Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Happened To The "Silky Smooth" Debate  
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Here is one for the Nikon guys...
Shot Fine/Large with normal sharpening. USM done in PhotoShop 5.

Not 600mm RAW, but I think it shows that the D100 is capable of silky smooth.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeff Miller



Jeff

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4246 times:

Nice... I see you got a D100... I want one!!

Well at least now we'll have some kickin' pics coming in from Denver.  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineN737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4224 times:

Shawn, that was a crude comment!  Smile

I resent that remark! " at least now we'll have some kickin' pics coming in from Denver".


ARGHHHH!

Hey its not all based on the camera my freind.. LOL..


Later guys

Aaron Mandolesi
Denver, Colorado


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

Excellent Jeff! Keep those coming!

-Dmitry


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4215 times:

Thanks Shawn.. Just giving it a workout.

Aaron, maybe he didn't like our other DEN pics?  Smile just kidding Shawn. I talked to some guys over at Signature tonite...they thought I was you! "Hey are you the guy that takes those wicked nite shots in front of TAC AIR....?" See, you have a following.

Thanks Dmitry.... We can't let the Canon guys have all the fun.

Jeff


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4211 times:

Yup you are right!

-Dmitry


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

Oops, it didn't come out right!!

What I meant was we'll have some kickin' *image quality* pics from DEN Big grin

You guys take excellent pictures, but with a D100 the image quality will be a ton better than with the Olympus. Hehe, it can even show up our F707s, Aaron.  Sad

Shawn



User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4176 times:

ok you asked for it! my wife's little point and shoot sony digital can take phenomenal pictures of an airplane sitting on the ground- its at 600mm+ with converter that you test the durability of a dslr  Big grin -and so far all the d100 and s2 submissions have been with regular lenses, no converters. i'm still waiting hahaha

Joe


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4152 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

speaking of silky smooth, don't forget to shave your legs Joe  Big grin

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

I agree, sitting on the ground is much different then inflight at 600+ with a converter. I just can't get "out" that far currently. 600 is as far as I can go, and so far from where I have been shooting that has been close enough. I like obliques and "head on" shots at that focal length. Maybe it's time to stretch my legs and learn something new?

v/r
Jeff


User currently offlineSunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 783 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4142 times:

Joe, What’s the correlation between the lens/converter combination and the quality and capability of the DSLR? I don’t get it!?!? All it proves is that you can take a 1.5x picture with the same optics. Give me some time and I’ll show you what a REAL camera brand can do!!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Sunil


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4134 times:

Add to the fact that this is 1024x768 and not 3000x... like Joes.

Tarah!


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

The original was 3000x. I also wonder if 600+ plus converter quality is more a statement about the lens used not the camera. Since I don't own that type of lens, I can't submit the same type image.

The shot was just evidence of the Nikon's ability to produce a smooth image with nice reflections using a commercial grade lens, not a high end one. Something I had not seen a lot of here from the D100 group, most likely due to the type of images that were shot, and the time of day.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Jeff


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Sunil,
big difference and given your good knowledge of this stuff im surprised you're asking the question to be honest- like with film development, when you add an additional step, you are further degrading the image- so with a zoom lens (not a prime), with a 2x converter which kills light and slows autofocus, AND an airplane in flight, at 640mm, you are making an image that takes alot more work from you and your equipment than a nice pretty little ground shot at 50mm standing still that quite frankly my 5 year old nieces can take.

Joe


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Joe, I understand what the 2x does as far as adding the additional f-stop and slows the autofocus. Your missing my point, but never mind. If you think about it, my consumer grade lens has an additional step built in just due to the lower grade glass.

The Falcon was not taken with a 50mm, rather a 100-400 non-stablized lens at 390mm. And I made no comment on how much work it took. Just the opposite.

I do wish somebody with a lens combination similar to yours would show us something. But, you did say it was a "pretty little ground shot.." I thought so to.

Jeff


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

Jeff,
please let me clarify that in no way did I insinuate that your shot is lacking in any way, its quite good- i was just making a comment on the comparison of such a shot with the zoom/2x/moving target 640mm shot. I did think though that you shot it with short zoom, having said what you just said, no, my 5 year old niece could not do that with a 100-400 non IS at 390mm, no way.
keep up the good work

Joe


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

How does your niece get ramp access anyway???  Smile

I'll see if I can get some longer shots today. Have you tried any long exposure night shots? With or without noise reduction? I froze my butt off last night experimenting at my local FBO. Very good results in NEF (RAW). Now I just need to learn how to adjust color balance in RAW. The one wimpy light they had on did not seem to match any standard light type, resulting in a slightly pink hue.

Glad I'm not wasting film during all this experimentation!

Jeff



User currently offlineSunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 783 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

Joe, Agreed, but I should have been a bit clearer in my reply… I was commenting more on your statement “its at 600mm+ with converter that you test the durability of a dslr” rather than the comparison of a ground shot vs. an in-flight motion shot. My point was, the fact that you are using 600mm+ with converter does not test the durability of a dslr, anymore than it does test the durability of any body at that price point (and your skill as you mentioned). Of course a point and shoot digital camera can’t do that… but my F100 film body with the equivalent optics could (aside from the 1.5x magnification that the dslr gives you).

You keep mentioning about the 2x converter, but most of us don’t have them or use them precisely because they degrade the image so much. I’m surprised that you do. What is the total full open light loss (f-stop) using the converter/lens combination that you took the 737 pic with (lens_wide_open_f-stop_at_max_zoom + converter_f-stop)? Is the lens you used a constant aperture across the zoom range? If the number you give me is more than f5.6 I will tell you right now… I am impressed that the D60 was able to track focus with that much light loss.

