Top Diaries

Yes, just yesterday. Interesting.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri May 29th, 2009 at 10:12:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ditto, yesterday.

There are obvious and expected peaks for photos I've posted on Open threads, but a couple of unexpected results for old ones as well. However, I suspect those readings come from another site that has long, ongoing threads (some of them years old), and that a view statistic is generated every time the thread is opened, even if the photo in question is fifty pages back.

by Sassafras on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 07:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I suspect as much as well, just don't understand what could possibly lead to that picture.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 09:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

AF or MF...? (4.00 / 3)

I keep hesitating each time between choosing an AF prime or an AI/AIS (Nikon) one.
With the Manual Focusing one's(MF), the results are particularly sharp and spot on, while with the Auto Focus (AF) one's mileage varies :-)

I'm a bit on the lazy side, so when I don't know if I'l be using the camera at all (it's always with me), I tend to have a 50mm AF on and a 20mm AF in my pocket.

Still, when I force myself to only use my old MF lenses, I find that:

I'm quicker then with AF (and that's even counter intuitive for me)
The pictures are sharp.
The Depth of Field (DoF) is usually just what I wanted it to be (On Nikon's DSLRs, those MF lenses are to be used in Aperture priority or Manual setting modes- This can explain that :-) )

I believe that I do not hold properly the camera with an AF lens, the focusing ring moving all by itself under my fingers, doesn't allow me to hold the lens as I would do in MF.
Then, I'm still not used to shift the Aperture by those command wheels instead of the lens aperture ring (though I can modify this on the camera's settings)!

I was wondering if some others shared these observations or had any counsels ? Or am I becoming a luddite ? :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 06:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AF or MF...? (4.00 / 5)

I had to do some product shots recently. I was using a professional Nikon AF lens, close to the focus limit.

With AF the focus was more miss than hit. I couldn't get a really sharp result until I turned off the AF and focussed by hand.

The focus location was right on the object, with a focus spot parked on top of it, so I wasn't trying to focus on some random thing elsewhere in the frame.

I've noticed this before with AF - it's very much not perfect, and if you want an extra level or two of sharpness it's best to focus manually.

I'd guess it depends on the algorithms in the camera too.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 06:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AF or MF...? (4.00 / 4)

I've usually preferred manual focus - probably due to my years as a film cameraman before AF. If you build up a working experience of depth of field at different stops, you can set distance even without checking the finder. I had a focus-puller who unerringly spun the focus ring to the right spot and who could follow subjects as they moved nearer or farther away. I could not do that.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 06:42:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AF or MF...? (none / 0)

Grumbling... Your answers will have the effect of ruining me a bit more (on the photographic side), as I expect to go to the photo fair of Bièvre, more for the show at first, but now I might invest in some of those "missing links" in my usual range... :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 07:00:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And while I am no Luddite, autofocus, autoexposure and auto-almost anything tend to remove the need for an understanding of how photography works and thus 'breaking the rules' is beyond most photographers.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 07:13:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah.. I agree, but Auto-Iso is a new interesting variable !
In film times it was the mythical variable ISO film that many dreamt of :-)
Nowadays you can have, say a 180mm long lens, set in manual for 1/250th, a given aperture for standard light and the effect you want... And presto, the ISO moves around to follow the correct exposure !

With modern cameras going up to 6400 ISO without much noise it can be very helpful and leave the basics to the photographer :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 11:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There are at least several variables in providing a good answer to your questions. For me, the primary purpose for which the lens will be used is the most important variable. For example, I love doing closeup candid shots of children - not an easy task for a manual focus lens when depth of field is purposely kept shallow, light is low, and one is close to a lively subject (tho small flash is often a good equalizer). On the other hand an adult or oolder child portrait or landscape situation will usually provide ample time to manually focus and the results are more predictable.

Visual acuity is another important factor for me. I simply can't see well enough to focus accurately manually unless the light is just right and the object of focus fairly close relative to lens focal length. Short primes can be particularly difficult.

I have one of the new Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4s. It auto focuses fairly quickly and accurately even at f1.4, but it can't match manual focus results of my old Nikon 55mm f2.8. Some of my AF candid shots have not been as sharp as I would like, but without AF I would have missed not only these but many shots that were sharp.

Bottom line is you'll have to continue to do as you have and make up your own mind and live with the consequences. I resigned myself to that fate long ago.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 10:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AF or MF...? (4.00 / 6)

I can fully relate with your bane... (Er.. Maybe too much of Tolkien :-) )
Portraits are my favorite too, as, what can be more interesting for a human being then another human fellow!

Lately, when buying my latest camera, I got the 50/1.8 AF (the cheap plastic contraption) because I had the original 50/1.4 S (the F's one) as the 55/2.8... The new camera (D700) surprised me in many ways, but mostly because it was spot on in MF, as the "little green LED" (the focusing aid) is framed with arrows (left or right) telling you which side you need to turn the focusing ring to achieve focus...(Phew, that was a long phrase for a simple move).
Even in dark settings and at f/1.4!

When I compare the pictures I've made, the MF lenses usually wins... But then, my best lenses are MF (180/2.8, 85/2, 35/2 O.C., etc) because either I already had them from older times or because they where cheap enough to try...

I'm wondering if those lenses were AF, it wouldn't be exactly the same :-)
So, I'm still torn in choosing the next lens to get at the Photo Fair !
(Actually, I'm leaning toward the 105 Micro AF, VR or not) because of portraits and critters...)!

Following are two examples: One of Paul Virilio (good friend and ex co-teacher) in bad light and at 5600 ISO (!) with the 180/2.8 and one of a student in a recent trip to Istanbul in good light with the 50/1.8...

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 03:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The detail with the manual lens seems better.
By the way, have you seen this article and review posted by Torres two weeks ago.
http://www.rytterfalk.com/2009/04/20/initial-dp2-review-with-full-size-shots/

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

by LEP on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 04:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AF or MF...? (4.00 / 2)

Eh, eh... That's what I feel too :-) But then it's the 180/2.8 AI that is an exceptional lens in whatever version (AI, AIS, AFD)!!! I bought mine used when I was 25 (Eeek)!

Thank you for the link ! The DP2 seems a good pocket camera, but those aren't my cup of tea... I used to go everywhere with a Bronica SQ 6x6, even on top of mountains (younger then). So weight or conspicuousness isn't a problem for me, on the contrary.
I feel that once the camera (and the photographer) is seen frankly, he isn't felt as a menace after some time... And big cameras often help for a chat :-)

Though I came into digital with the Coolpix series (swivel ones), I do like the 24x36 feel. I might change when getting older still or when Leica will have a true M something (though I would need to win the loto then...) :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 04:36:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just to add that what bothers me more is the lens size. Or to be more precise, those new zooms that are just monstrous (Aka 24-70/2.8)!

I often dream at a zoom that would be as the Leica Tri-Elmar, three primes in one lens, no in between focal length.
A 35-50-85, f/4 would be a dream for traveling :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 04:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

margouillat:

I bought mine used when I was 25 (Eeek)!

So that was about 15 years ago ;)

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

by LEP on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 05:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AF or MF...? (4.00 / 2)

That's what my parents did... After they were 40, their birthday cake was definitely stuck with the same number of candles... I didn't realize until much older, as it seemed normal at that time :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 05:13:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

margouillat:

105 Micro AF, VR

This is my favourite lens of all time. My photography tutor from my college course last year has the non-VR and he totally coveted mine and borrowed it a couple of times and came back drooling. It is an amazing lens. I didn't really know what I was buying at the time but I am so glad I did.

If you are used to MF you'll enjoy it - the AF has trouble sometimes and can't lock easily.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 05:26:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AF or MF...? (4.00 / 6)

and came back drooling

Not cheap, but it seems worth it !
I was used to the 85mm on DX for portraits, so I guess the reach of the 105 would compensate somewhat that habit in FX ?
Anyhow, and even if LEP thinks I'm a youngster ( :-) ), I like shooting small critters in summer in my favorite island and can feel my back or my legs when kneeling or sprawling in the thorns with the 55 or the 60/2.8 AFD...!
This one will give me a bit of respite... Till old age when I'll need a 300 or 400 micro !

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 05:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

IMHO you may be making too much of lens sharpness vs. style, composition and other factors. I like both of these portraits and find both are more than adequately sharp. There are, of course, differences in lens resolutions, but you would need to enlarge the detail considerably and ensure other conditions were the same to really compare them. The photo on the left may say more about the D700's capabilities in low light than about lens sharpness.

There are many web sites on lens performance, but Ken Rockwell's Nikon site has a pretty good discussion and some side by side tests of many many Nikon lenses and their performance as well as candid remarks about other factors. If you or others haven't visited the site, I would recommend it. Again, personal preference, experience, and opinion differ so be aware.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 10:36:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are absolutely right, of course... :-)
In fact, I'm not searching sharpness "per se", and many great pictures aren't that sharp anyhow!
Let's say it's a by product of testing MF and AF (hyperfocal and al)... The 50 is short, hassle free, and cheap (It can take some beating), while the 180 needs the two hands, a bit of thinking and some good positioning :-)

I'm a bit on the "longer" side of focal lengths (even in film days), the 85/2 AI is for me the everyday strolling lens (even for architecture), the 50 is really great, but I feel I would like to try in the 105/135 department...
Those two focals are in DC or micro (for the 105). The DC is for "defocusing" in portraits (I used nylons on enlarger's lenses in old times ;-) ), so the micro/macro one is very tempting.
The 105/1.8 AIS seems the good size to keep in a (big pocket), it's MF.
The latest 105 ED VR is really big but looks like a superb lens (In Whales).
If I find a cheap and clean 105 AIS I might give it a try, if not... I'll break the Piggy Bank and get the Macro VR one for Father's day :-)

As a side note I usually find myself agreeing with Bjørn Rørslett quite often...!

When I'll win loto, I'll get the 85 PC :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 01:40:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ask the Experts (4.00 / 3)

Does anyone have any hints on how to clean a clogged print head? My Canon iP5200 photo printer is making stripes on my work process prints (eeeeek!) even after four deep cleanings and a night of soaking the print head in a mix of distilled water and alcohol.

The new print head seems to cost almost as much as a new printer. Meh.

You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--

by tzt (tzt) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 04:01:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ask the Experts (4.00 / 2)

While I never used canon printers, on my epson there was a re-calibrating process as, often, it's the misalignment of the heads that gives those stripes (and clogged heads too)!

I was so fed up with those inkjet printers that could be given free with a full batch of ink cartridges that I got a Laser one (Epson too- C1100)... It's been two years and it still uses the original cartridges (I should change them now as they're almost empty).

Quality for pictures might not be as high then a high end inkjet printer, but honestly, family can make a difference between those and the next door quick photo service... :-) And they are almost waterproof (the prints), no drop of whatever smearing the ink...!

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 04:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're sure it's not the ink cartridge, I presume? I've kind of given up on ink jets because of this kind of problem. Even new cartridges can clog if kept on the shelf too long.

The usual answer to a clogged print head, after making the kind of effort you have, is buy a new one. Another reason to hate ink jets. Good luck though.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 01:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aaargh... Yes that was another peculiarity of those printers... Plus the fact that those cartridges are just half full, usually...!

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 02:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]