richard_bach1

June 23, 2015

Also, like Sarah said, stitching and multiple frames would be highly advised here. At that aspect ratio you are only using about 12% of your vertical resolution here, and you really need all you can get!

June 23, 2015

Former large format prepress artist here:

You’d be hard pressed to find a 300 DPI image of that size anywhere. That would be a 10+ GB file! The truth is it that even the top imaging technology made today is still not suited for perfectly sharp billboard prints you can stick your nose in. Viewing distance is a huge factor. Have you ever seen a billboard up close? Its not pretty, but no one looks at it up close, so it doesn’t bother anyone.

How would we handle this at the print shop? Usually we would interpolate up to the highest size Ps would reasonably allow (remember that Ps has maximum pixel limits unless dealing with the not so friendly .psb file format) by using whichever algorithm suited the image best (bicubuc, bilinear, etc. make a HUGE difference at this size) Sharpen once before resizing, once after with the appropriate settings, and then add something like 2% noise to synthesize some missing detail at the pixel level. Then let the RIP handle the rest of the interpolation. Its probably best to let your printer handle this part.

Its not a perfect art and depends greatly on the image and the preferences of the client. Honestly I find it is best to ask for a few 1’x1’ swatches at the final size with some different resizing treatments. It almost always comes down to choosing between a blurry but relatively artifact free image, or a sharp image with lots of stair stepping + aliasing artifacts. Its a choose your poison situation. Keep your expectations in line with reality…

PS it also helps to have the best base image possible to start with: i.e. good detail, from RAW, sharpened properly etc.

Good luck!

February 4, 2015

Some background: Switching from a Nikon D700, I have been using a Sony A7. I love the size and handling when using some old manual FD glass. Files look great, manual focus is super easy, very light packing, lots to like here.

And while there is so much to love, I miss my Nikons. I just know them well and they have always done exactly what I wanted them to do. I miss the glass too, I loved the look and consistency of the new G primes (though that supposed 24 1.8 needs to come out soon!). Theres just a long list of tiny flaws in the A7 that Sony doesn’t seem intent on fixing that impede my shooting more than I’d like (5-10 second to start up sometimes?). Plus the manual route I’ve taken has some obvious disadvantages.

On the other hand, I really do love the size of my A7 (Though admittedly I grab my Coolpix A pretty often, and even my tiny A7 stays at home…) and fear that the extra size and weight will make me not want to bring that camera around as much. But again, I am so spoiled sometimes I don’t even feel like bring that out. I feel like I am shooting much less than with my big ol’ D700, even though theA7 is much more portable. Would a D600 + a few primes kill me? (Perhaps its the ergonomics of the Nikons that are drawing me back, they are perfect in my eyes. Nikon has had a long time to develop their craft and refine to over and over and over again, while the Sony feels like a good start. And those lovely full frame viewfinders too...)

Has anyone had any experience switching back form mirrorless? If so how did it go? I’ve been running back and forth about this and I’m curious if anyone else has done the same.

Thanks!

July 29, 2014

Thanks for the response Gus.

I tried the new adapter and the things look exactly the same. Next culprit is the lens I suppose. It feels very tight on the same way on the new adapter as well. Any thoughts on what this may be?

Time to visit the Sony Store to try some lenses there and see if the problem is exclusive to the lens or the mount…

July 28, 2014

Thanks for the response Dieter, thats pretty much what I was thinking all along.

I’m gonna give my adapter a little tightening to see if that does the trick. The adapter/lens mating doesn’t feel loose at all, in fact if anything if feels TOO tight, the lens is very difficult to get on/off. I have another adapter on the way, at least then I can narrow it down a little bit. I’m also gonna give a visit to the Sony store to play with a few other variables.

Fingers crossed its only an adapter issue…

July 28, 2014

Hi everyone,

I recently just purchased a Sony A7 and am using a Fotodiox adapter and a CV 28mm f2. I recently noticed in my images, as well in a few tests, that the left side of the image appears quite soft and blurry (looks like a tilt shift lens). The image below is on a flat wall shot head on. This only seems to be noticeable in the close focus range, and more noticeable at wider apertures. Sometimes in images where the left side is in the wide open background, it appears MORE in focus that in should. Sometimes, usually in infinity focuses shots, it is perfectly sharp out to the farthest corners (leading me to believe it is not the range finer lens “smearing” that happens on the Sonys)

I’m wondering this an issue with my lens/adapter/or the mount? I have no other other body to test the lens or no other lens to try out on the camera at the moment. I would have thought that it was a case of the “smearing” some wide M lenses have on the A7, but it is much stronger on one side than the other, leading me to believe that is an adapter issue. I don’t know how to isolate the problem to see what link in then chain is causing it.

Has anyone else had similar problem? I’m hoping its just a simple adapter problem… Any help would be be great here!

PS:I noticed the adapter has 4 screws to screw the fave of the adapter to the rest of it, and one of them looks a little loose in comparison. Can these be used to adjust the adapterter if need be? Or should stay way from those screws?

November 22, 2013

But I'd certainly like reviewers to consider bokeh rather than making a blanket statement about how "good" it is, or ignoring it completely.

</blockquote>

I think what lens reviewers need to do is to DESCRIBE the bokeh to let the potential user know what they are getting. I agree that you can test what the background blur will look ilke, but it cannot be expressed quantitatively like, say, sharpness because so many people disagree on what good bokeh looks like.

I suppose that's what I was trying to do in my original post: describe the qualities of the background bur in relation to another lens (the 50mm f1.4G). What I CAN say quantitatively is that it's character remains similar throughout the whole focusing range. My 50mm and my old 85mm f1.8D showed some undercorrected spherical aberration up close, and some harsh over correction at a distance with a "sweet spot distance" somewhere in the middle. I've never seen this talked about in reviews, but it has very evident to me over the years I;ve used them. Perhaps none of the reviewers really test bokeh in the way that I think they should: test different apertures at different distances and with different subject matter. Its the only way to get a solid sense of what kind of background blur a lens can produce in my opinion.

November 21, 2013

<blockquote>Bokeh is subjective anyway; it cannot be seriously measured in a clear, scientific way.

Nonsense (sorry). A blur circle of constant illumination or (as with the Sony STF lenses) falloff towards the edges is less distracting than one with "ringing" or highlights around the rim.

</blockquote>

Its funny you use that particular lens as an example, because format the images I've seen I actually really don't like the bokeh from that lens. I understand it was engineered to be technically perfect in that regard, but I suppose I like bait of swirl and character in my bokeh. The Sony lens is almost TOO perfect, and looks something like a Photoshop filter to me. This all speaks to the subjectivity of bokeh i guess!

November 21, 2013

Are you sure you're not confusing the weight-to-volume ratio of a lens with its build quality Richard? Some lenses are quite light for their size (many modern macro lenses for example), but it doesn't make them any less-well made.

</blockquote>

I hear your point (Personally I'm a big fan of lighter lenses nowadays), but I really think the build is actually lacking. Of course my time was pretty limited, and I can't speak to its long term utility, but it just felt a little cheap I suppose. Most of the pro Nikkors just have a certain quality feel to them when you first pick them up, and this lens does not. Build quality is certainly subjective and based on the qualities one is looking for in a lens, but for the price I feel Nikon could've done bit better.

November 21, 2013

Did they let you open it up to see the build quality inside? What exactly was the problem?

</blockquote>

Yes, They let me handle it and shoot with it (I think that's what you were asking). It's not anywhere near the level of those guys, it really does just feel like the 50mm f1.4G (Which is fine for a $400 lens, but I'd say disappointing for the high price ). Nothing compared to, say, my old 17-55 1.8G.

Also the manual focus feel is the same, ie. not really anything special. Overall it didn't feel like a pro lens, which is weird considering the price and size.

November 21, 2013

I was shocked when the lady at the photo store asked if I wanted to see the new Nikon 58mm. (I didn't even know it was available yet…) I played with one on a D610 (I left my D700 at work unfortunately...) for a few minutes. I don't have any telling images to share, but here are my impressions.

1. Its enormous for a 50mm, but the build quality is no better than the 50mm 1.4G. It is not a lens up to pro standard build, nothing like the pro f1.4 lenses. The large size plus mediocre build is a bit of a strange package overall.

