(Related to the above, I got the first notice yesterday of another night photography adventure at Mare Island Naval Shipyard scheduled for this Saturday… which included a deadline for participants to submit their application that had passed a week ago. I’m rather disappointed about that, as MI is one of my favorite locations for night photography, I’ve photographed there on several occasions with The Nocturnes, and I’ve been looking forward to going back soon. I’m hopeful that someone will reply to my email and let me know that I can still join them…)
Jim M. Goldstein posted a brief story about and links to photos of a sea otter doing something you don’t see every day and he has posted a new podcast of an interview with Aaron Johnson, the creator of the “What the Duck” photography comic.
One notion about “the right way to learn photography” that comes up a lot… and drives me crazy… is the claim that beginners should start with a single prime and stick to it if they want to understand composition and other important issues. The Readers Digest version of my thinking on this is that it was fine advice a few decades ago, but it is now obsolete. In any case, one of the arguments is that those who use zoom lenses instead of a prime are “lazy” and that they should “zoom with their feet.” I’ve been meaning to put together some photographs to go with a post illustrating the problems with this old-fashioned notion. I made the photos a week or so ago, and I hope to finalize this post before long.
Some of you who like my landscape/nature work may wonder what the heck I’m doing with the “urban photography” that I’ve posted here during the past few weeks. Get ready for more – there are currently about 10 photographs of similar subjects in the pipeline. Perhaps some explanation is in order.
This isn’t really a new thing for me – I’ve posted urban and “industrial” photographs in the past. (See the night photography section in my Gallery for some obvious examples, and also take a look at some of the “City” photographs while you are there.) Quite a few of them are what I think of as urban landscape photography, and to some extent I approach making these photographs much the same way I approach nature and landscape shooting. I wander about looking for stuff that appeals to me, often looking for effects of light, pattern, or color – and then I photograph it.
Besides the obvious subject differences – yes, I do realize that dilapidated buildings are not the same as aspen forests – I shoot differently, at least for some of this photography. While I do sometimes cart a tripod into urban environments, more often I travel light – ironically perhaps, usually lighter than I do when I go out for a weeklong pack trip! I generally do not use a tripod, I virtually never carry all of my lenses, and sometimes I just go out with a prime or two.
I hope you enjoy this change of pace, and that in some way you can see connections to my photographs of the natural world. (There is actually a long philosophical discussion I could have about that very topic, but I’ll spare everyone…) In any case, I’m sure that the flow of landscapes and nature photographs will resume in a week or so.
This evening I’m seeing quite a few links to the announcement of the updated EOS Canon EOS 5D Mark II. (Here is a link to a Canon press release.) Unlike some previous Canon updates that seemed rather trivial – e.g. 20D to 30D – this one includes quite a few compelling new and improved features, and I’m sure this will be a very popular camera.
Some highlights include:
21MP full-frame sensor
HD video capture
The expected sensor dust reduction/cleaning features
Live view shooting
Some interesting software additions – a “new creative mode,” “peripheral illumination correction” in jpg modes (sounds like compensation for vignetting), and “auto lighting optimizer” (seems to try to deal with recording details in high dynamic range scenes)
Continuous shooting at 3.9 fps
Larger and higher resolution LCD
150,000 shutter cycles
Expanded ISO range
Price: $2699
For many of us who are attracted to the 5D image quality, the 21MP sensor is a good thing – this camera should compete with the 1DsMKIII on an image quality basis as long as one has good enough lenses and uses careful technique. (I doubt if there will be much IQ advantage if one hand holds the camera in most cases.) It is interesting to note that the increased shutter life is competitive with 1-series cameras as well.
Video capture is quickly going to be a standard feature on DSLRs – though the usefulness of the feature is something that will perhaps only become apparent once these cameras find their way into the hands of those who know how to use the feature effectively and creatively.
The relatively leisurely 3.9 fps burst mode is no surprise. The 5D is not a camera optimized for fast action sports photography that relies on high speed burst mode shooting. But still, at nearly 4 fps it won’t exactly be unusable in this regard either.
The pricing is interesting as well. Whether due to the recent announcement of a $3000 25MP full frame Sony camera and the anticipated competition from a 20+MP Nikon camera or something else, it seems that the prices of full frame cameras – and very capable ones, at that! – are starting to drop.
Will I buy one? I had pretty much decided that I would not buy a 5D upgrade that only provided a 16MP sensor. However, at 21MP this body provides close to double the number of photosites – and such a doubling has been more or less my trigger for an upgrade. Of course, I’m not one to rush to be the first to buy. I’ll let those who are willing to pay any price to be “first on the block” get theirs right away, and I like to see what initial problems are discovered as the first units are released. All of that being said, I think there is a fair chance that I’ll do this upgrade within the next 6 months or so.
Also: Canon announced one new lens, an upgraded EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM. The previous version was thought by some to be less impressive than its 35mm f/1.4 big brother, so it isn’t too surprising that Canon updated this lens. There is also some thought the Canon will update some lenses in order to take better advantage of the higher MP count sensors – they can exceed the resolving ability of some good lenses. It will be interesting to see whether the new 24mm L is a significant improvement over the previous version… and whether it is worth the somewhat shocking (for a prime!) $1699 list price.
