Which camera/lens??? routine question but with VERY specific needs...

[Nass]

Hi Nass, Mitesh,

I agree with the first bit, night photography will use bulb mode, but it rarely uses high iso - afterall, you've got to use a tripod, so keep the iso low and use a longer shutter 'opening period' - I hesitate to call it 'speed' when it is tens of seconds to several minutes long

Cheers,

Fyi, astro uses high ISO all the time, it wasn't clear which aspect of night stuff he was into. Also, the OP indicated he wants to use available light rather than flash for night things, and given today's cams have good 1600/3200 performance, he should definitely bear that in mind imo.

[cityscapelover]

the OP indicated he wants to use available light rather than flash for night things, and given today's cams have good 1600/3200 performance, he should definitely bear that in mind imo.

huh? too many abbreviations i dont understand... and like i said, even an ISO of 400 was too noisy - can u recommend any way to avoid that, nass, esp. at 1600-3200 at nites? another full-moon today and i'd love to improve on yesterday

[Nass]

Sorry Mitesh my bad "OP" is a common web acronym which means "original poster" which in this case is you

Well noise is really 3 things, technique, hardware and software. My personal experience is that if you underexpose in the least you'll have noise in the shadows. So your exposure has to be right. In terms of hardware, from what I can tell some of the new cams from this and last year have very impressive performance at those sort of ISO levels. It really depends what you're able to afford -- I happen to know the Pentax range the best and the K-R, K-X and new K-5 are all very impressive in that areas. But from what I gather there's also a very impressive new Nikon that was out last week! And not a clue about canon, sorry . On top of that though, the software aspect, there are plugins that you can add to your post processing software like "noise ninja" which will remove noise. But images can look a little plasticky if you go nuts on that.

Also, the moon is very difficult when it's full (no shadows to provide contrast). Have a look at this little moon tutorial I did some time back, hope it helps!

[cityscapelover]

the moon is very difficult when it's full (no shadows to provide contrast). Have a look at this little moon tutorial I did some time back, hope it helps!

wow Nass how impressive is that! so is there ANYthing that hasnt been already thought of by now??? and from the equipment you mentioned using, you make it sound so easy! deceptively so, i'm sure, coz that pic looked most amazingly awesome

i cant wait to get my dslr, tho starting with a wide-angle, not a telephoto as yet

[Nass]

If you've got a wide angle, try pointing it at the milky way for about 40 seconds in bulb at ISO 1600 f2.8 - ie like http://www.flickr.com/photos/lbrummp...ingleslenobel/ - that's something I have yet to try myself but it it looks a lot of fun

[Glenn NK]

Hi Glenn,

Welcome to CiC - it's great to have you with us.

I'm wondering if perhaps the jury is still out on TS-E lenses for landscape and architecture. I shoot landscape with everything from a EF14mm F2.8L II to a EF16-35mm F2.8L II to a EF24-70 F2.8L to a EF70-200 F2.8L IS USM II, and I thought the TS-E 17mm would be a great addition and so went out and bought one ... and ended up sending it back. For landscape I just couldn't find anything particularly compelling about it - plus - it was impossible to use GND filters on it which are essential.

I have a collegue who made a very comfortable living as an architectual photographer - and when I asked him the TS-E question he said "I never use them".

Having said that, I have a TS-E 90 on the way because I need the DoF and perspective adjustment for product shooting. I might add that I have another collegue with the TS-E 17mm who loves it.

I have a friend from years back that is a senior judge - one of his wise comments: "The decision of the jury depends on who the jury is comprised of."

In particular the link I posted (Ethan Meleg) is interesting because he uses the TSE 24 with hand held filters. (the lens does not permit screw-on filters). I would do more landscape work (I live a 15 minute walk from salt water) if I could get better focus from very close to infinity. For landscapes, the perspective control (Nikon terminology) isn't usually needed, but when there are buildings, this feature is extremely useful.

So in answer the OP - who states that his interests are landscape and architectural work, I can't think of a better solution. Now, whether or not his budget allows such extravagance is another matter. His latest decision seems to be the 17-40 lens - I would not fault him on this choice.

Never until the past few months would I even dare to think about one of these TS/PC lenses because of i) the cost, ii) not knowing their usefulness. But now having finally recognized the possibilities that they open up, my thinking is changing rapidly.

Glenn

[Colin Southern]

[QUOTE=Glenn NK;60852]

Hi Glenn,

I would do more landscape work (I live a 15 minute walk from salt water) if I could get better focus from very close to infinity.

I take it that you're familiar with hyperfocal distances? With, say, a 16mm lens on a full frame camera @ F22, at the hyperfocal point (2 feet) everything should be in focus from 1.3 feet to infinity. I have to say that in all my landscape shooting, Depth of Field is seldom an issue; I'm usually shooting stopped down more for the light attenuation so I can extend the shutterspeed.

For landscapes, the perspective control (Nikon terminology) isn't usually needed, but when there are buildings, this feature is extremely useful.

They're great for getting the perspective right "in camera" - but perspective correction is also a trivial thing to do in post-processing (although one does need to allow for a wider FoV since some of the view needs to be cropped out. The biggest issue I find with folks having trouble with WA lenses in this regard is that they forget to keep the sensor plane the same as the building plane (ie, usually vertical).

[Glenn NK]

Colin:

I have a whole set of charts (eleven in total) for my lenses for HF distance and range of focus. They are a nuisance, but useful nontheless. However that being said, look at the images by Ethan Meleg - crisp focus from inches to infinity. Although he used f/11, I suspect he could have used the lens wide open and achieved the same sharpness.

I think the Scheimpflug Principle really makes a strong case for TS. Focus sharpness isn't constant from front to back, but falls off either side of the focus distance. I suspect there would be a noticeable difference between HF focusing with a standard lens and tilt correction with a TS lens, particularly on my newest body (a 21 MP 5DII - which is capable of "showing up" some lenses). Being an "old-fashioned" type of photographer, I want tack sharpness across the whole frame (maybe being an engineer makes me anal ).

Perspective correction in PP of course also degrades the image.

G

[Colin Southern]

Hi Glenn,

I have a whole set of charts (eleven in total) for my lenses for HF distance and range of focus. They are a nuisance, but useful nontheless.

I have an app for my iPhone

However that being said, look at the images by Ethan Meleg - crisp focus from inches to infinity. Although he used f/11, I suspect he could have used the lens wide open and achieved the same sharpness.

I'll have to take his word for it (and am happy to), as it's impossible for us to judge sharpness when the images we get to see online contain less than 2% of the information available in the full resolution version.

I'm familiar with Ethan's work (we're both Singh-Ray Blog regular contributors). I think Ethan has some great shots but again, I'm not seeing anything that is in a class of it's own because of the TS-E lens. If anything I was actually a little "under-whelmed" by those particular images you pointed to, but that's just the fact that I didn't think those particular images were his best work, so probably nothing to do with the lens per sec.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to knock TS-E lenses (heck, I've owned two of them), I just think that often folks get a little too caught up in the theory, when in reality, the "real world" results for the likes of landscape and (even architecture) often wouldn't necessarily show any appreciable difference, when compared to conventional lenes used with appropriate "compensatory" techniques. Reading through all the hype one could perhaps be forgiven for asking how the photographic world ever survived without them, when the reality is "pretty well actually".

I think the Scheimpflug Principle really makes a strong case for TS. Focus sharpness isn't constant from front to back, but falls off either side of the focus distance. I suspect there would be a noticeable difference between HF focusing with a standard lens and tilt correction with a TS lens, particularly on my newest body (a 21 MP 5DII - which is capable of "showing up" some lenses).

Perhaps - I still find that correct sharpening still has a far bigger influence on the final result though.

Being an "old-fashioned" type of photographer, I want tack sharpness across the whole frame (maybe being an engineer makes me anal ).

... and a Zeiss microscope to examine the resulting 8 x 12 image printed at 480 dpi

Perspective correction in PP of course also degrades the image.

So does having to crop an image taken with a TS-E because one can't zoom them

[Glenn NK]

OK, I'll admit it - I'm just trying to convince myself that I need one.

But I don't have an I-phone (don't even have a cell phone).

I'm always amazed at the discussions/arguments that develop over "which camera/lens is sharper" based on web images.

Very much aware of the cropping issue (that's why three of my four lenses are zooms). I need to walk more and zoom less.

I have too many images of buildings that are smaller at the top - and I know they weren't supposed to be because I was the structural engineer on the project.

I'm going to bed.

Glenn

[Colin Southern]

OK, I'll admit it - I'm just trying to convince myself that I need one.

If you're anything like me, you might as well just go and buy it, as it'll drive you nuts until you do

But I don't have an I-phone (don't even have a cell phone).

Please, have mine ... you just have to answer it each time it rings ... and rings ... and rings ...

I'm always amazed at the discussions/arguments that develop over "which camera/lens is sharper" based on web images.

Glenn - honestly - it's a serious problem. Often it's just so far removed from real-world photography that any resemblence is just a co-incidence. People get so caught up in the technicalities of how an image looks at 200% on their screens, not realising that in a normal print not even a photographer with a magnifying glass could see the difference. It's a bit like the age old question "how big a print can you make from a "x" MP camera ... when the real answer is "as big as you like - but - the viewing distance must be increased as the image gets bigger" ... which in reality is EXACTLY what happens when people look at real world prints (it's only photographers who look at a 2m x 1m print from the ends of their noses).

Very much aware of the cropping issue (that's why three of my four lenses are zooms). I need to walk more and zoom less.

I'm using zooms 99% of the time I'm shooting out of the studio. Sometimes "zooming with ones feet" takes you over the edge of a cliff though (literally!).

I have too many images of buildings that are smaller at the top - and I know they weren't supposed to be because I was the structural engineer on the project.

Yeah - but - things do look smaller the further away that they are. In many cases it's more an issue because people persist in tilting wide angle lenses up towards tall buildings.

Case in point ... who can tell me what's wrong with this shot, and thus why I'm going to have to reshoot it?



(Ignore the background and black stand that it's on).

[cityscapelover]

uh...in my esteemed view after being into photography for a whole month, doesnt whatever-this-is seem to broaden at the end, which musn't be the case in reality??

[Colin Southern]

uh...in my esteemed view after being into photography for a whole month, doesnt whatever-this-is seem to broaden at the end, which musn't be the case in reality??

Very good. So who can tell me why we have a problem? Is the image actually broader at the end?

[cityscapelover]

oh good question actually. reminds me when i'd got my products shot - some photo-albums when i used to deal in them - they came out looking out-of-shape at the end too, just like this. never figured out why, at which i'm no expert anyway...but the photographer couldnt tell me either...

[Glenn NK]

Is the image actually broader at the end?

No, but we expect it to be. It's not a perspective view, it's isometric.

G

[Colin Southern]

It's not a perspective view, it's isometric.

Yeah ... and that's the problem

[cityscapelover]

so coming back to english, whats the cause of the problem, and whats the solution???

[Nass]

If the customer wants a perspective view it's just a 2 minute job in photoshop.

This shows the difference between perspective and isometric: http://www.yourdictionary.com/images/isometric-view

Maybe all this is complicating things, a tilt-shift is nice but it is a luxury . If you don't have one, either get creative and use the perspective aesthetically or shoot buildings straight on so you can correct them in photoshop. PT-lens does do that, although you don't actually really need a plugin.

[Colin Southern]

If the customer wants a perspective view it's just a 2 minute job in photoshop.

This shows the difference between perspective and isometric: http://www.yourdictionary.com/images/isometric-view

Maybe all this is complicating things, a tilt-shift is nice but it is a luxury . If you don't have one, either get creative and use the perspective aesthetically or shoot buildings straight on so you can correct them in photoshop. PT-lens does do that, although you don't actually really need a plugin.

To be honest, I thought it was going to be a 2 minute fix in Photoshop too ... but an hour later, I came to the conclusion that either I didn't have the right approach, or it was a lot harder than I thought.

The problem was that I shot it with too long a lens and the distance isn't falling away as quickly as it should ... I thought it would be a simple case to fix using the transform tool, but it had the undesired effect of reducing the height of the front right corner of the device as well, whereas what needs to happen is the front right hand corner needs to be the reference, and rear right and front left corners need to slope away ... but the top needs to ""fit in" with these changes too.

So if someone can give me a "heads up" on some specific steps (or perhaps even do a quick re-hash of the above image to prove it can be done), I'd be very grateful!