Ahhh... The first few weeks of spring. I want more winter though. Why? Because I still want to listen to some music I've created while in the midst of winter. Sigh. I want to tell someone about these new songs sorry I didn't get that done today.
Anyhow, I've heard about some new cameras for this year that are being announced. That will be interesting. Old cameras will go down in price, and I really want to get a camera for good macro photography. Which one would that be? I need one that has the closest focusing distance and mag. You know what I've recently been reading about. Wide angle macro lens made for modern cameras. That's something new because it's the first time anyone's combined serious macro w/ wide angle for an SLR. It's incredibly wide angle, 14mm, on Full frame! It is able to focus 4 inches! That's not a whole lot compared to what you could get away with point and shoot cams; still, for an SLR, impressive nonetheless. However... macro is not really suited for cameras with large sensors. After all, even though you do benefit from the same stuff that you would in imaging scenery, you still won't get too much DOF. And that's why I prefer compact cameras sometimes, as those will work at many focal lengths, and have better macro abilities. A good analogy, althoug perhaps very vague, would be like comparing an electron microscope to an optical one, in which the optical=large sensor and the Small sensor= electron! Here are downfalls of compacts as compared to SLRs. However, perhaps the downfalls of compacts these days will some day come to an end thanks to advances in technology, such as quantum film! However, compacts can be all you need for macro photography, if you have the right programs. These programs can allow you many capabilities. Still life lends itself to being extremely easy to master with compact cameras. So in still life macros, you can get away with SLR like quality, especially given the fact that point and shoot cameras now come with lossless compression. To simulate a much more expensive photo, however, you may find things can get pretty difficult. For example, increasing your DR requires that you have multiple images taken exactly the same way from the same place. Then you load them and hope that there was no movement such as wind. Decreasing noise is also possible with compact cameras. In fact, you can even decrease noise at any ISO down to the native setting of 100, through what is known as image averaging. This can even be done for free using GIMP. And it's generally easier than increased dynamic range in post processing, as in image averaging, each consecutive frame, photo, or layer has an opacity that decreases.
More about DOF
Sure, you can also increase DOF with an SLR with layers, however that is probably more difficult than had you used a compact camera with a small sensor. This has to do with again with the low DOF of a larger sensor, which requires you take more images to cover an equal amount of DOF that you could with the compact.
Now, how do lenses compare on a compact camera and SLR?! An SLR is most sharp at a specific aperture value, usually a few numbers past the fastest f/stop. Once you start departing from this number, your risk image degradation. In fact, this is also true for compacts. But, I think we can get away with getting the whole scene sharp with a compact if taking a picture of say, a close up car against a starry sky. After all, we strive to have the fastest apertures for lowlight photos; as a result, we have to acknowledge that as aperture becomes faster, we lose DOF. And sometimes getting it all sharp is not much of an option. But with a compact, we can avoid this problem without having to resort to processing, albeit at the expense of lowlight performance. Fast apertures are less of an issue on compacts. On SLR cameras, photographers need to resort to high quality glass in their lenses if they want optimum image quality, from the corner of the image to the center. and to sustain that level of quality across various apertures may require even better lenses. Some of the best for those high levels of image performance are the prime lenses; those with no zoom range. Those with the most are least qualified for the job. And the ones in between are not good or bad, depending on what their zoom range is. So, for optimum image quality at various focal lengths one needs to stay away from superzooms, as a general rule of thumb. It is difficult to say whether moderate zooms, or multiple primes are preferable. Let's talk about that:
Zoom lenses benefit from the fact that you can well, zooming or out! This means that you practically have multiple lenses in one, without having to switch one lens out for another, depending on what focal range you want vs how much the lens achieves.
Multiple lenses generally cost more altogether, however will provide best possible
Image quality. You will not have to worry as much about departing from the optimal aperture. However, more lenses mean your equipment will take on more weight. However, weight isn't so much an issue for the 50mm primes, as they are some of the lightest lenses around. Now, if you analyze these pros and cons, and you still cannot decide what to do, I would consider researching the sharpness of each lens, and comparing them. You can even come up with an average sharpness of multiples lenses, and compare it to the average sharpness of another set of lenses. Now you're well on you're way to mastering the art of photography that's clear, and shows plenty of detail. Now, once you've got you lenses, you will probably want to know about the Hyperfocal
Doetanc
No comments:
Post a Comment