7 hours ago
 |
Pedagydusz
Lives in
Aveiro, Portugal
Joined on
Nov 19, 2004
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
That is a truly excellent article! Very useful indeed. Very well and clearly written, as well. I only read the first page, Page 2 is for tomorrow, but thank you very much for the excellent tutorial.
I have taught for decades, and can recognize when an article is fit for learning from it. This definitely is!
(Sorry, I flagged "Like" my comment, thinking I was "Liking" the original article! Oops...)
Pedagydusz: It is interesting that, even after reading this (excellent) article, some readers didn't get an important fact: for DoF, what counts is magnification and aperture. FF DSLR or compact, the result is the same.
The author says it in the very beginning:
"[...] depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification. [...]"
It is important to keep that in mind.
No, read again: "depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification".
It is interesting that, even after reading this (excellent) article, some readers didn't get an important fact: for DoF, what counts is magnification and aperture. FF DSLR or compact, the result is the same.
The author says it in the very beginning:
"[...] depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification. [...]"
It is important to keep that in mind.
Well, we will see... 50 mm aperture for photography is not all that much. And in any case, photography of very distant objects (birds, Moon, buildings...) is usually ruined by atmosphere turbulence (what astrophotographers usually refer to as "poor seeing").
But lets hope! It is a good thing that it is available.
RichardAB: I went to Steve McCurry's exhibition in Brimingham (UK) in August 2011.
Obviously there were some fantastic images on display, including the 'Afghan Girl'. A detailed description was given explaining how the eyes were achieved, post production. Basically, the eyes are not those of the Afghan Girl.
For me, I don't like manipulation to that degree, it crosses the line, there is no authenticity as a portrait.
I expect some will agree and that some won't. For some, lines don't exist, anything goes. For others, lines are drawn but in different places.
I didn't know that, and I must say I am a bit disappointed with that revelation!
RaZZ3R Death: Why does the first ever color picture taken underwater have a UFO in it ?!? In the top left corner.
It is not an UFO: it is a USO (Underwater Submarine Object) ;-)
Anyway, UFOs have been around long before photography: remember the Pyramids? Stonehenge? Many other monuments? ;-)
Luebke: In europe there are already tax included in the price. If you substract taxes than the price is quite similar. Besides that you usually get longer warranty in europe.
The dollar price is usually the cheapest and I hate that myself but the difference is smaller than most people think. You cannot just use a currency converter and start crying. It's a bit more complex than that.
The pound price is ridiculous though.
I used a currency converter and started crying!
ecka84: Full Frame Mirrorless
50+ megapixels with optional pixel-binning
(e.g. 4µm ~ 54mp 9000x6000,
2x2 binning mRAW 4500x3000 for flawless, sharp details at low ISOs,
3x3 binning sRAW 3000x2000 for low noise at high ISOs and/or faster burst)
Various crop modes (digital zoom basically, for tele, macro or non-FF lenses)
Sturdy "all weather" body
Comfortable size and grip (no pocket-camera nonsense please)
Big and powerful battery
Vari-angle LCD with Touchscreen AF
Built-in EVF and good manual focus assist
All the dials and buttons
Hot-Shoe and built-in flash with wireless flash control
CF card slot (which is faster and more reliable than SD)
or at least dual SD (no SD+CF format mixing)
Wi-Fi for tethering, wireless file transfer, on the fly backup and sharing
3-5 native mount fast prime lenses
(like 20mm ~ 35mm ~ 55mm ~ 85mm ~ 135mm)
Optional adapters for most existing lens mounts
$2000-$2500 price
Yes, that would be close to ideal for me as well!
Miguel Osorio: The camera of my life is my Nikon FM2n which I bought in 1996. I keep using it, and it is my main camera. I need it only to take photos, that's why I bought it.
The solution would be as simple as this,
develop this idea:
http://re35.net/
or this idea:
http://seoulcolors.com/2011/05/digital-camera-back-for-35mm-film-by-hyun-jin-park/
FF, APS-C, 12, 16, 18, 24, 36 Mpixel, variable ISO, whatever. There is enough technology, just look at Sony NEX or DSC-RX1.
Unfortunately, "digital film" has been tried and abandoned (around year 2000). Two many problems - mechanical, electronic/computer and financial made it an impractical solution!
steve_hoge: Please make the mainContent div resizable! A lot of us have monitors greater than 2K px horizontal and the idea that all the news and forum content on dpreview is squeezed down to a 600px column is just crazy.
Yes, I second that!
MYKC: Well done Canon (from a micro 4/3 user) for releasing a camera aimed at a small niche market! It is two cameras in one, a normal DSLR, and a camera suitable for astroimaging. However, I'm confused as to how large the increase in red sensitivity will actually be. The press release states that "hydrogen-alpha light sensitivity that is approximately three times higher than that of a normal Canon DSLR camera. This produces a 20-percent higher transmittance of Hydrogen Alpha line".
The "silent shooting" feature is also interesting; I wonder how it is implemented? The fully articulated LCD is great for use with telescopes (as is the case with the Panasonic GH2).
Can the 60D produce video using just the small central portion of the sensor? That would make it a great camera for imaging the planets too.
Most astrophotographers who use DSLRs favour Canon, and many astroimaging software packages have features for PC control of Canon cameras, so this will generate a lot of interest.
Yes, if I am not mistaken, the 60D can produce video like the "Extended Tele Converter" or whatever it is called in the GH2 and G3. Very useful for a number of things.
Very interesting. It is food for thought and a calls for experimentation, which is very good.
Thank you.
BTW, I am one who started with square BW (a Zeiss Ikon 6x6 camera, eons ago) but did not try the format recently, except on rare occasions.
capanikon: A 1970s Pentax K1000 had 0 shutter lag, too.
I had a K1000. Never could make a single phone call with it :)
loewena: Would you think of calling a 45 mm lens on a full frame DSLR - a "portrait lens" ?? This is the same optics, just cropped. On the other hand you may like BIG noses ans small ears...
Correct. But it is amazing the number of people that don't understand that!
Perspective is determined by distance-to-subject, not by FD of lens.
CarstenKriegerPhotography: It's not just you. The backgrounds are overexposed deliberately, it's the whole idea of this technique. It's all explained in the article.
It very interesting, but for my taste the results are not all equally achieved (though I suppose that can be said of anything).
I am a bit baffled as to what are really the objectives (yes, I read the article). If it is to produce beautiful images of nature subjects - yes, they are beautiful, though some photographs of plants and flowers with beautiful bokeh are difficult to surpass.
It the aim is to render an "illustration", then the result is miles behind real illustrations, and a more aggressive pp would be necessary. For example the crab or hermit (?) on the left has appendages that extend sideways that are barely visible. I am ready to believe that this is how they look like, but for illustration purposes they would need some enhancing.
In general, I would say: very beautiful, not quite as I see things in Nature!
But I will give it a try. Thank you for a great article!
BTW: Who am I to criticize a professional photographer? This is not a critique, is just an opinion.