D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
But why is the background more blurred in the right image?
Are DSLR's now pretty much dead?
- Thread starter antc
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,236
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats what made me think either the lens was at a different aperture or front focused.
- Messages
- 23,617
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I assumed they were both shot wide open (ie f1.4 and f1.8 respectively), was that not supposedly the case?
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
No there actually is. One is sharper than t'other. Fact.
I have.
I was. You were discussing opinions. Totally different.
It's important when you are at f/1.8, maxed the ISO and your subject is moving so you need a shutter of 1/250 (for example), but you've only got 1/200.
IE You have reached the point where the only option is to increase aperture.
Which is exactly the point where that 'extra' has always been useful - modern High ISO may mean the light is lower when you reach it, but doesn't change the fact that there is a limit.
Or when you just absolutely MUST have the thinnest possible DOF for your shot (because no-one wants more than 1 eyelash in focus, right?
)
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Because that lens is optically inferior. There is softness across the entire frame. This makes the background look more blurred. All shots focused on exactly the same spot.
No. All at f1.8. I have explained this.
Yeah, but how often does such an extreme case present itself? I've certainly never been bothered. The difference between say 1/250" and 1/160" is negligible really, for all intents and purposes. This is into clutching at straws territory now though.
Last edited:
And I am sure that @AndrewFlannigan would likewise say the difference between your two shots is negligible.
But as you keep pointing out, there is a difference - to some it matters, to others it doesn't.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
He can't actually see the difference, apparently, and is denying fact.
Oh of course. I've never said it doesn't, not at all. If, say, an f1.4 lens was as sharp as an f1.8 version, I'd want the f1.4 version. Because, as you point out, it goes just that teeny bit wider. Which might, just possibly, make the difference that I need. But then it would also depend on how much more expensive it was. The £200 or so between the G 50s, maybe that's 'worth' it. Possibly. But the price difference between the Nikon 85mm f1.8 and f1.4 versions is over a THOUSAND POUNDS at normal retail prices (have to say I'm quite shocked at that, I had no idea the f1.4 version was so expensive!! And don't even get me started on the 24 and 28mm lenses...). Even s/h you're looking at a difference of between say £400 and £600. That's a lot of money, for 2/3 stop, and arguably 'negligible' difference, isn't it? And if the f1.8 is as sharp, or even sharper, then it makes justifying the extra expensive even harder.
Well the lens was fine once stopped down a bit. Suggesting that it was more an inherent weakness in the lens design, rather than my individual copy. Research suggests my copy isn't unique in it's characteristics. That's sometimes how it is; the 'superior' (more expensive) product isn't always the 'best'. It's hard for some to come to terms with, but that's how it is.
Last edited:
That seems to be the way with many things - the further you go from 'basic' or 'standard' to 'top of the range', the more it costs for relatively minor improvements.
Some feel they can afford it, and to them it's worth it - £1k is certainly a lot of money to me (which is partly why I still use an old A900 as my main camera), but to others it's a reasonable amount to spend each month on 'nice things' - I guess if someone is fortunate enough to have that sort of 'spare cash' the simple solution is to get both
- Messages
- 9,236
- Edit My Images
- No
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it a truth and can become annoying. At the moment we're dealing with opinions and I've explained how we can obtain facts. If you feel strongly about the matter set up a proper test and then there will be no need for acrimony because the facts will be available.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
A 'falsehood'? Really? Because you can't see something that others clearly can? Behave yourself. I don't need to set anything else up; I've done my test, obtained the facts, and I'm satisfied. And that's all that matters to me. Your 'opinion' is irrelevant. Because this isn't about opinions. It's about facts. Like the one where one lens/image is sharper than the other. Go and have a closer look, before you come out with rubbish about 'falsehoods'. Honestly...
Last edited:
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 23,617
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not so sure tbh. Whilst I can't say what lens was used purely by looking at an image on the whole I would say f1.4 lenses tend to have that slight more 'miniature' look at times, which is a look I particularly like
- Messages
- 9,236
- Edit My Images
- No
Whilst I can't say what lens was used purely by looking at an image on the whole I would say f1.4 lenses tend to have that slight more 'miniature' look at times, which is a look I particularly like
Ever so long ago, I had one of the Rikenon f1.2 lenses in M42 mount. The rear element was so big that it needed a cutout in the rear element for the aperture pin. To be fair: the image quality wide open was rubbish but it was an excellent lens for my needs. That was because I could use it with HP5 at 400 ISO and get the sort of picture I wanted. This saved my having to use an entire film on an interior shot to allow for push processing. To my way of thinking that's the real test for any camera lens. Here's a surviving shot from that period...
