Yeah, with 100% crops it's pretty easy to tell how much sharpening slash tone remapping the camera and/or editor added - and to what affect. At least for me. Probably most people here too. When it's additionally scaled I can't tell anything tho. So at 100% it's all good. Thanks for showing that!
PhilH wrote:
I thought about this thread last night during the full moon and thought I'd contribute.
These are all full frames, no crops, on a 5D Mark II..
Nice contribution! But the whole idea here is to see the 100% crops of the image - either by posting or linking to it if it's too big in-line. So I and others looking on can actually see how the lens/camera combo perform. It's difficult or impossible to tell anything from scaled images. If you need a host just let me know, I'll put them up for you - NP.
They look nice from the scaled versions... Can't wait to see what they look like at 100%!
Despite reading many posts, I am uncertain how to obtain an exact 100% crop.
I still think it would depend on the original file size, and have to be proportioned?
I know I am trying to make this be more than it really is, for some reason.
I seem to confused by such a simple thing...
Well it's pretty simple really. Just load the original file into photoshop or whichever editor you use. Use the crop tool and drag out the box to tightly fit around the moon part of the image. Perform the crop and then save the image as a Jpeg at high quality. That's it. Nothing to it really. If you never scale the image it will always be considered to be a "100%" sample and after cropping it will be called a "100% crop".
If you have a really long lens and/or a 20+ megapixel camera then there might be an instance where the poster would feel uncomfortable posting such a huge image. In such a case they (you?) can either post a scaled version in-line here with a link to the 100% crop (I'll provide a host for anyone needing it) or post some section or sections of the 100% image here directly.
I don't want to appear too anal about having 100% crops posted. - it's not all that big a deal. It's just that if it's scaled it's only a pretty picture. Whereas if it's 100% then it's additionally useful in determining some of qualities of the lens being used. I like buying, trying, and selling lenses as I think some others here do too - and thought this might make a fairly good reference topic.
The only factor we're overlooking is the environment. If the person is at six to eight thousand feet under pristine skies even a piss-poor lens is going to look awesome compared to a sweet L or zeiss lens at sea-level in 70 or 80% humidity in a dust storm - which is going to look like total crud! (all tween variants being relative). But that can't be helped I guess. So just go for it.
1. The lens you mention, is it built by Century Precision or just converted for Cine use by them? The FL and max f/stop match a Canon product?
2. Did you get above the muck to shoot that, i.e. Mulholland overlook or Griffith Park? The clear skies last week were really surprising for summer.
I have a 80s-era beater of 600 that I wanted to use last week, but couldn't get around to it for lack of time. You made the most of it!
PhilH wrote:
I thought about this thread last night during the full moon and thought I'd contribute.
These are all full frames, no crops, on a 5D Mark II.
sirimiri wrote:
1. The lens you mention, is it built by Century Precision or just converted for Cine use by them? The FL and max f/stop match a Canon product?
2. Did you get above the muck to shoot that, i.e. Mulholland overlook or Griffith Park? The clear skies last week were really surprising for summer.
1. Nope. This is a cine style lens made in the early 80s that's been converted to EF mount. It's a f/4.5-f/45 I think. I don't have the lens in front of me at the moment. I rarely shoot past f/18 on it though. I inquired with Schneider Optics who now owns CPO and it turns out this lens was a special use lens. Few were ever made, less than 25 I'm told. It's not rehoused Canon, which I initially was kinda hoping for, it's all CPO custom glass. Weird find, but not easy to shoot with.
2. Nope. I'm in the muck I thought about driving to the desert that night, but didn't have the time. These were taken somewhere in San Fernando Valley around midnight.
Thanks for the hosting offer Bifurcator!
However, my humble example would be nothing spectacular.
Though I do have some nice processed ones from my 40D, 1.4TC, Canon 100-400L.
The example I was thinking of was from earlier this year, i shot in evening daylight through the pear trees that were in bloom.
It was kind of interesting, in that, at 100% view, the moon was kind of nice.
It's from a 5DMkII, so, it would be a huge file.
I'd rather see examples from alt lenses.
Thanks!
Bifurcator wrote:
Well it's pretty simple really. Just load the original file into photoshop or whichever editor you use. Use the crop tool and drag out the box to tightly fit around the moon part of the image. Perform the crop and then save the image as a Jpeg at high quality. That's it. Nothing to it really. If you never scale the image it will always be considered to be a "100%" sample and after cropping it will be called a "100% crop".
If you have a really long lens and/or a 20+ megapixel camera then there might be an instance where the poster would feel uncomfortable posting such a huge image. In such a case they (you?) can either post a scaled version in-line here with a link to the 100% crop (I'll provide a host for anyone needing it) or post some section or sections of the 100% image here directly.
I don't want to appear too anal about having 100% crops posted. - it's not all that big a deal. It's just that if it's scaled it's only a pretty picture. Whereas if it's 100% then it's additionally useful in determining some of qualities of the lens being used. I like buying, trying, and selling lenses as I think some others here do too - and thought this might make a fairly good reference topic.
The only factor we're overlooking is the environment. If the person is at six to eight thousand feet under pristine skies even a piss-poor lens is going to look awesome compared to a sweet L or zeiss lens at sea-level in 70 or 80% humidity in a dust storm - which is going to look like total crud! (all tween variants being relative). But that can't be helped I guess. So just go for it.
Sigma 300mm f/2.8 with one and two 2X Teleconverters attached:
And the Century Precision Optics with one and two 2X Teleconverters attached:
A couple notes. These were shot under the "Los Angeles Sky Blanket". These can be sharper in clearer skies.
Also to note, the 2X 2X Teleconverter beyond darkening the exposure and fine tuning to a small aperture, the image loses contrast and sharpness. That said one 2X TC is acceptable in my opinion.
Hee's a shot showing just how bad that Sigma 400 APO I described back on page one is at apertures less than about 9 or 10. I've modified it so that it goes to f/32 or a little more, and is also stopless.
The moon:
f/5.6, 1/80s, ISO100, 400mm (800mm equiv), Camera: GH1, 100% crop.
Additionally I clipped off the flare which was easily as wide as the moon itself.
The lens again:
Sigma AF 400mm f/5.6 Apochromatic (APO) non-macro, non-HSM, $1 on ebay - and worth every penny.
