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

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

  1. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Yes, you're stubborn, but so what? I can be stubborn too, and
    many others in this newsgroup are as stubborn if not more so. But I
    don't care about this disagreement between you and Alfred. I
    haven't taken any side in it, and don't plan to do so. I only
    disagreed with you about one point, and that was about one specific
    shot, Alfred's first (in this thread). That was that his shot
    didn't exhibit blur due to camera movement. If you want to insist
    that by using a tripod he could have improved the shot, I'm not, and
    haven't disagreed with that, although any improvement would, in my
    opinion be very slight, and not as marked as you seem to believe.
    And in any case, my only point, which you've still, (bizarrely, if I
    may say so) refused to directly address. That any possible benefit
    conferred by the use of a tripod would *not* be noticeable blur
    reduction due to reducing camera movement. Yes, it would allow
    slower shutter speeds and a smaller aperture, and that may help
    slightly, but if the camera was placed in a tripod and the same
    shutter speed and aperture was used as in the original hand-held
    shot, I doubt that there would be any noticeable difference.

    Again, if you don't believe me, check earlier replies in this
    thread and you'll see that I disagreed with Alfred, stating that
    he'd need to use a tripod to be able to keep from introducing motion
    blur. After seeing his image, I saw that he was correct and said
    so. I didn't try to weasel out and say something like "Well, if you
    used a tripod the picture would have been better, and my pictures
    are sharper anyway, and I guess your standards aren't as high as
    mine.".

    Bzzzttt!!!! Wrong. I'm not making a case for hand-holding. I
    try to avoid it myself. I'm simply saying that Alfred made a
    statement that many, including myself, disagreed with, but he then
    demonstrated that he was correct.

    Why are you so vehemently, desperately trying to find fault with
    his images? What does this gain you, other than perhaps the
    admiration of a small subset of Canon owners (the "Canonistas") that
    cast a bad light on their preferred brand? And why are you asking
    why I'm here? Are you implying that I shouldn't be here but you
    should? If that's the case, I suggest that you may want to try to
    create rec.photo.digital.canon.fanboy, where the motto is "Canon,
    love it or leave it.". Despite saying this, I should point out that
    most of my digital camera purchases have been Canons, and other than
    anemic performance from their proprietary NiMH battery packs,
    they're good cameras and I have no complaints.
     
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Gee, I could have sworn that you were talking about changing your
    standards as you upgraded to better cameras, changing your
    definition of "keepers". I think it was based on you saying this:
    That's a poor attitude to take, and I'll try to explain why. I
    have heard wonderful old recordings, (Toscanini, Django, old
    Armstrong, etc.) that were slightly marred by the lower quality
    recording equipment of their day. But I can tune out the clicks and
    pops and other low-fi distractions, hearing the artistry of what was
    recorded. Others that don't share my tastes might prefer a newer,
    cleaner recordings, produced by other artists, using modern
    equipment. But those old artists are dead and gone, and there's no
    way that their music could have been recorded to today's standards.
    But I can still hear and appreciate what they produced, and just
    because the old recordings aren't nearly as immaculate, I'm not
    going to judge them as being yesterday's "crap". In my opinion, you
    should have more respect for your own creative abilities, and not
    gauge them by the quality of your tools, because they'll continue to
    improve, long after you and I are able to take advantage of them.
    If someday, say 30 or 40 years from now, the average photographers
    have cameras having more resolution, and are better in almost every
    way than the old, large film cameras used by Ansel Adams, do you
    think there may be a few people that might look at some of his
    famous shots and think "What was so special about these? My camera
    can take pictures that make his look like crap". There's more to it
    than that you know. I think that you do know that. At least I hope
    that you do. Bub. <g>
     
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Now you have stated your point accurately, I agree. Your previous
    statement however did not do so; you said the sensor "will only be able
    to resolve a detail that is at least the size of a single light
    sensitive element", the only sensible interpretation of which is that
    the object being photographed was that size.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, May 5, 2006
  4. Progressiveabsolution

    Bloggs Guest

    I see you're still the same, abrasive cockhead, you were when I was here
    last.
     
    Bloggs, May 5, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Bogus. I care about all of them. What I don't care about is
    being sidetracked into your endless arguments about them involving
    someone else, especially when its main purpose seems to be to allow
    you to avoid you-know-what and you-know-why. And if you don't, then
    just ask. These environs are teeming with souls that can answer
    what you are studiously avoiding.

    I haven't accused you of lying, although it did cross my mind that
    when you said something about messages not being available on your
    laptop (if that's what you said, I didn't pay close attention to
    that), they may have been available on you main computer. Or not.
    But it should be pretty clear to anyone having a complete copy of
    all messages in this thread that I never mentioned spires or any of
    the other elements of the image, other than its lack of motion
    produced blur.

    As are you, and you're getting things wrong just as you have in
    the past. You still haven't explained why you accused me of
    continuing to "pretend" that "this is only about the spire". Even
    if I had mentioned the spire, accusing me of "pretending" is
    tantamount to calling me a liar, something that you seem to be
    overly sensitive about. And saying that I "keep on pretending"
    means that you're saying that I didn't just mention it once, but
    several times. Are you for real? Far be if for you to apologize
    for this (cough, cough - not a lie, no not a lie) false accusation.