EDIT: for anyone who's interested, here's the brute on my old Spotmatic...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,617
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Well obviously stopping down a lens increases the DOF and 'hides' front/back focus errors, the more shallow the DOF the more apparent the error. Just because stopped down you couldn't see it, it doesn't mean it wasn't there
It is very true that cost doesn't always translate to better, but you only seem to be focussing on one characteristic and that's sharpness. As I've said before there's far more to a lens than sharpness. The Nikon 58mm f1.4 is a gorgeous lens yet it's 'soft' compared to other '50's'.
- Messages
- 23,526
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
This thread seems ironic after a certain 'what camera' discussion where a particular model was mentioned with distinctly inferior AF compared to other more recent models, yet a particular poster insisted it was excellent and absolutely fit for purpose under difficult circumstances.
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
Oh it goes way back waay back. Do you remember film? Photo magazines? One hour Development service? Back then when you got a 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 lens with your camera?I'm not so sure tbh. Whilst I can't say what lens was used purely by looking at an image on the whole I would say f1.4 lenses tend to have that slight more 'miniature' look at times, which is a look I particularly like
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
This thread seems ironic after a certain 'what camera' discussion where a particular model was mentioned with distinctly inferior AF compared to other more recent models, yet a particular poster insisted it was excellent and absolutely fit for purpose under difficult circumstances.
The one does not exclude the other. AF on one camera CAN be perfectly fine and fit for purpose even though there are cameras with Better AF.
You light as well say my 26MP apsc camera is not good enough for landscapes just because a 50mp 24x36mm sensor camera exists. Oh it's No good either when you can get the 100mp Fuji GFX100..…..........OH im sure Phase One makes something even Better.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 23,526
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes it can, but in this particular case it failed repeatedly, requiring manual focus in order to take in-focus pictures. Fit for purpose is when something works when you need it to, and this did not do so.
- Messages
- 9,236
- Edit My Images
- No
F2? F2? I go back to when f2.8 was good going and a SLR was very good going!
- Messages
- 23,617
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I do, and I still have one of each. Not really any discernible difference between f1.8 and f2 though
- Messages
- 9,236
- Edit My Images
- No
I genuinely heard this in a branch of London Camera Exchange many years ago...Not really any discernible difference between f1.8 and f2 though
"I'll have the camera with the f2 lens";
"If you're sure?";
"Oh yes. '2' is bigger than '1.8' so that'll be the better one to have".
- Messages
- 23,617
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I genuinely heard this in a branch of London Camera Exchange many years ago...
"I'll have the camera with the f2 lens";
"If you're sure?";
"Oh yes. '2' is bigger than '1.8' so that'll be the better one to have".
- Messages
- 3,654
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Even better yet an F8 lens is cheaper and bigger!I genuinely heard this in a branch of London Camera Exchange many years ago...
"I'll have the camera with the f2 lens";
"If you're sure?";
"Oh yes. '2' is bigger than '1.8' so that'll be the better one to have".
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
This thread seems ironic after a certain 'what camera' discussion where a particular model was mentioned with distinctly inferior AF compared to other more recent models, yet a particular poster insisted it was excellent and absolutely fit for purpose under difficult circumstances.
Lol! You really still banging that drum? Everyone else has moved on mate. Including the OP. Maybe do the same?
- Messages
- 23,526
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Just happy to remind you of what you're like.
*edit* Sorry, that's petty. I don't believe you're willing to contribute anything to the forum other than to provoke arguments and make it a less pleasant place. The forum has an ignore function, and I think this is the right time to use it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
I cant be doing with this pixel peeping debate
Real world sharpness is more about technique than gear, especially for fast paced events, birding, sports and weddings etc.
Try shooting a macro ringshot hand held under pressure... Yep, you will shot 20 and get one or 2 in focus
Now. I have a choice of macros in my bag
Nikon 200mm F4, 100mm tokina, and 60mm Nikon. On a tripod, in live view, manually focused with time on your hands each lens is spectacular.
Handheld, in a rush, with unforgiving light, they are all a handful, and a right pain to get bang on focus
Now, take all of the same lenses, mount them on a D5, or D850, or D850, and take a portrait with them in pretty much any light, and you nail tack sharp focus every time
What's my point... Shooting charts bears little semblance to shooting in the real world
Mastering light and technique is a much more useful usage of time and effort than pixel peeping, and worying about tiny differences between lenses
Real world sharpness is more about technique than gear, especially for fast paced events, birding, sports and weddings etc.
Try shooting a macro ringshot hand held under pressure... Yep, you will shot 20 and get one or 2 in focus
Now. I have a choice of macros in my bag
Nikon 200mm F4, 100mm tokina, and 60mm Nikon. On a tripod, in live view, manually focused with time on your hands each lens is spectacular.
Handheld, in a rush, with unforgiving light, they are all a handful, and a right pain to get bang on focus
Now, take all of the same lenses, mount them on a D5, or D850, or D850, and take a portrait with them in pretty much any light, and you nail tack sharp focus every time
What's my point... Shooting charts bears little semblance to shooting in the real world
Mastering light and technique is a much more useful usage of time and effort than pixel peeping, and worying about tiny differences between lenses
OP
- Messages
- 4,354
- Name
- Anthony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well this sure has turned into an interesting thread.
I guess part of me has been thinking if, or at what point it maybe best to trade in dslr gear to maximise the return back to then invest into mirrorless etc? My dslr works just great, I enjoy using it, I had been thinking about a new lens (Sigma 85 Art) and then I was thinking, am I investing more money into something thats going to devalue quicker, or am I best to make said jump now and get an 85 lens on whatever system I might move to. I know there is potentially no right or wrong answer I would just rather than lose a load of money on my current kit (5d3, moistly L glass aside from Sigma 35 Art and 150-600 Contemporary)
I guess part of me has been thinking if, or at what point it maybe best to trade in dslr gear to maximise the return back to then invest into mirrorless etc? My dslr works just great, I enjoy using it, I had been thinking about a new lens (Sigma 85 Art) and then I was thinking, am I investing more money into something thats going to devalue quicker, or am I best to make said jump now and get an 85 lens on whatever system I might move to. I know there is potentially no right or wrong answer I would just rather than lose a load of money on my current kit (5d3, moistly L glass aside from Sigma 35 Art and 150-600 Contemporary)
- Messages
- 23,617
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
This says it all to me. No-one knows what’s round the corner, if you enjoy what you have then just carry on using it imo. If it’s just GAS then only you can decide that
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Many early lenses were developed more for military and scientific purposes, than 'leisure' photography. For such applications, sharpness was paramount. As well as distortion, abberation etc. That's why we have such wonderful optics now.
It's a combination of both. No good having the best technique if your lens isn't sharp. And vice versa.
I agree. But then, like anything; having good tools helps. I do woodworking a bit; having some nice, decent steel chisels, properly sharpened, makes a huge difference. I cycle as well; having a nice, light bike, with well made wheels and quality components, makes a difference. But the most important thing is knowing what works, and what doesn't. Granted; lens charts, whilst useful, don't tell the whole story. People rave about some right cheap old lenses, full of flaws, because they love the effect they give. That's subjective and impossible to measure in any tangible way. But a lens that is sharper than another, is sharper. End of. My original point regarding this, was simply to say that my experience of using a ML cam, with a new, recently designed lens, was that the new equipment is already delivering better results than my older DSLR. That's just my own experience, shared to hopefully inform and enlighten others. I based my purchasing decisions on the experiences of others, that I learned about online. So, y'know.
Last edited:
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
This says it all to me. No-one knows what’s round the corner, if you enjoy what you have then just carry on using it imo. If it’s just GAS then only you can decide that
I love my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 zoom. It is a superb lens. It performs brilliantly on both my D600 and Z6, and also did so on my old D3300. Apparently, the new Z mount version is sharper etc, but here's the thing: my version is still a superb lens, no question. Selling it and buying a new Z mount lens would cost me a bloody fortune, I'd have to wait ages for it anyway cos they apparently aren't in stock anywhere, and I'd lose an excellent lens I can use with my D600 (and my F5!). Am I stressed that it's 'inferior' to the new lens? Nah. Not bothered at all. The current lens is 'good enough' for me in a way that 50mm f1.4G wasn't. That's all it is.
- Messages
- 23,617
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 23,526
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
As Toby said, you enjoy using your DSLR and apparently it does all you want - at no point will it start to take worse pictures unless it's worn out.
TBH the time to trade was 12-18 months ago, although judging by the prices of some used equipment resellers you'd think DSLR lenses were a bouyant market, but private sales reveal a more accurate picture. And if you did want to change at some stage then that canon-fit glass you have will work on Sony mirrorless with the MC11 adapter, IF you didn't fancy the Canon system.