Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
You could try using Google
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why test a Lens's focusing capability at f1.4 @ >20ft?
- Thread starter Optimus47
- Start date
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.
T
The Andy G
Guest
It may just be my memory playing me false, but when I first began working at F 1.4, I think I had a lot of misses and was somewhat miffed. Now, I'm nailing it all of the time. The thing is, with a paper thin depth of field, there's no margin for error. What I think may be part of the complaint is that some people are the learning curve of working with the razor thin world of F 1.4.
Your camera doesn't read minds.
The autofocus doesn't predict the future.
Practice. Practice. Practice.
--
Never mention bokeh to me.
Your camera doesn't read minds.
The autofocus doesn't predict the future.
Practice. Practice. Practice.
--
Never mention bokeh to me.
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
You want to see as I claimed that I can get two points in focus at f/2?
Until you can focus on just one point I'd be wasting my time. As Leonard suggested, I have work all over the net and have been publishing since 1996. I'm not famous, and I'm not the David Hill who does the composite celebrity shots, but you can probably find me if you want to see my work. I only post shots here when they support a point, but you're holding on to so many ideas that enforce low standards that to show you a sharp image is a waste of time until you let go of some of those. You first need to realize through more practice of your own that you can fine tune your AF-S 85G to be able to focus on at least a single point with a degree of reliability. After you have that achievement for yourself then it would be worth talking about more advanced, and yet still horribly simple, topics.
If you have simply decided that it's not possible to focus at f/1.4, then you're both wrong and a defeatist. You're basically challenging me to show you that something as simple as 2+2 is possible. Even the problematic 24/1.4 will be correct at least half the time if the rest of your technique is good. Odds with the 85/1.4 are far higher.
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
I had my fair share of issues with AF @ f1.4:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=38146683
2) My f1.4 lenses had lower performance at f1.8 and f2.0 as other lenses.
rgds,
Andy
--
Blog - http://nikonandye.wordpress.com
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=38146683
Because it amplifies a systemic issue, impacting IQ even with f2.8 lenses. Especially with high resolution sensors. If it works there, your camera/lens setup is perfect in other scenarios.
1) Nikon positions the AFS 35mm/1.4G as fast lens for landsacpe and astrophotography - some of the stars are beyond 20ft.
2) My f1.4 lenses had lower performance at f1.8 and f2.0 as other lenses.
Im my case, several cameras did, and many lenses, not only the new lenses. The new lenses (my copies) had severe astigmathismus, which could not be covered by AF tuning. check the list of affected gear in the link above.
Even there the focus did often not work.
Depending on your shooting idea. Have you ever tried to take images of trees or small buildings with a 85mm/1.4 lenses? It is a fascinating look, you won't get with f2 or f2.8 lenses.
yes.
yes and no. The combination of higher resolution sensors andthe easier ability of photographers to investigate image quality issues with 100% views put more emphasize on the Q&A of a manufacturer than ever before. Have you ever seen a photographer with a film based camera to pixell(grain) peep? It doesn't come up either with 2.7 or 4 MP cameras (D1, D2H), but now. Check the link above for more information on this issue.
rgds,
Andy
--
Blog - http://nikonandye.wordpress.com
antoineb
Veteran Member
I'm not only not famous - I'm totally unknown ;-)
If your work is all over the Internet, then please post a few links - this shouldn't be a problem since all this stuff is already very public.
This will allow everyone here to see that you cannot only post two long paragraphs, bordering on insults each time, when you post.
Let's see your work - any work - even if it's just sooo booring and simple.
thanks
If your work is all over the Internet, then please post a few links - this shouldn't be a problem since all this stuff is already very public.
This will allow everyone here to see that you cannot only post two long paragraphs, bordering on insults each time, when you post.
Let's see your work - any work - even if it's just sooo booring and simple.
thanks
antoineb
Veteran Member
We here have someone who uses tone that keeps bordering on the insult, and basically states that others can't focus at f1.4, maybe can't focus at all.
if he makes such statements in a public forum, and can write such long paragraphs, surely he can be bothered to post a few of his perfectly focused shots, from f1.4.
I've posted shots and crops where at f1.4 it's easy to count individual eyelashes.
Why doesn't he show us a few - or else shut up, and especially, stop his insults.
if he makes such statements in a public forum, and can write such long paragraphs, surely he can be bothered to post a few of his perfectly focused shots, from f1.4.
I've posted shots and crops where at f1.4 it's easy to count individual eyelashes.
Why doesn't he show us a few - or else shut up, and especially, stop his insults.
