There's a saying I learned a long time ago:
Could I have that in English please?
I did it with the best tool out there - the panorama tools PS plugin. It follows the right math and uses the best interpolators.
Right. I picked the one in which light falloff was most easily detected.
No...bright corners would mask the vignette. I picked the one most sensitive to light falloff (just like Phil's white wall tests).
It's spelled "Canon" and I've never been there. I own two Nikon digitals and one Kodak as well. You were overstating the problem, "So you noticed that there is no lite [sic] fall off but now your [sic] saying it does not matter? Must be nice to be able to believe lies.." I demonstrated in no uncertain terms that this was not a lie, "...you wouldn't have been able to detect light falloff in those shots with the 5D." And you weren't. You can admit it and learn from it or not. You seem to have already demonstrated which way you are going to go.
Ah so you say it matters to you. Could you explain why? What is so important in the corners of the shots you showed that it matters? If you would give these corners tremendous light fall of more than you could find in any camera that still would not be a real issue. So please clarify what your issue is.
What's wrong with my posting history? What bone do I have to pick? I really don't care about what brand or camera people use. I do have something against arguments which just are irrelevant in the real world. Or plain wrong.
Ah sorry forgot you just claim things whithout any basis then I suppose.
And now think about it. What is the subject in your pic here. The drummer. I'm correct I suppose. The drummer here lacks a little bit of attention as there are some distracting elements like that white cloth in the left bottom corner. Try darkening it a bit that could help getting the attention in your pic to your subject.. Having some vignetting here would probably have benefitted the photo. And it is the photo that matters isn't it.
Three things:
OH but I did not say light fall off is never a problem. But in concert photography it isn't as the corners are not important in 99.9% of concert photography. So why talk about it as if it is a problem in those cases. You showed pictures where it doesn't matter at all as proof of the problem. That is where I'm coming from. If you want to debate something go for situations where it matters. Otherwise you are making moot points.
There are occasions where light fall off are a bad thing although mostly for the situations where it matters people put camera's on tripods and stop down eliminating the problem. That is easy to grasp but that doesn't change the fact that for concert photography it is irrelevant.
Still don't see which bone I have to pic apart from stating the obvious for people who are willing to look at the pictures.
Even with light fall off that blue would have been as nice considering what its value is in the pic. But as this is taste no point debating it. But try a vignetting filter and I'm sure you'll see its no problem." And it is the photo that matters isn't it."
It is all about the shot!
"But you prefer the white spot there well that is 100% your right
and maybe you have an akward taste. But most people don't care
about the corners in these shot as they contribute nothing to the
picture at all. Try forgetting your blindening brand loyalty for 1
minute and take an honest look at those pictures. I'm sure you'll
see it."
I see the cloth! I could not move it out of the way at the time.
Can you see that nice blue on the upper left? If I lose the cloth I
lose that blue as well. So your right get ride of the cloth but I
like to blue..
I'm not for dark corners but I'm against making problems out of something which isn't a problem. Like vignetting in concert photography. If you need to defend your purchase at least do it with arguments which hold up in the real world.
Right. I picked the one where it would be easiest to detect for you. And you couldn't detect it on that one. If I had chosen the hardest one, you would have had an argument. But I said, "...you wouldn't have been able to detect light falloff in those shots with the 5D." You responded, "So you noticed that there is no lite [sic] fall off but now your [sic] saying it does not matter? Must be nice to be able to believe lies.."
Good.
I showed it to you above. I don't really understand why but, for some reason, the eye doesn't detect it in shots like yours. It just doesn't. I was really concerned about this before I got my 5D and was pleasantly surprized when I discovered that it's really not a problem. I was wrong to assume it would be a problem and the data (pictures) convinced me that it isn't. I'm trying to teach you that same lesson and you are having difficulty accepting that. You need to learn which shots do show it (white walls and blue sky) and which don't (everything else I can think of) because all cameras and lenses do it to some degree. You need to know when it's important and when it isn't. For me, the only time it is is on wide lenses at wide apertures with blue-sky in the shot. Fortunately that combination never occurs. Whenever I am shooting with blue sky in the scene with a wide lens, I'm stopping down for DOF anyway!
From my site, I just post a link (with a .jpg) at the end to the picture. I don't know how to do it with smugmug but I'm guessing it's pretty easy to find the direct link to each shot.Back to learning .. How do you post pictures in your posts?? I keep
showing a link..would love to learn from you how that is done
And why the heck does that matter? I keep hearing this endless story about what it used to be like in the old days and how thankful we should be that digital ISO 1600 today is no worse (????) than what you could get from film yadayada yada. And why shouldn't we want anything more?
Of come on! This isn't an either / or choice. Do we have to choose between seeking better technology OR seeking to become better photographers? We'll go out and make better pictures if we are motivated to do so. If some people are inclined to focus on technical merits of their equipment, they will always be that way whether they want clean ISO1600 or lenses without distortion and CA. Maybe we should be content with leaded gasoline, cars that ride like trucks, planes that have propellers, crop yields that are 50% lower than what modern agriculture brings us, children crippled by polio, ancient telephone communications, etc etc. Maybe we would solve world hunger, infant mortality and illiteracy if we didn't strive for bettertechnology and content ourselves with what we had before?
--
No, I'm not ignorant. But most of these people who advocate high ISO performance don't use (or have never thought about using) a tripod in any situation, even when they photograph still subjects. That's the problem.
