Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
Thread started 11 Apr 2017 (Tuesday) 15:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which Canon body for Macro?

 
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
42,360 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2780
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 05, 2017 17:02 |  #61

Chris.R wrote in post #18371767 (external link)
Yes I do!

In the spreadsheet I use most I put in the pixels per CofC I want, to give the DOF for stacking. There is a very small benefit going smaller than about 2.5, not usually worth it. A small image might warrant a 5 or 10.

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Chris.R in
./showthread.php?p=183​71767&i=i241338614
forum: Macro Talk

Without looking at the equations behind the computations, it is hard to speculate about what that spreadsheet is or is not using...whether pixel size is some determinant or not.
Standard DOF equations use CofC size -- but not pixel sizes -- even for photography at non-macro distances; so why would DOF equations for macro need a pixel size?!
The CofC in DOF programs is the same size for a 10D as for a 40D as for a 80D.

DOF computations were never different for Panatomic-X (with super fine grain) vs. Royal-X (with fast, coarse grain)...no reason for digital to be different.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,632 posts
Gallery: 448 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 23002
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
Post edited over 2 years ago by Archibald. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 05, 2017 17:15 |  #62

Wilt wrote in post #18371657 (external link)
That one had me head-scratching for a while...

CASE 1: With FF if I mount a 100mm lens and get a 1:1 image, I frame a subject area which is 24mm x 36mm ; with APS-C if I mount a 100mm lens and get a 1:1 image, I frame a subject area which is 15mm x 22.5mm ; if both cameras had same pixel count (e.g. 4000 pixels) vertically, both cameras would put the same number of pixels on the same subject area, so resolution is identical! Erroneous analysis removed...
For example, if my subject was 15mm tall, at 1:1 in FF or APS-C the subject is IDENTICAL in size on the sensor at the same pixel pitch, and only the total area (around the subject) is larger on FF.
With FF if I mount a 100mm lens and get a 1:1 (1X) image, I frame a subject area which is 24mm x 36mm ; with APS-C if I mount a 100mm lens and I frame the subject area (which is 24mm x 36mm) onto a 15mm x 22.5mm area sensor, the subject is imaged at 0.6X.
If both cameras had same 4000 pixels vertically, both cameras would put the same number of pixels on the same image area, so subject resolution ought to be identical, when considering the sensor alone, but this is NOT considering 'the whole picture' so to speak...!
But the lens is NOT delivering the same line-pairs per millimeter at subject magnification at 0.6X on APS-C as it does at 1X to the FF sensor. A lens which delivers 100 l-p/mm on the sensor delivers 2400 l-p total resolution to FF sensor, but delivers only 1500 l-p total resolution to the APS-C sensor. With with equal subject area in each frame, the FF sensor is delivering 60% more resolution even though both sensors capture with the same 4000 pixels vertically in the shot.
...of 2400 line-pairs delivered to 4000 pxiels vs. 1500 line-pairs delivered to 4000 pixels; FF wins.


CASE 2: With FF if I mount a 100mm lens and get a 1:1 image, I frame a subject area which is 24mm x 36mm ; with APS-C if I mount a 100mm lens, and I frame a subject area which is 24mm x 36mm, and get a 0.6:1 image; if both cameras had sensors with same pixel pitch, let's assume 240 pixels per millimeter...

With the FF camera I image a 24mm tall subject at full size at 1X, with 240 pixels/millimeter, the subject is 5760 pixels tall; with the APS-C camera I image the 24mm tall subject at 0.6X into a 15mm tall sensor space, so the subject is only 3600 pixels tall. Subject resolution is 60% better with the FF image than with the APS-C image, considering only pixel count.
Bring lens resolution back into the discussion...if I have 100 line-pairs/millimeter at the sensor, it delivers 2400 l-p total resolution to FF sensor, but delivers only 1500 l-p total resolution to the APS-C sensor.

2400 l-p projected to 5760 pixels on FF vs. 1500 l-p projected to 3500 pixels on APS-C...2.4 pixels per line-pair on FF vs. 2.33 pixels per line-pair on APS-C; FF wins (barely)

My results are the complete opposite from Archibald's analysis. Somebody else will need to come up with the tie-breaker analysis.

Note my premises, quoted in your post.

IMO it is not valid to compare different sensor formats at the same magnification. I do my comparisons with the same picture (framing, perspective, DOF).

