OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

Shadowblade wrote in post #17502153
Do you have an example you could post? There's not a lot that crop does better than full-frame, and this doesn't sound like one of them.

Shadowblade, I redited my post, because I did not intend for it to sound snarky. Further I have have found a corroborative analytical model that explains well the aesthetic and visual experience; that model shows that diffraction limited aperture has not occurred. The fotos do not lack for resolution or microcontrast at f/8 -> f/12.8 35mm equivalent. Surely you recognize that the full-frame is better at everything mind virus has been extremely overdone on this website. So I will decline to be baited into participating in that kind of discussion.

Thank goodness I only know how to take pictures. And some would argue with that.

raksphoto wrote in post #17502168
Shadowblade, I redited my post, because I did not intend for it to sound snarky. Further I have have found a corroborative analytical model that explains well the aesthetic and visual experience; that model shows that diffraction limited aperture has not occurred. The fotos do not lack for resolution or microcontrast at f/8 -> f/12.8 35mm equivalent. Surely you recognize that the full-frame is better at everything mind virus has been extremely overdone on this website. So I will decline to be baited into participating in that kind of discussion.

Care to post that model? Because, if you're getting smoothed-out skin which doesn't show the pores/features of skin, it can only mean one of five things:

1. Lack of resolving power (either due to the sensor or the lens) resulting in the fine details not being resolved. This is clearly not the case with the 7D2.
2. Loss of contrast and definition from diffraction, due to shooting at a narrow aperture.
3. Loss of detail due to motion blur.
4. Soft, low-contrast lighting which minimises. If you're shooting belly dancing on stage and not in front of studio lights and softboxes, this is unlikely.
5. 'Pre-processing' (i.e. makeup) that smooths out the skin - common enough in fashion shoots. Or just a model with perfect skin.

Again, if you posted an example, it would be much easier to explain what is actually happening. But it's definitely not some magical property of the crop-sensor format which is doing it.

I'm a scientist, not a lawyer. I can't post or accept an argument unless it's backed by logic, evidence or mathematical proof - rhetoric ('surely you recognise that the full frame is better mind virus...') doesn't cut it. There are many reasons why full-frame gives a better result than crop in almost all situations, provided a comparable lens is available. You can prove this mathematically. If you find that crop results are better and aren't focal-length/photosite density limited (just about the only time crop will give a better image quality than full frame), then it is likely the lack of detail and resolution that you prefer, not some special quality that arises from using a crop sensor over a full-frame one.

Try stretching a stocking over the end of the lens and shooting at a wider aperture. You'll get the same diffraction-related softening (from the light passing between the threads in the stocking) while having much better depth of field control and being able to shoot at a lower ISO.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17502672
I'm a scientist, not a lawyer. I can't post or accept an argument unless it's backed by logic, evidence or mathematical proof - rhetoric.......

I am a lawyer, but do not rely on rhetoric but on logic, evidence and mathematical proof..... As a scientist you should know better than to spout another mind virus...

On topic: I find this an interesting - theoretical - discussion which increased my knowledge and understanding of diffraction and resolution but wonder how much this is worth "in the field" unless you try to produce bill board size images.

vk2gwk wrote in post #17502727
I am a lawyer, but do not rely on rhetoric but on logic, evidence and mathematical proof..... As a scientist you should know better than to spout another mind virus...

On topic: I find this an interesting - theoretical - discussion which increased my knowledge and understanding of diffraction and resolution but wonder how much this is worth "in the field" unless you try to produce bill board size images.

Maybe 'politician', 'spin doctor' or 'talking head' would have been a better comparison - I have no idea what lawyers do beyond the talking bit.

It's certainly very relevant in landscape photography. Stop down too much and blades of grass, closely-spaced leaves on trees, patterns in bark and rocks and grains of sand all blend into mush, which is very visible in all wall-hanging print sizes (16x24 and up).

Shadowblade wrote in post #17502825
Maybe 'politician', 'spin doctor' or 'talking head' would have been a better comparison - I have no idea what lawyers do beyond the talking bit.

It's certainly very relevant in landscape photography. Stop down too much and blades of grass, closely-spaced leaves on trees, patterns in bark and rocks and grains of sand all blend into mush, which is very visible in all wall-hanging print sizes (16x24 and up).

