Horshack: The issue with traditional AFMA techniques like the one described in Joey's thoughtful article is that they rely on engaging the AF system to take images as part of the process of arriving at the optimal tuning value. The problem with this is that every AF cycle has the potential for shot-to-shot variation; these variations impact the user's evaluation for each tested AFMA tuning value (they affect the sharpness of each photo) yet they actually have no bearing on whether a given AFMA tuning value is correct or not.
This shot-to-shot AF variation occurs from two sources. The first source is variation in the precision of the phase-detection mechanism itself, ie the ability of the camera to correctly establish the optimal phase differential to know when focus is best. The second source is from mechanical variability of the AF system, be it the camera's in-body motor (older) or the motor inside the lens.
This is why I believe DotTune (and similar techniques) is the better AFMA solution.
that's why I don't just take one shot for each tuning value. i shoot 5 or 6 frames and look at the average and discard the outlier.
endofoto: I dont understand the price of D500 which is higher than D750. Nikon D7200 is more than enough for wildlife, why one would pay 2000 bucks for crop sensor camera.
If you can't appreciate the feature set that the D500 offers and you can't get out of the mindset that DX is "inferior", then it's your loss.
Thuravi Kumaaran: Is Good, Good Enough?https://luminous-landscape.com/is-good-good-enough/
It is interesting.
That discussion was simply beautiful. Two level headed guys distilling this madness down to its essence: image making. Content is what matters.
I think the hood is fixed. And no mention anywhere of filter size. Size and weight will be an issue for some. But not me! Will wait for test results.
Sorry if this had been said before:Don't like the name "Photoshop Fix." Suggests that you did something wrong in camera. Unless that is Adobe's message: "You don't need to be a good photographer. Just buy our product and we'll give you professional-looking results."
Post processing is not rescue and repair.
Dr_Jon: I have both Retrospective 5 and 10 (Pinestone) which are mostly great, but they are quite heavy and don't have padding in the base, in case you put them down a bit too quickly, which makes it hard to justify the cost IMHO. They do look good though...(I put some of the Velcro dividers horizontally at the bottom to help with impacts.)What are the weights for the leather versions and is their any impact protection at the bottom of the bag?
My Retro 7 came from factory with the inserts padded along the bottom. I figured this was default config.
I knew I was splurging when I bought my Gitzo Systematic 3 + Acratech GP head. I have not regretted it one bit. I won't shout out that my setup is doing anything better than something 1/2 the price. Sometimes, I want to support innovative companies. Other times, I'm ok with copycats, especially if the copycats do it a bit better. Such is the free market.
Well this is good news, if I continue to keep the 14-24mm. My cheating' heart has been looking at the Zeiss Distagon 21mm lately.
BTW, I didn't know the Big Stopper is 150mm. I thought it was for the smaller 4x4 format only.
I will remain on the sidelines to see if the Tamron is a home run or not. I don't think my 14-24mm is the best copy, probably average. I have to stay away from either ends of the focal range and step down to at least f5.6 if I want the corners to look good. Lack of a filter holder do not put me off the Tammy. I built my own lightproof option for the Nikon because the Lee SW150 leaks light. I can do the same for the Tammy should I acquire one.
I didn't grow up in the film era so these types of camera are not for me. No LCD, no metering......basically less for more money.....and tell customers it is "pure." Incredible build I'm sure, but only Leica can get away with it. Canikon leaves out one tiny feature and people go ballistic.
Ironically, the more understated they make it, the more it stands out. And despite what owners say, they wanna be seen with one. If you really wanna blend in, make it look like a DSLR.
I'm glad I switched to LR years ago.
I guess the US has fully recovered from the recession.
Is B&W allowed?
Telling the truth and being upfront about your mistakes will always cost you less in the end. I treat all my patients this way and so far it has served me well.
Like the 35mm, the new aesthetic oozes sex appeal.
Allen Yang: Great lens！ Much better than my 50 1.8D LOL
At 7x the cost, it better be.
It did. In fact, it took so many that i gave up looking for the perfect shot. I had to composite the final from two shots. The bubble looked great on one, the watch looked good on another.
Thanks for sharing Erez! I enjoy your processing walk thru and I agree with your thought process vs the untouched RAW file.
Look forward to meeting you in Jan 2014.
Again, interesting shot. Interesting subject. But no way will you find me anywhere near such madness.
Thanks for sharing! Iceland has been on my bucket list for sometime and it can't come soon enough! I enjoy your thoughts on PP as I enjoy PP as much as field work. I disagree with those who say it's "overcooked." I often turn to images (both in photography and film) as an escape to another world, and a certain amount of PP is required to transport me there. Unless it's wildlife or sports, I have little interest in replicating the natural world as my eyes see it.