Donzo98 wrote:
Nice shot... but you might need an AF fine tune. A little on the soft side.
Donzo, Thank you for the tip. I knew my images were soft, but I thought it was poor technique or cheap export methods (I don't have LR or PS right now). I purchased the 58 used and it came with a -2, I didn't get much improvement with small adjustments in the past so I left it. I just took it off the tripod with a +15 yielding best results. This seems to be the most consistent green dot from MFD to 15ft at f/1.4 to f/8. Thank you.
DesertRhino wrote:
Donzo, Thank you for the tip. I knew my images were soft, but I thought it was poor technique or cheap export methods (I don't have LR or PS right now). I purchased the 58 used and it came with a -2, I didn't get much improvement with small adjustments in the past so I left it. I just took it off the tripod with a +15 yielding best results. This seems to be the most consistent green dot from MFD to 15ft at f/1.4 to f/8. Thank you.
The 58 is not overly sharp to begin with, especially close up... that's one of the reasons it has been so controversial.
You should post a few pics at the new AFFT result so we can see what your'e up to Did you edit those pics at all?? Or are they straight out of the camera.
Donzo98 wrote:
The 58 is not overly sharp to begin with, especially close up... that's one of the reasons it has been so controversial.
You should post a few pics at the new AFFT result so we can see what your'e up to Did you edit those pics at all?? Or are they straight out of the camera.
I've read about the sharpness controversy and the challenges with MFD. I guess that's why I didn't push it.
I'll grab a few non test shots a when she's up from her nap, I'd like to get more feedback. I did some minor adjustments to overall exposure, and some trim/crop. Just the iPad basics. I know apple devices cook the files a little, but mostly SOOC. I'm going to buy LR 6 one of these days :-)
Donzo98 wrote:
Your bike racing pics are so awesome...
I like the Madone... but still not dialed in on it yet... Maybe I'm just too old and fat Very, very possible!!
@donzo98
Thank you sir! Fat is just stored energy or cushion for the critical parts of the body. At least this is what I keep telling myself. Fit is so finicky, getting a new bike dialed in is like no other, offsets, weight distro, height, etc. ugh!
I'm renting one locally this weekend, this will either have me purchasing this or the Siggy 50 ART or Nikon 85 1.4. This focal range is unique in that it's not your normal FOV, and it doesn't have that tele compression. The Sony FE 55 1.8 is has a good feel to its images as well.
Elijah wrote:
Thanks man! D3s is da bomb!! STILL king of ISO, you can argue with me on that one... I've had them all, nothing beats the D3s.
Ok that's a lie but seriously, the DF was the closest... Even D4s was crap, which shocked me.
Really? I'm still looking for a high-ISO capable body to improve on my D800 (which I use up to ISO 6400). The D4s is a bit grainy at 12,800. The D3s images wasn't as clean even at lower ISO, but held well up to 12,800. The Df was marvelous but I didn't like the controls. I heard the D4 uses the same sensor, so I'm thinking of getting one. It's just that all reviews say the D4s is better.
D5 is probably king but too expensive.
And now you say the D3s is best... Please enlighten me. And I don't care about measurements, just the subjective look. For he who likes the 58mm must have good taste.
ISO 4000 is nothing to the D3s. I delivered files at 12800.
Hardcore wrote:
Great photo Elijah! Love that the D3s is able to shoot such high iso like that. I really wanted to pick one up for an upcoming wedding.... might still have to.
daniel4 wrote:
Really? I'm still looking for a high-ISO capable body to improve on my D800 (which I use up to ISO 6400). The D4s is a bit grainy at 12,800. The D3s images wasn't as clean even at lower ISO, but held well up to 12,800. The Df was marvelous but I didn't like the controls. I heard the D4 uses the same sensor, so I'm thinking of getting one. It's just that all reviews say the D4s is better.
D5 is probably king but too expensive.
And now you say the D3s is best... Please enlighten me. And I don't care about measurements, just the subjective look. For he who likes the 58mm must have good taste. ...Show more →
I have said this on this forum MANY times; nothing beats D3s in terms of ISO performance.
People can argue all they want but CMOS has reached it's limit at 12mp for FF bodies when it comes to clean high ISO files.
Don't believe me? D3s was released in 2009. Why would Sony release another body with 12MP on October 2015, A WHOOPING six years later?
Because they know it's the limit for low light photographers. The more mixed density, the worse the ISO performance. There is more noise per pixel as pixels get smaller, like D800/800E/810 files.
Even D4s and D5 will not be any better, in fact D5 may be on par in terms of ISO performance. They might slightly apply in-camera noise reduction without people even knowing about it.
---------------------------------------------
RSHPhotography wrote:
ISO 4000 is nothing to the D3s. I delivered files at 12800.
That's right!
Anyway, enough of this ISO nonsense. More 58g stuffs!
milliseconds after she found out it's a boy! it's obvious to why she's so happy LOL
Elijah wrote:
I have said this on this forum MANY times; nothing beats D3s in terms of ISO performance.
People can argue all they want but CMOS has reached it's limit at 12mp for FF bodies when it comes to clean high ISO files.
Don't believe me? D3s was released in 2009. Why would Sony release another body with 12MP on October 2015, A WHOOPING six years later?
Because they know it's the limit for low light photographers. The more mixed density, the worse the ISO performance. There is more noise per pixel as pixels get smaller, like D800/800E/810 files.
Even D4s and D5 will not be any better, in fact D5 may be on par in terms of ISO performance. They might slightly apply in-camera noise reduction without people even knowing about it.
---------------------------------------------
That's right!
Anyway, enough of this ISO nonsense. More 58g stuffs! ...Show more →
Elijah wrote:
I have said this on this forum MANY times; nothing beats D3s in terms of ISO performance.
People can argue all they want but CMOS has reached it's limit at 12mp for FF bodies when it comes to clean high ISO files.
Don't believe me? D3s was released in 2009. Why would Sony release another body with 12MP on October 2015, A WHOOPING six years later?
Because they know it's the limit for low light photographers. The more mixed density, the worse the ISO performance. There is more noise per pixel as pixels get smaller, like D800/800E/810 files.
Even D4s and D5 will not be any better, in fact D5 may be on par in terms of ISO performance. They might slightly apply in-camera noise reduction without people even knowing about it.
---------------------------------------------
That's right!
Anyway, enough of this ISO nonsense. More 58g stuffs! ...Show more →
Did you edit those pics at all?? Or are they straight out of the camera. 
