Avi B wrote:
Well doc, my point was actually this, it's just I perhaps didn't elucidate it that well... You put it much more succintly. This is what I meant by contend with. No one said one has to match them.

Gotcha. Yes, I agree then.

In some people's mind, the resolution of these types of camera (D3/1Ds) does approach MF resolution sufficiently in a much more versatile package. Thus this camera would "contend" with MF for a segment of the market that thinks that MF is too expensive, but figure that 18-22MP is now outresolving 35mm film, and that's plenty good enough. They are what I think of as the "fence-sitters" on MF. Granted, this market is vanishingly small, but it is there.

MF has never been as versatile a medium as small format for about a million different reasons. I mean In small format you could get 36 exposures per roll, with MF you would get 12 if shooting 6x6 on a 120 spool; in small format you have zoom lenses and autofocus and well developed TTL metering, whereas in MF these things are rare and expensive; small format excels as lenses get longer -- but to get an MF equivalent of a 300mm SF lens would be incredibly expensive.

This will remain true in the digital era. Larger formats have physics on their side, so the image quality will remain outstanding; but they do not have versatility on their side. So MF will remain fantastic for the studio, for landscapes, for weddings, for portraits, and for macro shooting; but you can do all of these in small format too. And with small format you can shoot basketball games and hummingbirds and take it on your safari.

The image quality and enlargeability of small format already is beyond what most people need now. I mean what percent of your pictures get printed at all? For web posting a 4 megapixel camera would be more than enough -- and speaking for myself almost none of my digital images get printed -- and the few that do are seldom more than 8x10 or 11x14. I've seen 24x36 shots from the 1Ds Mark II that are really beautiful -- not quite up to 6x7 or large format images enlarged to that size, but good enough.

So I guess my point is that small format always has surpassed MF in versatility. It can't surpass MF in image quality, but it's far beyond most people's routine needs to produce the type of image where you'd really need MF versus small format.

And hopefully the market will realize this, so that manufacturers begin to improve other things besides pixel counts. Longevity, for instance!!

How many here used the same film camera for 10 or 20 years? I use a 40 year old Hasselblad with 30 year old lenses, and it works like absolute magic.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could buy a digital camera and know that this camera would last us for 20 years?

page turn , sheesh this forum has had this issue for years......

EB-1 wrote:
Kerry Pierce wrote:
I can't wait to see all the whining and complaining that will go on, if nikon ever does produce a FF camera.....

Yep. Everyone would start complaining about their lenses not being sharp wide open somewhere outside of the DX frame.

EB


They already do that now. IIRC, there was a guy on dpr bragging or complaining (not sure which) about testing 8 different copies of a WA lens and none were sharp, across the frame, wide open. This was some $400 lens like the tamron 17-50 or something. Can't remember. What kind of nonsense is that?

I guess I'm nowhere near smart enough to understand why it is important for an f/2.8 zoom to be sharp corner to corner, edge to edge, at f/2.8. Same for an f/1.4 lens. I really don't get it.... I feel so inadequate.

I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it Kerry, but the thin depth of field is supposed to be a plus when shooting wide open, or so I thought. But I guess the real question will be how any new camera ("full frame" or not) performs when shooting stopped down to where you should get better edge-to edge sharpness.

eaglewolf wrote:
I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it Kerry, but the thin depth of field is supposed to be a plus when shooting wide open, or so I thought. But I guess the real question will be how any new camera ("full frame" or not) performs when shooting stopped down to where you should get better edge-to edge sharpness.

That's the way I always thought stuff was supposed to be. If you want subject isolation with narrow DOF, why would corner and edge sharpness be important? Dunno. I'm not smart enuff to figure that out.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
If you want subject isolation with narrow DOF, why would corner and edge sharpness be important? Dunno. I'm not smart enuff to figure that out.

Because sometimes part of your subject will be at the edge/corner of the frame.

DrPablo wrote:
Kerry Pierce wrote:
If you want subject isolation with narrow DOF, why would corner and edge sharpness be important? Dunno. I'm not smart enuff to figure that out.

Because sometimes part of your subject will be at the edge/corner of the frame.



You mean them there clouds in the upper left corner?

Sorry, but I've yet to see any photo that has shallow DOF for subject isolation where I would care about any corner or edge being sharp. I don't think that it's important to have the lady's shoulder be sharp, or her belt buckle, or the hairpin, etc, even if it were in the plane of focus.

Lot's of guys like to have one eye in focus and the other OOF. That often drives me nuts, but it really drives me nuts if the same guy complains about edge or corner softness, for the same photo, at f/1.4.

It's just a quirk maybe, but even with landscapes, I don't want folks looking at details that are away from my subject, detracting from my intent of the photo. YMMV, which is cool and the way it should be.

