Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-22-2008, 12:14 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
I think this is largely true of any experienced photographer, even those of us who work mainly with zooms.
Very likely true. But that experience is what I was counting on when I said "by the time you actually build a collection like that". Not that the primes would magically do it themselves - it's the time it takes to build the collection that's the big key. Tough to avoid gaining some experience along the way.

QuoteQuote:
this would take us into the primes vs zooms debate....
I don't think so - I'm just pointing out that as far as zooms go that cover the 28-105 focal range, the one in question *is* about as good as it gets. That is, I was comparing zooms to zooms here.

09-22-2008, 12:45 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
You'd be suprised. I see folks ALL over the forums (here and other brand forums) who are much more concerned with buying gear than learning about photography. Kind of sad

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Very likely true. But that experience is what I was counting on when I said "by the time you actually build a collection like that". Not that the primes would magically do it themselves - it's the time it takes to build the collection that's the big key. Tough to avoid gaining some experience along the way.
09-22-2008, 02:24 PM   #18
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
You'd be suprised. I see folks ALL over the forums (here and other brand forums) who are much more concerned with buying gear than learning about photography. Kind of sad
More is better

What photography? Light is free and they are everywhere.
09-22-2008, 03:46 PM   #19
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by d.bradley Quote
This is no learner's tool my friend...professional film directors use this to visualize the set through the camera's lens, composing shots, checking lighting etc. They use this portable tool because cameras the camera setup is often bulky and laden with tripods and extra equipment. For example.
I stated that badly... it's a learner's tool for me not for the ASC members. Still, the dslr "range" can be duplicated with some very inexpensive zooms that will provide the same framing process,
FHPhotog

09-24-2008, 07:02 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
This seems to me a little weird of a concept.

First, you'll likely find that the '50mm' setting on your cheap zoom isn't the same field of view as your 50mm prime.

Second, you'll be swapping lenses constantly.

I'd say shoot with the primes until you can visualize what you'll need for a shot. It isn't that hard one you do it for a while.

Or just get a cheap turret finder like the KMZ (28,35,50,85,135 mm views) and save yourself either constantly unmounting/mounting a zoom or carrying around a second body just to figure out what lens you want to use.
09-24-2008, 10:45 PM   #21
Damn Brit
Guest




One big advantage with a good prime over a cheaper zoom is the ability to crop and still retain detail.
That makes your framing idea somewhat redundant, it is better anyway to have a larger picture, it makes the actual framing of the final image a lot easier.
Also like the previous poster stated, you get a different field of view from your zoom and the focal length indicator on the zoom is known to be inaccurate.
09-25-2008, 01:28 AM   #22
Senior Member
bentax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: West Australia
Posts: 190
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote



Walking changes perspective - not the same as a zoom at all.

Pardon my douchebaggery, but i have seen this statement thrown around in the forums alot lately and i cant figure out what people are getting at. What is the meaning of this? Anyone care to enlighten me?
Thanks.
09-25-2008, 07:59 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteQuote:
QuoteQuote:
Walking changes perspective - not the same as a zoom at all.
What is the meaning of this? Anyone care to enlighten me?
"Perspective" can mean a lot of different things, but I'll focus on one easily observed.

Say you are standing in a field with mountains in the background. Someone is standing in front of you. They are close enough to you that they appear taller than the mountains - if you take a picture, their head is higher than the mountain. If you have a zoom lens, it doesn't matter how much you zoom in or out, that is not going to to change in the slightest. Shoot with a fisheye and you'll see the whole field, including the person with their head above the mountains. Shoot with a telephoto and you'll get the person's head only, with sky behind it, not mountains, because the head is above the mountains.

But now, take ten steps backward. Or 20, or however many it takes. Every step you take will change the relative sizes of the person and the mountain. At some point, they will no longer be taller than the mountain.

Other things that are part of perspective include which objects hide other objects - if you have object A directly in of object B, and A is big enough, you can't see object B at all. Move a little bit to the side and of course that changes. Also, where parallel lines appear to converge- the closer you are, the more strongly they converge. Move far enough away and they look truly parallel.

Every step you take changes the perspective in a scene. Zooming does *not*.

09-25-2008, 09:42 AM   #24
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
OP response...

QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
This seems to me a little weird of a concept.

First, you'll likely find that the '50mm' setting on your cheap zoom isn't the same field of view as your 50mm prime.

Second, you'll be swapping lenses constantly.

I'd say shoot with the primes until you can visualize what you'll need for a shot. It isn't that hard one you do it for a while.

