29, 2010

I can respond to this part of your question "It would seem obvious to get the 5D MKii but I've read that the autofocus gets pretty difficult under low light conditions."

You state that you do no action, tripod-based photography. The 5D mii is for you. Under these conditions you will absolutely love the Live View Feature. With LV, you use the rear LCD to view your image while focusing. Focusing should be done manually, at 5x or 10x magnification. You will be able to inspect many points of your image, mapping out the depth of field, with or without the lens stopped down. You can do this in low light. You will also have a real time RGB histogram to preview your exposure. No more guessing. No more out of focus images, no more depth of field surprise. Try it you will like it. Surprising how few understand that this feature is a game changer for landscape photographers.

Oh, and there is a mode to simulate the exposure on the LCD, too. But there are tricks to ensure that you get an accurate histogram, so do your homework.

Hope this helps.

March 18, 2010

Ben,

I read most of the responses in those threads. It seemed to me that there were some readers who were looking for guidance about how or whether to use ETTR techniques. That is the purpose of my post. I do not claim to have the most detailed knowledge, I am not looking for an argument. Most of us do not need perfection but a practical approach that can be used in the field. If others have a different approach to practical ETTR or wish to correct me, they should speak up. I don't need to win any arguments to succeed in my self-appointed goal :-)

March 18, 2010

A practical approach to ETTR: Just so you know where I am coming from, my work includes landscape and nature photography, but no BIFs or portraits. I am contributing my observations in the hope of helping those who would like to use this method. Please don’t tell me about special test targets, or your pet theories of exposure. This is supposed to be a discussion of the practical use of ETTR.

In my applications I am seldom under the pressure of relying SOLEY on the in-camera exposure meter. I pay little attention to whether I am using averaging, evaluative or spot metering. Black cats in coal bins, white on white, it does not matter, for I am relying mainly on the in-camera histogram. When I achieve an exposure with no clipping of any channel in the histogram that is close to the right, I am done.

For the record, though I doubt the brand of camera is a determining factor, I am shooting in raw mode with either a Canon 5d i or 5d ii. The jpeg settings are turned down (saturation, contrast, etc.) to produce the most neutral, low contrast in-camera jpeg. I adjust exposure till the in-camera histogram is close to clipping. No channel is allowed to clip, unless I am bracketing. As a practical matter, the histogram obtained from the corresponding raw image is usually similar to the in-camera histogram when the image is opened in ACR or LR. I don’t claim they are identical. Sometimes the ACR- or LR-rendered histogram looks like it is clipped but it is (almost) always possible to decrease the exposure slider and recover a histogram that is not clipped. The observant reader will notice the “almost” in parentheses. There is the deviant image with a few specular highlights, the histogram with a long tail on the right, etc. These require judgment, experience, and bracketing when in the field. The blinking over exposure warning can also be helpful, as it shows WHERE the clipping is taking place. However, the clipping warning is computed from the luminance information, so even if there are no warnings you may still have clipping, a proper RGB histogram is required. A special tip for users with “real time histogram (live view)”: This histogram seems more accurate than the one determined from the in-camera jpeg. This is just my observation, what do you think?

I have never noticed any color shifts or distortions from this approach. The best digital exposure is obtained by exposing so that the raw image histogram is as far to the right as possible (even if it looks clipped), so that (reducing) the exposure slider can bring it down to the point where there is no clipping. The brightness slider is then used to refine the intensity level to suit your photographic intent. With the method as outlined, not every exposure will be as far to the right as possible, but many will. That is what I mean by practical.

Let me know what you think

March 12, 2010

I have been a canon user for decades, so my bias is clear. Several months ago I purchased a 5d mark ii. My uses are similar to yours, landscapes, nature, portraits. This camera is leaps and bounds beyond the original 5d which I also own and like. First, the focus system does seem better than the original 5d but for landscape and portrait work this is not an issue and not for the reasons most cite. The reason is live-view. This is equivalent to the large format ground glass, except the image is right side up. (Everything I say pertains to shooting raw, not jpeg. Also, use of a tripod is assumed.) With live-view, you have a real time histogram that I think is more accurate than the one derived from the jpeg. I compose and set the exposure with live-view, then magnify critical points in the image 5x or 10 x , focus the lens manually and use the depth of field preview. Depth of field preview is actually easy to use with live-view. Absolute certainty about focus, no guess work. No need for depth of field charts. Another use I found for live view is monitoring wind motion with longer lenses. Setting the magnification at 5x or 10x you can see the effect of wind movement.

The comparison of the Nikon and 5d ii noise level is often erroneous. While it may be true, that the per pixel noise level of the Nikon is slightly lower, the 5dii has nearly twice as many pixels, meaning that for the same enlargement, the appparent noise level will be lower for the 5dii. I have shot quite a number of landscapes at ISO 1600 to control depth of field and, at the same time, to stop motion blur. There is definitely image noise when you look at the pixel level, but for enlargements up to 16x20, I think this is no problem.

You also mentioned concerns about color. My experience is that this camera is the best i have ever used in terms of exposure control and color rendition. Many shots rquire no post processing, sharpening or correction.

I also have the 24-105 l lens which is very good with the 5d ii. Used correctly, it is good at any aperture. For landscape I am often at f16 which is fine. The biggest problem I have with this lens (and all others too) is flare, particularly when the lens is stopped down. There is distortion but no more than other zoom lens. The IS is excellent and good for controlling wind movement when the camera is on a tripod.

I don't know if the Nikon is better or worse than the 5d ii. I do know that the 5d ii will not limit you in anyway for the applications you cited in your query. Hope this helps.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by nathaniel_alpert