1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    If I had written any of the descriptions you have of me...you'd be whining
    endlessly, calling me a big meanie. I have read nothing that would indicate
    my initial contention that tripods allow for sharper images...with very
    specific reference to the points Alfred made. There is nothing sneaky going
    on here. You can't stop down hand held like you can on support.
    What is it about this that is problematic?
    If you're able, try to comment on the facts, and avoid the sniveling,
    Mark², May 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    If you don't recall, why don't you check some of the earlier
    messages in this thread where I also told Alfred that his images
    would probably be improved by the use of a tripod if he resorted to
    the use of relatively slow shutter speeds. That's what the
    discussion was about. Blurriness due to camera shake. You're free
    to talk about whatever you want in these threads, but when Alfred
    showed a fine example of a shot that didn't exhibit blurriness due
    to hand movement, I noticed the fact that he was indeed able to take
    sharp pictures, untainted by movement blur.

    What you then did was, in effect, saying "You call that sharp?",
    switching away from blur caused by hand movement, and going out of
    your way to find ways to condemn the shot as lacking sharpness.
    Alfred did concede that a large aperture may have slightly reduced
    sharpness in some areas due to a smaller DOF, but somehow you didn't
    have it in you to compliment him on being able to hand-hold his
    camera so steadily, which is what the discussion was initially
    about. Yes, you're free to discuss other aspects, but when you find
    so many ways to imply that Alfred's assertion was wrong, such as
    "Tripods allow the use of tiny apertures that would render very
    shaky images if hand-held", it's a truism being misapplied in this
    particular case, because the image was more than adequately sharp
    even though a large aperture was used. Alfred never made any
    claims about the shot being an example of perfection, that it was
    the sharpest image possible to capture. Just that it met his
    standards for sharpness even though he didn't use a tripod.

    I don't think that anyone here denies that tripods should be used
    when trying to maximize sharpness, but I also think that if most
    people were able to hold cameras as steadily as Alfred, many
    photographers would travel more comfortably by traveling without
    several pounds of tripod lashed to their pack. You may be able to
    do better with your gear, especially if and when you pick up a 5D.
    You may also gain a reputation for being able to create large,
    critically sharp, wonderful images. But that would unfortunately be
    counterbalanced by gaining a reputation for having a tendency to
    post small, unnecessarily sharp, belittling replies. Is there any
    chance that Mark² may be able to mellow as he ages? :)
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Nothing problematic at all. You seem to have failed to notice my
    comments in several messages in this thread also indicating that
    tripods can be beneficial. I wonder why?

    Despite your implication to the contrary, my last reply was almost
    bursting at the seams, virtually full of facts. In this case, I
    don't find your use of the word "sniveling" insulting at all. It
    only bolsters one of the contentions I made. Thank you for the
    unintentional support. :)
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
  4. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    You're repeating yourself back to square one.
    I own the 10D, and am personally familiar not only with its noise
    characteristics, but also how much enlargement it takes for those
    characteristics to become apparent.

    Are you?

    At 400 ISO, noise *IS* visible.
    Compared to the shots you have posted, the 10D 400ISO shots do indeed look
    comparatively good, but not in comparison to 10D ISO 100 shots.
    -Why would I want to compromise my shot?
    It ONLY makes sense if (like you), you aren't very picky about noise.
    I would find the shots you've posted intolerable in terms of noise.

    Your suggested "solution" is entirely based on compromising image
    quality...which is EXACTLY what I carefully avoid. If your argument is
    limited to ISO cranking...you barking up the wrong tree, and simply
    revealing, once again, that this is a difference of scrutiny. Sure...you
    can manage a somewhat sharp image, but at what cost?? There is a cost in
    quality in what you propose. High level photography (which I only
    occasionally muster) is all about eliminating as many factors as possible
    that will degrade an image. It just makes zero sense to me to introduce
    noise when I don't have to. Does this make sense to you now?

    l>ength, which I have proven with the handheld shots I've posted.