When doing comparisons like this, everything depends on what you hold constant and what you allow to vary.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,632 posts
Gallery: 448 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 23002
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 05, 2017 17:25 |  #63

Suppose you compared the macro capabilities of a m43 system with that of an 8x10" view camera - would you do both at 1:1? Such a comparison would be no comparison. Always compare for the same picture.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris.R
Goldmember
2,670 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Jul 2016
     
Jun 05, 2017 17:49 |  #64

Wilt -
Case 1 yes agree now.
Case 2..... maybe, but others (then I, following,) found lenses don't quite work like that. Sensors "stop suddenly" but lenses don't.
T'was on the other forum - an Olympus bellows 135mm aerial image showed that it would need something of the order of a 250MP sensor to catch everything. Good, but not the finest, of lenses.
And a humble 50mm El Nikkor reversed at 1:1, which is known to be "not that good" at 1:1, which also exceeded the sensor's abilities. I think that's why people get surprisingly good results from humble lenses on a 5DSR - if you hold the thing still, light appropriately, focus it properly and use base Iso, and post processing.
Contrast goes low but not unrecoverable, with effort the extra pixels do help.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
42,360 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2780
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (5 edits in all)
     
Jun 05, 2017 18:21 |  #65

Archibald wrote in post #18371798 (external link)
Note my premises, quoted in your post.

IMO it is not valid to compare different sensor formats at the same magnification. I do my comparisons with the same picture (framing, perspective, DOF).

When doing comparisons like this, everything depends on what you hold constant and what you allow to vary.

Archibald, my prior analysis assumes the classic definition of 'macro' in scientific circles, where magnification of the actual object is considered. While it is not wrong to assume 'macro' means to 'focus much closer while fitting the object in the frame (the common vernacular), my analysis fit the classic term. For example, if I put 100mm lens on both FF and APS-C, and then fill the frame of each with an object 96mm tall...On the FF camera I am photographing at 0.25X while on the APS-C I am photographing at <0.15X -- which is not 'macro' but merely 'close focus'.

But let me change to 'current vernacular' since it is so commonly in use today and ignore the numerical threshold to 'macro' photography...

100mm lens, focused on a 96mm object and filling the frame of FF body and APS-C body

my magnification is 0.25X, and 10mm of the subject spans 2.5mm on FF
my magnification is 0.15X, and 10mm of the subject spans 1.5mm on APS-C

CASE A, same pixel count
If I have two 4000 pixel high sensors, FF is putting 166.7 pixels on 1mm of the sensor while APS-C is putting 266.7 pixels on 1mm of the sensor. So

on FF 10mm of the subject spans 416 pixels
while on APS-C the same subject area spans 400 pixels.

It is imaged with marginally greater number of pixels on FF. Let's call this one a Tie.
Considering lens performance (and not merely the sensor), if my lens delivers 100 l-p/mm,

on FF sensor the 10mm of subject has (100 * 2.5) or 250 line-pairs of lens detail, captured with 416 pixels
while on APS-C the same amount of subject has (100 * 1.5) or 150 line-pairs of detail, captured with 400 pixels.

FF wins, it has more lens detail for the same area of subject.

CASE B, same pixel pitch
Assuming both sensors have 240 pixels per millimeter, FF sensor has 5760 pixels while APS-C sensor has 3600 pixels vertically.
10mm of subject fills 2.5mm of FF or 1.5mm of APS-C sensor, when the 96mm subject is 'fully fit in the frame' of both cameras
FF is using 24mm of sensor or 5760 pixels to capture 96mm of subject, while APS-C is using 15mm of sensor or 3600 pixels to capture 96mm of subject, FF wins again.
Considering lens performance (and not merely the sensor), if my lens delivers 100 l-p/mm,

on FF sensor it is using 5760 pixels to capture 2400 line-pairs of detail from the lens, or 2.4 pixels per line-pair
on APS-C sensor it is using 3600 pixels to capture 1500 line-pairs of detail from the lens, or 2.4 pixels per line-pair

A Tie


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,632 posts
Gallery: 448 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 23002
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 05, 2017 18:52 |  #66

Wilt wrote in post #18371838 (external link)
Archibald, my prior analysis assumes the classic definition of 'macro' in scientific circles, where magnification of the actual object is considered. While it is not wrong to assume 'macro' means to 'focus much closer while fitting the object in the frame (the common vernacular), my analysis fit the classic term. For example, if I put 100mm lens on both FF and APS-C, and then fill the frame of each with an object 96mm tall...On the FF camera I am photographing at 0.25X while on the APS-C I am photographing at <0.15X -- which is not 'macro' but merely 'close focus'.

But let me change to 'current vernacular' since it is so commonly in use today and ignore the numerical threshold to 'macro' photography...

