The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Technical Camera Images

jotloob

Subscriber Member
Thanks guys, and we missed you on this one Stu!

Jurgen, Dan and Graham are exactly correct -- since I was up on a bridge, I used fall to "lower" the viewpoint in the image. Had I wanted to see more of the trees and kept them vertical, I would have used rise. I regularly use small amounts of shift and/or rise/fall to adjust my composition :)
Jack

Understood . Thanks for putting me right .
With the HR70 and your IQ180 , the amount of fall you used must have been rather at the limit of the IC . Some vignetting ?
Disregarding the vibration of the bridge and the blowing breeze , I think the crop is very good . What a DB ! ! !
Ok.No money , no honey . :thumbdown:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack

Understood . Thanks for putting me right .
With the HR70 and your IQ180 , the amount of fall you used must have been rather at the limit of the IC . Some vignetting ?
Disregarding the vibration of the bridge and the blowing breeze , I think the crop is very good . What a DB ! ! !
Ok.No money , no honey . :thumbdown:
Jurgen,

Yes indeed, and that was one of the points! With 20mm of fall, I am very near the usable edge of the IC, and that edge IS at the bottom of the image and why I cropped form there to show how good that "bad" area can be!

Re vignetting, the 70 does have some, but less than the shorter lenses; less extreme light falloff is a side advantage of having a retro-focus design lens over a symmetrical design lens. In the case of the 70, the IC essentially remains usably sharp to about the last 2mm before it cuts off (vignettes totally black), and this area is maybe 1 stop lower than center field, easily corrected in the LCC. Interestingly, with the 23 HR the usable resolution is also very close to the cutoff point, giving you about 4mm rise/fall and 2mm shift capability with the 23 on the IQ180 sensor -- but that lens has serious enough light falloff you need a CF at all times. My 40 HR gets unusable resolution-wise maybe 6 or 8mm before it cuts completely off, and that point is about 2 stops lower than center field -- hence a CF is probably a good idea, but so far for me, C1's LCC has handled it incredibly well and I have not felt the need for a dedicated CF on the 40. Lastly, sometimes the extra illumination in an otherwise useless resolution part of the circle is an advantage as it may be in a non-critical part of the frame; and thus gives you some extra shift room for composing purposes... Make sense?

Just for fun, here is another crop from the extreme lower LH side of the frame above. Note that you can start to see the resolution "smearing" as it approaches the last usable limits of the IC. Note that I cannot define the exact point where resolution becomes unusable, as it will vary from user to user and even image to image. For me, this is still usable resolution for an extreme corner even if I printed this to 50", and I would probably even accept less in an image like this. However, if this were at the main foreground rock above, I would not be satisfied except for some quite smaller print sizes:

 

anGy

Member
It would also be interesting to see the results of the same frame with less rise/fall but with the camera inclined, pointed to the subjet + perspective corrected in C1.

IQ would have been better at the corners and maybe not really worse in the center.
Don't like to do that with my Cambo in Architecture (pixels lost when correcting and reframing + whole shape of the buildings modified) but for landscape isn't it the way to go ? Using rize/fall just to the limit of the acceptable IC starts to look 'old fashioned' sometimes compared to C1 performance (no offense !)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It would also be interesting to see the results of the same frame with less rise/fall but with the camera inclined, pointed to the subjet + perspective corrected in C1.

IQ would have been better at the corners and maybe not really worse in the center.
Don't like to do that with my Cambo in Architecture (pixels lost when correcting and reframing + whole shape of the buildings modified) but for landscape isn't it the way to go ? Using rize/fall just to the limit of the acceptable IC starts to look 'old fashioned' sometimes compared to C1 performance (no offense !)
The issue is you have to shoot so much looser so you end up with the same full frame after the crop -- most folks don't think about that. Then, given you've shot so much looser, on an extreme angle as this one would have been, you end up tossing as many of half your pixels in the crop, so this image may have been 50 or so MP instead of 80 -- a non-trivial loss if I want to print large. HOWEVER, if we're shooting an irregular object like a rock with no vertical or horizontal lines to lend relativity to geometric projection/distortion issues, then "aiming down" COMBINED with some tilt can be very useful -- in fact, I demoed this very situation and solution at the NH workshop.

Next, I'd arguye with you on the old fashioned look, but then we each have our own opinions. Personally, I will take the shoot it right to begin with tech method method over C1 or CS transformations 8-days a week :)

Peace,
 

anGy

Member
Yeaph, understood.
I am using the WRS + 35mm SK and the IQ 180. Yes I know, not the best combination !
With the latest release of C1 it seems that 10mm rize/fall still can be corrected with color cast when using a center filter (former C1 version gave strange results at 7mm).

Regarding sharpness 6-7mm maybe is the limit (still have to check that for myself) and with such narrow play for rize/fall, aiming the camera at the subjects can be a necessity.
But I'm quite pleased with this combination of 7mm rize/fall plus aiming if needed. C1 does a really good job correcting perspective. It's quick to shoot like this and maybe more importantly let me dare to be more flexible with framing. Creativity thanks it.
But what's also important is than I can delay the purchase of a 40mm HR and save some money (at least temporarily) !
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Still struggling with getting good color off my Leaf Aptus II 7 and C1 so for the mean time Fall Colors in B&W
Mt. Wilson in Colorado, Sinar arTec, 135mm, 15mm rise F11 20th sec

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
My post lost it's image somewhere along the way - I'll try again tomorrow.
Jamie,

Any image you link outside too the URL needs to end in .jpg, or .tiff, gif, etc. It cannot be an attachment from another location or it won't code -- you'll see it but we cannot. Try using our site -- you have a free gallery as a member, and for sure you can load it here and it will be visible. Here is a tutorial on how to use the GetDPI album: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
It would also be interesting to see the results of the same frame with less rise/fall but with the camera inclined, pointed to the subjet + perspective corrected in C1.

IQ would have been better at the corners and maybe not really worse in the center.
Don't like to do that with my Cambo in Architecture (pixels lost when correcting and reframing + whole shape of the buildings modified) but for landscape isn't it the way to go ? Using rize/fall just to the limit of the acceptable IC starts to look 'old fashioned' sometimes compared to C1 performance (no offense !)
You might enjoy reading this on the computer correction vs in-camera movements comparison:

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/Entzerren_am_Computer_A4_e_Druck_7860.pdf

i like the auto correction that C1 can do, especially with the IQ back recording pitch & rotation information. However, you're flushing bits or stretching them to correct the image plus as Jack mentioned you really have to shoot pretty loose. Getting it right at capture time certainly has its advantages both in terms of ultimate image quality and reduction of post processing time & effort. :thumbup:
 

2jbourret

New member
Steve,

Although I'm guessing that there is some wonderful fall aspen color in the original scene, it is fantastic as a B&W. Very nice!
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Thanks Jack and Jammie..

2 more this time in color.... Same setup arTec and 135mm lens.



 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Steven,

Those are very nice -- and IMHO, either of those would look great in B&W too!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
My post lost it's image somewhere along the way - I'll try again tomorrow.
Here's the image Jamie has been trying to load. Working on why he can't seem to get it online. It seems to be working for me, but regardless, very nice image Jamie!:
 

rupho

New member
Dear Jack
Re 23 HR : I was quite surprised to hear that there is Room left for movements on your fill frame sensor.
Do you have image samples?
It sounds like this lens needs a CF at all times- even when not shifted?
The 32 HR is actually quite good unshifted in that regard I only use a CF when I push movements to the limit
How about lean flare on the 23HR.
I can't make up my mind if I should ad this lens to 32HR which got decent movements thinking thaT without movements I can almost approach the same FoV with the 32 HR shifted.
That's why I am surprised to hear that you can shift a few mm
Any thoughts

Jurgen,

Yes indeed, and that was one of the points! With 20mm of fall, I am very near the usable edge of the IC, and that edge IS at the bottom of the image and why I cropped form there to show how good that "bad" area can be!

Re vignetting, the 70 does have some, but less than the shorter lenses; less extreme light falloff is a side advantage of having a retro-focus design lens over a symmetrical design lens. In the case of the 70, the IC essentially remains usably sharp to about the last 2mm before it cuts off (vignettes totally black), and this area is maybe 1 stop lower than center field, easily corrected in the LCC. Interestingly, with the 23 HR the usable resolution is also very close to the cutoff point, giving you about 4mm rise/fall and 2mm shift capability with the 23 on the IQ180 sensor -- but that lens has serious enough light falloff you need a CF at all times. My 40 HR gets unusable resolution-wise maybe 6 or 8mm before it cuts completely off, and that point is about 2 stops lower than center field -- hence a CF is probably a good idea, but so far for me, C1's LCC has handled it incredibly well and I have not felt the need for a dedicated CF on the 40. Lastly, sometimes the extra illumination in an otherwise useless resolution part of the circle is an advantage as it may be in a non-critical part of the frame; and thus gives you some extra shift room for composing purposes... Make sense?

Just for fun, here is another crop from the extreme lower LH side of the frame above. Note that you can start to see the resolution "smearing" as it approaches the last usable limits of the IC. Note that I cannot define the exact point where resolution becomes unusable, as it will vary from user to user and even image to image. For me, this is still usable resolution for an extreme corner even if I printed this to 50", and I would probably even accept less in an image like this. However, if this were at the main foreground rock above, I would not be satisfied except for some quite smaller print sizes:

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I only tested the 23 on another participant's camera, so have no images of my own. We confirmed those movements before corner clipping with the CF mounted. Hopefully a few of the folks that shot with it will post some exemplars. Falloff is extreme, so the CF is needed all the time. From what I could see, the very corners go a tad smeary at full shift/rise, but overall lens is very good. It is EXTREMELY wide, like about a 15mm rectilinear on 35 DSLR.

My gut is that if you want extreme wide the 23 will be loved. OTOH, if you prefer slightly more moderate wides, the 32 may be a better overall choice. It certainly has more shift capability. The 32 is about a 20/21 effective in 35 DSLR terms.
 

rupho

New member
Thanks Jack
Much appreciated
I shoot often in congested places in china and sometimes miss a wider lens than my 32 HR
I sold the 28 XL after upgrading to the IQ180 since it became useless and I feel I am left with no other choice to go wider for those special occasions where in theist I used my 17 TSE which is quite amazing given it's FoV and price ( in comparison to the 23HR that is :))
Not that many folks got this HR23 so it's hard to get info
Best
Grischa

I only tested the 23 on another participant's camera, so have no images of my own. We confirmed those movements before corner clipping with the CF mounted. Hopefully a few of the folks that shot with it will post some exemplars. Falloff is extreme, so the CF is needed all the time. From what I could see, the very corners go a tad smeary at full shift/rise, but overall lens is very good. It is EXTREMELY wide, like about a 15mm rectilinear on 35 DSLR.

My gut is that if you want extreme wide the 23 will be loved. OTOH, if you prefer slightly more moderate wides, the 32 may be a better overall choice. It certainly has more shift capability. The 32 is about a 20/21 effective in 35 DSLR terms.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I shot a lot with the 23mm on the Cambo. I will have images posted maybe this weekend. Still sailing in Bermuda at the moment. Have to catch up but i will say this the 23mm is sharp as can be. Extremely nice lens and yes I got about 3 to 4mm of movement with it.

Geez downloading 600 emails at the moment. This is nuts, hope its at least 500 jobs. LOL
 
Top