One other question (and be honest!): was that CO 737 shot taken from a sequence? If so, are all the shots of similar sharpness or did you pick the best one?

Sunil


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4090 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Here is a shot I took on Sunday. Hand-held pan shot. This plane was fresh out of the paint hangar and was an empty ferry flight back to DFW, so it was getting down the runway at quite a pace.

Here are the specifics:



All that was done to the image was a conversion from NEF to JPEG using Nikon Capture 3

Here is the shot:

http://www.clickhappy.com/to_home/dsc_1544.jpg


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4087 times:

I don't quite follow what is being said here. If Joe is making a point about the ability of the system as a whole to work with v.long lenses, then fair enough - but I don't see any inherent difference between the D60 & D100 here.

If we're comparing glass, well yes, I suspect that Canon IS lenses combined with Canon convertors will probably have the edge over Nikon, if only because Nilon has no IS primes ... eg. my 300mm f4 IS +2x convertor is probably a package that can't be fairly compared with anything else ... I'm sure a Nikon 600mm prime would be better, but perhaps not nearly so easy to use.

But if there is a correlation being implied regarding the ability of the sensor to create a good image and the length of lens used ... I can't agree.

If anything, and I think pre-prodeuction test of the 1DS have proved this, the difficult task for DSLRs is at the wide-angle end of things - light hitting the sensor at an angle can apparently be problematic. The comparatively straight light path from long lenses actually suits the sensor better.

With regards to silky smooth ... well, Jeff's example looks just fine and I'm sure we'd need to see full size examples from both D60 and D100 to determine any difference. In any case, I feel the older D30 still retains the crown in the smoothness stakes ... in increasing pixel density I think a small sacrifice was made in the interests of higher resolution. I think the 1DS puts things right again.

Sunil - no, the D60 looses AF beyond 5.6 ... there are "tricks" to fool the camera into trying to AF with a convertor attached, but frankly performance is so poor you'd be better off using MF anyway. Actually, I've come to the conclusion the AF is a handicap when working at very long focal lengths.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4087 times:

Royal, what happened with your shot of the dal md80?

Sunil, indeed, 500th of a sec at Ff5.6 if i remember correctly and i typically take 2 shots, maybe 3 of each airplane in that type of shot and they indeed are usually all sharp unless i screw something up by not being careful when panning. As far as 2x and no one using them, well i use it a good amt of time, though I prefer the 1.4x. Recently in Frankfurt, I was talking to a guy who shoots 50mm shots on the ramp there, we spoke of AeroLoyd/Sabena hybrid A320 and I told him I shot it at 320mm (eos 1v, 70-200 and 2x converter) and they are pin sharp (see below). He said its not possible to get any ramp shot through the fence and at 320mm and be good (sharp), i said yes it is (not that i do this regularly but this was in Frankfurt, not home). The shot is attached. My point ofcourse is, if you have quality glass, you'd be amazed at what you can achieve, even with 2x converter, handheld, trying to fill the frame, no IS, and getting the lighting to be dead on and shooting tough kodachrome 64 film which is very unforgiving for any screwups with metering.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries



User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

I'd have to agree with Colin. The quality on the long end (long tele) has more to do with glass and photographer than body. Joe, sharp slides at 320mm has little to do with the fact it's a Canon EOS-1V, F5, D100, D60 or AE-1P..it has to do with glass and photographer skill.

Michael


User currently offlineSunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 783 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Mike, Colin... thanks for saying what I was trying to say in simpler words!

Sunil


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

I'm with Joe on the merits of the convertor - provided you invest in a good one, there is no reason why quality results can't be acheived. I use 2x with my 300mm plenty (in fact I'm experimenting with 2x & 1.4x stacked on the 300!), and am seriously considering trading in my 100-400mm and rely the 70-200 +2x instead.

I think many people have had their fingers burned in the past (myself included) with "budget" convertors - but like most other things, you get what you pay for. A Canon or Nikon convertor doesn't come cheap, but even a top 300mm prime and convertor comes out FAR cheaper than a 600mm.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 3988 times:

Hey guys! I use a Kenko 1.4x converter, it does an OK job, but the original Nikon one will do much better. I am trying to work on an image that I need printed and the nose is just out of focus, very difficult to work with. Hoping the results will be good.

Deffinately will be getting the Nikon when the wallet allows me to do so.

-Dmitry


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Happened To The 94th Squadron In STL? posted Mon Jul 19 2004 17:44:05 by Brick
What Happened To The Screening Here? posted Wed Feb 25 2004 07:10:06 by LGB Photos
What Happened To The Queue?! posted Mon Jul 28 2003 14:57:33 by Ckw
What Happened To The Rejection Page posted Fri Jun 13 2003 08:11:33 by Bruce
What Happened To The 777-300ER Rollout Pix? posted Wed Dec 18 2002 09:33:35 by Fly-K
What Happened To "Tamsin"? posted Sat Jul 24 2004 19:32:07 by Jkw777
How To Include A Link To The "Remark Field"? posted Fri May 2 2003 12:08:54 by KM732
What Happened To My Photo In The Queue? posted Sat Nov 2 2002 21:10:36 by USAFHummer
What Happened To Airliners.net? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 19:30:37 by Airimages
What Happened To Charles Falk? posted Wed May 4 2005 18:09:37 by Clickhappy