BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Photography/Videography
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-26-2012, 08:33 AM   #1079
dcstep
Brigadier General
 
Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

Posts: 4,762
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.00]
Jeff, was it a little breezy at the Pavillion? I think there might have been slight camera movement during your long exposure. At f/22, I'd expect sharper detail than you getting. It looks good, but I'd expect more pop from deep DOF and ultra sharpness.
__________________
dcstep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-26-2012, 08:42 AM   #1080
Chewy734
Major General
 
Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH

Posts: 6,718
iTrader: (15)

Send a message via AIM to Chewy734
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
Jeff, was it a little breezy at the Pavillion? I think there might have been slight camera movement during your long exposure. At f/22, I'd expect sharper detail than you getting. It looks good, but I'd expect more pop from deep DOF and ultra sharpness.
Actually lenses are overall sharper at their middle f-stop, and sharpness drops at larger/smaller apertures. So, assuming this was an f/2.8 lens it would be at ~f/8.
__________________

Currently for sale: N/A
Chewy734 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-26-2012, 09:20 AM   #1081
dcstep
Brigadier General
 
Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

Posts: 4,762
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
Actually lenses are overall sharper at their middle f-stop, and sharpness drops at larger/smaller apertures. So, assuming this was an f/2.8 lens it would be at ~f/8.
It could be diffusion effect, but I don't think so in this case. Diffusion is really problematic with super-tele lenses, which I almost never stop down more than f/11. Jeff's 5D MkII has decent sized pixels, so I don't think it'll be extra sensitive to diffusion.

Still, it's something worth looking into, with a few test shots where you vary the aperture and change the ISO do compensate. Start around f/8 and decrease 1-stop at a time and double ISO at each step. With my big lenses I can start seeing diffusion at f/16.

Dave
__________________
dcstep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-29-2012, 12:43 PM   #1082
bosstones
Major
 
Drives: o_0
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Suburbia

Posts: 1,065
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
Sick shot Jeff! What lens did you use? 14 blades?
Thanks, Chewy! I've been meaning to go thru that shot for a while now. I used my 16-35L for this shot. Actually, I use it on probably 90% of my shots. I sometimes wonder why I have my other lenses. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
Jeff, was it a little breezy at the Pavillion? I think there might have been slight camera movement during your long exposure. At f/22, I'd expect sharper detail than you getting. It looks good, but I'd expect more pop from deep DOF and ultra sharpness.
Hi, Dave. To be honest, I no longer remember. Being winter, albeit a warm one, in Chicago and not too far from the lake it is quite possible that it was a little breezy. Also, although I had a tripod, I don't believe I used a remote to trigger the shutter so I may have nudged the camera a little bit when depressing the shutter button.

That said, I've had a suspicion for a while now that my 16-35L has gotten a little on the soft side. However, I've done nothing to look into verifying that notion.
__________________
bosstones is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-29-2012, 12:51 PM   #1083
Chewy734
Major General
 
Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH

Posts: 6,718
iTrader: (15)

Send a message via AIM to Chewy734
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosstones View Post
Thanks, Chewy! I've been meaning to go thru that shot for a while now. I used my 16-35L for this shot. Actually, I use it on probably 90% of my shots. I sometimes wonder why I have my other lenses. lol

...

Also, although I had a tripod, I don't believe I used a remote to trigger the shutter so I may have nudged the camera a little bit when depressing the shutter button.
I've been eyeing the Mark II of that lens for quite some time... I'm really itching to get one to replace my 17-40mm f/4L.

Also, you know that your camera can due a timed delay to avoid that nudge while pressing the shutter, right?
__________________

Currently for sale: N/A
Chewy734 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-29-2012, 12:56 PM   #1084
bosstones
Major
 
Drives: o_0
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Suburbia

Posts: 1,065
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
I've been eyeing the Mark II of that lens for quite some time... I'm really itching to get one to replace my 17-40mm f/4L.

Also, you know that your camera can due a timed delay to avoid that nudge while pressing the shutter, right?
16-35L mkII is what I have.....love it, love it, love it! Are you looking for a wider aperture, ultra wide angle lens? Or are you not happy w/ the 17-40L?

That would probably require reading the instructions and I am widely known to not read instructions of any sort. lol
__________________
bosstones is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-29-2012, 01:00 PM   #1085
Chewy734
Major General
 
Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH

Posts: 6,718
iTrader: (15)

Send a message via AIM to Chewy734
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosstones View Post
16-35L mkII is what I have.....love it, love it, love it! Are you looking for a wider aperture, ultra wide angle lens? Or are you not happy w/ the 17-40L?

That would probably require reading the instructions and I am widely known to not read instructions of any sort. lol
That's cool. The main reason is more sharpness at the edges, and less distortion. The f/2.8 doesn't do much for me when shooting landscapes in daylight, and 1mm isn't a big difference in focal length. Are you able to put any filters on that lens without any vignetting on the FF?

