Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Exakta Varex Balgengeraet Diakopierer DSC 2568w.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Exakta Varex Balgengeraet Diakopierer DSC 2568w.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 18:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Exakta Varex with bellows and slide copier, one of the very early 135mm SLR cameras. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Support -- P e z i (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The image is extremely soft. Even at 50% reduction (6MP) it isn't sharp. The culprit seems to be the aperture of f/22 for a superzoom lens on a crop-sensor camera. Compare the resolution charts for the 18-200 with a cheap 50mm prime. The prime is not only much sharper at its best aperture but also holds up much better to being stopped down for increased DoF. Wrt exposure/lighting, too much of the lens barrel is blown out (though I accept lighting shiny curved metal is hard). -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review. You are right - this lens was not the best choice here. I'll try it again later with my 50mm f/1.8. --P e z i (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- P e z i, see Benh's comments on my own FP nom wrt focal length. I don't personally think the subject looks bad with a 50mm crop lens (75mm full-frame equivalent) but Ben's right that product photography tends to use a slightly longer length (90mm or 100mm on full-frame seems to be common, which would require a 60mm crop lens). I don't know how important that small difference is, though, and suspect the availability of sharp 90/100mm macro or TS lenses is more of an influence on what gets used by pros than the difference between 75 and 90mm. Whether the wide-angle vs compressed-perspective effects are problematic also likely depends on the subject and how you orient it. -- Colin (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that I think you shouldn't stop down this much. I don't think any lens performs well at f/22. I understand you try to maximize DOF, but try to open at sweet spot for your lens, and stack focusing instead. And yes 50mm should give better result than 35mm for product photography because often in such case, you want to minimize perspective converging lines, which means getting farther from your subject, and using longer focal length will force you to do so. If you prefer converging lines, you needn't stuck to rules, forget what we say... - Benh (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Benh, P e z i, I agree wrt f/22, but one can still go a bit past the sweet spot and have a very sharp image with a prime. On my 50mm prime, it is still very sharp at f/13. It's probably sharper at f/22 than the superzoom at any stop. The charts show f/8 is sharpest but if the consequence is lower DoF and a need to stack, I'm not convinced it is always worth it. I wouldn't go to f/22. However focus stacking large objects like this is a bit of a perfection fetish imo and introduces a significant risk of stacking artefacts. If one is feeling flush, a Canon 90mm TS lens is an option for maximum DoF! See also this blog post about diffraction. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Colin: I couldn't agree more. I'd suggest to try again with the 50mm, starting out with a series of test shots at different apertures to see at which point diffraction starts to become an issue with that lens. --El Grafo (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Benh, P e z i, I agree wrt f/22, but one can still go a bit past the sweet spot and have a very sharp image with a prime. On my 50mm prime, it is still very sharp at f/13. It's probably sharper at f/22 than the superzoom at any stop. The charts show f/8 is sharpest but if the consequence is lower DoF and a need to stack, I'm not convinced it is always worth it. I wouldn't go to f/22. However focus stacking large objects like this is a bit of a perfection fetish imo and introduces a significant risk of stacking artefacts. If one is feeling flush, a Canon 90mm TS lens is an option for maximum DoF! See also this blog post about diffraction. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that I think you shouldn't stop down this much. I don't think any lens performs well at f/22. I understand you try to maximize DOF, but try to open at sweet spot for your lens, and stack focusing instead. And yes 50mm should give better result than 35mm for product photography because often in such case, you want to minimize perspective converging lines, which means getting farther from your subject, and using longer focal length will force you to do so. If you prefer converging lines, you needn't stuck to rules, forget what we say... - Benh (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- P e z i, see Benh's comments on my own FP nom wrt focal length. I don't personally think the subject looks bad with a 50mm crop lens (75mm full-frame equivalent) but Ben's right that product photography tends to use a slightly longer length (90mm or 100mm on full-frame seems to be common, which would require a 60mm crop lens). I don't know how important that small difference is, though, and suspect the availability of sharp 90/100mm macro or TS lenses is more of an influence on what gets used by pros than the difference between 75 and 90mm. Whether the wide-angle vs compressed-perspective effects are problematic also likely depends on the subject and how you orient it. -- Colin (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Thanks a lot for all your hints! Think I'll try out a series of different f-stops and also different lenses; the 50mm f/1.8 already mentioned and also the AF-S NIKKOR 85 mm 1:1,8G portrait lens will be given a chance. --P e z i (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
