OK, “torture test” might be overstating things just a bit, but I’ve been meaning to check out a few things related to the capabilities of the autofocus system of my new Canon EOS 5DS R. A few years ago birds, especially winter migratory birds, became one of my photographic passions. While this camera is not really optimized for this sort of photography, I plan to use it for this purpose, as I did my 5DII.
A brown pelican joins the flock on a rock along the Pacific coast of California
Most often when I photograph birds I use the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. It usually provides enough reach for my purposes, it focuses accurately and quite quickly, it is sharp, and its flexibility fits my style of photography. (I often pause while photographing the birds and use the lens to photograph landscapes.) It was my understanding that the 5Ds R added the capability to autofocus (AF) at smaller apertures down to f/8. This means that I should be able to add my Canon Extender EF 1.4x III tele-extender to get 560mm at f/8 from this lens.
A few days ago I was doing landscape/seascape photography along the Central California coast between lower Big Sur and San Francisco. On the final afternoon as we drove north we passed a small island where scores of brown pelicans had landed. Continue reading The Canon 5Ds R — Autofocus ‘Torture’ Test→
Earlier today I came across a question someone asked about “typical landscape photography settings.” I think their goal was to determine whether to make settings manually or automate them, what sort of initial settings might be useful, what techniques might be employed in typical situations, and so on. That covers a lot of ground, and there is a ton of room for variation depending on your goals and idea of what landscape photography is and is not.
A series of lenticular clouds build above the Sierra Nevada crest at sunset
In fact, at first the question seemed so broad and general that I wasn’t going to reply. However, rather than ignoring the question, I decided to offer a quick summary of some of the general techniques I may employ when making a landscape photograph. And since I had already written it I thought it might be useful to share it here, too.
(Of course, I have to acknowledge that this doesn’t address the most important things about landscape photography, namely how to approach the landscape, how to “see” the landscape as an esthetic subject, and how to go beyond mere technique to focus on the image itself and what it can express. That is another post. Or chapter. Or book. Or two. Or more.)
So, on to the short “answer,” or at least to my reply…
Everyone has their own approach to landscape photography, but most folks I know photograph landscape using manual settings and manually focusing using live view. My typical starting point includes the following: Continue reading Landscape Photography Settings→
I recently received an email from David, who has some questions about depth of field:
As you have a lot of experience of using the Fuji X-E1, may I please ask you for some advice regarding landscape focusing.
My aim is to use the 18-55mm kit lens with the majority of shots taken at the widest end. I have in mind setting the lens at Hyperfocal distances, based on a crop factor of 1.5 and a circle of confusion of 0.02. I think the first figure is reliable, but I’m not sure about the second in relation to the X-E1 – perhaps you could confirm.
I have already done some testing at home using the attached table (which come from the well respected DOFmaster site).
In my experiment I carefully measured distances at apertures of f8 and f11 using a tripod and a printed card as the subject. I set the lens manually at the hyperfocal distance, using the EVF distance scale. I was disappointed to find that the closest point of focus was not as sharp as I had hoped. Have you any idea why this may be?
I did a further test on aperture f11 and this time set the distance scale at 4 feet (2/3 of the way between 3 and 5 feet). This resulted in a sharp image from 3.5 feet. This would suggest that the distance scale is not accurate.
Any suggestions you have to overcome the problem would be much appreciated.
Let me preface my response on the depth of field (DOF) issue by congratulating you for taking the time to conduct your own experiments. One of the great things about digital cameras is that we don’t have to trust what we read — we can easily and quickly conduct the experiments ourselves. In addition to getting the answer to the question at hand, we end up knowing our gear at a much deeper and even intuitive level, which is extremely important when we are in the field and we don’t have time to ponder and calculate, but must instead make a photograph in the moment.
The rest of this post is going to be somewhat involved, so let me share a quick thought right at the beginning:
The usefulness of DOF calculators is very limited, as they are based on subjective assumptions that may not match what you are doing with your photographs. The best way to align your expectations with exposure choices is to test them yourself and evaluate images in the form that you most often produce — and not just at 100% magnification on a computer screen.
What is DOF? Essentially the depth of field is the distance range in front of and behind (unless you focus at infinity) the focus point within which subjects are likely to sharp enough to seem in focus when the photograph is viewed at some arbitrary magnification. This size of this range increases as we stop down (for example, going from f/2.8 to f/8 expands the DOF) and decreases as we open the aperture (going from f/8 to f/2.8 contracts DOF). This is a source of creative control for the photographer. A smaller aperture can allow subjects across a greater distance range to appear relatively sharp, while a larger aperture can keep the primary subject in focus while pleasingly “un-focusing” elements in front of and behind the primary focus point. Continue reading Reader Question: About Depth of Field→
This isn’t exactly a regular “morning musings” post, but I wanted to share this stuff and it seemed like a good pretext! This post concerns two related articles at the website:
From time to time I share new posts in my “Photographic Myths and Platitudes” series. These articles deal with common ideas about photography that range from “open to question” to quite wrong. I try to look at these issues from a perspective that is both objective and based on actual photographic practice.
I wrote the first of these two articles about lenses for DSLR landscape photography back in 2010 after reading one too many claims that wide-anglelenses are landscape lenses and that longer focal lengths are not good ‘landscape lenses.’ It shouldn’t be a surprise that I disagree. The first article goes over reasons to consider a wide range of focal lengths for photographing landscape.
When I wrote that first article I realized that there was another notion about landscape photography that needed a closer look, a belief that prime lenses are better than zoom lenses for landscape photography. This long-cherished idea probably has its roots back in an earlier period of photography when all photography (not to mention all landscape photography) was done with prime lenses, and in a somewhat later period when early zoom lenses had some serious shortcomings. But things are a lot different today, and most of the excellent contemporary DSLR (and a great deal of medium format) landscape photography that you see and enjoy today was done with zoom lenses.
Knowing what a sensitive issue this is for some photographers, I delayed writing part II for over four years! I’ll acknowledge in advance that there are some reasons to shoot landscape subjects with non-zoom lenses, and that my perspective is not The Truth about landscape photography lenses. However, I’m certain that the majority of landscape photographers will be best served by today’s excellent zoom lenses.
In any case, part II deals with this issue, and it is available now. I hope you’ll enjoy it and perhaps learn something new.
Morning Musings are somewhat irregular posts in which I write about whatever is on my mind at the moment. Connections to photography may be tenuous at times!
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more. Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