Kerry Pierce wrote:Lot's of guys like to have one eye in focus and the other OOF. That often drives me nuts, but it really drives me nuts if the same guy complains about edge or corner softness, for the same photo, at f/1.4.

I agree. People think so much about things that are out of focus that they forget to achieve critical focus on their subject. And that razor thin DOF style of getting one eye in focus and the other out, for what it's worth, is about as cliche as selective coloring.

Kerry Pierce wrote: Sorry, but I've yet to see any photo that has shallow DOF for subject isolation where I would care about any corner or edge being sharp

Well, assuming you use your camera for more than one photo, I'd imagine that there are times you want a shallow DOF and other times you want sharp corners. They need not be in the exact same photo -- though sometimes they do.



By the way, here's another shallow DOF shot of mine where I needed both shallow DOF and corner sharpness. Not just the guard, but also the gate needed to be sharp, and the gate has detail over the entire picture, including the corners.

Kerry, if there is one lens that is a disappointment to me in the Nikon line up it's got to be the 50 f1.4. I went through three copies, I'm used to doing that - coming from the canon side ( )and so I concluded that by my standards they are all crap. They are decent in the center but anywhere south of f2.8 they are so poor in the freaking corners that if you want to take a shot at f 1.4 or 2.2 with narrow dof you better put the subject square in the center like all the good books tell you not to - so people don't ask why ya put Vaseline on your lenses.

I love narrow dof in some portraiture. My Olympus lenses could not provide it with their small sensor size and f 2.0 max apertures (but they had the best edge to edge sharpness I've ever seen) and Nikon with their 1.5 crop does ok, but just ok. Fortunately there is film for when I want the look I could take for granted in the good ol' days - before people got defensive and started asking what kind of twit would want 35 mil FF (24x36) and sharp glass even wide open. I don't mind paying (well I do ... but) however when I do pay as much as asked - I don't consider it an exotic request that they deliver.

Funny, I recall a minor bit of derision on the odd occasion here when one mentions the edge softness of some canon wides. Why then all of a sudden is it a viable request to have sharp edges? If it's got f 2.8 - I expect the luxury of being able to use it - despite my penchant of putting victims in the corners when I choose to.

BTW ... awesome, impact-full shot there Dr. Pablo.

now yer talking to me Doc , this one is a treat for my eyes

williamkazak wrote:
Years from now, people will be wanting old D70s camera bodies because they finally realize that, now because they cannot find any, they were a lot of fun to walk around with and to take photographs.


i don't even want to know how old she is because i'll probably feel like a dirty old man.

that said, she posed nicely. did you set that up, or was it essentially candid?

--RC

DrPablo wrote:
Well, assuming you use your camera for more than one photo, I'd imagine that there are times you want a shallow DOF and other times you want sharp corners. They need not be in the exact same photo -- though sometimes they do.

Dunno. I've never had a problem with it. I stop down when I want sharp corners. But, I'm very easy to please.


By the way, here's another shallow DOF shot of mine where I needed both shallow DOF and corner sharpness. Not just the guard, but also the gate needed to be sharp, and the gate has detail over the entire picture, including the corners.


Very cool photo. But, unless I need new glasses, I don't think the corners, especially the bottom right, are as sharp as the rest. It wouldn't necessarily be, unless your film plane and focus plane were exactly square to the gate.

Regardless, the gate does not appear to me to be the subject. The gate enhances the effect of the photo, but I would not look for detail in the gate. If it were mine, I wouldn't want anyone looking for detail in the gate and might deliberately set up off square, to ensure that the plane of focus produced OOF areas on the edges.

If the guard weren't there and the gate were your subject, then that would be a different story and I would agree that you'd prolly want sharp corners with gate detail equal. Much tougher shot to pull off, while maintaining very shallow DOF, unless you have a lens that is good at flat field focus.

Kerry Pierce wrote:


Very cool photo. But, unless I need new glasses, I don't think the corners, especially the bottom right, are as sharp as the rest. It wouldn't necessarily be, unless your film plane and focus plane were exactly square to the gate.

Regardless, the gate does not appear to me to be the subject. The gate enhances the effect of the photo, but I would not look for detail in the gate. If it were mine, I wouldn't want anyone looking for detail in the gate and might deliberately set up off square, to ensure that the plane of focus produced OOF areas on the edges.

If the guard weren't there and the gate were your subject, then that would be a different story and I would agree that you'd prolly want sharp corners with gate detail equal. Much tougher shot to pull off, while maintaining very shallow DOF, unless you have a lens that is good at flat field focus.


Thanks for the thoughts, Kerry.

I never said this was perfect execution of the shallow DOF / sharp corners issue. But I did say that that was my goal (and a reasonable one at that). I was using a $70 Canon 50 f/1.8 lens, which is great for the price but in the end it is a bargain lens. -- and this is a perfect argument as to why one may want equipment that provides sharpness in the corners even with a wide aperture.

While getting the guard in perfect focus was my #1 goal, I still obviously wanted a strong counterpoint between the in-focus gate and the out-of-focus background, and there's nothing wrong with having a sharp secondary subject!!

Because the DOF was shallow, the guard was physically in front of the gate, and the lens was cheap, I didn't get the gate perfectly sharp. If I'd stopped down a little more I might have pulled this off better, and the presidential palace in the background would have still been sufficiently out of focus.

Now Kerry, don't be a curmudgeon -- I want you to admit that however imperfect, this photo is one example of a photo where corner sharpness and shallow DOF are simultanously desirable. If you don't, then I'm going to have to start posting more photos until you finally relent!!


BTW -- thanks Pavel and John.


Pavel wrote:Funny, I recall a minor bit of derision on the odd occasion here when one mentions the edge softness of some canon wides. Why then all of a sudden is it a viable request to have sharp edges?

That's the achilles heel in the Canon lineup, though. While they have very good lenses in the wide range, they're just not the same as their legendary lenses in longer focal lengths (both zooms and primes). And that's exactly why Canon just announced a new make of its 16-35 f/2.8L -- because Canon execs don't want to log onto the Alternative forum at Fred Miranda and find that people are indeed adapting the Nikon 17-35 for their full frame Canons. The MTF of the new Canon 16-35 looks much better than the old one at the periphery.

Pavel wrote:
Kerry, if there is one lens that is a disappointment to me in the Nikon line up it's got to be the 50 f1.4.

Wow, Pavel, it's a $250 lens. That's like the cheapest lens in my bag. You need one of them ZF 50s. They are supposed to be Sharp! I've heard that they're so sharp that just having one in the bag will make your other lenses sharper than they were before! But, I'll keep my nikkor. I'm quite happy with mine, vaseline and all.


you better put the subject square in the center like all the good books tell you not to - so people don't ask why ya put Vaseline on your lenses.

My book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Really Cool Photography doesn't mention anything about that stuff. Are you sure about this or you just pullin my leg?


what kind of twit would want 35 mil FF (24x36) and sharp glass even wide open. I don't mind paying (well I do ... but) however when I do pay as much as asked - I don't consider it an exotic request that they deliver.

Well, when I was a youngin, nobody ever used (gasp) zooms and everyone always stopped lenses down a stop or 2, cuz everyone just kinda knew that you got better sharpness that a way. So, I chalk it up to my poor upbringin that I don't have an issue with f/1.4 or f/2.8 lenses that don't equal the sharpness of the same lens at f/5.6.


Funny, I recall a minor bit of derision on the odd occasion here when one mentions the edge softness of some canon wides.

Deservedly so!!! Canons are MUCH better than any old POS nikon, so must be held to higher standards!


Why then all of a sudden is it a viable request to have sharp edges? If it's got f 2.8 - I expect the luxury of being able to use it - despite my penchant of putting victims in the corners when I choose to.

Dunno, Pavel. Maybe it's just another one of your personality flaws. I mean, after all, you did leave canon for nikon. That's enuff right there, to prove that your bubble ain't exactly in the center.....

DrPablo wrote:
Now Kerry, don't be a curmudgeon --

I'm not quite sure what that word means, but if it means what I think it means, that's very nice of you to say, but flattery will get you nowhere.


I want you to admit that however imperfect, this photo is one example of a photo where corner sharpness and shallow DOF are simultanously desirable. If you don't, then I'm going to have to start posting more photos until you finally relent!!

Nope. My lawyer sez never admit to anything. That's why we have the 5th. It's a constitutional right, you know. But, you can post more photos. I like that stuff.

... actually ... a complete coincidence but I took some shots with the ol' 50 for the first time in a long time. I took a real close look at the shots (because John insists that his copy is real good ) and this time the pics happen to be shots of my daughter at the bookstore last night where I could tell that the lens focus is off because in several of the shots you can tell by the fabric of her clothes as it runs towards the camera. So either the lens is slightly front focusing - or very likely I may be moving without realizing it. The reason I bring this up is because in a few of the shots (and just a few) the lens is very nice even wide open. So I need to eat some public humble crow. I'm pretty sure all of a sudden it's idiot error ... and the lens is better than I thought. Oh well? At least now I feel better about spending that small fortune on it!

This is a snap at 1.4 which turned out almost in focus. You can tell on the shirt that I still blew it a bit (but not as bad as most which were half an inch more off) and despite that it's still ok. So I have to do an about face here.

Curmudgeon -noun- a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas

Another one that needs a sharp edge and corner:

I met Bryce and her aunt on the beach in New Buffalo, Michigan. I photographed them as I was talking to her aunt on their blanket. Bryce was on her cell phone. Later, Bryce went for a swim and then I asked her to stand by the lifeguard stand and I took a few snaps there. This is really what the cameras and lenses are all about. Taking pictures.

The reason there are 8 lenses being announced is because Nikon is changing there lens mount. The D3 will have the new lens mount followed by each new camera to follow.

Also, they will have a adaptor so you can use your old lenses. Everything will work except VR.

This is my favorite of Bryce. I just hope that all of the new cameras give me ISO 50 on up so that I can easily use wide open apertures. I am going to start bringing my ND filters to the beach and to the weddings this year if I am going to be using my digital Nikons.

DrPablo wrote:
Curmudgeon -noun- a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas

Yeah, that's what I thought it meant. Glad to know that I'm not losing it completely. But, I don't believe that b@stard begins with a P and has all those other letters in it too.... I never was any good at scrabble, though, so you might be right.

Regardless, while it is very nice to receive recognition for my efforts, flattery and/or terms of endearment will get you nowhere... I'm already married, plus have a girlfriend and boyfriend, so have all those bases covered. You know the old saying, 5 is a crowd.


Another one that needs a sharp edge and corner:

Dunno. Am too tired to pixel peep this one. IIRC, Pavel said something about it needing to be more in the center. That would prolly help your sharpness problem.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
Regardless, while it is very nice to receive recognition for my efforts, flattery and/or terms of endearment will get you nowhere... I'm already married, plus have a girlfriend and boyfriend, so have all those bases covered. You know the old saying, 5 is a crowd.

My wife (who is pictured in the first post of mine on the previous page) might object as well.


Kerry Pierce wrote:
Dunno. Am too tired to pixel peep this one. IIRC, Pavel said something about it needing to be more in the center. That would prolly help your sharpness problem.


I think you're missing the point. I'm not looking for critical evaluation of my pictures (whether or not they need it). I'm responding to your sentiment that there is no photo that needs both shallow depth of field and corner sharpness. Whether or not I've achieved it in the pictures I've shown, I'd argue that all these pictures are examples of shallow DOF compositions in which there is corner detail intended to be in focus.

Edited by DrPablo on Mar 05, 2007 at 12:54 AM GMT

DrPablo wrote:
This will remain true in the digital era. Larger formats have physics on their side, so the image quality will remain outstanding; but they do not have versatility on their side. So MF will remain fantastic for the studio, for landscapes, for weddings, for portraits, and for macro shooting; but you can do all of these in small format too. And with small format you can shoot basketball games and hummingbirds and take it on your safari.

The image quality and enlargeability of small format already is beyond what most people need now. I mean what percent of your pictures get printed at all? For web posting a 4 megapixel camera would be more than enough -- and speaking for myself almost none of my digital images get printed -- and the few that do are seldom more than 8x10 or 11x14. I've seen 24x36 shots from the 1Ds Mark II that are really beautiful -- not quite up to 6x7 or large format images enlarged to that size, but good enough.


Yes, you're quite correct. I've printed one at 20x30 out of my 6MP D70s and it looks fantastic to my eyes. I've printed a few 16x20 again out of 6MP cam. No complaints from this corner and people that see go up to it and say "wow, so sharp!" dont see any problems either!


So I guess my point is that small format always has surpassed MF in versatility. It can't surpass MF in image quality, but it's far beyond most people's routine needs to produce the type of image where you'd really need MF versus small format.

And hopefully the market will realize this, so that manufacturers begin to improve other things besides pixel counts. Longevity, for instance!!

How many here used the same film camera for 10 or 20 years? I use a 40 year old Hasselblad with 30 year old lenses, and it works like absolute magic.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could buy a digital camera and know that this camera would last us for 20 years?

Sadly, the world of electronics is such that the manufacturers will make the "next big thing" and market it as such. And so people will go on and buy things they don't really need, but think they do.

I myself recently bought an old Nikon FE to play with film. I'm impressed that a camera that was introduced some 29-odd years ago, works so well. I'm confident that it will continue to work very well for the next few years without me doing anything special. And the Vivitar 285HV that I got with it also works just fine, and as a special, can slave off my SB800 when it's on board.

Avi B wrote:I myself recently bought an old Nikon FE to play with film. I'm impressed that a camera that was introduced some 29-odd years ago, works so well. I'm confident that it will continue to work very well for the next few years without me doing anything special. And the Vivitar 285HV that I got with it also works just fine, and as a special, can slave off my SB800 when it's on board.

Good for you!

Get yourself some Ilford FP4+ for B+W, Fuji Pro S for color prints of people and in high contrast lighting, and some Fuji Velvia for landscapes, sunsets, etc.

Velvia isn't great for high contrast scenes, but if you pick the right lighting your jaw will drop.

Paul, what camera did you take that hat shot with. I see banding!