tko
Forum Pro
Saves me having to type this. I have a FF lens that will stop down to F50 where it will have such as much or more DOF as the smallest prosumer sensor (also is terribly blurred due to diffraction, but that's another story.)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How many want a narrow DOF?
- Thread starter Ryan21
- Start date
olyflyer
Forum Pro
DOF for me is not just a teoretical thing. You can NEVER get the same sharpness as the 8x10 camera can produce as long as the image sensor is as small as it is. The size of the image sensor and the number of pixels is the biggest limiter. The number of pixels are still far too low even in the D3 or whichever FF camera is made today even in comparision to the 35 mm 50 ASA slides. Forget matching 8x10 films all together.
And yes, I know the resolution of my E-3 is enough for most of my needs, but I have no ambitions to become a digitalised Ansel Adams.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
Thanks for explaining.
Simon
Well, I wouldn't say never , but I agree that 4/3 won't offer that kind of resolution very soon.
Simon
vs. narrow , plus an intelligent observation of the uses of DOF.
These forums need your kind of thoughtful fresh air.
jp
--
I like making pictures.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inframan
These forums need your kind of thoughtful fresh air.
jp
--
I like making pictures.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inframan
olyflyer
Forum Pro
OK, never is a long time, but I actually mean even the others, FF bodies and all. 4/3 is the smallest, but the others are not better in that comparision.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
Jonas B
Forum Pro
Hi John,
Are you referring to my post when waving your troll alert flag? If so this is at least the third time you call me a troll, and that make me curious.
Can I have your judgement on this post which is my reply to the OP:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27576722
(There is some misinformation in the rest of your post but I cut it away here as I see no point in arguing at this moment)
thank you,
--
Jonas
John King
Forum Pro
Sergey
If you look around my web site, you will find I uploaded a 7.7 MB image (crop) well over a month ago that shows what the humble E-510 and equally humble 14~42 kit lens can do. This image is here:
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/d/3218-2/_2281484_BW_E_8_Small_Crop.tif
I do not notice you "exposing" yourself to criticism in this way. But then, the world does not frighten me - and neither do you.
I would like to quote some of the more outrageous things that you have posted on this forum, but the moderators keep removing them ... I wonder why??? How about where you (very harshly) criticised one of my "Olympus" images? You were too busy spreading b/s to even check the EXIF information which showed that the image was taken years ago - and WITH MY NIKON ! ROTFLMFAO! I pointed this out to you here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=27395763
I also explained WHY my wedding shots were better. You state in your profile that you are an engineer (civil, or otherwise ... ), so I assume you have the intelligence to understand what I said there. I shot RAW, he did not. I used my f-ratio reasonably well and appropriately; he did not. I got the very best out of my modest equipment; he did not get the best out of his much more expensive kit. I made these points in my original post, Sergey; you choose to misunderstand and mis-quote me, for reasons of your own that are obvious to all here.
AND, just BTW, the DPR Olympus 14~42 kit lens review proves the point that I have stated before, that even the Olympus kit lenses are superior to the top glass from CanNikon; and you just cannot stand the fact that here is the authority saying so. Other sources also show these significant faults in the CanNikon lenses, for example at:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html
If I got the sort of CA, vignetting and blur (the quaintly-termed "softness") from my kit lenses that the CanNikon top pro lenses produce, I would send them back to Olympus. I have used Olympus' top pro lenses and they are magnificent beyond your wildest imaginings, Sergey. How they can make a lens like the 7~14mm, which is almost totally distortion free at the wide end (and the other end too), and also make the 8mm, which is a 'classic' fish-eye type lens just staggers me.
AND you didn't answer my simple question, Sergey. I did not expect you to, however.
Why a good photographer, with a good mind would waste his time spreading FUD and b/s here is beyond my comprehension. Did an Olympus frighten you as a child? Or something.
I currently own a Nikon camera. I have owned other Nikon cameras in the past (among many other brands). I do not spend my time bad-mouthing Nikon cameras, or Canons, or any other brand. I have got much better things to do with my time ... I have said it many times - ALL modern dSLRs and many P&S cameras will produce excellent results in the hands of a reasonably competent person.
One of our photo club's members won a Gold on the Austrian Supercircuit with a photo from her P&S, Sergey - sorry, I do not know (or care ... ) what make and model.
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
You very deliberately mis-quote me. I strongly qualified this statement, and you know that I did. As usual, Sergey, you are still just spreading FUD and b/s.