100mm lens, focused on a 96mm object and filling the frame of FF body and APS-C body

my magnification is 0.25X, and 10mm of the subject spans 2.5mm on FF
my magnification is 0.15X, and 10mm of the subject spans 1.5mm on APS-C

CASE A, same pixel count
If I have two 4000 pixel high sensors, FF is putting 166.7 pixels on 1mm of the sensor while APS-C is putting 266.7 pixels on 1mm of the sensor. So

on FF 10mm of the subject spans 416 pixels
while on APS-C the same subject area spans 400 pixels.

It is imaged with marginally greater number of pixels on FF. Let's call this one a Tie.
Considering lens performance (and not merely the sensor), if my lens delivers 100 l-p/mm,

on FF sensor the 10mm of subject has (100 * 2.5) or 250 line-pairs of lens detail, captured with 416 pixels
while on APS-C the same amount of subject has (100 * 1.5) or 150 line-pairs of detail, captured with 400 pixels.

FF wins, it has more lens detail for the same area of subject.

Looks like you are assuming 4000x2666 px sensors for both formats. Since both formats are 2666 pixels high and the subject fills the (height of the) frame, both have 2666 pixels on the subject.

We need to bring aperture, DOF and diffraction into consideration.

For Case A,
We can do f/11 for the crop sensor. To get the same DOF for the FF, we would need f/18 (calculated result). My calculations show that these two sub-cases show nearly the same framing, DOF, and degree of diffraction softening (the Airy disk:pixel pitch is very similar). The two results would be indistinguishable.

Haven't looked at B yet.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
42,360 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2780
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
     
Jun 05, 2017 18:58 |  #67

Archibald wrote in post #18371854 (external link)
Looks like you are assuming 4000x2666 px sensors for both formats. Since both formats are 2666 pixels high and the subject fills the (height of the) frame, both have 2666 pixels on the subject.

We need to bring aperture, DOF and diffraction into consideration.

For Case A,
We can do f/11 for the crop sensor. To get the same DOF for the FF, we would need f/18 (calculated result). My calculations show that these two sub-cases show nearly the same framing, DOF, and degree of diffraction softening (the Airy disk:pixel pitch is very similar). The two results would be indistinguishable.

Haven't looked at B yet.


The sensor height was assumed to be 4000, so the sensor width would be 6000 in the same assumption

If f/8 were used on APS-C, we need to use f/13 on FF, to get 16mm of DOF at 0.15X (APS-C) or 0.25X (FF)

I leave it to others to consider diffraction contribution to the analyses.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris.R
Goldmember
2,670 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Jul 2016
Post edited over 2 years ago by Chris.R.
     
Jun 05, 2017 19:21 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #68

I get a different aperture for the same DOF:
=C10/(2*D7*(D8+1)/(D8*​D8))
CoCs are width/2500


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


Ignore "NA and =f", that's for objectives.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,632 posts
Gallery: 448 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 23002
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 05, 2017 20:07 |  #69

Chris,

I am using

DOF (tot) = 2f(1/m+1/p) / (fm/(Nc) - Nc/(fm)),

where

f = focal length
N = nominal f number
c = circle of confusion
m = magnification
p = pupilary magnification (assumed = 1).

I believe this equation is exact, but uses f, the focal length. At macro distances, f hardly affects the results. A modified equation can be used without f if it is desired to simplify the calculation. The simplified equation is DOF = 2Nc(1/m + 1/p) / m, and that is the same as your equation if p=1.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,632 posts
Gallery: 448 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 23002
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
Post edited over 2 years ago by Archibald.
     
Jun 05, 2017 20:59 |  #70

Chris.R wrote in post #18371876 (external link)
I get a different aperture for the same DOF:
=C10/(2*D7*(D8+1)/(D8*​D8))
CoCs are width/2500

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Chris.R in
./showthread.php?p=183​71876&i=i266705768
forum: Macro Talk


Ignore "NA and =f", that's for objectives.

I think the reason for the discepancies is small differences in the format widths and the C of C ratios.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris.R
Goldmember
2,670 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Jul 2016
     
Jun 06, 2017 05:12 as a reply to  @ Archibald's post |  #71

I haven't seen the one with FL in it at this scale.. Hmmm.

Heaven knows exactly what P does with breathing macro lenses! I doubt it changes much between these M s though. It's not like they're retrofocus.

I don't have the sums to hand but what I remember this spreadsheet showing, was that as you use a different effective aperture with the shift in sensor size, to get the same dof and image, you hit the airy disc issue at the same point, bearing mind the pixel size change.
Which is where the "it doesn't matter what the sensor size is for DOF, for constant pixel count" came from.

Because, as geometric dof blur goes down, diffraction blur comes up. When they're about equal(nb their slopes are different), you get minimum total blur, which is the best point for DOF.