Dont want to offend anyone here, but guys, your are diving so deep i mena whats it all about? Two things:
Better you come back with an image which is not perfect because of diffraction whatever, instead of spending hours on this thread talking about something not really relevant for 99% of all users here...
Second, i shoot regularly at f/22 and similar low apertures and never noticed the mush youre talking about. I understand that we landscape or/and architecture photogs are going for the sharpest ever, but honestly, i dont care about that little sharpness loss caused by diffraction, as much as i dont care the sharpness loss wide open, because subjects and the image should choose the aperture, not the sharpness rating at each aperture.

davidfarina wrote in post #17502960
Dont want to offend anyone here, but guys, your are diving so deep i mena whats it all about? Two things:
Better you come back with an image which is not perfect because of diffraction whatever, instead of spending hours on this thread talking about something not really relevant for 99% of all users here...
Second, i shoot regularly at f/22 and similar low apertures and never noticed the mush youre talking about. I understand that we landscape or/and architecture photogs are going for the sharpest ever, but honestly, i dont care about that little sharpness loss caused by diffraction, as much as i dont care the sharpness loss wide open, because subjects and the image should choose the aperture, not the sharpness rating at each aperture.

How big do you print, and what camera body are you using?

At 40x60" (single frame) and 32x96" (shifted pano from TS-E lenses) I definitely see a significant loss of detail from diffraction beyond around f/10-f/11. When processing at the pixel level in Photoshop, this is evident on the A7r even when going from f/7.1 to f/10. With a 21-22MP sensor, you won't start to see an effect until around f/11, since the resolution is too low to be affected until then.

Fortunately, between wide angles of view and tilt-shift lenses, I've never had to stop down that far - I shot most landscapes with the 5D2 at f/8-f/10, the A7r at f/7.1 and I could comfortably go to f/6.3 for a 50MP sensor.

davidfarina wrote in post #17502960
Dont want to offend anyone here, but guys, your are diving so deep i mena whats it all about? Two things:
Better you come back with an image which is not perfect because of diffraction whatever, instead of spending hours on this thread talking about something not really relevant for 99% of all users here...
Second, i shoot regularly at f/22 and similar low apertures and never noticed the mush youre talking about. I understand that we landscape or/and architecture photogs are going for the sharpest ever, but honestly, i dont care about that little sharpness loss caused by diffraction, as much as i dont care the sharpness loss wide open, because subjects and the image should choose the aperture, not the sharpness rating at each aperture.

As shadowblade says, print size plays a major role in the significance of diffraction effects. It's an easy experiment to shoot a series of images of a detailed scene (leaves, grass, brick wall etc) in which you progressively stop down from the sweet spot to f/11. f/16, f/22 etc and compare side by side at 100% on screen and you will definitely see the mush develop (look at *any* SLR lens review and you will see resolution begin to plummet after f/11). If your print is small enough that you can't see the individual blades of grass at f/8, you won't notice the diffraction because the print is limiting the display of details. If those blades of grass are crisply distinguished at the printer limit in the print of the f/8 shot (and contribute to the perception of a "realistic landscape", for example) then the f/16 and f/22 will lose that perception becuase the individual blades won't be distinguishable. The aperture at which diffraction becomes noticeable in the displayed image depends on the size of that display. It depends on the subject matter whether this loss affects the aims of the photographer.

davidfarina wrote in post #17502960
Dont want to offend anyone here, but guys, your are diving so deep i mena whats it all about? Two things:
Better you come back with an image which is not perfect because of diffraction whatever, instead of spending hours on this thread talking about something not really relevant for 99% of all users here...
Second, i shoot regularly at f/22 and similar low apertures and never noticed the mush youre talking about. I understand that we landscape or/and architecture photogs are going for the sharpest ever, but honestly, i dont care about that little sharpness loss caused by diffraction, as much as i dont care the sharpness loss wide open, because subjects and the image should choose the aperture, not the sharpness rating at each aperture.

just fyi, continuing the off topic'ness (cause i guess the camera ain't out yet so not much else to talk about).... i thought the same thing as you until i started doing focus stacking for landscapes. and this is the thread that started my dabbling in it:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/13181​73/0

the guy doing that pic says he focus stacks at f/5.6. for me that introduces the possibility of too much error (more images more possibility of me screwing something up), so i usually do f/8'ish. but anyway, i did it, and WOW, it makes a HUGE difference. we're talking mind-blowing sharp compared to my previous works at f/14-16. this probably also produces as good if not better results than using a tilt-shift (just guessing--i never used one).

here's an example of my own pic, but this one is at f/14 (my fingers were frozen and numb, my friend was waiting, and i just didn't want to make a mistake at bigger apertures), focus stacked 5 frames:

http://pics.xyclopx.co​m/glorious/e2b861e0

you can't tell from the pic, but the foreground rock is only about 1/2ft in width, believe it or not. those rocks are very small, but look big in the pic. but i was right at the minimum focus distance... like a 1/2ft from the rock. without focus stacking, there would be no hope of getting it all in focus, probably even at f/22. you can't see in that size, but i assure you that pic is razor sharp. using a 16-35 ii i might add!--i know people love dumping on that lens for unsharpness.

i would say that if you're buying an uber expensive lens like the new 11-24 or the 24-70 ii and then shooting at f/22, that's like buying a ferrari then rolling down a straight freeway at 60mph.

with all due respect of course

^Really nice work on that example shot Dean!

And I agree about f/22. Yikes; I did that early on before I realized how dull and depressed my images looked across the frame at f/22.

Wow wouldnt have thought my comment would get so many answers

Well, maybe its really that i havent printed so many big pictures yet, or maybe my expectation from sharpness is lower than yours. But my main point was the thing i wrote in bold, saying that sharpness is important for sure, but sometimes you just dont want the sharpness aspect to choose the aperture for you. I think it is much more important that you use the aperture to match what you want to do, not on how sharp you want everything. At least in most cases and for what i do. Most of the time i dont want to spend hours on one photograph and do focus stacking etc. maybe its lazyness, maybe its that i want to photograph so i have fun, and i clearly see all your points. Its just that i had never issues shooting landscapes at f16 or similar...

David Arbogast wrote in post #17503406
^Really nice work on that example shot Dean!

And I agree about f/22. Yikes; I did that early on before I realized how dull and depressed my images looked across the frame at f/22.

thanks!--appreciate the kind words!

you see the lake/tree shot i linked? holy cow...

davidfarina wrote in post #17503409
Wow wouldnt have thought my comment would get so many answers

Well, maybe its really that i havent printed so many big pictures yet, or maybe my expectation from sharpness is lower than yours. But my main point was the thing i wrote in bold, saying that sharpness is important for sure, but sometimes you just dont want the sharpness aspect to choose the aperture for you. I think it is much more important that you use the aperture to match what you want to do, not on how sharp you want everything. At least in most cases and for what i do. Most of the time i dont want to spend hours on one photograph and do focus stacking etc. maybe its lazyness, maybe its that i want to photograph so i have fun, and i clearly see all your points. Its just that i had never issues shooting landscapes at f16 or similar...

agreed that choosing aperture isn't usually about maximizing sharpness. i think some would argue in many instances even in landscapes you don't want the whole entire frame sharp corner to corner.

and also noted on the time-spent aspect. that rock pic was ~20hrs of work, partly because the auto focus stacking by photoshop was imperfect and i had to redo the whole thing by hand. though, i have to say, sometimes that kind of work can be fun.

personally, there are a few landscapes i've taken where i purposefully made sure the front was slightly oof, to give it the picture more depth. it's kinda my "trick" to adding a little feel to an otherwise static pic.

one thing for sure, i'd rather have 1 oof, unsharp, 5mp EPIC pic than 100,000 perfectly sharp 50mp pieces of sht.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17503417
thanks!--appreciate the kind words!

you see the lake/tree shot i linked? holy cow...

agreed that choosing aperture isn't usually about maximizing sharpness. i think some would argue in many instances even in landscapes you don't want the whole entire frame sharp corner to corner.

and also noted on the time-spent aspect. that rock pic was ~20hrs of work, partly because the auto focus stacking by photoshop was imperfect and i had to redo the whole thing by hand. though, i have to say, sometimes that kind of work can be fun.

personally, there are a few landscapes i've taken where i purposefully made sure the front was slightly oof, to give it the picture more depth. it's kinda my "trick" to adding a little feel to an otherwise static pic.

one thing for sure, i'd rather have 1 oof, unsharp, 5mp EPIC pic than 100,000 perfectly sharp 50mp pieces of sht.

Exactly. I know landscape is very critical about sharpness but like you say, i rather have one image which is not sharp fully over but has something which is unique.

Look at this shot from cyprus lst year. I mean technically it is very bad. I had to shoot f2.8 which is way to low to provide a DOF which covers the whole scene. Then there was a light from the side which i had to copy out and which had rendered a horrible flare across the sky, overall the image doesnt look so sharp, but to me its one of my best pictures because of the subject and the composition

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

davidfarina wrote in post #17503478
Exactly. I know landscape is very critical about sharpness but like you say, i rather have one image which is not sharp fully over but has something which is unique.

Look at this shot from cyprus lst year. I mean technically it is very bad. I had to shoot f2.8 which is way to low to provide a DOF which covers the whole scene. Then there was a light from the side which i had to copy out and which had rendered a horrible flare across the sky, overall the image doesnt look so sharp, but to me its one of my best pictures because of the subject and the composition

that's a beautiful shot man. and yeah, i can't tell if it's sharp or not from this size, but the light and subject matter, and all the rest going on make this supremely beautiful to me.

besides, none of monet's famous paintings are sharp, and people like those