Random Photography Stuff

[DibblyDobbler]

How about a low content thread for Random questions, points of interest, equipment chat, etc etc?

Don't want to clutter up 'Random Photographs' and not worth its own thread? Stick it in here

[DibblyDobbler]

I'll go first

See depth of field - does it come after the point of focus, before it, or a bit of both

[Pickled]

DibblyDobbler said:

I'll go first

See depth of field - does it come after the point of focus, before it, or a bit of both

I always thought it was the plane that is in focus.

[DibblyDobbler]

And another - I'm vaguely considering upgrading from a 24-104 F4 to a 24-70 f2.8.

Anybody think it's worth it and if so - do I go for the Canon 24-70 or the Tamron which is supposedly very nearly as good and half the money... Hmmm...

[DibblyDobbler]

Pickled said:

I always thought it was the plane that is in focus.

And we're off to a flier

[DavidY]

DibblyDobbler said:

And another - I'm vaguely considering upgrading from a 24-104 F4 to a 24-70 f2.8.

Anybody think it's worth it and if so - do I go for the Canon 24-70 or the Tamron which is supposedly very nearly as good and half the money... Hmmm...

I've got the Tamron (on a 6d) and like it very much, its fantastic value for money and has IS which the Canon f2.8 does mot. It also costs half the Canon!! It beat the Canon in a recent test in Advanced Photographer magazine, but the Canon did get one more mark out of 25 for IQ. So I would say if you want value for money or IS get the Tamron, if ultimate image quality matters to you then cough up for Canon...simples.....

[DibblyDobbler]

DavidY said:

I've got the Tamron (on a 6d) and like it very much, its fantastic value for money and has IS which the Canon f2.8 does mot. It also costs half the Canon!! It beat the Canon in a recent test in Advanced Photographer magazine, but the Canon did get one more mark out of 25 for IQ. So I would say if you want value for money or IS get the Tamron, if ultimate image quality matters to you then cough up for Canon...simples.....

Thanks David - my thinking was along these lines (and I also have a 6D). I do slightly wonder if I would miss the 70-105 range but probably not I guess as cropping is no issue with all the pixels we have to play with...

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

I'll go first

See depth of field - does it come after the point of focus, before it, or a bit of both

Perceived Depth of field and then for simplicity ignore Tilt and Shift options ....

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/tech...

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-cal...



On the basis that seeing is a large part of learning ...... have a play.

Cambridge in colour is usually a worthwhile immersion.

You can get DoF apps for mobile devices of course.

Or buy an old style lens and it will have markings in place!

Such is progress.


The answer, in rough terms, is approximately 1/3 before and 2/3 after the plane of focus are considered to be the rules of thumb but that can become quite meaningless in some situations. Macros for example.

[chrismarr]

I'm thinking about upgrading my D600 and can't decide whether its D800, D810 or D750 - cheaper , damn expensive or a wee bit cheaper . I keep looking at the A7r too now ... Would i use it more if it was smaller? Would i take it out more often ? Should i stick with my 600 and wait until i really need to upgrade !!

[leglessAlex]

DibblyDobbler said:

DavidY said:

I've got the Tamron (on a 6d) and like it very much, its fantastic value for money and has IS which the Canon f2.8 does mot. It also costs half the Canon!! It beat the Canon in a recent test in Advanced Photographer magazine, but the Canon did get one more mark out of 25 for IQ. So I would say if you want value for money or IS get the Tamron, if ultimate image quality matters to you then cough up for Canon...simples.....

Thanks David - my thinking was along these lines (and I also have a 6D). I do slightly wonder if I would miss the 70-105 range but probably not I guess as cropping is no issue with all the pixels we have to play with...

Interesting. I'd like to do the same, I knew the Tamron exists but didn't know it was so good.

Random question, if I got the 24-70 obviously I'd have to get a 70-200 to compliment it. Is the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II really worth it? They hold their value like crazy and most of the things you read about them do tend to agree that they are the dogs knackers.

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

Perceived Depth of field and then for simplicity ignore Tilt and Shift options ....

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/tech...

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-cal...



On the basis that seeing is a large part of learning ...... have a play.

Cambridge in colour is usually a worthwhile immersion.

You can get DoF apps for mobile devices of course.

Or buy an old style lens and it will have markings in place!

Such is progress.


The answer, in rough terms, is approximately 1/3 before and 2/3 after the plane of focus are considered to be the rules of thumb but that can become quite meaningless in some situations. Macros for example.

Ah - thanks LQ.

Now you've said it I believe I had read that before but forgotten. Will study the links later

[DibblyDobbler]

leglessAlex said:

Interesting. I'd like to do the same, I knew the Tamron exists but didn't know it was so good.

Random question, if I got the 24-70 obviously I'd have to get a 70-200 to compliment it. Is the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II really worth it? They hold their value like crazy and most of the things you read about them do tend to agree that they are the dogs knackers.

I think the answer is yes - but only if you need that focal length covered. I had a cheaper 70-200 for a while and it was great but I just didn't use that range very often so I ended up selling it (and for once never felt the need to reverse my decision!). I believe the optics are fabulous though....

[DibblyDobbler]

chrismarr said:

I'm thinking about upgrading my D600 and can't decide whether its D800, D810 or D750 - cheaper , damn expensive or a wee bit cheaper . I keep looking at the A7r too now ... Would i use it more if it was smaller? Would i take it out more often ? Should i stick with my 600 and wait until i really need to upgrade !!

Go for the A7R! I want to see how you get on

[DavidY]

DibblyDobbler said:

DavidY said:

I've got the Tamron (on a 6d) and like it very much, its fantastic value for money and has IS which the Canon f2.8 does mot. It also costs half the Canon!! It beat the Canon in a recent test in Advanced Photographer magazine, but the Canon did get one more mark out of 25 for IQ. So I would say if you want value for money or IS get the Tamron, if ultimate image quality matters to you then cough up for Canon...simples.....

Thanks David - my thinking was along these lines (and I also have a 6D). I do slightly wonder if I would miss the 70-105 range but probably not I guess as cropping is no issue with all the pixels we have to play with...

Don't you have a 100D as a backup, if you want more reach (ie up to 105), then put the 24-70 onto the 100D!!!!

[leglessAlex]

DibblyDobbler said:

I think the answer is yes - but only if you need that focal length covered. I had a cheaper 70-200 for a while and it was great but I just didn't use that range very often so I ended up selling it (and for once never felt the need to reverse my decision!). I believe the optics are fabulous though....

I was afraid you'd say that, £1200 even second hand they cost!

Having extra reach is important for me, I'm in a wheelchair or on prosthetics both of which limit my movement and therfore limit how close I can get to something or what perspective I can have on it. Having a decent zoom range helps massively for that.

[DIW35]

LongQ said:

The answer, in rough terms, is approximately 1/3 before and 2/3 after the plane of focus are considered to be the rules of thumb but that can become quite meaningless in some situations. Macros for example.

I always thought that it was approximately 2/3 ahead of the point of focus and 1/3 behind which is why it is advised that if you are using hyperfocal distance you should aim for 1/3 of the way in to your shot.

[beancaker]

DIW35 said:

LongQ said:

The answer, in rough terms, is approximately 1/3 before and 2/3 after the plane of focus are considered to be the rules of thumb but that can become quite meaningless in some situations. Macros for example.

I always thought that it was approximately 2/3 ahead of the point of focus and 1/3 behind which is why it is advised that if you are using hyperfocal distance you should aim for 1/3 of the way in to your shot.

The simplest explanation of dof and hyperfocal distance is the engraved dial on the base of my late father's Kodak Retina circa 1942. Example shown - infinity set on f16 indicates that distance should be set at 4m for hyperfocal distance 2m to infinity at f16. Simpler than any app!
(And it taught me my first words of German! Nach hinten - behind, nach vorn - in front)

[DibblyDobbler]

leglessAlex said:

I was afraid you'd say that, £1200 even second hand they cost!

Having extra reach is important for me, I'm in a wheelchair or on prosthetics both of which limit my movement and therfore limit how close I can get to something or what perspective I can have on it. Having a decent zoom range helps massively for that.

Ah I see - the user name is not a pun!

Well my experience was the 70-200 range was too long for most things but no long enough for birds, planes etc. Many people love it though so I don't think for a minute you'd be disappointed (I believe it does weigh a ton though - might be worth factoring that in...)

[DibblyDobbler]

DIW35 said:

LongQ said:

The answer, in rough terms, is approximately 1/3 before and 2/3 after the plane of focus are considered to be the rules of thumb but that can become quite meaningless in some situations. Macros for example.

I always thought that it was approximately 2/3 ahead of the point of focus and 1/3 behind which is why it is advised that if you are using hyperfocal distance you should aim for 1/3 of the way in to your shot.

I think what you are saying means LQ is correct doesn't it? (assuming 'before' means towards you and 'after' means further away)

[DibblyDobbler]

Bought myself a 'Little Stopper' today - only £82