tonybeach_1961

I don't think diffraction "limited" is the correct way to view it. It's not as if there is a brick wall and no matter how much more resolution you have from the medium (in my case my digital sensors) it won't be recorded at a smaller aperture like f/11. Some of my lenses need to be stopped down to f/11 for various reasons. I find f/5.6 has greater acuity but I can recover sharpness from f/11 at the cost of some added artifacts/noise which doesn't show up nearly as much as some of the issues I get when shooting at wider apertures (such as a shallower DOF, soft corners from field curvature, etcetera).

I think most of us recognize when someone is just fixated on shooting wide open on a fast lens for the sake of shooting wide open. It seems to me that some things like very shallow DOF and long exposures of waterfalls or the ocean originated from a time when film was slow and more exposure was necessary, and that aesthetic is now a legacy. As regards bokeh, it's definitely something I pay attention to. For example, I had a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G, a reasonably priced lens that was decently sharp with nice enough bokeh wide open, but when I stopped it down even a little the shape of the aperture started to show and its cat's-eye bokeh was pronounced even wide open. My Nikon AF-DC NIKKOR 105mm f/2D is a much nicer lens in this regard, its bokeh is smooth at all aperture settings and its cat's-eye bokeh less intrusive, so even though the 85mm lens was sharper wider than f/4 I sold it and kept the 105mm lens. OTOH, while the bokeh is nice on my Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, I will take the slightly more sketchy bokeh from my Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G when I want fast auto-focus and the ability to zoom when shooting action. The are different tools for different goals (for me) and I feel comfortable with my priorities.

D500 with Tokina AT-X Pro 14-20mm f/2 @ 20mm, f/5.6, 1/400s and ISO 100.

Before: After: D500 and Rokinon 24mm f/3.5 T/S at f/11 and 1/8s (two shot composite) Another one from my rear window: D500 with Tokina AT-X Pro 14-20mm f/2 at f/2 and 1/800s. The Tokina apparently transmits a lot more light than the Rokinon -- I'm going to check this, but it appears to be well over a one T-stop difference. Anyway, it's quite the luxury to be able to open my bedroom window and handhold my D500 with that lens and shoot sunsets.

February 19, 2011.

I find that in conjunction with using Live View on my D500 the touch screen facilitates focusing, both manual and auto. Also, when reviewing shots it helps a lot to be able to move the magnified view to different parts of the frame. In the menu it was most noticeably helpful when I wanted to change the name of something. To date I haven't said "darn that touch screen." What about the touch screen has been a practical hindrance or annoyance to you? I don't use video on my DSLRs. I'm a little perturbed that it's something I end up paying for when I buy the camera and when Live View isn't working right the first thing I check is if the Still/Video switch got bumped to video, and that usually is the culprit. I guess I should tape that switch on the outside of the Live View button down so I don't have this problem.

As a practical matter, set the aperture on you Z7 a third of a stop wider at ISO 800 and above. That's where the extra "reach" of the Z7 probably has an advantage.

That's not technically correct. There are different priorities for each, so the Z7 actually has less noise at its lowest ISO (64) and pretty much matches the Z6 up to ISO 360 and is actually a third of a stop better than the Z6 at ISO 400 but then the Z6 gets a boost at ISO 800 and has the third of a stop advantage at higher ISOs. See: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon Z 6,Nikon Z 7 I would go further and point out that you can sharpen a higher pixel density file more than a lower one, and you can be more aggressive in applying NR too. In practice, there is often some advantage to using the higher pixel density file because it ends up with greater acuity. Of course that begs the question, if your shooting at high ISOs and both pixel densities have nearly equal results than what's the point of using a camera that produces larger files? Nonetheless, the bottom line here is that pixel density plays no role in how much light you gather with a modern FX sensor.

To me it means that a photograph has an intrinsic value (i.e., compositional elements) separate from its subject. I can, for instance, consider a photograph compelling of an unremarkable rock that I wouldn't give much or any thought to as I walked past it, and I often find such a photograph more interesting than one of an interesting person I could engage for hours of discussion with that was photographed poorly.

I find that my issue is I care about the photograph as a photograph, but most people (other photographers included) care about who are what they see in the photograph.

So sorry to hear about you being victimized. I bought my girlfriend a Lumix DC-ZS70 last year so she would have better reach and lowlight performance than her Blackberry (so obviously not an iPhone). My thinking when I chose it was I wanted the reach, Raw files, decent video, and some connectivity. Without the connectivity she would probably never use it, and I only use it to video her and her dogs when they are doing Agility or Sheepherding. My biggest issue is that after spending a couple of days learning how to use it before giving it to her for her birthday I have since forgotten how to use it. Sure I can point and shoot, and it doesn't take me long to configure it to share the photos or videos on Facebook, but I'm having a hard time getting clutter off the back LCD screen or being able to quickly make a change to some esoteric setting when she wants that done. She barely uses the Lumix and much prefers her Blackberry unless I'm around to get it up and going for her, and when we went out to watch whales it was less useful than her phone (narrowing the FOV and getting it to focus was far to difficult, and it didn't hold a candle to my D800).

6x or 600%.

A little of this, and a little of that: D500, Pentax 67 55mm f/4 @ f/8, 1/100s, ISO 100, with diffused flash fill. D500, Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm f/2.5 @ f/16, ISO 100 with diffused lighting. D500, Rokinon T-S 24mm f/3.5 @ f/11, 1s, ISO 100.

Technically, I bought a small, configurable, padded tote bag so I could throw some gear into a larger backpack in a hurry -- but I would rather mention two others. Just before the price went up I bought a copy of Capture One 21 (for Nikon only), but a few days before that I bought a Tokina AT-X 14-20mm f/2 Pro DX which actually came a few days after I had installed Capture One on my computer, and that lens really sings on my D500 that I acquired used last November (so I've been on a bit of a buying spree lately).

The D300 has more headroom than its predecessor because about 2/3rds of the boost from ISO 100 to ISO 200 came by increasing the default Brightness setting in the Picture Controls (D300 was the first generation of DSLRs that went from Image Settings to Picture Controls). Consequently, as a result of the better performance at the same exposure, Nikon set the meter to expose more to the left than the D200 or D2x. I used to routinely set EC to +.7 on my D300 so that extra image quality showed up in the shadows and in practice my D300 files were exposed a third of a stop faster than my D200 files at base ISO. As for my regrets, I can't honestly say I have any. I went from a D300 to a Sony A850 and over the next few years sold a lot of great NIKKORs for less than I had paid for them, but that was dictated by finances and the rent had to be paid. I replaced my A850 with a Nikon D800 and am working on getting back the lens capabilities I had with my NIKKORs. The one lens I had then that am looking forward to buying again (again, finances and other priorities are the reason I have to wait) is the PC Micro-NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D.

I see color moiré in downsized displays if it covers a large enough area. As I understand it, the phenomenon has to do with the Bayer Filter Array (BFA) and overlapping detail being recorded by different colors and that causing confusion for the demosaicing. It will always show up on repeating patterns if the lens can resolve more than the sensor can record; but being out-of-focus, or any vibration (camera shake, shutter or mirror shock) can negate the need for an AA filter (and even AA filters aren't an absolute solution because there's a balancing act between eliminating all color moiré and not losing too much resolution). The solution is to make the lenses the AA filter. That is, if the sensor resolves more than the lens can resolve and not the other way around then you won't get any color moiré. The main reason you don't see it with your Sony cameras probably isn't the lenses as much as it's vibration, which is why you want to have a solid tripod with the mirror up and the shutter up before the exposure begins.