As I explained in my original post, that would be unethical to do. The other photographer's images came to me from the bride & groom asking for my advice. They still belong to that original photographer. Professional ethics (and ordinary ethics, too) prohibit me from so much as displaying one of that other person's work. I have tried to patch up the relationship between the B&G and the official photographer, and said in my post that he had taken some stunning images, far better than I could do - so please stop selectively mis-quoting me. ALL of the images I took are freely available to view on my web site. You may have no ethical compunctions about using another's images in this way - I have.
If you look around my web site, you will find I uploaded a 7.7 MB image (crop) well over a month ago that shows what the humble E-510 and equally humble 14~42 kit lens can do. This image is here:
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/d/3218-2/_2281484_BW_E_8_Small_Crop.tif
I do not notice you "exposing" yourself to criticism in this way. But then, the world does not frighten me - and neither do you.
I would like to quote some of the more outrageous things that you have posted on this forum, but the moderators keep removing them ... I wonder why??? How about where you (very harshly) criticised one of my "Olympus" images? You were too busy spreading b/s to even check the EXIF information which showed that the image was taken years ago - and WITH MY NIKON ! ROTFLMFAO! I pointed this out to you here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=27395763
I also explained WHY my wedding shots were better. You state in your profile that you are an engineer (civil, or otherwise ... ), so I assume you have the intelligence to understand what I said there. I shot RAW, he did not. I used my f-ratio reasonably well and appropriately; he did not. I got the very best out of my modest equipment; he did not get the best out of his much more expensive kit. I made these points in my original post, Sergey; you choose to misunderstand and mis-quote me, for reasons of your own that are obvious to all here.
AND, just BTW, the DPR Olympus 14~42 kit lens review proves the point that I have stated before, that even the Olympus kit lenses are superior to the top glass from CanNikon; and you just cannot stand the fact that here is the authority saying so. Other sources also show these significant faults in the CanNikon lenses, for example at:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html
If I got the sort of CA, vignetting and blur (the quaintly-termed "softness") from my kit lenses that the CanNikon top pro lenses produce, I would send them back to Olympus. I have used Olympus' top pro lenses and they are magnificent beyond your wildest imaginings, Sergey. How they can make a lens like the 7~14mm, which is almost totally distortion free at the wide end (and the other end too), and also make the 8mm, which is a 'classic' fish-eye type lens just staggers me.
AND you didn't answer my simple question, Sergey. I did not expect you to, however.
Why a good photographer, with a good mind would waste his time spreading FUD and b/s here is beyond my comprehension. Did an Olympus frighten you as a child? Or something.
I currently own a Nikon camera. I have owned other Nikon cameras in the past (among many other brands). I do not spend my time bad-mouthing Nikon cameras, or Canons, or any other brand. I have got much better things to do with my time ... I have said it many times - ALL modern dSLRs and many P&S cameras will produce excellent results in the hands of a reasonably competent person.
One of our photo club's members won a Gold on the Austrian Supercircuit with a photo from her P&S, Sergey - sorry, I do not know (or care ... ) what make and model.
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
John King
Forum Pro
Gidday Jonas
I was referring particularly to Sergey, who is an outrageous troll. I do not care if he is the world's best photographer (he obviously thinks he is ... ), and knows more about photography than God (he obviously thinks he does ... ); it does not give him a licence to behave like an arrogant ...... - which he does ...
That behaviour and attitude just gets right up my left nostril, as we say in Oz.
BTW, I am in complete agreement with your last statement - I am in complete disagreement with those who say otherwise - the "fanboys" among us, who infest these forums, and the trolls. "Fanboy" on one forum, "troll" on another ... .
As to my other comments, see the references to testing of such lenses in my reply to Sergey above for the "proof".
I am happy with my Olympus kit, but I am not "married" to it
. If it were all to disappear and a Nikon D* were to appear in its place, I would almost certainly be happy using the Nikon gear. It would not make me a better photographer, or a worse one. I have owned several Leica kits (etc) over my lifetime - they took nice pics; so does my Olympus kit; so do my OM kits; so does my Rolleiflex; so does my (current) Nikon; so does my Minox etc etc ...
Also BTW, it is a nice picture of Elisabeth; I thought so the first time you posted it elsewhere. It shows a human being, in a human environment, with a happy expression. I see nothing in your image that immediately says to me that the image taken is compromised by your technique in any way. Quite the contrary.
EVEN I look (passing ... ) reasonable when I smile ... lol.
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Not you, Jonas. You always try to contribute positively to the discussion at hand. I cannot recall ever referring to you as a troll or trolling. If you thought so (or I have!), please forgive me. I always view these threads in flat view, and sometimes pick a convenient post at random to reply to, when my reply is generally on-topic, but not specifically related to any one post.
I was referring particularly to Sergey, who is an outrageous troll. I do not care if he is the world's best photographer (he obviously thinks he is ... ), and knows more about photography than God (he obviously thinks he does ... ); it does not give him a licence to behave like an arrogant ...... - which he does ...
That behaviour and attitude just gets right up my left nostril, as we say in Oz.
BTW, I am in complete agreement with your last statement - I am in complete disagreement with those who say otherwise - the "fanboys" among us, who infest these forums, and the trolls. "Fanboy" on one forum, "troll" on another ... .
As to my other comments, see the references to testing of such lenses in my reply to Sergey above for the "proof".
I am happy with my Olympus kit, but I am not "married" to it
. If it were all to disappear and a Nikon D* were to appear in its place, I would almost certainly be happy using the Nikon gear. It would not make me a better photographer, or a worse one. I have owned several Leica kits (etc) over my lifetime - they took nice pics; so does my Olympus kit; so do my OM kits; so does my Rolleiflex; so does my (current) Nikon; so does my Minox etc etc ...Also BTW, it is a nice picture of Elisabeth; I thought so the first time you posted it elsewhere. It shows a human being, in a human environment, with a happy expression. I see nothing in your image that immediately says to me that the image taken is compromised by your technique in any way. Quite the contrary.
EVEN I look (passing ... ) reasonable when I smile ... lol.
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
But I did not ask you to display someone else's work, did I? Please show to the group YOUR work, that outclasses 5D and 1DsII! Is not that what you spread through the entire thread, and repeated over and over again - - - that you outclassed the professional photographer?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26729323
- Sergey
John King
Forum Pro
Sergey
And YES, I did outperform the pro.
AND you continue to misrepresent what I said. Can you not understand plain English?
My work is displayed in its entirety on my web site, as I have already STATED in my post on this thread and elsewhere, as JPEGs - which you already know as you have been kind enough to give me your appreciation of my work. The B&G wanted to pay me for mine; they declined to pay the pro's bill ... .
I will say it again - SLOWLY - I used my tools to their best, and they worked better than a pro NOT using his tools to their best. CAN YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING NOW??
Or are you being deliberately obtuse ... ?
Do not spread untruths about me Sergey, I will not stand for it. I have warned you about this in the past.
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Yes, you did.
And YES, I did outperform the pro.
AND you continue to misrepresent what I said. Can you not understand plain English?
My work is displayed in its entirety on my web site, as I have already STATED in my post on this thread and elsewhere, as JPEGs - which you already know as you have been kind enough to give me your appreciation of my work. The B&G wanted to pay me for mine; they declined to pay the pro's bill ... .
I will say it again - SLOWLY - I used my tools to their best, and they worked better than a pro NOT using his tools to their best. CAN YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING NOW??
Or are you being deliberately obtuse ... ?
Do not spread untruths about me Sergey, I will not stand for it. I have warned you about this in the past.
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
John King
Forum Pro
Sergey
Can't you read - I HAVE!!
All of the images are on my web site. If you are too lazy to look at them there, that is your problem.
They are all in the album on the top left of the first page of my gallery.
My gallery address (unlike yours ... ) is in my footer block ...
You have eyes; use them!
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Can't you read - I HAVE!!
All of the images are on my web site. If you are too lazy to look at them there, that is your problem.
They are all in the album on the top left of the first page of my gallery.
My gallery address (unlike yours ... ) is in my footer block ...
You have eyes; use them!
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
John King
Forum Pro
Look "mate"
Are you really so thick as to not understand this??
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
I CANNOT** do that without publishing his images, which I will not do.
Are you really so thick as to not understand this??
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
John - I think you've summed up Sergey just fine...leave it at that.
He's obtuse at times, purposefully leads folks on with misquotes, slight tricks that he must find extremely funny, or just has a weird foundation upon which to build a useful dialog. Such a waste of his time...and ours.
Speaking of quoting, he even hit the quote button, and then didn't realize what the previous poster had said...I also seem to remember Sergey didn't know about the Zuiko 150f2...of course why should he, it was only one of the original lenses released by Olympus...this of course was about 3 or 4 days after he was lamenting the fact Oly had no decent primes. Given that Olympus only has about 12 or so lenses and non of the alphabet soup naming like with Nikon there's really not a lot to keep straight!
He could be a very positive resource for helping and instruction, which I see and appreciate from time to time, but too bad he often comes off as little more than a basher of Olympus equipment and it's users.
I'm an engineer also and maybe he just has a little too much European engineering in him to be able to "consistently" communicate in a more friendly less aggressive in your face style? Maybe Sergey should take off the engineering hat more often and put on the "art" appreciating hat more often? He does have some splendid photos and a rather sharp memory...he can find a photo to prove almost any point that he wishes to make, often not his but he doesn't try passing them as his either...kudos for this.
From time to time he posts excellent opinions and thoughts...the bashing Olympus spin I wish he'd drop. It's really uncalled for and not necessary. All the makes have great cameras that work and are essentially tools for the photographer to utilize and create whatever his/her vision is...this is where at times I think he gets too wrapped up in the engineering/math side of photography...it's not always that way with him though. But when that side comes out it's rather offensive...Sergey don't take this too negative, I wouldn't want you to leave but just maybe try to change the tone a little when you feel the "confrontation" side coming out...sometimes it takes the bigger man to "cry uncle" first.
Dan
He's obtuse at times, purposefully leads folks on with misquotes, slight tricks that he must find extremely funny, or just has a weird foundation upon which to build a useful dialog. Such a waste of his time...and ours.
Speaking of quoting, he even hit the quote button, and then didn't realize what the previous poster had said...I also seem to remember Sergey didn't know about the Zuiko 150f2...of course why should he, it was only one of the original lenses released by Olympus...this of course was about 3 or 4 days after he was lamenting the fact Oly had no decent primes. Given that Olympus only has about 12 or so lenses and non of the alphabet soup naming like with Nikon there's really not a lot to keep straight!
He could be a very positive resource for helping and instruction, which I see and appreciate from time to time, but too bad he often comes off as little more than a basher of Olympus equipment and it's users.
I'm an engineer also and maybe he just has a little too much European engineering in him to be able to "consistently" communicate in a more friendly less aggressive in your face style? Maybe Sergey should take off the engineering hat more often and put on the "art" appreciating hat more often? He does have some splendid photos and a rather sharp memory...he can find a photo to prove almost any point that he wishes to make, often not his but he doesn't try passing them as his either...kudos for this.
From time to time he posts excellent opinions and thoughts...the bashing Olympus spin I wish he'd drop. It's really uncalled for and not necessary. All the makes have great cameras that work and are essentially tools for the photographer to utilize and create whatever his/her vision is...this is where at times I think he gets too wrapped up in the engineering/math side of photography...it's not always that way with him though. But when that side comes out it's rather offensive...Sergey don't take this too negative, I wouldn't want you to leave but just maybe try to change the tone a little when you feel the "confrontation" side coming out...sometimes it takes the bigger man to "cry uncle" first.
Dan
LucaPCP
Leading Member
Well, I take many indoor photos with the help of IS, and I more often happy than not to have more DOF at f/2.8 .
So I don't think the large DOF matters for (daytime) landscape, but to me it is useful for indoor ambient light photos.
Luca
Luca de Alfaro -- http://lucadealfaro.smugmug.com/
So I don't think the large DOF matters for (daytime) landscape, but to me it is useful for indoor ambient light photos.
Luca
--
Luca de Alfaro -- http://lucadealfaro.smugmug.com/
No problem, but then all you have to do is to bump the iso on larger sensor camera - how hard is that?
- Sergey
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Anybody can outclass a pro. The definition of a pro is a person who pays his/her milk and feeds his/her family through selling images. Those images are not always made with professionalism, which is a different term all together. For a pro time is money, for an amateur photography is a hobby and can, if he/she wants to, spend many hours on one single image, just to improve. The pride and professionalism in what a person does is not always equal to what a person works with to get a salary to live on.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Than the Oly is the wrong camera until they considerably increase the image sensor size along with the pixels...
Hassy is the right one for you, since there are no 8x10 digital ones. Olympus is a compromise. Much DOF is not the same as sharp image with a lot of details, as we have mentioned before.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
Hassy is the right one for you, since there are no 8x10 digital ones. Olympus is a compromise. Much DOF is not the same as sharp image with a lot of details, as we have mentioned before.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
jabberwock
Forum Enthusiast
Olyflyer I appreciate your honest and direct comment, but this is not what John the King was saying and implying all along. Look into this thread
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26759020
He clearly states that that the 5D cannot even keep up with an E-510. The 40D compared to an E-3 is just laughable. These are his exact words! Do tell me, how is that not spreading tales!? Let us not be guessing about it!
CW
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum