Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 55 of 55
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Well, good luck with that, Don.

    Rooz, to demonstrate I'm not being idiosynchratic in my view, I had a quick trawl and here's what Tom Hogan said in a review of your lens

    "The focus limiting (second switch) isn't exactly what I want. I'd prefer a three-way option that also allowed me hold focus only in the "macro zone." In practice, I didn't find this to be limiting (pardon the pun), but still, I think there was a minor focus performance gain to be had that Nikon ignored. I suspect that Nikon simply thinks that you should use manual focus for macro."

    And a comment by Ken Rockwell, also from a review of the lens.

    "My biggest concern is that it's very hard to get precise macro framing because the image size changes greatly (breathes) while focusing. You need to use AF-C and move yourself in and out to frame. You can't move yourself and then focus, because the image size changes so much that you can't frame unless you're in focus. This may seem silly, but it's a critical issue for macro use, and a big pain when you focus manually as most macro shooters do."

    Again, I'm just stating how I (and most others AFAIK) approach a Macro shot but, as always, there's more than one way to skin a cat and at the end of the day, it's whatever works for you.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Post Outdoors (non-Macro)

    Well, I went and shot the dog...

    Name:  _DSC8528--Sox-small.jpg
Views: 283
Size:  950.5 KB
    w/ shadow enhancement

    100% crop, w/ no enhancement
    Name:  _DSC8528--Sox-crop.jpg
Views: 248
Size:  553.7 KB

    You could not tell this bad boy was not focusing correctly. Most people would not recognize the issue even if they saw it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-30-2011 at 08:19 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Why do you hate MF?
    Anyway, choosing to use MF with Macro has nothing to do with great glass.
    i just dont like using it at all. i prefer it to be AF. i dont shoot alot of still objects and with skittish bugs i find MF to difficult to use.

    and it has ALOT to do with the glass actually. and when i use the term "glass" im using it metaphorically in reference to the lens itself, not the actual physical glass or optics per se. the lens AF performance, speed and accuracy, and how that interacts with your cameras AF plays the major role in determining whether or not you use AF and MF.

    It's a personal choice and you have every right to go your own way but I'm pretty sure I'm right in what I said.
    agreed, its personal. i wasnt addressing any of the technical aspects of your previous posts. i was just addressing what you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    I don't know anyone, using a macro at macro distances, who doesn't rely on manual focus.
    clearly thats not correct. in fact people using MF for bug macros are probably in the minority.

    Are you sure those images are close to 1:1 BTW?
    the first is very close to 1:1. the second is not. the third is definately 1:1. the lens hood was touching the flower petal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Rooz, to demonstrate I'm not being idiosynchratic in my view, I had a quick trawl and here's what Tom Hogan said in a review of your lens

    "The focus limiting (second switch) isn't exactly what I want. I'd prefer a three-way option that also allowed me hold focus only in the "macro zone." In practice, I didn't find this to be limiting (pardon the pun), but still, I think there was a minor focus performance gain to be had that Nikon ignored. I suspect that Nikon simply thinks that you should use manual focus for macro."

    And a comment by Ken Rockwell, also from a review of the lens.

    "My biggest concern is that it's very hard to get precise macro framing because the image size changes greatly (breathes) while focusing. You need to use AF-C and move yourself in and out to frame. You can't move yourself and then focus, because the image size changes so much that you can't frame unless you're in focus. This may seem silly, but it's a critical issue for macro use, and a big pain when you focus manually as most macro shooters do."

    Again, I'm just stating how I (and most others AFAIK) approach a Macro shot but, as always, there's more than one way to skin a cat and at the end of the day, it's whatever works for you.
    i'm not suggesting you're being idiosyncratic, i'm just saying you're wrong. lol

    firstly to address thom's point, yes i agree there should have been a focus limiting switch for macro zone. which actualoly suggests that AF is intended. what you stated in bold is just his "suspision" not any reality. and it also goes tothe point that historically yes, macro shooting was more MF than not. like everything else though, times are a changing and this is not true anymore.

    ken rockwell ? lol i dont know if i even wanna go there. but yes, you do use AF-C when handholding macro shots. i would never consider usign af-s in a macro situation without a tripod or with a moving subject. to do that is just complete and utter madness. so this was written by a man who knows 2/5ths of bugger all when it comes to macro shooting.

    there are still alot of people that use MF and good luck to them but to suggest macro should ONLY be executed using MF is incorrect. clearly so as almost all of my macro work is using AF.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Rooz, it seems we will never agree on this issue.

    My original statement
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    .........I don't know anyone, using a macro at macro distances, who doesn't rely on manual focus.
    is valid, IMO, but limited to those I have come into contact with over the years. This is clearly too small a number for me to claim the statement as anything other than an opinion. Nonetheless I have heard the same POV stated often enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    ..........clearly thats not correct. in fact people using MF for bug macros are probably in the minority.....
    Which is your opinion but with as little basis in fact as is mine. Here's another POV from Frank Phillips an award winning "Bug" shooter.
    "By far, the most difficult part of macro (and especially extreme macro) is focusing. Modern autofocus (AF) systems are useless at these magnifications because you cannot precisely set the exact plane of focus when using the camera’s AF system, but at less-than-lifesize magnification AF will do well. However, if you rely on your camera’s AF at high magnifications, you will end up being sorely disappointed and you will finally switch to using manual focus (MF) for these shots, so you might as well start there from the beginning."

    Again, I can't claim that all "Bug" shooters hold to the same opinion but I do hold his opinion in high regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    ......firstly to address thom's point, yes i agree there should have been a focus limiting switch for macro zone. which actualoly suggests that AF is intended. what you stated in bold is just his "suspision" not any reality. and it also goes tothe point that historically yes, macro shooting was more MF than not. like everything else though, times are a changing and this is not true anymore....
    Well, not really, if you read further into his analysis of the 105VR he says "Autofocus is very fast and secure at normal focus distances, but a bit jittery at macro distances. I don't see that as a problem, frankly. At macro distances you should be focusing manually and have the camera on a secure platform if you want precise focus. The lens is certainly usable in autofocus at 1:1, but you're asking an awful lot of any focus system to get precise focus at that level of close up. You'd better not have a moving subject or any wind in the scene, and the camera itself better be on a support system that simply doesn't move."

    That's a pretty unequivocal statement, no "suspicions" and no "historical" caveats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    ......there are still alot of people that use MF and good luck to them but to suggest macro should ONLY be executed using MF is incorrect. clearly so as almost all of my macro work is using AF.
    No, I didn't say that if you'll read my original statement.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    On the a700...

    I seem to be having a lot more success with the 60mm f/2 MACRO on the α700. Of course, considering that the lens was designed as a Di-II construct, that would seem to make sense. It does make me cautious of using it on the α850. It just is not as sharp and I still have to keep "-5" to Micro-Adjust.

    Admittedly, it is an extremely lightweight lens and makes the α700 very easy to use, handheld, at almost any distance (> 6-inches). I mean if you want to read something you just cannot quite get with your eye, this baby is right there for you, as an electronic magnifier.

    Uncropped MACRO. Subject Distance: ~ 6-inches.
    Name:  _DSC2333_dimes.jpg
Views: 226
Size:  984.9 KB
    EXIF: α700 w/60mm MACRO - f/4 - 1/200 sec - ISO-400 - Manual Mode - ADI-Fill Flash (built-in) +/-0 - Handheld

    Just goes to show you, going "newer" isn't always bad. Thirty-six years of circulation makes you... soft?

    Regardless, upon closer examination of the image, I did try to use the edge of the first coin as my focal point... and it looks like the tabletop is the center of focus, not the coin, dulling out the sharper highlights. Is it a big deal? Cripes, you guys are the experts. You tell me. LOL

    "Don, Don ... can you show us 100%?"

    Yes, here it is:

    Name:  _DSC2333_100.jpg
Views: 215
Size:  610.3 KB

    Can you see how "in focus" that table is looking, now? One thin dime's worth of difference (2-3mm).

    Q: Could I have gotten a sharp focus "manually?"

    My A: Yeah, probably, but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of having AUTOFOCUS on the lens. Autofocus, as a rule, is suppose to be able to make these corrections quite well. The idea is to let the camera exerciser an "accurate" focus on a standard setting.

    Okay, yes there may be occasions where autofocus just is not going to cut it. Your subject of off-center and or you are at an strange angle, etc. So, you go to MF or DMF and make the focus adjustment. This dime's worth of "misfocus" is what I would consider a "standard" situation. Hence, the AF should work as designed and I should expect to get a sharp focus on the subject and not have the lens backfocusing.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 06-15-2011 at 07:54 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •