[TDvN57]

A few pictures I re-edited and some from the bin from our trip to Iceland in 2017. Would love to do another trip there, perhaps not in December this time. I think October might be better, before the big freeze sets in.

#1: Ice sculptures on Diamond beach. From the lagoon at the toe of the glacier, small icebergs float out to sea on the tide, then storms and high winds blow some of the icebergs onto the beach, where the wind sculpts unique "art" by nature pieces. A sight to see Banksy active in nature. 645z + DFA 25mm

#2: The wind started to pick up, creating wind sprays as the waves crested. Definitely needs a re-do to better capture the drama. 645z + FA 80-160mm.

-Edit - I added two more pictures from Diamond Beach - Iceland

#3: Ice sculptures - Absorbing the sunset and the beauty on display. 645z + FA 80-160mm

#4: Moonrise. 645z + FA 80-160mm

-

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by TDvN57; 07-20-2022 at 03:44 PM.

[RICHARD L.]

[henkvanzuylen]

A few pictures I re-edited and some from the bin from our trip to Iceland in 2017. Would love to do another trip there, perhaps not in December this time. I think October might be better, before the big freeze sets in.

#1: Ice sculptures on Diamond beach. From the lagoon at the toe of the glacier, small icebergs float out to sea on the tide, then storms and high winds blow some of the icebergs onto the beach, where the wind sculpts unique "art" by nature pieces. A sight to see Banksy active in nature. 645z + DFA 25mm

#2: The wind started to pick up, creating wind sprays as the waves crested. Definitely needs a re-do to better capture the drama. 645z + FA 80-160mm.

-Edit - I added two more pictures from Diamond Beach - Iceland

#3: Ice sculptures - Absorbing the sunset and the beauty on display. 645z + FA 80-160mm

#4: Moonrise. 645z + FA 80-160mm

-

Nice serie, special the first ice sculpture

[marco_gea]

A few pictures I re-edited and some from the bin from our trip to Iceland in 2017. Would love to do another trip there, perhaps not in December this time. I think October might be better, before the big freeze sets in.

#1: Ice sculptures on Diamond beach. From the lagoon at the toe of the glacier, small icebergs float out to sea on the tide, then storms and high winds blow some of the icebergs onto the beach, where the wind sculpts unique "art" by nature pieces. A sight to see Banksy active in nature. 645z + DFA 25mm

#2: The wind started to pick up, creating wind sprays as the waves crested. Definitely needs a re-do to better capture the drama. 645z + FA 80-160mm.

-Edit - I added two more pictures from Diamond Beach - Iceland

#3: Ice sculptures - Absorbing the sunset and the beauty on display. 645z + FA 80-160mm

#4: Moonrise. 645z + FA 80-160mm

-

Lovely pictures.
Iceland is just so photogenic in all seasons. Been there three times, and on my way back there this August.
Marco

[RICHARD L.]

[RICHARD L.]

[RICHARD L.]

[TDvN57]

Lovely pictures.
Iceland is just so photogenic in all seasons. Been there three times, and on my way back there this August.
Marco

I'm told that they have a lot of flying bugs in Iceland during the summer, would love to hear your feedback when you return.

Enjoy your trip.

[RICHARD L.]

Strangest behavior I have ever seen from a photographic lens. I shot the same scene, the first image at 1/4000 sec @ f/4 and the second image at 1/60 sec @ f/32. The 645Z was tripod-mounted, in Av autoexposure mode and using the "LANDSCAPE" color setting. Both pictures are practically impossible to distinguish. The focus was set on the rock outcropping at the lower right of the composition and, apart from a little fuzziness (barely) in the far reaches of the river due to a slight lack of depth-of-field, the images are almost identical. This lens performs admirably, whether the diaphragm is wide-open or completely closed.

STRANGE, indeed !

[TDvN57]

Strangest behavior I have ever seen from a photographic lens. I shot the same scene, the first image at 1/4000 sec @ f/4 and the second image at 1/60 sec @ f/32. The 645Z was tripod-mounted, in Av autoexposure mode and using the "LANDSCAPE" color setting. Both pictures are practically impossible to distinguish. The focus was set on the rock outcropping at the lower right of the composition and, apart from a little fuzziness (barely) in the far reaches of the river due to a slight lack of depth-of-field, the images are almost identical. This lens performs admirably, whether the diaphragm is wide-open or completely closed.

STRANGE, indeed !

My ten cents: I think it is the characteristics of a wide angle lens, the functional dof is almost unlimited.

Regarding the two pictures you posted:

on the first at f/4 you can see the focus is slightly off towards the middle of the scene, I'm looking at the water sharpness. Towards the front of the scene the water sharpness increases, which I assume is closer (in parallel) with the point upon which you had focused.

On the second image at f/32 at the same spot in the scene the sharpness of the water is much better.

So I think if you enlarge the picture you will start to see where the focus starts to fall off, although with the wide angle lens the transition will be very gradual.

[marco_gea]

Strangest behavior I have ever seen from a photographic lens. I shot the same scene, the first image at 1/4000 sec @ f/4 and the second image at 1/60 sec @ f/32. The 645Z was tripod-mounted, in Av autoexposure mode and using the "LANDSCAPE" color setting. Both pictures are practically impossible to distinguish. The focus was set on the rock outcropping at the lower right of the composition and, apart from a little fuzziness (barely) in the far reaches of the river due to a slight lack of depth-of-field, the images are almost identical. This lens performs admirably, whether the diaphragm is wide-open or completely closed.

STRANGE, indeed !

I can see what looks like lots of purple fringing in the first picture (specular reflections on right-hand side). That would be a significant difference in my book.

---------- Post added 07-26-22 at 12:09 AM ----------

My ten cents: I think it is the characteristics of a wide angle lens, the functional dof is almost unlimited.

Regarding the two pictures you posted:

on the first at f/4 you can see the focus is slightly off towards the middle of the scene, I'm looking at the water sharpness. Towards the front of the scene the water sharpness increases, which I assume is closer (in parallel) with the point upon which you had focused.

On the second image at f/32 at the same spot in the scene the sharpness of the water is much better.

So I think if you enlarge the picture you will start to see where the focus starts to fall off, although with the wide angle lens the transition will be very gradual.

Depth of field (DoF) is dependent on acceptable circle of confusion (CoC), which in turn depends on display size and assumed viewing distance. So, sure, at those tiny sizes the images will look like they have the same DoF, but print them big and inspect them up close and the differences will be apparent.

[RICHARD L.]

After rectifying the line of horizon and obtaining straight lines horizontally and vertically, I selected only the upper part of the picture taken at 1/4000 sec @ f/4 (upper image) and the upper part of the picture taken at 1/60 sec @ f/32 (lower image). The original focus had been set on rock outcroppings in the lower part of the complete images previously posted so, far-away, infinity detail is what appears in the two accompanying images. The image taken @ f/4 seems more fuzzy (larger circles of confusion), the lens being used almost wide-open and lacking sufficient depth-of-field in this 2X magnification. The second image taken @ f/32 seems much sharper, having more resolution and better depth-of-field. You have to enlarge the pictures somewhat to be able to discriminate which aperture opening is really sharper, although usually f/11 or f/16 prove to be the OPTIMUM aperture opening for any 645 medium-format lenses.

[RICHARD L.]

[RICHARD L.]

I set my Manfrotto tripod at its lowest position so my point of view would be at the vegetation level. I mounted my 645Z + 645 FA 35 mm f/3.5 and focused on the foreground, f/13 was enough to secure necessary DOF to obtain an overall sharp image. I took the picture and a violent shower forced me to "flee" the site and seek shelter in my nearby van.

[marco_gea]

After rectifying the line of horizon and obtaining straight lines horizontally and vertically, I selected only the upper part of the picture taken at 1/4000 sec @ f/4 (upper image) and the upper part of the picture taken at 1/60 sec @ f/32 (lower image). The original focus had been set on rock outcroppings in the lower part of the complete images previously posted so, far-away, infinity detail is what appears in the two accompanying images. The image taken @ f/4 seems more fuzzy (larger circles of confusion), the lens being used almost wide-open and lacking sufficient depth-of-field in this 2X magnification. The second image taken @ f/32 seems much sharper, having more resolution and better depth-of-field. You have to enlarge the pictures somewhat to be able to discriminate which aperture opening is really sharper, although usually f/11 or f/16 prove to be the OPTIMUM aperture opening for any 645 medium-format lenses.

That all makes little sense, especially in the world of digital photography, where you don't "have to enlarge the pictures", or crop them first, in order to be able to inspect them at 100%.

But, as I said, of course what may be "acceptable" sharpness depends on final magnification, and if you crop and then magnify more to print or display at the same size, then of course the same level of blur will become less "acceptable".

As to f/11 or f/16 being "optimum"... That depends, too. Those apertures will be more affected by diffraction than, say, f/5.6. But the lens *may* be less sharp at f/5.6 than at f/11... Or not.