Saskatchewan farm and Mosaic Potash mine with a 5DSR

visited the inlaw for a few days to take in a family wedding
my father in law to be took be out to his farm and he got me a tour of a Mosaic Potash mine

24-70II for all pictures
all handheld
various apertures / SS / etc

Farm Pictures

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vneX​DN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vnf7​6s

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/v85V​PF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/v7XE​Ru

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/v86G​Y8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vp3m​Ef

Oversaturated

Digital Story wrote in post #17616379
Oversaurated

Yeah, I was gonna say, even in the summer our skies don't look that deep blue.

I think I'll stick to my G15.

Seems overcooked. I wouldn't be able to tell if it's shot with a 5DsR +a 24-70II or an iPhone with instagram filters. I'd dial back the saturation, highlight recovery or post grad filters

Absolutely no reason to be shooting f/16 at iso 320. Dial back ISO to 100 and open up the aperture to f/8. Or at the very least dial ISO to base in that kind of light and subject matter.

idkdc wrote in post #17618673
Absolutely no reason to be shooting f/16 at iso 320. Dial back ISO to 100 and open up the aperture to f/8. Or at the very least dial ISO to base in that kind of light and subject matter.

At F16, the Hyper Focal Dist @ 35mm is 8.5 feet - this is very close to how far I was from the truck and one of the reasons why I chose F16. There is very little loss of image quality at 320 ISO versus 100 ISO and it allowed me to use 1/250 SS - which on the 5DSR and this non IS 24-70 2.8 II lens allows for tack sharp images.

I could have shot at many apertures, including F8 with a HFD of 16.5ft at 35mm, but my experience so far has led me to F11 & F16 in cases like this where I want maximum DoF if the ISO / SS / available light tradeoff makes F11 & F16 possible. F8 and F11 on the 24-70 II are the sharpest apertures for sure but F16 has a very flat sharpness profile from corner to corner and the end result is that given the position I was able to stand in to take the picture (didn't have much space) I thought was a good tradeoff all things considered. If I had to do it again, I might go with F11 because that would have 'almost' covered the length of the vehicle and the rocks behind but it was very close so I decided to go with F16 - F8 would not have covered the areas of focus I wanted covered and I don't like shooting at 24-30mm because of distortion so 35mm / F16 / 1/250 / 320 ISO was my compromise.

The above was my logic.

Also, given the pixel density / image sharpness of the 5DSR, I have been exploring F11 & F16 on many different lenses experimenting (100 macro, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400). It is true that on all the above lenses that F8 and F11 are sharper than F16, but not much, and very often F16 gives you that large increase of DoF that gives you what you need. I didn't want to make the picture all about the grill of the truck - I wanted the entire image in sharp focus.

I hope it was yous PP not sensors noise in the sky.

Nigi wrote in post #17619424
I hope it was yous PP not sensors noise in the sky.

here is an unaltered sooc raw converted to jpg in LR with zero modifications for comparison

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vfLt​Do

You'll max out dynamic range at base ISO. Each to his own.

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17619316
At F16, the Hyper Focal Dist @ 35mm is 8.5 feet - this is very close to how far I was from the truck and one of the reasons why I chose F16.

Not sure I understand why you are using Hyper focal distance calculation for a shot like this. Hyperfocal distance is for getting the maximum DoF (or at least acceptable sharpness) from the HFD to infinity. But your shot doesn't include anything in the background that would require this. You could shoot at F/8 or F/11 and everything in the shot would be in focus.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17619871
Not sure I understand why you are using Hyper focal distance calculation for a shot like this. Hyperfocal distance is for getting the maximum DoF (or at least acceptable sharpness) from the HFD to infinity. But your shot doesn't include anything in the background that would require this. You could shoot at F/8 or F/11 and everything in the shot would be in focus.

I completely understand that the pictures wouldn't have been that different (F8, F11, F16) but I have been experimenting with how sharp I can get photos with the 5DSR - which lens will resolve the pixel density (I'm doing a lot of pixel peeping right now) - and that is why I took the 24-70 II and the 100-400II with me because they are 2 of my very sharpest lens - especially the 100-400II.

The rocks and grasses behind the truck are approximately 30 feet back - and F8 would not have captured them sharp at 35mm if I also wanted the front of the truck sharp. I am max 8 feet in front of the truck and F8 gives me 10 feet of DoF between 5 and 15 feet.

I did make the 'mistake' of shooting at F16 instead of F8 when I shot the farm / tractor pictures at 24mm - stupid because 24mm / F8 / 8feet HFD is one of my goto group shot rules of thumb.

For the picture of him standing in front of the Mosaic Potash mine I did shoot F11 - my logic there I remember was I wanted to stay below ISO 400 where the initial data is coming out that there is really no discernable loss at all 'below' ISO 400 (I picked ISO 320), I wanted a very high shutter speed because I wanted to pixel peep the tailings a mile or so in the background (just because) - so I ended up at F11, 1/800, ISO 320 - I easily could have taken a few steps back and shot that picture at F8 versus F11.

It's good that you're testing so, wallstreetoneil, since prior to the 5DS release some people had expressed concerns about whether current lenses would be able to produce enough resolution for the camera's small pixels. Another concern was more internal noise.

Regarding apertures, well, it looks like just another one of those 'we'll fight to the death about this' topics, not unlike using clear filters for protection on lenses; no matter what the minimum aperture of the lens is (f/22 or f/32) some people's minds smallest aperture will be locked at f/11 and to stop further down equals to anathema of cosmic proportions—diffractio​n being the horrid monster causing this nigh irrational fear. They'd rather spend hours in front of the computer performing exposure blending and masking away than simply turn the dial ~3 clicks more.

Pfaugh!

I regularly shoot at f/16 and even f/22, with wide angle lenses. Yes, at the latter aperture the image does get a mite soft, but adding a little microcontrast compensates for that well enough. At the size the images will be displayed on the Web (and they'll be low res images anyway) the effects of the dreaded diffraction will be negligible and practically unnoticeable. Were I to print the high resolution images large, same thing: the client isn't likely to press his nose to the masonite and/or take a magnifying glass to look for 'softness'—nay, he's gonna stand back and take in the whole picture.

That being said, diffraction (and by this I understand diffraction that is so excessive as to be noted without pixel-peeping) was one of the preoccupations voiced about the 5DS: http://www.photigy.com …hat-to-expect-new-camera/

Based on your tests, what can you tell us about those concerns, wallstreetoneil?