Honestly, this is probably blasphemy but ACR/LR never grew on me. I always gravitated back to DxO with it's lighting engine. I'm not very savvy with post processing....nor is it something I really enjoy (as much as shooting.) Photo Ninja gives lots of control of lighting and has the added benefit of squeezing more DR out of shots than DxO. It also gives a little je ne sais quoi if you know what I mean.
I will say the new Prime noise reduction in DxO is pretty impressive. I might stick with it for high ISO shots. I haven't spent too much time comparing with Photo Ninja...probably need to do some more tests there.
I love the rendering with the 90 Cron AA on the A7r. I love it for portraits and it is sharp yet less harshly so than the FE 55, so I agree with charles 100% on this. Lovely portrait, by the way.
Picture This! wrote:
Did you do any perspective correction on that shot at all ? Beautiful shot btw.
Assuming you meant my post (quite presumptuous of me, I know....) thx for the kind words above about the skyline shot above. I did a small amount of perspective correction to fix tilted buildings and used the lightroom plug in for the WATE at 21mm.
Picture This! wrote:
thanks Steve, yes I was referring to your pic.
I should explain that it is tricky taking pics at this location. There is a fence to prevent folks jumping off the bridge and some folks have apparently widened some holes in the fence enough to let a lens through. However, because there is a cement barrier are the base of the fence, you cannot get a tripod close enough--maybe a gorilla pod, but I did not have one. Fortunately, I had some filter cases and a lens hood on which I could balance the camera and used a remote release for a 10 second exposure (my wife helped me troubleshoot!). The reason I explain this is that under these circumstances, exact framing, being perfectly level, etc. are out the window so some amount if perspective correction is inevitable no matter the lens.....
Toothwalker wrote:
Aberrations are not included in simple DOF calculators, but retrofocus lenses are, so long as they are well corrected. You get a departure in the macro regime, but that is not relevant here. For what it is worth, I find an infinity blur diameter of 0.051 mm for an object distance of 4 m, and 0.041 mm for an object distance of 5 m (@ F/11).
What is your estimate of the blur disk diameter?
It is not uncommon for lens apertures to differ from their nominal value by a few tenths of a stop, so 30% more blur than mentioned above could be accounted for without resorting to aberration theory....Show more →
Thanks for commenting Toothwalker.
I used first time 800% in PhotoShop with Ruler Tool the blur disks appear to be 10-12px. However I have no way of knowing what size object caused the blur disk to draw against darker background. The weaker blur circles were usually closer to 10px and the brighter ones typically closer to 12px. 10-12px translates to 0.060-0.072mm.
Calculations are calculations, maybe there is no shortcut and I just need to shoot side by side with Zeiss Planar 50 (1.4 ZE and/or 1.7 C/Y), which I have shoot years. They have caused my memory "f/11 at mid-distances = the boring aperture, all appears sharp except foreground stuff if close enough". I just last week decided to commit fully A7 and A7r, and I was really relieved due to this since I have been wasting lots of shooting time for test photos - back to testing...
I'm delighted with the MD 35-70 (mine is the f3.5 Macro which is said to be the best variant) and it's saved me a great deal of money because I have no need to buy the new 24-70 FE now.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I used first time 800% in PhotoShop with Ruler Tool the blur disks appear to be 10-12px. However I have no way of knowing what size object caused the blur disk to draw against darker background. The weaker blur circles were usually closer to 10px and the brighter ones typically closer to 12px. 10-12px translates to 0.060-0.072mm.
Calculations are calculations, maybe there is no shortcut and I just need to shoot side by side with Zeiss Planar 50 (1.4 ZE and/or 1.7 C/Y), which I have shoot years. They have caused my memory "f/11 at mid-distances = the boring aperture, all appears sharp except foreground stuff if close enough". I just last week decided to commit fully A7 and A7r, and I was really relieved due to this since I have been wasting lots of shooting time for test photos - back to testing...
Samuli...Show more →
A blur disk diameter of 60 to 70 microns is not that much bigger than expected. At f/11, the most probable cause is measurement errors (subject distance, f-number, ...). If you are performing a new test, you may also want to focus the Planars at full aperture, and closed down by a few stops, to investigate the effect of focus shift.
the blur disks appear to be 10-12px. However I have no way of knowing what size object caused the blur disk to draw against darker background. The weaker blur circles were usually closer to 10px and the brighter ones typically closer to 12px. 10-12px translates to 0.060-0.072mm.