Assuming no other factors affect it, which they probably do! EG you're likely to be using use a wider angle lens with asmaller sensor, which makes it all look different. Maybe your formula with FL in it would show something up.

Small sensors with high pixel counts (eg MFTs with shifting sensor ) give a headache to find a good enough, wide enough, lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,608 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6250
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed. (6 edits in all)
     
Jun 06, 2017 07:14 |  #72

So where exactly does all of this math show up in better macro results from one body vs another again versus all the other more important things like tools/techniques/hardw​are tools like live view, IS/software/lenses, etc? :D

Kinda reminds me of the times we sit around as gearheads at the local hangout, and all these HP and TQ numbers are thrown around with mods that will add to this, and timing advances, different valve clearances, IAT, cam lobes, etc. It's all good and fun, but in the end when we go out to race, all that goes out the window, because it usually comes down to technique, experience, and a few other goodies not found in all those engine equations like type of tires used, shift patterns, etc really wins the race. ;)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,632 posts
Gallery: 448 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 23002
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 06, 2017 08:59 |  #73

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18372205 (external link)
So where exactly does all of this math show up in better macro results from one body vs another again versus all the other more important things like tools/techniques/hardw​are tools like live view, IS/software/lenses, etc? :D

Kinda reminds me of the times we sit around as gearheads at the local hangout, and all these HP and TQ numbers are thrown around with mods that will add to this, and timing advances, different valve clearances, IAT, cam lobes, etc. It's all good and fun, but in the end when we go out to race, all that goes out the window, because it usually comes down to technique, experience, and a few other goodies not found in all those engine equations like type of tires used, shift patterns, etc really wins the race. ;)

So after all the calculations, we have optimal gear and settings. We are about to click the shutter for the best possible result - and the bug flies away.

Of course nobody gets the spreadsheets out during a shooting (I think). That's not what the calculations are for. They can show principles. We learn from the theory, we can form rules of thumb.

Thus, a wedding photographer is shooting a group, two rows of people, and everybody has to be adequately sharp. Does he/she switch to a wider angle lens to increase DOF? No, better not, because we know from theory (or experience) that focal length does not increase DOF for the same framing.

More to the point in this thread, should a macro shooter use a FF body instead of crop? Can he/she gain DOF / resolution / sharpness? The answer seems to be that there is little to no benefit to going to a larger format. (There might be differences in bokeh or DR...)


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,632 posts
Gallery: 448 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 23002
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 06, 2017 09:03 |  #74

Chris.R wrote in post #18372140 (external link)
I haven't seen the one with FL in it at this scale.. Hmmm.

Heaven knows exactly what P does with breathing macro lenses! I doubt it changes much between these M s though. It's not like they're retrofocus.

I don't have the sums to hand but what I remember this spreadsheet showing, was that as you use a different effective aperture with the shift in sensor size, to get the same dof and image, you hit the airy disc issue at the same point, bearing mind the pixel size change.
Which is where the "it doesn't matter what the sensor size is for DOF, for constant pixel count" came from.

Because, as geometric dof blur goes down, diffraction blur comes up. When they're about equal(nb their slopes are different), you get minimum total blur, which is the best point for DOF.

Assuming no other factors affect it, which they probably do! EG you're likely to be using use a wider angle lens with asmaller sensor, which makes it all look different. Maybe your formula with FL in it would show something up.

Small sensors with high pixel counts (eg MFTs with shifting sensor ) give a headache to find a good enough, wide enough, lens.

Focal length DOES affect DOF, but the differences are insignificant at macro distances, and small at most other distances. The differences become more noticeable at large distances. That's what that equation shows. That's why focal length needs to be in the equation, to account for the effect generally at all distances.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
42,360 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2780
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jun 06, 2017 11:21 |  #75

Chris.R wrote in post #18371876 (external link)
I get a different aperture for the same DOF:
=C10/(2*D7*(D8+1)/(D8*​D8))
CoCs are width/2500

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Chris.R in
./showthread.php?p=183​71876&i=i266705768
forum: Macro Talk


Ignore "NA and =f", that's for objectives.

CofC's by definition are rather arbitrary in size...the reason being that all of us have different levels of visual acuity. In a continuum of blur, even a single observer might construe a certain blur circle size to be 'acceptable' one day but 'blurred' on another day!
CofC size in the industry assumes a FLAWED and rather POOR visual acuity in an observer of the standard 8 x 10" print viewed from 12" away. Someone with 20/20 visual acuity could look at a photo and say 'blurred' whereas the person with 'manufacturer standard' vlsual acuity would judge "that looks 'in focus' to me".


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

18,243 views & 12 likes for this thread
Which Canon body for Macro?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Glennalvord
752 guests, 207 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.