Guest #12 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #81 Posted July 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) In this pdf you can find the expression... typo? (need this "2" in denominator?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Hi Guest #12, Take a look here Focus recompose at f/0.95. (MERGED). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest #12 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #82 Posted July 24, 2011 In this pdf you can find the expression... typo? (need this "2" in denominator?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 24, 2011 Share #83 Posted July 24, 2011 Thanks #12, indeed typo, corrected under same link. That typo not in code so not in graphs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 24, 2011 Share #84 Posted July 24, 2011 Thanks #12, indeed typo, corrected under same link. That typo not in code so not in graphs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reds Posted August 19, 2011 Share #85 Posted August 19, 2011 I shot a gig on Weds with a nocti and my hit rate was quite low. Enough keepers, but could have done better. It was a small venue, and I was right by the stage, so only a few feet from the lead vocalist. My lens isn't back focusing, so it's likely down to focus recompose errors. Pointing up high at the artist's eyes, up on the stage for focus, then recompose lower down for a better comp. Any tips improve on this technique? - is rocking backwards slightly enough? I appreciate it's unscientific but does this work for people? Do you eventually develop a 'feel' for how much is enough? Or at close distances, say 6 feet-ish, is this even possible to pull off wide open? Cheers, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted August 19, 2011 Share #86 Posted August 19, 2011 I shot a gig on Weds with a nocti and my hit rate was quite low. Enough keepers, but could have done better. It was a small venue, and I was right by the stage, so only a few feet from the lead vocalist. My lens isn't back focusing, so it's likely down to focus recompose errors. Pointing up high at the artist's eyes, up on the stage for focus, then recompose lower down for a better comp. Any tips improve on this technique? - is rocking backwards slightly enough? I appreciate it's unscientific but does this work for people? Do you eventually develop a 'feel' for how much is enough? Or at close distances, say 6 feet-ish, is this even possible to pull off wide open? Cheers, Nick. You're right about rocking forwards and backwards but the more important questions is this: Were you shooting wide open all the time? If so, did you 'need' to? Shooting at 0.95 for the effect, at the cost of lost images is a poor shooting choice to make. While shooting the Noct at 0.95 will have a neat effect, it also doesn't give many salable images, even in focus unless your client is looking for that look. Secondly, you're risking so much for the look that it really isn't worth it. While many will see people like Steve Huff nailing some nice keepers with Seal, what you're not seeing are the moments he's missing due to the sheer difficulty of shooting the rangefinder, and how many he's lost due to the shots being out of focus. But thats ok for him. He has many shows to get what he needs and there's not the pressure of getting now or missing it forever. or having a clients 'needing' that one key moment. You're not alone mate, but remember, having this equipment doesn't mean it should be used in the same way all the time. Sure you spent a fortune for the 0.95 aperture, but making better photographic decisions is much more important, if you desire high quality, consistent results. Personally, I had the Noct, no longer do, but would never rely on it over my D3s for my professional concert work....and that's because my livelihood is on the line and any camera that needs to be focused and recomposed is always going to present unneeded challenges. If you're going to shoot the Noct in this way, you will need to be prepared to: 1. Lose images due to having to recompose 2. Accept that some images will not be in focus, but may have value, even out of focus. 3. Give yourself time to learn and adjust to putting yourself in a difficult position. The Noct 0.95 is one of the most difficult lenses to use in the world. Put that with moving subjects and recomposing and you're really putting yourself in an unnecessarily difficult situation. Best of luck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainD Posted August 20, 2011 Share #87 Posted August 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I shot a gig on Weds with a nocti and my hit rate was quite low. Enough keepers, but could have done better. It was a small venue, and I was right by the stage, so only a few feet from the lead vocalist. My lens isn't back focusing, so it's likely down to focus recompose errors. Pointing up high at the artist's eyes, up on the stage for focus, then recompose lower down for a better comp. Any tips improve on this technique? - is rocking backwards slightly enough? I appreciate it's unscientific but does this work for people? Do you eventually develop a 'feel' for how much is enough? Or at close distances, say 6 feet-ish, is this even possible to pull off wide open? Cheers, Nick. I do use my Noctilux at 0.95 very often. Focusing improves a lot with practice and with an eyepiece magnifier. I started with a x1.25, I'm now using the x1.4 with more success. Focus+recompose can be a source of error, but what I've observed is that if my body moves during the recompose phase, the distance to the subject changes. As the deph of field is often less than an inch, if I move by half of that, my focus is lost... Alain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 20, 2011 Share #88 Posted August 20, 2011 Draw a horizontal line. This is the distance from camera to performer, say, 2m. At one end draw a vertical line to represent the height of the performer's eyes above your aimpoint, say, 1m. Now with the Pythagorean Theorem, we can derive the current distance from camera to subject's eyes: The square on the hypotenuse is (2 x 2) + (1 x 1) = 5. The square root of 5 is 2.24. So in this oversimplified situation, the eyes are 24cm further from the camera than the center of the performer. What's the depth of field at that distance and aperture? Are both the subject and you standing still? Is your shutter speed fast enough to stop motion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nggalai Posted August 20, 2011 Share #89 Posted August 20, 2011 Hi Nick, Any tips improve on this technique? - is rocking backwards slightly enough? I appreciate it's unscientific but does this work for people? Do you eventually develop a 'feel' for how much is enough? Or at close distances, say 6 feet-ish, is this even possible to pull off wide open? That’s what I do with my Nokton f/1.1. As Howard mentioned the more off the recompose axis was from your focus axis, the more you’ll need to lean back; at 3m subject distance though you’ll already have about 20cm of DOF so your approach at leaning doesn’t need to be too scientific. Shutter speed might become an issue quicker. leicashot has a thread here somewhere, showing off some (great) f/0.95 photos and giving advise on how he did it. He suggests “focus bracketing” and a viewfinder magnifier, among other things. I can say both work well for me. I must say though that f/0.95 @ 6ft is rather … special. Very, very little will be sharp and in focus at such distances. I, too, wonder whether that’s a good approach for concert photography. You’ll have troubles getting both eyes in focus at the same time already, most likely you’ll highlight lashes or the nose or an ear. Cheerio, -Sascha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted August 20, 2011 Share #90 Posted August 20, 2011 Draw a horizontal line. This is the distance from camera to performer, say, 2m. At one end draw a vertical line to represent the height of the performer's eyes above your aimpoint, say, 1m. Now with the Pythagorean Theorem, we can derive the current distance from camera to subject's eyes: The square on the hypotenuse is (2 x 2) + (1 x 1) = 5. The square root of 5 is 2.24. So in this oversimplified situation, the eyes are 24cm further from the camera than the center of the performer. What's the depth of field at that distance and aperture? Are both the subject and you standing still? Is your shutter speed fast enough to stop motion? This explains why the centre of the performer will be out of focus after recomposing. However, the focus inaccuracy on the eyes of the performer is caused by the rotation of the sensor. If you make the centre of the sensor the axis for rotation when recomposing you could be, say, 1cm out of focus. If you make the bottom of the sensor the axis for rotation ie push the top of the camera forward, the focus will be closer to accurate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 20, 2011 Share #91 Posted August 20, 2011 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130720-m9-faqs-frequently-asked-questions-answers.html#post1378521 Last sentence Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted August 20, 2011 Share #92 Posted August 20, 2011 This explains why the centre of the performer will be out of focus after recomposing. However, the focus inaccuracy on the eyes of the performer is caused by the rotation of the sensor. If you make the centre of the sensor the axis for rotation when recomposing you could be, say, 1cm out of focus. If you make the bottom of the sensor the axis for rotation ie push the top of the camera forward, the focus will be closer to accurate. Would love to see a video of how to use these equations while shooting a concert....that would make for some interesting television. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reds Posted August 20, 2011 Share #93 Posted August 20, 2011 @Leicashot - thanks, you raise some good points. If the gig had been a standard 3 song and out, I would definitely have had the D3s with me as well. This was a small venue, and I had permission from the artists' management to shoot the whole set and support. I actually set out out with the intent of test shooting the Nocti, to see how practical it might be, for this one. Even so - I didn't shoot wide open all night, but probably didn't get past f/2 much, if at all. I'm actually pleased, artistically (not necessarily technically) with the keepers. Whether the client and Sony Music are - remains to be seen.. The manager is now on holiday for a couple of weeks. I think it's worth persevering, because it gives you another look in your bag, that not many other photographers will have. Everyone gets the same shots with their f2/8 zooms, and any edge would be welcome imho, if you can pull it off. @Brett - I know from my Akademie day with you, that you shoot whole wedding with just a 50 - another pressure situation. Having seen your work, you're a good exmaple of where practice, knowledge and experience can make a difference. If it was easy - what would be the point of trying hard to master it !!! I have to caveat this with saying that photography isn't my main source of income, so full respect to those of you who have to sell pictures to put the shopping in the fridge each week. Your perspective (and probably mine, if I were in the same boat), might be a little less 'romantic' and a little more practical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 20, 2011 Share #94 Posted August 20, 2011 I added an older thread on the topic as it contains much valuable information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted August 21, 2011 Share #95 Posted August 21, 2011 If the M10 were to have EVF capabilities, then the limitations of the RF patch would disappear as you could compose first and then set the desired focus plane quite accurately anywhere on the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 21, 2011 Share #96 Posted August 21, 2011 You don't need an EVF for that, a matte screen in an SLR will do quite nicely, thank you. However, we would have to move the post out of the rangefinder part of the forum... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted August 21, 2011 Share #97 Posted August 21, 2011 Of course I was only referring to rangefinders. I have no problem nailing focus on my S2 with the provided universal focussing screen, although Leica did recently introduce a microprism screen for improved focussing accuracy of the 35mm Summarit-S wide open, and of course the 120mm Macro. But again, having said this, I find the universal screen coupled with the very bright viewfinder more than accurate enough to nail focus even with the 35mm lens at f/2.5, which in medium format is an extremely shallow DOF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 21, 2011 Share #98 Posted August 21, 2011 That is what I meant, an EVF is not a rangefinder - using my wife's XZ1 with the EVF does not make me very hopeful of nailing focus on these contraptions btw. Fortunately her camera lacks manual focus (for that reason?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted August 21, 2011 Share #99 Posted August 21, 2011 I have no problem accurately focussing my EP-2 with EVF and 50/2 Cron wide open anywhere on the image sensor. Of course increasing the EVF image magnification while focussing is of great benefit. Setting the diopter correctly is critical, and it helps to have in-body image stabilization. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 21, 2011 Share #100 Posted August 21, 2011 Of course an EVIL is not a rangefinder but adding an accessory EVF to a rangefinder does not make it a DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.