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
This is a really funny argument, because on one hand Leonard is claiming that Nikon is always perfect (except when it's the users' fault), and on the other hand you are claiming that focus is not possible. And you're both against me. The irony.
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
Have you not noticed that I have a signature link??? Unfortunately for you my website is not an 85mm specific archive. But it satisfies your curiosity to see some things that I do. To further answer your question, most all of my 85mm work is either at paid events or of my own family, neither of which I publish on this forum. Sorry. All that I publish here is test shots and a few random vacation photos. If I want an aesthetic review, I have in-person peers for that. If I want to share with friends, there is facebook. Given that this is a forum primarily for discussing photo technology and technical issues, that is what I come here to do.
And the remark about not being famous is not some weird backhanded brag. I periodically get inquiries from people who want the other David Hill's shots of pro wrestlers in HDR. I would not want you to google as Leonard said and think I'm him.
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
Furthermore, I was not making the argument that others cannot focus. I made the point specifically that the shots you posted were misfocused, which they were. It seems to me that your position is both to claim that your focus is correct but also to say that it's "good enough" when it's not. Which way are you really arguing? Are you a great focuser, or a good enough-er who goes by outdated DoF calculations? By posting out-of-focus shots as some great example and then expecting us to respect them for being sloppy you committed one of the all-too-common sins on the board. And to the contrary, I have actually argued that I believe you are capable of focusing better than you did in those shots if you just try a little harder.
But does that mean anything when the focus should have been on the eye and not the lashes?
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
antoineb
Veteran Member
so each time you have enough energy and time to write two long paragraphs
but then you never have time to post a link - hmmm
so maybe if you can't prove your point with actual work, you should think about amending your ways a bit, and stop saying bad things about others or their work, when they at least have the guts to show it?
take care
A
but then you never have time to post a link - hmmm
so maybe if you can't prove your point with actual work, you should think about amending your ways a bit, and stop saying bad things about others or their work, when they at least have the guts to show it?
take care
A
His signature contains the link to his site which has plenty of his work.
http://tonycorrea.com/blog/
--
http://tonycorrea.com/blog/
Jan Madsen
Senior Member
A perfect lens for $2000? Ha ha... It is a mass-produced consumer product, not a unique hand manufactured item. If you want closer to perfection it is Hasselblad, Leica and the like, but then $2000 won't bring you far.
But end quality check has detoriated for all SLR brands. My older equipment from the 1970'es-80'es is of higher mechanical quality than the stuff from today, and there where seldom problems with it. It was also more expensive, adjusted for inflation, so you could say that you get what you pay for.
--
- Jan
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
"Leonard" is not claiming that.
I am merely pointing out that when Nikon is not perfect all the evidence he has seen is 99% of the time the user has not followed Nikon's guidance on how to get good results with AF.
If the evidence was any different you would have posted images following Nikon's guidance instead of initially posting images not following Nikon's guidance, and then not posting images to support further complaints
The joke seems to be on you
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
I think you exist for the sole purpose of saying groundless things that will keep people returning here to argue with you and thus make more ad views for Amazon."Leonard" is not claiming that.
I am merely pointing out that when Nikon is not perfect all the evidence he has seen is 99% of the time the user has not followed Nikon's guidance on how to get good results with AF.
If the evidence was any different you would have posted images following Nikon's guidance instead of initially posting images not following Nikon's guidance, and then not posting images to support further complaints
The joke seems to be on you
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
What you think is in a way not relevant.
The vast majority agree with me.
Going back in history you claimed you had a Nikon defective lens - and posted a picture confirming you were not following Nikon's guidance on getting results with AF
Several posters told you this and you went on to claim further defective copies - but despite requests posted no more images.
The only person saying "groundless" things seems to be you
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
Are you talking about the 70-200 VR2 or the 24/1.4? In the case of the 24, Nikon acknowledged in writing that they were able to reproduce the issue, which they have never resolved and which has been noted by others far more credible than yourself. In the case of of the 70-200 VR2, they acknowledged verbally (the customer service manager) that they were able to repro the issue, we discussed it in depth, and they replaced the lens, which in that case did resolve the issue. In that case I used a test method which you yourself have recommended on this board, though due to your insanity you try to deny this fact, which we could link to again if necessary.What you think is in a way not relevant.
The vast majority agree with me.
Going back in history you claimed you had a Nikon defective lens - and posted a picture confirming you were not following Nikon's guidance on getting results with AF
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
Whether they said that or not is hardly relevant.
Nikon rightly say the target used you used was likely to cause mis focus using Nikon bodies.