    Simple. I'm trying to get you to answer one simple question. You
    know, the one that you're so carefully avoiding. You *really* don't
    like admitting that you're wrong, do you?

    You don't appear to be very amused.

    Why thank you, so I shall. Once again you take the cowardly way
    out, which makes so much easier than admitting that you were wrong.
    That what happens when you back yourself into a corner by being
    evasive and making demonstrably bogus, false statements.

    See, yet another bunch of petty insults. Tarred by your own
    brush, you pull the hatch closed and darken another corner of your
    increasingly small world.

    Insanity is it now? Whoo hoo, you're going for a new low. You're
    not very subtle, are you? Vive la differance, and au revoir Elvis,
    I'm sure we'll meet again some day, as you've repeatedly found one
    excuse or another to explain the lack of, of the demise or failure
    of your klink file. I've noticed how you feel compelled to announce
    so many of your additions to it. Rather sad, it is. I have a
    feeling that one way or another you'll probably see this, what
    you've graciously permitted to be the last word.

    <thunk>
     
    ASAAR, May 5, 2006
  6. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest


    How very UN-abrasive of you to say...
     
    Mark², May 5, 2006
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    l e o Guest


    I'll give my second opinion. Alfred has proved that it's impossible to
    achieve the same sharpness hand held than using a tripod. It doesn't
    matter anyway as he's the few people that insist his Olympus 5050 is the
    best camera. We are glad that he has upgraded to R1 but we are appalling
    to see that at ISO 160, the R1 has so much noise. It doesn't seem to
    match the samples I saw in depreview. Maybe I'll check the R1 photos
    there again.
     
    l e o, May 5, 2006
  8. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    And nobody is disputing that the F14 shot has more DOF. But the F4.8
    handheld shot has no camera shake, despite the 1/30 exposure time at a
    focal length of 120mm. Just look at the central part of the image (what
    you are showing are parts of the image which are out of focus).

    You claimed initially that shots taken at 1/f are not as sharp as shots
    taken with a tripod, which clearly is not the case.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 5, 2006
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The samples I posted clearly show no camera shake, despite the very long
    exposure times.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 5, 2006
  10. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I'll save this for reference, when in the future some Canonite pops up
    with claims of clean ISO 1600.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 5, 2006
  11. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I never wrote that. My point has simply been that it is possible to take
    shots with no camera shake at 1/f and even longer exposure times.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 5, 2006
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    Scott W Guest

    But are they consistently sharp, from shot to shot. If you take 5
    shots at a shutter speed of 1/f will they all be just as sharp one to
    the other, or will some be sharper then others? I know when I get
    shooting at slow shutter speed I will take a number of photos and use
    the sharpest one.

    So in part the question is not can you get a sharp image hand held when
    shooting at a speed of 1/f but more can you do it every time?

    In general I agree with your, people use tripods more then they are
    really needed, but at least for me if I am shooting at 1/f I find one a
    big help.

    Now having said all of that, the resolution of the camera and its lens
    will have more impact of the sharpness of the final image then whether
    a tripod is used or not. So if we were to have a shoot off between you
    with your 10 MP camera hand held against a tripod mounted 10D with its
    6 MP, both shooting at the same shutter speed, I believe you would
    capture more detail. But I also believe it might take you a couple of
    shots to do so.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 5, 2006
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    "Clean" is always a relative term. Compared with most cameras, Canon DSLR
    1600 ISO is incredibly clean. Perhaps the cleanest of all. But that's as
    compared with 1600...not 100.
    400 ISO is extremely clean...**as most 400 ISO noise levels go.**
    -But if I can shoot at 100, I will.

    Remember, too, that I'm talking about big enlargement.
    As enlargement increases, obviously individual pixels (and noise at that
    level) can become important factors...where they are pretty insignificant
    (or invisible) on smaller prints.
     
    Mark², May 6, 2006
  14. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    There is more to it that increased DOF.
    This is an aspect of lens sharpness that hasn't seemed to register in your
    mind (at least not in your posts).

    *Nearly all lenses render sharper images when they are stopped down...and
    this doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with DOF considerations. Check
    any site that does lens tests at various apertures and you'll find that the
    overwhelming majority of lenses perform their best (in terms of sharpness)
    when stopped down to around f8 to f11.
    **This is further emphasized by noting that their test targets are
    flat...(zero depth grids, patterns, etc...)
    See dpreview.com tests if you're unfamiliar with these.

    This is something I've been trying to convey to your, Alfred. -That
    stopping down allows a lens to perform not only in terms of DOF, but also
    allow it to take greatest advantage of sharpness that has nothing to do with
    DOF. Of course DOF is a factor in creating focus front-to-back, but DOF
    needn't enter the equasion at all to benefit from sharpness that is inherent
    in stopping down nearly any lens.