2. Bokeh is improved from the regular 50mm 1.4G, but not perfect. I have the 50mm 1.4G, and i find that it gives pretty good bokeh under the right conditions (ie. not too much contrast on the background elements, somewhere around the middle of the distance scale), but the 58mm seems to give the ideal bokeh no matter what you point it at. Though not as perfect as some other lenses…

3. Sharpness, contrast, and overall quality of rendering seem to hold all the way through the focus range. Many of the Nikon primes I've used (including the 50mm 1.4G) seem to be well corrected for one particular distance, with the rendering and character deteriorating in opposite way towards either end of the distance scale. (my beloved 50mm is rather soft and spherical aberration riddled up close, and harsh at long distances)The 58mm seems to be immune to this, and always just "looked good" even at f1.4. This is the big thing that I noticed was different between the 50mm and the 58mm in my limited time with it.

4. Perhaps this has something to do without he focal length or the level/type of correction at work, but depth of field just "feels" shallower than the 50mm f1.4. This is purely anecdotal, but it was just something I noticed.

So these are my impressions. Nothing scientific or complete here, just some screwing around in a camera store. I feel I've used it enough to know I;m not too interested in buying it at that price (the build quality just feels like a letdown at the 4-figure price…). Perhaps its made for someone who wants the best AF ~50mm f1.4, but I reckon it'll be a tough sell without the 50mm f1.4G being a very good lens already.

November 21, 2013

Thanks for the feedback everyone,

I suppose I won't be making the switch after all. While the Fujis seem awfully nice, It seems like they just aren't up to the dependability of an SLR. It's a shame in a way, as my shooting style and my choice of focal length (pretty normal, in the 28-85mm range) would suit a rangefinder style body well, I just don't want to deal with weird issues with my primary camera.

While they may not be the most glamorous or portable cameras out there, SLR's seem to be the most (if not the ONLY) dependable and refined cameras out there. Maybe in a few years I'll revisit the mirrorless world again…

November 19, 2013

Thanks for the frankness, Rick!

November 19, 2013

I have a kit of a D700 and of some wonderful G lenses (all of the f1.8 primes), and I love them all to death. I love the responsiveness of the kit and the fact that I cant trust my camera to give well exposed, in focus images even in extreme situations. Its a workhorse, it just goes, etc. And I love the lenses too.

But its just too big sometimes. I find myself traveling for often than I did when I got my Nikon setup, and the thought of trying to pack my D700 + a lens or two in a carry on bag is not a fun one, and I don't want to be hindered by the wight of it either.

So I'm considering making the jump to Fuji. All of the reviews of the lenses and IQ are all pretty positive, and I very much like the "look" from the files files I've seen (and they seem to be free of some of the artifacts that the D700 can show sometimes, ie. IR contamination at high ISO). The X-pro seems to be the best option for me, as I just can't go back to an electronic viewfinder (I had M43 before..) and I like the implementation of the hybrid system.

My only concerns:

- Depth of field: I love the shallow depth of field/angle of view combination I get from my D700 combo. i love having a 50 that can really throw backgrounds out of focus. I suppose I can just go without those nice fast lenses for the Fuji and quit whining about it, but still.

- Responsiveness/dependability - I love how my D700 just does what it does without tailing back at all. From the reviews of the Fuji, it seems that it can be a bit "picky" and miss shots sometimes for no real reason. The new firmware was supposed to fix these issues but I haven't used the X-Pro since the update. I don't feel confident that I will be as quick and effective as I am with my current camera, and I don't like that.

- I love my D700, its like an old friend, but I'll have to get over this myself..

Has anyone else made this or similar switch? I'm apprehensive to say the least. I love the gear I have and how it works, but its just too big for travel. And owning both isn't really an option right now. I'm curious to know what other's experiences have been!

November 6, 2013

not sure what you're saying. i shoot events.

</blockquote>

I mean that I play around and do my concert thing, and occasionally take some images. I'm not a pro at all. If I were, I'd have some very unhappy clients.

November 6, 2013

Am I the only one who was excited form a practical point of view when I saw this camera? I have a D700 right now and, before I saw this camera, was reluctant to upgrade because I see the new FF generation as a step back ergonomically. And ever since I got my X100, I just LOVE mechanical knobs and dials. I love the "just set it and go" feeling you get from a knob over a button.

The black one is pure beauty to me, (OK, admittedly the silver is pretty hip…) and once I saw the pictures of the top plate I think its the prefect fit for me ergonomically. I LOVE the super simple PSAM dial (I always forget which mode I'm in withy D700…) and the lack of fluff.

PLUS that D4 sensor.

This is the camera I've dreamed of for years.

November 4, 2013

Coincidentally enough, Ming then (who's work I greatly admire) just posted his current equipment here:

<a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/11/04/what-am-i-using-now/">http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/11/04/what-am-i-using-now/</a>

Even for the more run and gun type situations he still uses primes, sometimes even manual focus ones with adapter. Ming is a machine though, and does everything with an insane level of skill that is not normal by any means. Still interesting to see though…

November 4, 2013

so, how'd that shutter lag work out for you?

</blockquote>

A-OK actually! But I think you and I do something different :) But thats entirely besides the point…

I suppose it seems that mostly real pros are the ones that need that convenience, I get that. Speaking from my personal position I have found that I love shooting with primes and rarely miss the convenience of zooms. If i were pro, making money and shooting under deadlines, that might be different...

November 3, 2013

You're only considering what a casual shooter would use with no time crunch involved. I shoot concerts and events, I always have two bodies, one with a short zoom, the other with a mid-long zoom. That's the only way I would work.

</blockquote>

The last time I shot at concerts I shot with an Canon S100 and an X100 before that. All up to style and intent I suppose :)

November 3, 2013

Dieter,

- for what I shoot, I don't really need a high-end midrange zoom. In fact, I don't even need a 50mm lens - a 35 and 85 are plenty. And if I have the time to photograph at my leisure, then my manual focus 28 and 105 make for a quite versatile kit as well.

</blockquote>

One of the interesting side effects of shooting primes is that I find I don't miss the in between focal lengths at all. In fact, I feel confidently that I could do what I do with only the 28mm and the 85mm; though I'm a big fan of the 50mm f1.4 for portraits (I love sticking lenses in my subjects face I suppose). My zoom has been used less and less as time goes on…

- the short end isn't short enough and I still need to carry a superwide. Which could either be the 14-24 (but not for me since I am afraid of scratching that bulbous front element (same for the Tokina 16-28)), or some zoom that ends at 35mm (like 16-35 or 17-35). Hence, I might as well use that type of zoom and switch to a 70-200 or 85 if I need longer; the missing range in between is of very little importance to me.

</blockquote>

I hear your point and agree that zooms become more useful at more extreme focal lengths. I have a17mm prime that I find pretty difficult to use and is in my "sell" pile right now. i used to be a wide angle junkie, but now even 24mm is borderline too "exaggerated" looking for me. (Truth be told though, If i had the money, I would certainly own that lovely 24mm f1.4, but I don't stress about what I don't have…). On the inverse, for some reason nothing over ~85mm has ever really appealed to me...

Perhaps I find that primes force me to see a certain way that I would not have seen having had the option of zooming to a different focal length, and that is more important to me than having the option to shot at 31mm instead of 28mm…

November 3, 2013

Kent,

I suppose as not being a professional photographer here, I'm speaking from a position of luxury. I shoot in the rain, snow, mist, etc. but I don't often shoot combines in Minnesota. And I can choose what to and what not to shoot.]

As a fellow San Diegan I'm sure you can attest to the fact that environmental hazards are rather low here, but I understand your point. Maybe that's why the big zooms are products geared towards professionals…

November 3, 2013

Bonus: 24-85mm VR

On top of this, I have my 24-85mm VR for the times where I need the flexibility of a zoom. It's half the weight (~16 oz.), much smaller, and I got it for ~$300 (roughly 1/4 the price of a used 24-70) at a the time that everyone was unloading them as part of that D600 kit supernal. Its convenient, flexible, has bit more zoom range, and, according to DXO Mark, very similar in optical performance to the 24-70. (the reviews seem much harder on this lovely little lens than they are on the prestigious pro lens…)

I gain much in convenience, a little bit of zoom, VR, pay about 1/4 of the price, and lose 1/2 stop at the short end (1 1/2 at the long end), and the professional build quality. Again, I'm quite happy with my choice.

November 3, 2013

Because I am a huge nerd, I decided to crunch some numbers to see what the deal is with these fast, large, and expensive midrange zooms that are oh so popular nowadays. My current kit consists of a 28mm f1.8G, a 50mm f1.4G, and an 85mm 1.8G. This is similar range to what one gets on the 24-70mm f2.8, and I began to wonder why one would choose one set or the other. Now I know this is not perfect science, and this comparison is only applicable to Nikon full frame users, but here is what I found:

Optical performance

I gathered this from comparisons on DXO Mark (not perfect, I know, but a great comparison tool) on my D700.

The 28mm and the 50mm are comparable at every similar aperture and focal length in regards to sharpness, and are significantly better when one considers CA performance in the sharpness equation (I do). And they have 1-2 stops more aperture than the zoom. Distortion is not hugely different, and transmission is obviously much better on the primes. While this is not a perfect comparison, the 85mm 1.8G just slays the 24-70 at 70mm (and most other lenses, for that matter) in every regard.

While I haven't used used the 24-70 extensively, I see no signs of that beautiful "sharp yet soft and glowy" rendering style that I love about my modern G primes. I really haven't used it enough to comment on the bokeh, but I've never been disappointed with any of the primes.

Isolating Power

I'm calculating the isolation power potential as the size of the exit pupil, the best way I can figure out how to quantify this:

The primes:

• 28mm @1.8: 15.5mm

• 50mm @1.4:35mm

• 85mm @1.8:47mm

The zoom:

• 28mm @f2.8: 10mm

• 50mm @f2.8: 18mm

• 70mm @f2.8: 25mm

The primes kill the zoom here by 1.5x to almost 2x the isolating power. Easy choice if blurry backgrounds are your thing…

Price

These are the used prices I paid. Some of them are rather low (I'm a proud deal hunter), but these are the numbers:

• 28mm f1.8: $500

• 50mm f1.4: $350 (mine was actually a gift, but this seems to be the going rate for a deal)

• 85mm f1.8: $400

I would've spent a total of $1250 had I bought all of these myself, which is right around going rate for a used 24-70mm. Three high quality, modern fast primes or one relatively fast zoom. The price is the same. Draw.

Size, weight, handling, and convenience.

Here are the weights of these lenses:

• 28mm: 11.6 oz

• 50mm 9.8 oz

• 85mm: 12.4 oz

• 24-70mm f2.8: 31.2 oz.

That's right: the 24-70 weighs as much as all three COMBINED. And is much larger too. And all of the primes are 1-2 stops faster than the zoom. This is where I fail to see the convenience factor of the zoom over the primes. My kit is just as heavy whichever choice I make.

The primes are all ergonomically sound, and built just fine by my standards; but I must confess the 24-70 takes the cake here. Its built like a tank, and handles very well for a lens of its size and weight.

I for one know I am happy with the decision I've made, and am now wondering what the appeal is of these beastly zooms. I feel like I have more options, more flexibility, and often better performance by simply swapping lenses. Anecdotally, for my style of shooting, this hasn't really presented problem at all. The isolation is much better too, something that IS important to my style.

What do you have? Which choice would you make? I'm very curious now.

- Richard

September 3, 2013

What I'm suggesting would in no way conflict with you applying your own rendering, nor take any control away.

</blockquote>

I meant nothing by it, and I apologize if it came off that way. What I meant was that I missed that JPEG rendering myself in the beginning, but not so much since I developed my own recipes that I prefer to the Nikon Profiles.

September 2, 2013

Camera makers are (IMO) doing themselves a disservice by not having this be the default for everyone, even raw users.

</blockquote>

I thought the same thing when I first started working with Lightroom. There's always that brief second of a beautiful JPEG on the screen before it reverses the processing and makes it look pretty muddy and flat haha. But over the years I've come up with my own recipes that I prefer to the Nikon rendering.

And I'll take the level of control over the default rendering any day.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by richard_bach1