    Your shots are unsharp for various reasons. There is motion based sharpness
    issues that can be somewhat addressed by that little "rule" or
    guideline...but it breaks down at some point...or...it pays a price in other
    areas. Noise in this case. Not as noisy as you seem OK with, but more
    noise than I want.

    I understand that you view it as a hassle to use a tripod. But think of
    this: I spent 10 hours driving to the location...the FIRST attempt (looking
    for weather conditions that worked). Then I spent 4 days dealing with bad
    weather. At the end of this, there was another 10 hour drive waiting for me
    on the way home...not to mention all the trips in and out of the area each
    day, and the time spent. Tell me... In light of all the effort we go to so
    that we find our subjects...why on Earth wouldn't it be worth the extra FEW
    MOMENTS it takes to deal with a tripod????

    That just makes no sense to me. I know you see this differently, and that
    to you...what's a little noise... But to me, it makes the difference
    between a shot I delete...and a shot I print. It's as simple as that. At
    the risk of sounding harsh, I just wouldn't keep the shots you posted. They
    would have never made past my delete key. This doesn't mean they are
    somehow terrible shots. They just wouldn't pass my scrutiny, and my desire
    for images that hold up with big enlargement. If you printed your shot
    relatively small, then noise isn't as noticeable, and large aperture
    problems (lack of DOF and sharpness) are forgiven due to visually smaller

    You and I have different desires and different needs. If you feel I'm being
    too picky, that is your right. If I feel you're being sloppy...it is only
    by MY standards, which frankly has little bearing on what YOU should
    o. -But don't try to convince me that 400 ISO is the same as 100. It
    isn't...or I'd just leave it on 400 for everything.

    I think at this point we've pretty well exhausted this
    conversation...especially given that just now basically repeated the exact
    same "400 ISO would be fine" verbage that you did about a zillion posts ago.
    Why don't we call it a day and agree to disagree?

    I understand that you might react negatively because it sounds like I'm
    saying your standards are low. If it sounds that way, I don't know what to
    tell you, since clearly our standards rise to different levels of scrutiny.
    You can take it as an insult, or you can simply recognize that you aren't as
    picky. I am not nearly as picky as many photogs. It's just that when you
    try to tell me A=B, and I know it doesn't, then its impossible to agree.

    I suspect that one of two things will happen in your future:
    -You'll either grow more picky with time...or you won't.
    I now throw away images today that I would have treasured a nubmer of years
    ago. AND...I'm sure that at some point in the future, I'll look at some of
    my images from today and think they are crap. That's just the way it goes
    as you grow and learn and become more self-critical.

    You are still far more picky/careful that MOST people with cameras. It's
    all relative. Compared to some, my images are boring and basically would
    end up in their delete bin. Others, still, would only HOPE they could take
    images like you.

    Take care, and enjoy your photography. If I've offended you (even in this
    post), that isn't my intent or desire...in spite of the BS ASAAR believes
    about my character/intent. :)

    Mark², May 5, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    You wonder why??? Didn't I just explain that??
    I'm typing on my laptop. I can see you at the moment.
    I haven't seen ANYthing you've written until right now, since I'm on my
    laptop for the first time as of this evening (wan't hooked to NG on the
    Happy to be of assistance.
    You really are sensitive, bub.
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  6. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    And why not??
    Answer this:
    Why do you supposed I manually stopped my lens down to f20?
    -If I really thought this was only about motion blur, I wouldn't have done
    that. Sharpness is degraded by more than a single factor. Large apertures
    are almost universally less sharp than the same lens stopped down. That's
    not me...that's just reality. If I ever really believed that tripods are
    only to avoid hand motion blur, I would have simply set the camera on P and
    fired away on the tripod...thinking that would render sharp images. But
    ASAAR...it wouldn't! It would be sharpness-limited by at least two OTHER
    factors: DOF limitations leading to non-sharp detail...AND...poor lens
    optical performance wide open compared with stopped down. I didn't "switch"
    anything!! These considerations are always part of the equasion, and huge
    aspects of the entire tripod vs. non-tripod question. So of COURSE it is
    in-bounds to comment that his comparatively wide-open aperture, hand-held
    shot wasn't sharp. It might not have been terribly blurred due to hand
    holding, but it was miles apart from the level of sharpness he would have
    enjoyed had he used a tripod...meaning he could then stop down. Check out
    his OWN comparison HE posted! After he posted them, he indicated thre was
    very little difference. So...I posted crops from his own comparison,
    showing that there were indeed HUGE differences in sharpness. If you missed
    this, here are my posts from his images (not the spire, but the building
    with bicycles):

    Have a look for yourself, keeping in mind that he's arguing there is little
    Here's his hand-held f4 shot:
    And here's his tripod shot that he sees little difference in:
    The differences here are so stark, that it indicates to me that much of this
    "dispute" is over his eyes vs. my eyes. He just isn't appreciating the
    visual differences here, and there's nothing that seems to cause him to note
    this huge difference. -Just in case you can't see it either (I assume you
    can)...look at the bike tires. Knobby and detailed in the tripod shot
    (which enables stopping down--impossible hand-held without noise
    issues)...and the horribly blurred rendition of his "knobbless" hand-held
    rendition of the same wheels. -Not to mention the stark difference in the
    windeo sign prints.

    hand motion blur was the only thing that mattered, I would have simply left
    To YOU and Alfred, ASAAR. It is acceptably sharp...to you and him. But
    that is totally subjective as it relates to YOUR standards.

    Again. We have different standards, and apparently different end purposes
    with these images. My purpose was to capture something worth of big
    enlargement. If you want a post-card, or slightly larger print, then great!
    You can sometimes get away with forgetting to focus altogether, so long as
    you print small enough! :)
    You missed the part where he claimed that my half-dome shot would have been
    just fine...hand-held...and cranked up to 400 ISO. :)
    -How is it that you miss these key points???
    THAT...is what I responded to, ASAAR. That you keep pretending this is only
    about the spire is just silly.
    See my last paragraph, ASAAR. He didn't limit it like that AT ALL.
    -Did you READ Alfreds comments on my half-dome shot?
    How is that last statement you made not belittling?
    You are such a hypocrite, ASAAR. You seem to feel that so long as you put
    me down regarding complaints about my posts that you are somehow above what
    you whine about. Hypocrite. The only difference is that you whine about
    me, and I simply go on and let your incessant whining fall by hte way-side.

    As we age, our BS sensors become more accute as well.
    Lets put it this way:
    You've been...well..."sensed," and you are not only a sniveller, but a
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    'tain't bullshit (you did mean that, didn't you?). When you toss
    off insults, it was your hands on the keyboard that created them, so
    you have to take responsibility for them. But this last reply of
    yours was a rather graceful, conciliatory attempt to terminate a
    contentious thread, so thankee kindly for that.

    BTW, at one point in your reply, when you were comparing what you
    consider acceptable with what Alfred does, I couldn't help thinking
    that if/when you get the 5D, to be consistent, you'd have to
    consider even your best shots taken with your current 10D to be
    "delete key fodder". And then, wonder of wonders, four paragraphs
    later you said basically the same thing! :)

    I do have one question for you that I hope you'll answer. And
    I'll first state, again, that Alfred's shot could probably be
    improved (but only very slightly, not to the great degree that you
    suggested) if a tripod is used. But answer this if you will: Would
    any of the improvement be due specifically to the reduction of
    camera motion, and would it be readily seen by most good
    photographers with reasonably good eyes? I've commented on this
    several times, but to reiterate, I saw no evidence in Alfred's shot
    of blurriness due to camera movement. A tripod would almost
    certainly make the camera more stable, but if it was already so
    stable in the handheld shot that evidence of movement wasn't seen
    (by me and by several others, here) then even if a tripod helped
    improve some other aspect of the shot, how could it possibly improve
    it by reducing camera movement? If you disagree and can point to
    solid evidence of camera movement in Alfred's shot, please do so.
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
  8. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Well... you wrote that at 1/f it is not possible to obtain a handheld
    shot with no camera shake. This is clearly not the case. I've obtained
    handheld shots with no visible camera shake even at 4/f !
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    I don't know what to tell you, ASAAR. Did you look at the bicycle crops
    from his posted comparison? Whether you want to focus solely on hand-motion
    is up to you, but you do so at the cost of the firther reasoning behind
    tripod use (smaller apertures, better lens performance, DOF issues). There
    are so many optical problems in his shot that to pin it solely on ANY one
    factor is perhaps difficult. Clearly a tripod presents a new set of "image
    upgrades" that lead DIRECTLY to a sharper, more detailed rendition. You
    could devise a test that pitted the same wide aperture shot taken both
    hand-held and on a tripod...and the difference MIGHT not be terribly
    pronounced. But here's the problem that you both seem happy to ignore: You
    use a tripod for multiple reasons. Small apertures for landscaped is
    perhaps THE BIGGEST reason. Talk to Ansel Adams' ghost about hand-holding
    at f64! :) I will agree that his hand-held shot doesn't make it clear WHERE
    the blur is coming from. But it is blurry. Check (again) his own
    comparison (at the bottom of this album): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/ng
    Honestly, ASAAR, I just can't see where his own example leaves any room for
    doubt--unless you insist upon some sort of tunnel vision, seeing ONLY
    hand-motion, and ignoring ALL other aspects a tripod enables.
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  10. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    And you're a bruiser that bruises far too easily. To show how
    correct you are as to my sensitivity, I can't help but notice the
    slightly antagonistic, disrespectful "bub" that you used to end your
    reply. And no, this isn't imagined. Search your memory (or use
    google) to see how it is most often used in movies, radio plays,
    hard-boiled detective novels, and cartoon balloons, and it would be
    very hard not to agree. But I rather like it, being so similar to
    the much more offensive "bowb", that Harrison's fine "Bill The
    Galactic Hero" is littered with. I believe that someone commented
    somewhat off-topic a year or two ago that "bowb" is of Scottish
    origin, for whatever that's worth.
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
  11. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Poor you. I called you "bub." Oh dear.
    Only you would give the extremely tame word, "bub" so much attention...
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    That's not my expectation at all.
    I wasn't talking about new definitions of the "keeper" based on new fangled
    cameras. I was talking about technique, and...the "eye" for images.
    The 5D will offer true wide angle, higher resolution/cropping capabilities,
    and modestly larger prints. It won't do much in the areas I was referring
    to...that being simply growth as a photographer. New tech has only minor
    impact on this--at least once you have a camera capable of capitalizing on
    one's growth in photographic skill. I think that perhaps part of the
    trouble with Alfred's position is that I suspect he hasn't used a camera
    that has given him a very good opportunity to become picky. This is why
    (above) I said, "once you have a camera capable of capitalizing on the
    growth of photographic skill."
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    No, I'm giving *you* the attention. :) But I still contend that
    you used "bub" for the reason given, and I notice that you did not
    dispute that. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, bub!
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
  14. Hehe. I just took some images inside an abandoned building. f/11. ISO 100.
    Many many seconds.
    And ISOs that minimize noise/maximize shadow detail.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, May 5, 2006
  15. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Well, thank you for finally almost agreeing that being handheld
    wasn't a cause of any lack of sharpness. But you didn't really say
    that. I think it's now safe to assume that any lack of sharpness
    was *not* due to camera motion, since that's one type of blur that
    really can be isolated, in shots taken by any camera, even ones with
    cheap, low quality lenses.