Dude, you don't need to read the manual to figure out how to put a self-timer on.
__________________

Currently for sale: N/A
Chewy734 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-29-2012, 01:06 PM   #1086
bosstones
Major
 
Drives: o_0
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Suburbia

Posts: 1,065
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
That's cool. The main reason is more sharpness at the edges, and less distortion. The f/2.8 doesn't do much for me when shooting landscapes in daylight, and 1mm isn't a big difference in focal length. Are you able to put any filters on that lens without any vignetting on the FF?

Dude, you don't need to read the manual to figure out how to put a self-timer on.
The 16-35 has less distortion?

I have a UV filter on it w/ no vignetting. I actually have a circ polarizer for it. It's low profile and intended for ultra-wide angle lenses. I want to say that I've gotten some vignetting from it but nothing too bad. I don't really use it much.

Oh yeah...self/auto timer. Something so obvious! I will blame 15 years of sleep deprivation for this.
__________________
bosstones is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-29-2012, 01:14 PM   #1087
Chewy734
Major General
 
Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH

Posts: 6,718
iTrader: (15)

Send a message via AIM to Chewy734
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosstones View Post
The 16-35 has less distortion?

I have a UV filter on it w/ no vignetting. I actually have a circ polarizer for it. It's low profile and intended for ultra-wide angle lenses. I want to say that I've gotten some vignetting from it but nothing too bad. I don't really use it much.

Oh yeah...self/auto timer. Something so obvious! I will blame 15 years of sleep deprivation for this.
I thought it did, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

That's cool. Low-profile filters are the way to go, but sadly they are more expensive than the normal ones. I need to find that damn LEE Foundation Kit without paying a premium for it.
__________________

Currently for sale: N/A
Chewy734 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-29-2012, 01:40 PM   #1088
The1
Major General
 
Drives: white 135
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KW ontario/vancouver temporarily

Posts: 5,127
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
I thought it did, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

That's cool. Low-profile filters are the way to go, but sadly they are more expensive than the normal ones. I need to find that damn LEE Foundation Kit without paying a premium for it.
I fully encourage the switch to the 16-35l from the 17-40l. I hated that lens and switched within 5 days.
The1 is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      04-30-2012, 10:55 PM   #1089
TL
Brigadier General
 
TL's Avatar
 
Drives: Happy on H&R coil overs
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Hub

Posts: 3,100
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2008 335xi  [0.50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosstones View Post
Ha! Just saw that shot on your Flickr, Tim. Awesome shot.

From January of this year....more Millennium Park fare....I think I'm obsessed w/ the pavilion there. Too much yellow cast in this one? Something seems slightly off.....shouldn't be doing this while I'm sleepy.
thanks Jeff, Millennium Park shot looks great

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
something's weird about that photo Tim. Too much jpeg compression or high ISO noise (in the water, and the green area in the bottom right)? Maybe I'm just seeing things... I think you could've done better with the shot, since the flare blocks the building. Also, you could've done something slick with your sig and the curved walkway. See... this is what happens when you raise the bar on your previous night shots; I'm forced to focus on the smallest things.
yea i've been posting my pics compressed (saved for web), instead of full resolution since I'm no longer paying for flickr.
TL is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-01-2012, 07:48 AM   #1090
Chewy734
Major General
 
Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH

Posts: 6,718
iTrader: (15)

Send a message via AIM to Chewy734
Quote:
Originally Posted by TL View Post
yea i've been posting my pics compressed (saved for web), instead of full resolution since I'm no longer paying for flickr.
You do realize you have a full website now, with unlimited storage, right?
__________________

Currently for sale: N/A
Chewy734 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-01-2012, 08:40 AM   #1091
vachss
Captain
 
Drives: Z4 Coupe
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA

Posts: 785
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
It could be diffusion effect, but I don't think so in this case. Diffusion is really problematic with super-tele lenses, which I almost never stop down more than f/11. Jeff's 5D MkII has decent sized pixels, so I don't think it'll be extra sensitive to diffusion.

Still, it's something worth looking into, with a few test shots where you vary the aperture and change the ISO do compensate. Start around f/8 and decrease 1-stop at a time and double ISO at each step. With my big lenses I can start seeing diffusion at f/16.

Dave
Dave, What's this diffusion effect you're talking about? If you mean diffraction I don't think that super-teles are any more prone to it than any other lens. f/16-22 will show just as much diffractive softening with your ultrawides as your 500/4 - it just may be that the 500 is sharp enough wide open that you notice it more.
vachss is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-01-2012, 10:48 AM   #1092
dcstep
Brigadier General
 
Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

Posts: 4,762
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vachss View Post
Dave, What's this diffusion effect you're talking about? If you mean diffraction I don't think that super-teles are any more prone to it than any other lens. f/16-22 will show just as much diffractive softening with your ultrawides as your 500/4 - it just may be that the 500 is sharp enough wide open that you notice it more.
I did mean diffraction and your right, all lenses have it and there's a relationship between maximum aperture physical size vs. the pixel size. Smaller pixels aggravate the problem. (One more reason that full frame/larger pixel cameras are better for landscapes).

I think it's more noticeable in the super-teles because of the magnification and clarity of the top lenses. Also, we tend to crop super-tele images, further highlighting the issue. f/11 is as far as I go with my 500mm and I try to shoot at f/8 whenever there's enough light. The lens gets super sharp at f/8 and then falls off from there.

When I shoot scenics with my 24-105mm I'll try to limit the f-stop to f/16, hoping for ultra sharpness all the way from close to far, but something very close in the foreground may push me a little further.

Dave
__________________
dcstep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-01-2012, 11:07 AM   #1093
vachss
Captain
 
Drives: Z4 Coupe
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA

Posts: 785
iTrader: (1)

I also never shoot my 500 at anything over f/8, but not because of diffraction but subject matter. When shooting birds I usually want the shutter speed as high as possible and find that f/5.6-8 provides enough DOF to keep the whole bird in focus.

More generally, pretty much any subject shot with a supertele is going to be highly magnified and thus have relatively narrow DOF - giving rise to that "pop-up book" look of subject isolation. When I pull out the big white lenses I usually prefer to embrace that look rather than fight it.

Where I see diffraction - a lot - is in the macro world. Shoot at 5:1 magnification and even at f/8 your effective aperture is close to f/50. Diffractive blur in that case is anything but subtle.
vachss is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-01-2012, 11:12 AM   #1094
cliffhopper
Captain
 
Drives: 2013 Golf TDI
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Costa Mesa

Posts: 775
iTrader: (2)

My friend took this one at the airport yesterday.



NIKON D3100
ISO 200
Exposure 10 s
Aperture 11
Focal Length 18mm
__________________
cliffhopper is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-01-2012, 11:19 AM   #1095
TL
Brigadier General
 
TL's Avatar
 
Drives: Happy on H&R coil overs
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Hub

Posts: 3,100
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2008 335xi  [0.50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
You do realize you have a full website now, with unlimited storage, right?
thanks, i just worry about the loading time it takes for my viewers if i was posting my photos at full res
TL is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-01-2012, 11:49 AM   #1096
dcstep
Brigadier General
 
Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

Posts: 4,762
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vachss View Post
I also never shoot my 500 at anything over f/8, but not because of diffraction but subject matter. When shooting birds I usually want the shutter speed as high as possible and find that f/5.6-8 provides enough DOF to keep the whole bird in focus.

More generally, pretty much any subject shot with a supertele is going to be highly magnified and thus have relatively narrow DOF - giving rise to that "pop-up book" look of subject isolation. When I pull out the big white lenses I usually prefer to embrace that look rather than fight it.

Where I see diffraction - a lot - is in the macro world. Shoot at 5:1 magnification and even at f/8 your effective aperture is close to f/50. Diffractive blur in that case is anything but subtle.
My practical limits revolve around ISO 800, which is almost always my default ISO. I expose to the right, up to a full top for brown birds in shade, so I'm often shooting hand held at f/5.6 or f/4 and a resulting 1/320 or 1/250-sec. Since this is the night photography thread, I'll post an example in a minute, over on the Daily Image Thread, that I took yesterday.

F/8 very seldom happens for me. If I see 1/2000-sec and above in the viewfinder, then I drop the ISO down to 400 and if the SS is still high, then I pull the aperture down to f/8 and drop the ISO further, if need be. That's RARE. Most likely, I'm more worried about my low SS.

I hand hold 99.9% of my super-tele shots. It's something that you can get better and better at. The 500/f4 has excellent IS and I've now taken over 50,000 hand held shots with mine, with varying results of course, so I'm getting very good at it. (You actually build -- rebuild in my case -- upper body strength). It helps to have lifted weights in your youth.

Dave
__________________
dcstep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-02-2012, 02:58 AM   #1097
Satalite
Colonel
 
Satalite's Avatar
 
Drives: 128i
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,881
iTrader: (9)

Garage List
2009 128i  [5.00]
Was going to try and grab a couple pictures of the super moon this weekend. Hope you guys will do the same! http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/spa...curs-this-week
__________________
Satalite is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-02-2012, 06:54 AM   #1098
Chewy734
Major General
 
Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH

Posts: 6,718
iTrader: (15)

Send a message via AIM to Chewy734
cool... thanks for the heads up!

I hope it's not cloudy all weekend.
__________________

Currently for sale: N/A
Chewy734 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-02-2012, 07:51 AM   #1099
The1
Major General
 
Drives: white 135
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KW ontario/vancouver temporarily

Posts: 5,127
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satalite View Post
Was going to try and grab a couple pictures of the super moon this weekend. Hope you guys will do the same! http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/spa...curs-this-week
Ahh excellent news. I'll be up at my buddies boat this weekend, shouldn't be too much light pollution. As chewy said, hope it's not cloudy.
The1 is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      05-02-2012, 09:46 AM   #1100
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,809
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Crap. The forecast for the weekend here is overcast and thunderstorms.
__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST