"Wrong" lenses

[Vixpix]

Mornin folks,

Vic

[eccles]

1024 pixels on the longer side looks good to me, however, this thread is primarily aimed at DSLR users and therefore might not have been viewed by everyone. To get a consensus I think it would be a good idea to start a new topic asking people their opinions, maybe a vote.

[Gruditch]

1280 x 1024 needed a bit of scrolling for me.

I think we should go with 1000 x 800. Pete make it so, but not yet obviously.

Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

SInce not all photos are in landscape, I think we need something that has the same maximum in both orientations. For example, 1000 x 1000 max.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

Yes Pete, but our screens are landscape, to go to the maximum on my screen ( with pressing F11 to view ), I can see 1000 high with a very slight scroll, and 1250 wide.

Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

I thought the concern was being able to see photos in the best quality possible.

I didn't realise this meant "no scrolling" and, since this depends on users' screen resolutions, don't know how we'd ever solve that. I bet some people have to scroll 800 x 800!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

Take a look at the image by Paulcrook, sorry to pick on you Paul, in the May 2008 comp,

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... 2&start=20

I'm just trying to avoid this sort of thing.

Maybe we should just leave it as it is.

Gruditch

[Dave McCormick]

Well the only real reason I use externally to shar images and post on here is that I use 800x533 or 800x600 images and to stop losing quality I post externally because alot of the time my images are around 300-400kb in size and thats too big filesize for on here.

[Pete Eeles]

Curiouser and curiouser

Right - so we also need to think about filesize as well as image size. I guess that we now have thumbnails, we can increase the file size to whatever makes sense.

Gary - I understand what you mean about scrollbars on images - but if we continue to use thumbnails, then this shouldn't be a problem (Paul's pic was pre-thumbnails).

So I think we have several questions to get input on:

1. Do we want to keep thumbnails. I think the answer is "yes" for all sorts of reasons - improved download times, the ability to increase both image and filesize so allow the true quality of an image to be viewed as desired. But I guess those most-affected with be those using the IMG tag. We'll need to experiment to see what effect this would have with those posting images hosted elsewhere.

2. Do we want to increase filesize. Again - I think the answer is "yes" based on Dave's response.

3. Do we want to increase image size. See #1. I think the answer is "yes".

Thoughts?

Cheers,

- Pete

[NickB]

HD wide-screen TV is 16:9 ratio....
...(Just to be helpful you understand )
N

[NickB]

.... I'm surprised you could discern a difference in sharpness between your new 200mm and the Tamron as I'd have thought both would be capable of outresolving the camera's sensor.....Mike.

True - but there is a difference in the overall image simply because of the different glass involved....Tamron delivers a slightly softer feel to the image compared to the Nikkor....or I would like to believe there IS a difference given the difference in price between the two brands! Either way, it is a nice addition to the capabilities of the (growing) bag of glass!

N

[eccles]

Nick, I recently swapped out a Sigma EX 105mm macro for a Minolta 100mm original and encountered slightly different findings. Results from the Sigma were sharp, very sharp, but ultimately rather flat and analytical. Results from the Minolta are very different, not really very much sharper but with richer saturated colours and greater colour depth. They just 'pop'. The more I encounter OEM lenses the more I'm of the opinion that you're not just paying for the 'name'. I'm sure that Nikkor macro is a cracker.

[Zonda]

rather flat and analytical.

That sounds like a 'mother-in-law' lens.

[NickB]

.. The more I encounter OEM lenses the more I'm of the opinion that you're not just paying for the 'name'.

I love the images from my Tamron macro, but I tend to agree; buying a brand that is produced for the camera should be a better match! (I also got a 2nd hand Nikkor 105mm f2.8 macro* recently too!)
(Buying used reduces the pain of paying for a new lens, where a premium IS paid for the name! Wasn't born in Yorkshire for nothing )
N
PS * Took some staff photos for work website using the 105mm; it delivers "characterful" portraits...

Warts & all mug shot!

[eccles]

Produced for the camera? Well not always. The last lens I bought for an arm and a leg is a work of art, is in pristine condition, takes wonderfully sharp pictures and is very fast. It has the Minolta copyright stamped 1989, long before digital.
That's a nice portrait, Nick. The diffuse flash is very good. How did you avoid a shadow on the wall behind?

[NickB]

...No flash; a gold reflector to pick-up the daylight from under the subject (no shadows under the neck - the ladies would not have licked that ) and used the four adjustable spots in our meeting room to balance the light - Auto White Balance and Active D-Lighting set to High. The twinkle in my eye is from the reflection of the skylight in the room, I think....(the last twinkle is nearly 24 now... )
N

[Gruditch]

Going back to the lens thing, my 5D MK 2 is programed to know what lenses are attached, and is supposed to do some "technical stuff" to adjust to get the best out of that lens. Of cause it only recognises Canon lenses. The new 7D has even got a program that adjust to the back and forth motion often used in macro work, and knows when you attach a macro lens, I bet that only recognises Canon lenses too. So as camera's get increasingly tuned to the lenses attached, you may be better of steering away from third party glass.

Bye bye Sigma 150 HELLO Canon 100 IS

Gruditch

[Markulous]

I'm sure it was the wrong lens (Sigma 105mm on a Sigma SD14) but it was an outing with my "new" camera (the Greater Crested Newt shots were better...... but easier!)

[NickB]

Just a thought - on the D300 there is a lens AF correction facility. I used this with my last Tamron 90mm (+9 seemed better); you can tweak the focus to accommodate for the slight variations that occur - how many 150mms are actually 150mm for instance? You can improve the sharpness as a result. Do any of the Canon's or other makes have this sort of facility?
N

[eccles]

The 50D and higher Canons have it I think, Nick, also the Sony A850 and A900 full frame models. Regrettably the Sony A700 doesn't have it. About a year ago I noticed a very slight backfocus on mine with all lenses that I had at the time. There is a manual adjustment under a base sticker incorporating three screws which on no account should be touched, but I never listen to warnings like that and did it anyway. I DID fix it but it was a long and precarious process with each screw affecting the others. I almost lost it totally at one point but managed to pull it back into line and now it's just about spot on with every lens. Thankfully it's ok as well with subsequent lenses I've bought including a recently purchased 200mm F2.8 prime. With hindsight I really should have sent it to Sony to get it calibrated.
Although a means of correcting BF/FF on individual lenses is very useful, I do feel though that most lenses should focus correctly without any focus adjustment in the camera at all, and if all lenses need it then the camera wasn't properly aligned at the factory.