AdaptedLenses wrote:
Another follow up. I should have known better, but Adobe’s Noise Reduction AI is limited to computers/desktops, it’s not available on iPads even though it apparently flies on M1 MacBooks. I can kind of understand as it is ridiculously slow, but the results appear to be worth while. We took my daughters to the beach so I have some we’ll want to print large, just usually don’t share the kids. Anyway, curious to hear any thoughts. First is typical noise reduction, second is Adobe’s advanced / AI reduction.
AI reduction looks really good.
Petapixel had an extensive interview with an Adobe representative two weeks ago, addressing some of the challenges Adobe has had with photographers recently, as well as some of the difficulties with maintaining features across their suite of products. I found it quite informative but the follow up podcast seem to suggest that photographers were by and large not impressed.
Sorry, I have LOTS of files to process and have just been to Greenpoint Boat Graveyard yesterday to shoot more and shooting local waterfalls/creeks tomorrow. It's my last day off so I promise to get something up.
Off to Melbourne next week for my eldest's 30th too. God I feel old !
Andy
leighton w wrote:
What's happened to some of our regulars? You know who you are.
cadman342001 wrote:
Sorry, I have LOTS of files to process and have just been to Greenpoint Boat Graveyard yesterday to shoot more and shooting local waterfalls/creeks tomorrow. It's my last day off so I promise to get something up.
Off to Melbourne next week for my eldest's 30th too. God I feel old !
Andy
Andy, in case you are wondering, you owe us to keep the thread moving with your pictures :-) We are holding you to the promise everyday! More good light and skies!
James Markus wrote:
Here is that next day test. I thought I shared this awhile ago, but I can't find the files - so, maybe not. In my head (which is increasingly incorrect as I age) - The AF 180mm f2.8 was much sharper than the older ai'd version. This has proven to be wrong many times since this first go-round. Aging stinks!
James, I never directly compared my AF 180 (now sold) to the 180 AIS, but your conclusion does not surprise me.
I do remember, however, that my D800 had issues being consistent in AF with that copy of the 180 AF (I just about maxed out the AF Fine Tune). Your 180 AF shot of the wicker looks like it missed focus so perhaps that example is not fair to the 180 AF. If Nikon would produce a reasonable priced and sized Z mount 180 f2.8 I'd be in.
This 28mm and Ralf's have me interested in the 28mm fov again. Besides the f/2 and the CRC on the 28 f/2.8, what are other pros of one over the other? I already have the AF-D but I don't like it. I discovered, much to my surprise that my local shop still has stock of the 2.8 at a price I might regret to pass up.
SiMuMe wrote:
This 28mm and Ralf's have me interested in the 28mm fov again. Besides the f/2 and the CRC on the 28 f/2.8, what are other pros of one over the other? I already have the AF-D but I don't like it. I discovered, much to my surprise that my local shop still has stock of the 2.8 at a price I might regret to pass up.
Yes, the 28/2.8D is not the same optical design as the MF version (though it is theorized that it recycles the Series E design), and is generally considered disappointing.
Limiting to the AiS versions of both MF lenses (since they have the best specs, including CRC on both), and aside from the obvious inherent differences (the 28/2.8 focuses closer, and the 28/2 is faster), the consensus is that the 28/2 is a tad better at infinity than the 28/2.8 (so possibly a better landscape lens), while the 28/2.8 is better in the closer focus regions. Both lenses have their fans, and you won't go wrong with either.
pbraymond wrote:
James, I never directly compared my AF 180 (now sold) to the 180 AIS, but your conclusion does not surprise me.
I do remember, however, that my D800 had issues being consistent in AF with that copy of the 180 AF (I just about maxed out the AF Fine Tune). Your 180 AF shot of the wicker looks like it missed focus so perhaps that example is not fair to the 180 AF. If Nikon would produce a reasonable priced and sized Z mount 180 f2.8 I'd be in.
Ray, IMO There are too many variables to analyze a single frame's sharpness. I thought the ai'd 180mm had better sharpness in the first example, and the AF won the second example. Both are "sharp enough" - typing that I realize I have become my father. Used to be he and I strove for perfection, and now "good enough" is just fine with me. In post processing I can make IQ match.
leighton w wrote:
What's happened to some of our regulars? You know who you are.
I am now 3 months into retirement.
I thought I'd have lots of time for photography but I'd say I now dedicate less time to it compared to when I had a full time job. Go figure....... but I think I was using photography for stress relief and now the corporate BS isn't there anymore. Plus I have never been busier carving out a new way of life.
A vacation to Italy is imminent so my trusty 50/2 has already secured a place in my camera bag.
SiMuMe wrote:
Oh nice planters. Not mundane to a gardener.
This 28mm and Ralf's have me interested in the 28mm fov again. Besides the f/2 and the CRC on the 28 f/2.8, what are other pros of one over the other? I already have the AF-D but I don't like it. I discovered, much to my surprise that my local shop still has stock of the 2.8 at a price I might regret to pass up.
I'm not a good one to ask this question of, I usually just check a lens for obvious flaws when I get it, then shoot with it to see if I'm happy enough with it overall to keep using it. Both the 2.0 and 2.8 pass that test easily. I've not done a head to head comparison with the samples I have. I will say, both lenses perform pretty much in-line with most of what I was reading in research into both the 28's before I purchased them. I will not hesitate to shoot both wide open if that's the effect I want, I got the 2.0 after the 2.8 because I wanted the one stop faster lens. I've considered selling the 2.8 but then for what I could get out of it, it's just nice to have around. As far as photography gear goes, I always respond to "should I buy" questions by saying if buying it will not cause financial or relational hardships, just get it and enjoy.
Especially like that second shot!
---------------------------------------------
DeltaSigma wrote:
I am now 3 months into retirement.
I thought I'd have lots of time for photography but I'd say I now dedicate less time to it compared to when I had a full time job. Go figure....... but I think I was using photography for stress relief and now the corporate BS isn't there anymore. Plus I have never been busier carving out a new way of life.
A vacation to Italy is imminent so my trusty 50/2 has already secured a place in my camera bag.
Colin
Congrats again Colin, and love hearing about the new life you are carving out, sounds exciting.
James Markus wrote:
Ray, IMO There are too many variables to analyze a single frame's sharpness. I thought the ai'd 180mm had better sharpness in the first example, and the AF won the second example. Both are "sharp enough" - typing that I realize I have become my father. Used to be he and I strove for perfection, and now "good enough" is just fine with me. In post processing I can make IQ match.
I've discovered that perfection is a lot harder to achieve at 45MP vs 12MP! Still striving of course, but I think I have a different balance now between technical perfection and artistic expression than I used to have. That and when it's really cold my tolerance has shrunk, and I'm more considerate of the impact my tripod time has on others when we are traveling.
pbraymond wrote:
I'm not a good one to ask this question of, I usually just check a lens for obvious flaws when I get it, then shoot with it to see if I'm happy enough with it overall to keep using it. Both the 2.0 and 2.8 pass that test easily. I've not done a head to head comparison with the samples I have. I will say, both lenses perform pretty much in-line with most of what I was reading in research into both the 28's before I purchased them. I will not hesitate to shoot both wide open if that's the effect I want, I got the 2.0 after the 2.8 because I wanted the one stop faster lens. I've considered selling the 2.8 but then for what I could get out of it, it's just nice to have around. As far as photography gear goes, I always respond to "should I buy" questions by saying if buying it will not cause financial or relational hardships, just get it and enjoy. ...Show more →
Yeah, for me "should I buy" is usually dominated by considerations such as my long-term lust for a given lens and then finding a nice copy at a good price and caving into GAS. Over time this has resulted in some pretty severe focal-length duplication (for example, I have 4x 105mm and 3x 180mm lenses), but it seems to be impractical to sell off even my least-used lenses due to the collapse of pricing on non-exotic, used MF gear. These days, I'm just not looking for lenses anymore (certainly not any of the MF 28mm lenses, despite their attractiveness as discussed in this thread), and trying to enjoy the ones I already own. Let's see how that goes..
Used to be he and I strove for perfection, and now "good enough" is just fine with me. In post processing I can make IQ match. 
