GKPE 8, Yet more NZ ramblings from some flightless Kiwis.

[low orbit]

Not quite anyway. I've done the equivalent of going to the shops for a pint and coming back with a week's worth of food ...

New toys this week, a tiny tripod (goes 4 feet high!) to keep in the car, a studio flash (it was far too cheap to pass up and you can't bounce the flash in the 10D), 2 72mm Hoya CP's (bought one, got given the other) - never mind the fact that I don't have any glass to put them on ... (step up ring!), a small camera bag just to park the wee beastie in for day to day stuff (Tamrac), and a bloody great overkill but perfect for landscape work (weighs more than a small Japanese car and is almost as adjustable) Mamiya tripod.

I think that may do for now ...

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by momentz

The man taunts us with what is surely the sharpest copy of a 24-70 in NZ!!

I have plan to swap lenses next time I see him.....
I also want Pete's 70-200.
Combined with my 135 I would have the 3 best lenses in the country.

Originally Posted by klippe

I have also read that we don't actually 'see' peripherally but that own brain just constructs a lot of the peripheral image after having seen it.

I understand the eye, viewing one image only sees a certain number of stops, then 'adjusts' for the high and low levels, but effectively, from a 'what can we see at once' (taking the brain's trickery into account) stand point, I have seen several claims of 20 stops to 30 stops depending on what you read. It would be nice to have a real time dynamic range of around 20 stops (I am thinking of low light video shooting with brightly lit subjects etc).

I will have a looksie at the Blackmagic camera when it becomes available here.

To be honest I don't think I would notice the difference in most cases.

Cliff

I've still got all my old psyc books which go into a lot of detail.
But basically the eye is very poor limited image capture device and our brain does all the work.
About 80% of what we "see" is actually "interpolated" from memory, assumption and mental trickery.

Originally Posted by klippe

And hey, I started a brief flood of posts. Seems this little corner of the forum is not dead yet.....

Next thing we'll be meeting up for a shoot......

[kiwichris]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

Seascapes are quite an exception I think! Slowing down the water like that immediately removes them from how you would perceive the scene at the time.

They seem to have their own set of processing rules and needs.

Sorry Rob, I wasn't criticizing at all, I love the pic and yes I can see how it is built in the mind's eye, something like the monochromes I posted a while back.

[kiwichris]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

Seascapes are quite an exception I think! Slowing down the water like that immediately removes them from how you would perceive the scene at the time.

They seem to have their own set of processing rules and needs.

Sorry Rob, I wasn't criticizing at all, I love the pic and yes I can see how it is built in the mind's eye, something like the monochromes I posted a while back. I know how to take one of those too

[kiwichris]

But I have always thought that it's good cameras can't reproduce what the human eye can. This enables the photographer can create an image that's different from what we normally see.

Ahhhhh yes but, but processing can also produce what we saw. Some years ago in the Catlins I saw a scene which almost took my breathe away. I took several shots but sadly was never able to reproduce what I saw, in pictures it looked totally unreal and false, somewhat like some of those awful hdrs.

[kiwichris]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

We already can produce images the eye cant see. Shallow DOF shots, motion blur, black and white etc.

My depth of field has changed as I got older.

[kiwichris]

Seems I am having senior member moments and double posting... h he hel help? anyone? No need I fixed it all by myself

[low orbit]

Captive subject ...



ISO 100, 1/200, f5.6, 180mm.

EF 75 - 300 II NON USM

Does one need L glass? Not always ...

I'm borrowing my mate's 17 - 40 L at the moment and I swear this lens is sharper - the L does have better contrast and colour though.

[lomenak]

Originally Posted by low orbit

I'm borrowing my mate's 17 - 40 L at the moment and I swear this lens is sharper - the L does have better contrast and colour though.

I wouldnt compare UWA with Tele..

[low orbit]

^ and that would be because?

[RobDickinson]

UWA lenses are tricker to make than telephoto zooms....

Which is why the 70-200's are often better than the 24-70's etc.

But I think you must be doing something wrong if a 75-300 is sharper than a 17-40L

[Potisdad]

Details are magnified by a telephoto lens, giving us the impression of sharpness because we can see more detail then usual. An UWA lens does the opposite...

To be fair - the 75-300 does perform quite well through the middle of the zoom range, especially if you can stop it down a bit.

[low orbit]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

UWA lenses are tricker to make than telephoto zooms....

Which is why the 70-200's are often better than the 24-70's etc.

But I think you must be doing something wrong if a 75-300 is sharper than a 17-40L

Oh no, I'm not doing anything wrong - I've always thought my mate's copy was a bit on the soft side. I'll have to take it out for a decent play one day. And yes, his 70 - 210 L dusts it by a large margin. Brilliant little lens that one.

Originally Posted by Potisdad

Details are magnified by a telephoto lens, giving us the impression of sharpness because we can see more detail then usual. An UWA lens does the opposite...

To be fair - the 75-300 does perform quite well through the middle of the zoom range, especially if you can stop it down a bit.

Certainly does.



Best $30 lens I've ever bought ...

[klippe]

I am able to take crap shots with any combination of camera and lens. I'm quite proud of that fact.

(note the missing "e" on 'lens' - for you smart ar*es amongst us - lense is still valid.......)

[akiwi]

Originally Posted by klippe

I am able to take crap shots with any combination of camera and lens. I'm quite proud of that fact.

(note the missing "e" on 'lens' - for you smart ar*es amongst us - lense is still valid.......)

I am proud to admite that I can also claime to have inherrited that exeptionale ability also.
(I added some extra e's to make up for the missing ones in the Lens spellings)