    This is most noticeable in portions of the frame that are not centered.

    This is basic optics stuff, and worth looking into.
    Don't take my word for it. Have a look for yourself.
    Here's an example:
    http://www.topicpoint.com/sigma_18-50mm/index.html
    While I'm not a Sigma fan (that's putting it lightly!), this page DOES have
    a great series of identical shots which clearly show the benefit of smaller
    apertures as they relate to sharpness...and NOT just from DOF.
    **Scroll down to where it shows images of book spines on a shelf at
    different apertures. It is very revealing, and key to what I've referred
    to.
    Check it out...
    -Mark²
     
    Mark², May 6, 2006
  15. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    There is more to it that increased DOF.
    This is an aspect of lens sharpness that hasn't seemed to register in your
    mind (at least not in your posts).

    *Nearly all lenses render sharper images when they are stopped down...and
    this doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with DOF considerations. Check
    any site that does lens tests at various apertures and you'll find that the
    overwhelming majority of lenses perform their best (in terms of sharpness)
    when stopped down to around f8 to f11.
    **This is further emphasized by noting that their test targets are
    flat...(zero depth grids, patterns, etc...)
    See dpreview.com tests if you're unfamiliar with these.

    This is something I've been trying to convey to your, Alfred. -That
    stopping down allows a lens to perform not only in terms of DOF, but also
    allow it to take greatest advantage of sharpness that has nothing to do with
    DOF. Of course DOF is a factor in creating focus front-to-back, but DOF
    needn't enter the equasion at all to benefit from sharpness that is inherent
    in stopping down nearly any lens.

    This is most noticeable in portions of the frame that are not centered.

    This is basic optics stuff, and worth looking into.
    Don't take my word for it. Have a look for yourself.
    Here's an example:
    http://www.topicpoint.com/sigma_18-50mm/index.html
    While I'm not a Sigma fan (that's putting it lightly!), this page DOES have
    a great series of identical shots which clearly show the benefit of smaller
    apertures as they relate to sharpness...and NOT just from DOF.
    **Scroll down to where it shows images of book spines on a shelf at
    different apertures. It is very revealing, and key to what I've referred
    to.
    Check it out...
    -Mark²
     
    Mark², May 6, 2006
  16. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    There is more to it that increased DOF.
    This is an aspect of lens sharpness that hasn't seemed to register in your
    mind (at least not in your posts).

    *Nearly all lenses render sharper images when they are stopped down...and
    this doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with DOF considerations. Check
    any site that does lens tests at various apertures and you'll find that the
    overwhelming majority of lenses perform their best (in terms of sharpness)
    when stopped down to around f8 to f11.
    **This is further emphasized by noting that their test targets are
    flat...(zero depth grids, patterns, etc...)
    See dpreview.com tests if you're unfamiliar with these.

    This is something I've been trying to convey to your, Alfred. -That
    stopping down allows a lens to perform not only in terms of DOF, but also
    allow it to take greatest advantage of sharpness that has nothing to do with
    DOF. Of course DOF is a factor in creating focus front-to-back, but DOF
    needn't enter the equasion at all to benefit from sharpness that is inherent
    in stopping down nearly any lens.

    This is most noticeable in portions of the frame that are not centered.

    This is basic optics stuff, and worth looking into.
    Don't take my word for it. Have a look for yourself.
    Here's an example:
    http://www.topicpoint.com/sigma_18-50mm/index.html
    While I'm not a Sigma fan (that's putting it lightly!), this page DOES have
    a great series of identical shots which clearly show the benefit of smaller
    apertures as they relate to sharpness...and NOT just from DOF.
    **Scroll down to where it shows images of book spines on a shelf at
    different apertures. It is very revealing, and key to what I've referred
    to.
    Check it out...
    -Mark²
     
    Mark², May 6, 2006
  17. : Now you have stated your point accurately, I agree. Your previous
    : statement however did not do so; you said the sensor "will only be able
    : to resolve a detail that is at least the size of a single light
    : sensitive element", the only sensible interpretation of which is that
    : the object being photographed was that size.

    It made perfect clear sense when I composed it in my head. I guess my
    fingers just don't type as fast as I mentally compose. :) Thanks for
    catching my inadvertant omission.

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, May 6, 2006
  18. Progressiveabsolution

    ½ Confused Guest

    Personally, I would not want to find my self sitting on
    one of the NE NW SE SW spiked at the top of the image...

    Jeff
     
    ½ Confused, May 6, 2006
  19. Progressiveabsolution

    ½ Confused Guest

    On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:44:02 -0600
    In message <>
    It looks to me like jpeg noise. Sometimes I re-compress
    smallish web bound images to get a nicer looking background
    in the 'jpeg-ness' of an image. ;-)

    Jeff
     
    ½ Confused, May 6, 2006
  20. Progressiveabsolution

    ½ Confused Guest

    I was on the big island in (best guess) 1973 (or early 74) when 1/4 of
    the volcano broke away. We were close enough that the rubber on our
    shoes was melting...

    Jeff
     
    ½ Confused, May 6, 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.