(Note: This article was originally posted in 2007 and I should probably update the test using newer gear – though the point of the test and the post remains.)
Last month I wrote about a set of tests (“Full Frame Lens Test“) that I conducted with my lenses and my Canon 5D body. My object was simply to better understand how the camera/lens combinations would behave so that I could make better decisions about appropriate lenses and apertures while making photographs.
One discovery was that, compared to using a crop sensor DSLR, I can get excellent results when I shoot at smaller apertures with good lenses on the full frame body. I tended to avoid apertures smaller than about f/8 on the crop sensor camera, but there seems to be little or no real liability in using f/11 or even f/16 on full frame.
To illustrate I put together the following composite image. (The image appears in reduced form on this page. Click the link to see the full size version.)
A sequence of text photographs illustrating diffraction blur at several apertures on a full frame camera
The example includes five versions of a small section from near the center of a photograph taken with the Canon EOS 5D using the EF 24-105mm L IS lens at a 50mm focal length. The camera was on a tripod, MLU and a remote release were used, and the AF was turned off. The images are 100% crops – in other words, actual pixel size is displayed in these tiny excepts from the much larger original images. (You would virtually never view a print at this magnification. These are equivalent to tiny sections from a print that might be about 5 feet wide!) The images have been slightly sharpened in post-processing, but are otherwise unaltered.
I shot at apertures of f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, and f/16. In terms of the sharpness of this portion of the image, I am quite certain that all five examples are plenty sharp for making prints. That said, there are some differences. To my eye:
The f/4 and, to some extent, the f/5.6 versions are slightly but noticeably softer at this magnification.
The f/8 and f/11 versions seem to me to have approximately equal sharpness. Some parts of the f/8 image seem slightly sharper, but other parts of the f/11 image seem sharper. In the end they are pretty darn equivalent, though I’d maybe give the f/11 a very slight edge overall.
The f/16 image may be slightly less sharp than the f/8 and f/11 versions, but the difference would not be noticeable in a print, even a rather large one. In any case, f/16 appears sharper than either f/4 or f/5.6.
After doing this test I no longer hesitate to shoot at f/11 or f/16. Not only does this give me the possibility of getting greater depth of field when I need it, but it also means that I can compensate for corner softness on some lenses (e.g. the 17-40mm) by using a smaller aperture without fear of losing center sharpness.
(Addition: 4/23/07 – Other Canon L lenses seem to give similar results, including my 17-40mm f/4 L and my 70-200mm f/4 L.)
Added 2/23/08:
In response to a question in a photo forum I put together a sample image showing corner sharpness from the same original images used in the example above. (The earlier example shows 100% crops from near the center of the frame.)
(image temporarily unavailable)
Technical info: Shot using a Canon 5D with the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens at a 50mm focal length. In aperture priority mode, the aperture was changed manually between shots. Initial focus was with AF, which was then switched off before shooting the series. Camera was on a tripod and MLU and remote release were used. Shots were converted from RAW with ACR and no additional post-processing applied. Print made at this resolution would be approximately five feet wide. The crop is from the far lower left corner of the frame.
In addition to noting the softer image in the corner at f/4, also note that the image is a bit darker due to the expected increase in corner light fall-off (“vignetting”) at the largest aperture. Sharpest version in this series shot with a FF body seems to be at f/11 as in the center crop example above. But note that f/8, f/11, and f/16 are not very different in overall sharpness – and in the end any of these apertures would produce a very sharp print.
In response to another forum discussion, I have added another example, this time using the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens and showing performance at f/5.6, f/8, f/11, and f/16. In other respects the test is the same as described already in this post. This image is seen to the right and below.
(image temporarily unavailable)
Conclusions: Based on this set of images and other taken with different lenses under similar conditions, I have come to some conclusions that work for me with my Canon lenses and full-frame Canon 5D body.
In general the sharpest whole aperture seems to be around f/11.
It is very difficult to distinguish any resolution differences at f/8 or f/16 – there are subtle differences when viewing the test images at 100% magnification on my monitor but these are essentially invisible in prints.
f/5.6 or f/22 will tend to be a bit less sharp, though perhaps not for the same reasons. At f/5.6 I begin to notice a bit more of the diminished sharpness as a lens is opened up – more on some lenses than on others. At f/22 the effects of diffraction become just a bit more noticeable. However, if the shot demands it I do not hesitate (much) to use either of these apertures as the very slight decrease in sharpness is quite tiny if visible at all in a print and both provide some other advantages in certain situations. (I’ll even use the largest f/4 aperture on the test lens when isolating the subject is important or when low light demands it – and the results will typically be just fine.)
At larger apertures the performance becomes more tied to the particular lens so it is more difficult to make any generalizations beyond the fact that vignetting increases and sharpness will be less optimal.
The smaller apertures decrease any corner light fall-off (“vignetting”) or softness, generally to a point where both are insignificant.
With all of this in mind, unless I have a reason to select some other aperture I typically use f/11 as my general starting point when shooting with my full-frame DSLR body.
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer 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