Or just get a cheap turret finder like the KMZ (28,35,50,85,135 mm views) and save yourself either constantly unmounting/mounting a zoom or carrying around a second body just to figure out what lens you want to use.
I think it works the other way around. If you're walking around with a 31 on the camera and have 50, 85, 105 in your bag; you see a shot but realize the 31 doesn't do it, then try on the 50 only to see it also is a little short, then switch again and settle on the 85; if you have a 28-105 on the camera, you can quickly zoom through them, settle on the 85 and make only one lens switch to the prime to get the shot. True, you're carrying one more lens, but you're also switching less.
I'm sure it's better to have the experience to see and "know" which lens is the best fit for every image; but until then, this seems like a good way to learn the craft.
09-25-2008, 10:48 AM   #25
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
One big advantage with a good prime over a cheaper zoom is the ability to crop and still retain detail.
That makes your framing idea somewhat redundant, it is better anyway to have a larger picture, it makes the actual framing of the final image a lot easier.
Also like the previous poster stated, you get a different field of view from your zoom and the focal length indicator on the zoom is known to be inaccurate.
Gary, I guess I think in terms of output (print)and not image, so you've touched on a core issue.

With a 6mp K100D the native 100% print size is 8.4x12.5" Anything larger and resolution suffers; any crop and enlargement to that size and resolution suffers. If you're shooting with a 10mp at you can "afford" to shoot and crop as much as 40% get to that size and hold the detail.

Zooms seem to make more sense for the lower resolution camera to get the most image with the least content loss; the trouble is it's always going to trade off some detail for that framing ability.
FHPhotog
09-25-2008, 12:56 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
Gary, I guess I think in terms of output (print)and not image, so you've touched on a core issue.

With a 6mp K100D the native 100% print size is 8.4x12.5" Anything larger and resolution suffers; any crop and enlargement to that size and resolution suffers. If you're shooting with a 10mp at you can "afford" to shoot and crop as much as 40% get to that size and hold the detail.
Well, if you're thinking in terms of output you have to take print size and viewing distance into account. There is no 'native' print size (if there's a DPI number in the file it is fairly meaningless) of the camera output. And you won't be printing at e.g. 240DPI if you're doing a 20x30 poster because the viewing distance will be different from a 4x6 or 8x10.
09-25-2008, 09:40 PM   #27
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
100% image size

QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Well, if you're thinking in terms of output you have to take print size and viewing distance into account. There is no 'native' print size (if there's a DPI number in the file it is fairly meaningless) of the camera output. And you won't be printing at e.g. 240DPI if you're doing a 20x30 poster because the viewing distance will be different from a 4x6 or 8x10.
I'm told that DOF tables and other such things assume a "standard" viewing distance that is roughly the diagonal of the print. So folks will probably look at an 8x10 from about 10-12" etc., but that's assumption that has little to do with what people really do. People are funny critters and "see" their reality their own way.

Also, unless I've got something very wrong, there is a "standard" or "native" 100% image for every sensor. For a 6mp sensor like my K100, every RAW file that comes out of the camera is 12.5x8.4" at 100%. I can interpolate in post processing to get a larger image size but lose a bit of resolution; and I could print at lower resolution (say 180dpi) and get about a 16x11" print with few noticing, but my paper and ink costs go up substantially. It works better to just work with the "native" RAW image size for me.
FHPhotographer
09-26-2008, 08:40 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
Also, unless I've got something very wrong, there is a "standard" or "native" 100% image for every sensor. For a 6mp sensor like my K100, every RAW file that comes out of the camera is 12.5x8.4" at 100%.
All you can really say is that the file is 2000x3000 pixels (give or take a couple depending on the conversion algorithm). If you print at the size you are talking about, that's 240 pixels per inch. If that's the resolution that your particular model of printer happens to be most comfortable producing, fine - but that is not the camera's doing. Some printer have higher basic resolution, some have lower. The usual standard is to assume 300ppi as a typical print resolution - meaning printers would actually have to be interpolating data to produce a print as big as you suggest. But the specifics of how this is all done are complex enough that you really don't want to mess with thinking about it when talking about your camera.
09-26-2008, 05:24 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
Marc pretty much said it all; there is no "native" output size for a camera. Like almost everything else in photography, it's subjective. You can argue that "resolution suffers" if you make an 8x10 at 300 dpi when you could make a 4x5 at 600dpi too, but it depends on what you're looking to do.
09-28-2008, 12:05 AM   #30
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
On dpi and other things...

QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Marc pretty much said it all; there is no "native" output size for a camera. Like almost everything else in photography, it's subjective. You can argue that "resolution suffers" if you make an 8x10 at 300 dpi when you could make a 4x5 at 600dpi too, but it depends on what you're looking to do.
I think the devil is in the detail, and the detail is in the words. It seems we're in agreement, overall.

I'd just like to add that although people claim they can perceive the difference between 180dpi and 360 dpi in a print, I think they're seeing their expectations. I doubt most human beings, especially old fogies like me, can see any qualitative difference beyond 180dpi or so. Also, there's no magic in 300dpi for home printers; mine (Epson 1800) is happiest at 360dpi or factors of that number (180, 240dpi, etc).

I heard once that we got into the 300dpi range because a lot of publications have workflows that require images with arcane numbers based on specific printers and papers, image size, etc. Often those numbers were in the 325-350 range, so we ended up with another arbitrary "standard" like 18% grey.
FHPhotographer
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, image, lens, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:20 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top