    But what you can't see is really your own fault. You're not
    looking at what I've been typing, and are imaging the opposite of
    what I've said several times now, that the use of a tripod can be
    beneficial. You may not have seen it in my reply to Alfred, but I
    repeated it several times, including the very message that you just
    replied to, so for you to say "ignoring ALL other aspects a tripod
    enables" is either disingenuous or the result of very careless,
    sloppy reading. See above, where I said the use of a tripod would
    almost certainly make the camera more stable, allowing one to take
    advantage of some of the other benefits. For some, one of these
    benefits would be a significant reduction in camera movement. But
    that one particular benefit wouldn't have provided any noticeable
    reduction in camera movement based on Alfred's earlier shot. It may
    have provided one of the other benefits you've been straining to
    proclaim, but I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with you about that,
    as much as you'd like to believe that. You're the one that seems to
    be unable to show the effect of camera movement in Alfred's image.
    It may be often be difficult to determine the cause of blur, but
    that's because they tend to produce similar effects. But camera
    motion causes a different type of blur that's readily identified.
    That you can't admit that Alfred's shot didn't suffer from camera
    movement is just a testament to your stubbornness. I'm sure that
    you know this is the case, and are dancing around the "blur issue",
    to avoid having to deal with it. If only you weren't so quick to
    anger, you'd make a wonderful White House Press Spokesman, where
    being able to "snow" the press corps is highly valued. :)
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
  16. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    I didn't dispute it because I don't care. If you'll get worked up over
    "bub" you'll get worked up over anything. -But that's already been
    established today. Why should you overreact any less now?
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  17. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Alfred is clearly convinced that he's achieving basically the same results
    from f4 hand-held, and f14 on a tripod. If its stubborn of me to insist in
    the blindness of his assertions, then I'm definitely stubborn.
    You seem intent on building a case around hand-holding. Why?
    What does this gain? Why are you here?
    Are you interested in quality images, or merely trying to see if you can
    poke holes in what you think of as some sort of loop-hole you believe you've
    found. Who cares? Go read it again. This is about tripod shots being just
    as sharp as hand-held shots. Sharp is obtained by controlling basically
    four things: DOF, optical difficiencies, camera motion and subject motion.
    In addition, noise is an issue which leads to loss of detail. Three of the
    four can be significantly controlled by using small apertures that only a
    solid base can provide in anything other than bright light. Hand-holding is
    FAR more limited in what circumstances and subject demands it can handle,
    yet compete with the small aperture enabled via tripods, etc. This is the
    dispute that Alfred and I disagree on.

    Now what is your problem again...and why are you here?
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  18. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Why do you have to repeatedly introduce invalid straw-man
    arguments? I don't believe that, never said that, and have
    repeatedly said the opposite, in effect, agreeing with your
    contention. Are you really so poor at critical thinking?

    Maybe you should go back and download some of the messages you
    claim to have missed. There are several others (of better than
    average photographic ability) that have stated that Alfred's
    original shot was not only more than acceptably sharp, but
    demonstrated why camera motion could not have been an issue.

    Nice of you to append the smiley, but it does little to eliminate
    the odor of your own BS. What you state is true, but in no way can
    it be applied to Alfred's image, which as much as you'd like to
    imply otherwise, can be used to make very sharp prints far larger
    than "post-card, or slightly larger" prints. You really love to
    create these straw men, don't you?

    Spire? When did I ever say *anything* about a spire? Thou dost
    protest too much, bubba. I'm beginning to wonder if you really
    missed all of the messages that you say you did. Are you confusing
    me with someone else, or are you only confusing yourself?

    And there's no reason for me to go off on a tangent arguing about
    other issues. Whether you or Alfred are right or wrong (or just
    have different values) about your half-dome shot is immaterial.
    I'll leave you to argue that fine point with others. Please take
    care to note that I'm not saying that you're wrong about that issue.
    I've been discussing one point, and one point only. You can keep
    trying to divert me into other issues, but you'll only be wasting
    your own time with those attempts. If you had provided a
    reasonable, clear answer to the one question I've repeatedly asked
    of you, I might have spent some time looking into these other
    issues. And while I can't guarantee it, I might even have agreed
    with your new arguments. But as you apparently refuse to provide a
    clear, definitive answer to the one simple question I've asked of
    you, I can only assume more time will be wasted going off in the new
    directions you're blazing.

    I thought that it was you that was the tough guy. Now it seems
    that deep down, you're just the sensitive Mr. Softee that you tried
    to pin on me. But yes, I can not only be sensitive, sometimes I'm
    also capable of having and understanding nuanced arguments. Is that
    something that you can admit to, or is it too politically incorrect?

    There's no hypocrisy at all. In a thread that had been growing
    and growing, there was disagreement but no real contentiousness
    until you introduced unnecessary insults and/or snide comments.
    You've done that many times before, so it's an M.O. that you've
    earned, and pointing that out is not an insult, but a statement of
    fact that's relevant. And no, I'm not whining even though you see
    it as such. But how is anyone reading your replies here able to get
    past "I simply go on and let your incessant whining fall by hte
    way-side." without laughing? It's you that appears to be looking
    for any possible excuse to whine. Unlax, doc. If you can.

    Oooh, I guess not. More insults for their own sake. I guess they
    help when you're feeling frustrated, but they only prove my point
    that when frustrated, you jump at the chance to engage in insults,
    hoping (as I've said before) that I'll retaliate in kind, justifying
    yet another addition to your infamous klink file.
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
  19. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    If it was only about camera motion, then that would be fine and dandy.
    You really like my klink file, don't you.
    This is why you end up there.
    You more about repeated your same old argument, and care very little about
    the photographic issue .

    To get a sharp image:
    1. Focus.
    2. Control DOF
    3. Use small aperture also to mazimize lens sharpness potential
    4. Use support when possible (i.e. tripod, bean bag, monopod) to eliminate
    camera motion blur.

    Why do you only care about #4?
    I've never lied to you, ASAAR, and so it follows that I missed what I said I
    Nope. You're the same guy you've always been.
    Ya. No kidding.
    What are you hoping to accomplish?
    Divert you?
    This conversation started without you and your "issues."
    True. As well as any other time I might spend with you.
    I'm not offended by your belittling, because I know who I am and who I am
    ....But I don't mind pointing out your hopelessly hypocritical mindset.
    It is important to you that you feel you've irritated me, isn't it.
    If you are annoying, it wouldn't be for reasons you intend.

    Bye bye, ASAAR.
    May you have many a long evening writing responses to me.
    It's rather amusing that you've been railing away all these months, knowing
    I haven't seen a word of yours. If you feel that suits your purpose
    somehow, then great. Knock yourself out!
    You can have the last word...
    Until the next time you manage to make it back onto my screen.
    As it stands 10 seconds from now...you no longer have my ear.

    Take care, but do try to expand your existence a bit.
    I suggest a nice trip to Yosemite...with lots of lovely hand-held, large
    aprerture landscapes and eventual 4x6 prints.

    PS--I note that I've included some questions above in this post.
    Feel free to answer them if you feel you need the typing practice...but if
    you seek to garner my attention via your continuation of your subtle brand
    of insanity, I wouldn't recommend it, as Elvis has left the building, and
    you'll be talking to yourself. Perhaps you can take honor in knowing that
    you'll be the first resident in my new laptop's plink file. :)
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  20. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Yes, you cared enough to not only say it but devote a reply solely
    to that insignificant little word. Any impartial observer should
    easily see that I only commented on your use of it, and didn't get
    "worked up" over it. Another case of you protesting too much, since
    you're the one that's apparently getting worked up, bubba. :)
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.