Anybody, including Nikon, have a chance of reproducing the issue - if they try focussing on an image capable of inducing mis focus.
Nikon are probably right to say they have not resolved the problem of camera body AF systems mis focussing with some AF targets - because a yet no camera manufactuere has
Possibly true - but did he/she want to tell you there seems no hope of your grasping basic logic?
As I recall it you were complaing about image alignment variation rotating the lens 180 degrees in the triod collar. Few expect tripod collars to be manufactured to high enough tolerances to avoid slight alignment differences using the collar the way you were
If I recall correctly without trawling you had similar issuess before switching from Canon to Nikon - and at least 1 poster (not me) suggested Canon service deparartment opened the whisky bottle when you switched.
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
They did not say that at all. You just fabricated that, as usual.
In reality, we were evaluating a wide range of targets all of which focused fine with other lenses, not just those which induce misfocus.
First off, you yourself have recommended rotation as a test. If you can't remember your own recommendations, allow me to assist you:Possibly true - but did he/she want to tell you there seems no hope of your grasping basic logic?
As I recall it you were complaing about image alignment variation rotating the lens 180 degrees in the triod collar. Few expect tripod collars to be manufactured to high enough tolerances to avoid slight alignment differences using the collar the way you were
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=25451090
So obviously, you approve of this method for detecting a misalignment.
Secondly, it was easy to demonstrate that the tripod collar was not the weak link, due to the fact that the misalignment effect seen in the images was far greater than could have been caused by a minor run-out error in the collar assembly given the depth of field at the test distance. Third, I was able to show three lenses that passed the test using the tripod collar, as you have recommended yourself. Those lenses were my copy of the 70-200 VRI, my later copy of the 70-200 VR2, and the 200/2. Thus I can be pretty sure that the tripod collar is good enough for this test, at least when testing at longer distances where DoF is large.
Jokes about liquor are funny, but whoever said that knew nothing of my relastionship with Canon. The majority of my Canon equipment caused no issues, just like the majority of my Nikon equipment. However, they both turn out duds. If you have not found any then you're either not going through much equipment or you're not paying attention (or perhaps you don't care about quality or are incompetent). I did see some stupid results from the 1DM3, just as many others did. The Canon system in general is weaker at focusing its 2.8 pro zooms on non-moving targets as compared to Nikon; it is pretty obvious if you use pro level bodies from each that Canon tunes theirs for a bit more speed over accuracy. The D3 could not focus as quickly as the 1DM3 in broad daylight, but the D3 was more accurate.
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
You mean Nikon have not said in millions of SLR and DSLR instructions books issued with cameras sold since 1998 targets consisting of geometric patterns or having parts at different distances on the AF detection line can cause mis focus - and consider switching to manual focus. Your target did
No we were not
Focus efficiency varies with focal length (Nikon warn about this in the instructions for most DX lenses and the 14-24) and maximum aperture, and the camera body.
It does not follow that a target good with 1 focal length is good with every other.
Anybody reading the link with a 2 out of 10 grasp of photography is likely to conclude my comment was in respect of a different problem to the one you thought you encountered due to expecting too much of lens collar machining tolerances.
Some people still believe in fairies
Rotating a collar 180 degrees does not guarantee exact collar alignment after the rotation with every lens.--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
No, it did not, because there was not a singular target. For the 24/1.4 I used dozens of real-world targets which had many different characteristics. If you remember I posted the central image (focus point) crops here. Beyond that I used a secondary target which fit your criteria to the extent that it did not include a repeating pattern. Regarding the 70-200, the test was not for AF but for misalignment, and therefore for that test I used manual focus in live view at 100 percent with a Hoodman loupe, which is a method that eliminates all error.You mean Nikon have not said in millions of SLR and DSLR instructions books issued with cameras sold since 1998 targets consisting of geometric patterns or having parts at different distances on the AF detection line can cause mis focus - and consider switching to manual focus. Your target did
Yes we were, as explained just above. You continue to lie as usual. Once upon a time, back in 2007, as in the post of yours I linked above, you were able to admit that a Nikon lens might contain a misaligned element. Back then you could think clearly, and you were correct to point out that some of them do. At some point you either experienced a mental illness that you now take out on us or (in the case that you are not even the same person) stole the real Leonard Shepherd's account with which to troll.No we were not
No, Leonard, it's not a different problem. My lens contained a misaligned element, which is the exact problem you suggest in your very astute post of the past. I miss that Leonard who could think, rather than just engage in disinformational fanboyism. Why don't you bring back that Leonard? He would be far more helpful to everyone who comes here.
--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum