RE: How do I set up my G5 Quad for optimum Photoshop speed?
I have an Apple Mac G5 2.5 Quad. One of the very last of the Power PC Tower Macs. I have two internal drives fitted. One 500GB runs the Applications, the other 250GB is partitioned into two. One half is used for File storage, the other is used as a Photoshop scratch disc. I have 4.5 GB RAM installed.
I’m running the latest version of Leopard and Adobe CS3.
So how can I can I get PS to run faster on large multi layered artwork / illustration files that are about 1.5 GB in size?
Am I doing all I can?
Would more RAM help?
Would the scratch disc be better off not partitioned?
Would it it be best to have my files in the ‘Home’ folder, on the applications hard drive and NOT have the scratch disc partitioned?
Would I be better off putting the cash towards a new Mac Pro instead?
Thanks George and Buko. OK, I’ve ordered some more RAM (4GB). Total in my Mac will now be 8.5 GB when it arrives.
All files and Applications are now on the 500GB drive. The 250GB drive is just the scratch with no partition.
I have found the Bigger Tiles plug. Its entitled ~Bigger Tiles.plugin. How do I activate this?
I can’t find reference to the VM Buffering plugin. Does this only become visible when there is more than the current 4.5GB is fitted? If not where can I find it?
The very important impact of mass storage on overall performance is IMO generally not given enough attention. Drives slow as they fill so make sure your drives do not exceed half full.
I am unfamiliar with the much slower G5s, but certainly on a Mac Pro performance would benefit from faster mass storage; Raptor drives and/or RAID 0, depending upon budget, total data storage and the value of improved speed.
I just upgraded to CS3. I’m on a Dual 2.5Ghz G5 with 4 GB RAM, 10.4.11.
Should I too be activating the Big Tiles plug-in and the VM Buffering Plugin? Ann, I think you and I are on similar machines? Do you have these activated? And if so, how come? What do they do for you?
Similar machines Doug ย although mine is the first-shipment 2 GHz version and you have the snazzier 2.5 model.
I have these plug-ins enabled but I have 5.5 GB RAM and I believe that "Force VM Buffering" is recommended for machines with more than 4 GB RAM if you work on large files so it might, or might not, improve performance on your machine.
There are two flavours of VM Buffering and this Readme explains which one you should use:
Bigger Tiles Plug-In The Bigger Tiles plug-in causes Photoshop to process image data in larger chunks. This will reduce the overall time to complete many operations, especially on computers with more than 1 GB of RAM installed. Bigger Tiles will also reduce the responsiveness of the application in some situations.
Bigger Tiles definitely improved redrawing times for me with my original video card and still works with the 256 Mb VRAM card that I installed recently ย although I haven’t tried running with it disabled.
Yes, Ann, dear fellow change-resistor. I now see. But for me, none too soon. I like when all of you braver souls step out on the planks and show me both the way and the pitfalls.
Hi all. Thanks for a the info supplied. Very much appreciated. Well my extra RAM is on its way and I’ll take a look on the install disc for the VM Buffering plugin. Thanks Lance. Once the RAM is fitted and installed I’ll set everything up.
RE Intel Mac Pros: Interesting regarding the fact that CS3 runs better without the VM Buffering and the Bigger Tiles plugins switched on?
I’ll let you know as to the performance gains when the RAM gets here.
OK. Fine, if you insist on such uneconomical spelling… a spelling that wastes ink and pixels, not to mention space and time… I will indulge you. But let it be known that, in the matter of spelling, brevity is the soul of wit and parsimony a reflection of wisdom.
Perhaps you would have preferred we all kept our tails too?
Congrats on your new D3. After years of insisting that any commercial photographer I contract shoot digitally and deliver photos to me on disc or by download, I finally bit the digital bullet myself not quite two years ago. And I haven’t looked back.
I still have a couple of trusty 35mm Nikons and a handful of old reliable manual lenses. And I do miss the very quick setup-and-shoot (aperture and shutter speed) with my F2 without having to fish around with miniature buttons and on-screen menus that become invisible in bright light. And I particularly miss immediately knowing the depth of field with any lens at any aperture (try that with a digital lens!!).
….still…I’m not turning back. The lure of immediacy of image is far too powerful.
Two devil-may-care early adopters, careening through untested, new technology, throwing their hard-earned cash away on something that will never become useful.
Me? I’ll stick with my trusted 35 mm Argus C3. It’s all the camera anyone ever needs or will need.
And Nikon’s already released the same sensor in the (much lesser-priced) D700 and will probably announce (or possibly release) their 25 Megapixel FF flagship at Photokina.
25 MP would certainly be the triumph of the moment for 35mm-size DSLRs. But what do you really gain? Is it just a horsepower race for bragging rights? Or will pros actually be able to extract that much more usable image information within the acuity limits of today’s lenses?
But peaking up at this topic’s subject line, I think we might be digressing!
I do miss the very quick setup-and-shoot (aperture and shutter speed) with my F2 without having to fish around with miniature buttons and on-screen menus that become invisible in bright light. And I particularly miss immediately knowing the depth of field with any lens at any aperture (try that with a digital lens!!).
Neil:
All of those points have been answered in the D3.
Your major settings all show-up in the viewfinder. The buttons for changing ISO, shutter speeds and aperture and (locking focus point and exposure settings separately if required) can all be done instinctively by "feel" and there is seldom any need to look at a menu once you have customized your settings.
The D3 has been brilliantly designed from an ergonomic point of view and is actually even quicker "on the draw" than my Olympuses.
Those reasons, and the full 35mm frame-size and superior colour-rendering, are what finally made a digital camera feasible for me. Nothing that I had seen before the D3 cut it for me.
Don’t you just love the parsimony of digital capture? No extraneous requirements or actions? Just the pith of image-making?
Doug:
Parsimony
noun
extreme unwillingness to spend money or use resources
I may have been unwilling to spend money but I certainly spent it ย big time!
Now I had better become seriously parsimonious because my Credit Card is shot!
(There was also the question of some rather large and impressive chunks of Nikon glass which one could classify as "extraneous requirements" I suppose.
But I am glad that you liked one of the results of my outrageous extravagance ย that makes it all worthwhile!
That’s a totally unproven commercial product only sissies use. It’ll never catch on. Any competent photographer is able to mix up some hydroquinone, borax, a pinch of sodium sulphite and develop his images.
Everyone wants things easier these days. Pre-mixed developers! Next thing you’ll be wanting to press a button and see the finished image immediately.
Ha! I’ll sell you some flying pigs before that ever happens!
Ya think? It was considered a success if the image came to focus in the same room, let alone on the film plane. It gave new meaning to the term, "circle of confusion."
"I suppose the 25mp will be about 3500 bucks. "
Well, that version of the D3 (D3x?) should be significantly more than the D3 goes for now, which about US $4000.
Being able to crop in image with higher resolution is a luxury not many can afford.
Higher res is needed for cropping.
Of course — that is what a higher megapixel count is supposed to deliver. But my point is: at what point do the megapixels resolve better than the glass on the camera?
Neil: All of those points have been answered in the D3.
It sounds like a very nice camera — but considering that most of my photography is simply cheap physical therapy for me, it’s probably overkill for me. <g>
But what irks me is that today’s cameras are significantly more complex than in the past (you actually need to read the manual) and many of the newer lenses do not have depth of field scales on them. Depth of field winds up either requiring a calculator or its a crap shoot. Not like the manual lenses I’ve used since 1971 on my Nikons.
Parsimony in science is a dream, or goal. Simplicity and elegance are approximations. The Standard Model of subatomic particles is neither, and may even be wrong, but if it is, the real model will be even more Rube Goldberg. One of the pre-eminent physicists believes that all physical properties are emergent and that the subatomic phenomena are , too. I. e. you can go deeper and deeper without end with more energetic colliders. If the LHC doesn’t find the Higgs boson in the predicted energy range, all bets are off. Let the games begin this Wednesday.
Being able to crop in image with higher resolution is a luxury not many can afford. Higher res is needed for cropping.
More pixels does not necessarily equate with higher real-world rez. The whole process of DSLR capture is way more complex than simply counting pixels. I will be curious to see what Nikon (or Canon or whomever) actually accomplishes with a full frame 20+ megapixel camera using 35mm lenses.
I for one do not give bragging rights to more pixels, only to performance as viewed in a 20"+ print.
at what point do the megapixels resolve better than the glass on the camera?
That is truly the question. I always used to say that when the number of megapixels surpassed the number of film grains, digital would surpass film. I think we are there. I know it’s not just pixel count, but given good equipment, we are there.
Bayer sensor cameras in general have a resolution of 85 % of the horizontal pixels /2. The 25mp camera then would have a resolution of about 2550 lines or 1821 lines per inch. The glass is around 3000 lines per inch somewhere around 6 db down of the MTF in a high quality lens. A lens has other factors that will affect performance and the MTF curve shape is one of them along with the "dc" response.
I know it’s not just pixel count, but given good equipment, we are there.
I agree. This horsepower race would seem to have played out until there is better glass readily available.
===
Lundberg,
Could you explain in layman’s terms how your information applies to the Nikons and Canons that many of us use? I see the words but don’t have the technical background to interpret. Thanks.
Of course — that is what a higher megapixel count is supposed to deliver. But my point is: at what point do the megapixels resolve better than the glass on the camera?
That is a difficult question to answer. Sharpness is always a problem and different lenses have different sharpening characteristics. My 70 to 200L lens is far superior to my fixed 50L. If I do a side by side comparison. the 70 to 200 will win hands down time after time, but the longer distance that you have to shoot with that lens, is limiting in that regard. Sharper pixels means less image editing so the answer is it depends…
I don’t think there is one answer that fits all for this resolution vs. lens purity question.
it depends but in general, more is better but more "of" crap is still crap.
The demosaicing algortihms which translate the four pixel (GGRB) groups of the Bayer sensors of the typical digital camera into brightness (resolution) information have coefficients based on the statistics of thousands of representative scenes. For an arbitrary scene the probability that the blue and red brightness combines properly with the two greens is around 85%. So the expected resolution of the horizontal pixels is 85% of the number of pixels divided by two to get expected lines of resolution. The camera pixel array and demosaicing algorithm result in about a 4% loss of effective pixels due to edge effects and some smaller whatevers ( highly technical term for I don’t remember). So say 25 mp is 6000 x 4000, multiply out and get something like 1821 lines of resolution per inch at the format size horizontally. This would be 910 line pairs. I haven’t seen the Modulation Transfer Function of a high quality Jap lens in a long time but I’m pretty sure they will pass 500 lines pairs per inch at 90% and 1000 lpi 6 decibels down . This can be found in the literature and they may be slightly worse or better than that, depending on the amount of glass and type of lens. My last work with lenses was 8 to 10 micron germanium for low res display, so the MTF didn’t need to be very good, coupled with the fact that germanium gets darker and more refractive as ambient. temperature goes up and has to be crudely compensated.
Here’s what Ken Rockwell had to say:
Some people worry too much about sharpness. On a digital camera you get up to a certain spatial frequency and the MTF drops to zero thanks to the antialiasing filter and the CCD layout, thus it’s much easier to characterize lenses for digital cameras. Sharpness is easy to get on digital camera lenses and this is as sharp as it can be.
In my previous post I said 3000 lines or 1500 line pairs. This is the approximate resolution of the human eye, not the glass. Glass isn’t perfect because of inclusions and scattering. Been a long time since i worried about this stuff. It appears 25 or 32mp (Foveon) is about as far as you need to go. Lens choice and desired result, distortion etc probably will be unaffected by the camera limits.
You can find plenty of discussions of why MTF is misleading.
Quite a camera, not only for the sensor, but for the build quality, and apparently will be about $3000. Takes Minolta lenses.
This Sony sensor is the chip rumored to be in the new Nikon (D3x). Take a look at the sample images. No critical analysis is possible from these small JPEGs, but technical information is included with each image. The high ISO performance is impressive.
Rich
Edit – (Some) JPEGs can be downloaded and opened to 70 Mb files.
From a quick look at the JPEGS and seeing the superior color rendering (particularly of Blues and purples) and the performance at high ISO speeds, I would guess that the Sony is using the same chip as the Nikon D3.
If that is the case, I do wonder about the claimed 25 Megapixels. Didn’t Sony go in for some artful pixel-doubling on one of their earlier cameras?
The Sony is much lighter than the D3 (850 g as opposed to 1240 g ) which might suggest a less rugged construction and the use of more plastic?
The Sony doesn’t have quite the range of ISO speeds that the D3 does: the D3 goes up to 6,400 ISO in the regular range and 25,600 ISO in the extended range.
It also seems from that review that Sony are using smaller, more densely-packed, pixels than are Nikon which is apparently what limits their ability to use the higher ISO speeds.
Higher pixel-count may give you the ability to print larger images but the larger pixels on the D3 make the higher ISO and multi-shot burst speeds possible.
The definition on the D3 with the Nikon lenses is excellent and provides a 19" x 13" 240 ppi image; or you can choose to output a 16-bit 21 MP file via ACR to provide a 240 ppi image of nearly 23" x 16" with almost imperceptible loss of quality in the final print.
I think that I will be sticking with my D3 somehow!
The Sony sensor is not the sensor in the D3. It is a new 25 Megapixel sensor.
Of course it’s photosites are smaller than those on the D3’s sensor. The D3 uses a 12 megapixel sensor.
The speculation is that the yet-to-be-officially-announced Nikon 25 megapixel DSLR, possibly to be named the D3x, will use a 25 megapixel Sony sensor. Whether it’s the same sensor that’s in this Sony Alpha DSLR, a modified version of this sensor, a different sensor based on the same design or a completely different sensor is all still just speculation.
In any case, this Sony camera looks to be a serious piece of equipment.
I am not tempted by that review in the slightest degree to change my D3 for a Sony for a lot of reasons including the D3’s better ergonomics, more rugged construction, ISO range and high-speed performance and, particularly, Nikon GLASS.
I simply brought attention to the announcement about the Sony camera as it was posted almost simultaneously with conjecture here about the theoretical performance of a sensor with that pixel density. Soon we’ll actually be able to measure the performance of a real chip that is truly at the practical limit of pixel density for the 35 mm format.
You seem to need to justify your purchase of the D3 against this camera which is a very different animal. The two are aimed at very different markets. And if Nikon were never to bring out a camera with more than 12 megapixels, I don’t think pros would seriously choose the Sony over a D3. No one suggested you should feel "tempted to change" your D3 for the Sony . . . but you. That last post sounds pretty defensive.
I’ve never used Minolta lenses, but in the early days of film SLR history, their top performers were the equal of the best from their competition. I have no idea how they perform lately. But I doubt they are tuna fish.
While this Sony is not a camera aimed primarily at working pros, if it performs as promised, it’s going to give Nikons and Canons a very strong run for their money for a time, by some, just because pros compete in an environment where the only thing that buyers of their images (photo editors) seem to care about is file size.
The D3 is not made with anyone but the pro in mind. It’s price is not in the discretionary purchase category and the "advanced amateur" purchases are an insignificant percent of revenue from this camera.
And because Megapixels, as a benchmark (for the right or the wrong reasons), is so important in professional photography, when the 25 megapixel Nikon D3x (or whatever it is called) arrives, demand for the 12 megapixel D3 will disappear. Sales for the 12 megapixel Nikon sensor will be in the form of the D700 camera body and the 25 megapixel camera will become Nikon’s flagship for pros. There simply will be no compelling reason to purchase the high-end body with a "smaller" chip. That’s just the way it is.
More so than in the computer market itself, in the DSLR field, yesterday’s equipment is obsolete.
Nikon has no choice but to follow this evolutionary path. They regained seriously lost credibility when they brought out the D3 last year. And as soon as they can satisfy themselves that the 25 megapixel sensor does what they expect of it they will make it available. Maybe as early as Photokina, just days away now. And they’ll still be able to profit with their 12 megapixel sensor. THAT’s why they brought out the D700, which at first just seemed to be a confusing marketing move as competition for the D3.
But I did read the Sony Review of course (because those things are always interesting anyway) and, having read it and examined the specs., and taken note of the overall design and the available optics for the Sony I just reported that I still felt that I had made the right decision personally when I bought the D3.
That camera just fits my hands and the way that I like to work ย although the Sony may well suit other people better.
The mega-pixel issue has two sides to it:
Do you choose more closely-packed pixels (higher mega-pixel count) to get a slightly larger printable image (meaning larger than a 20 x 16 print in this case)?
Or do you choose a camera with slightly larger pixels (spread over the same-sized sensor) which gives you the advantage of being able to use these incredibly high ISO speeds as well as the ability to capture full-sized 14-bit images in rapid succession?
I can’t talk in technical terms about lenses, because I am only an artist, but I read a story that leads me to believe that digital photography is potentially capable of resolving far more than the human eye. This was a few years back, and I was reading about the performance of a superb medium format lens hooked to a Better Light digital scanning back. I think it was 25 Megapixels, not sure about this figure. In a general landscape shot, not telephoto, zooming in in Photoshop, they were able to read the text of a billboard 3 miles away. That would be considerably more than the naked eye could do.
I don’t think you are fully understanding the "megapixel issue."
First, the D3 is capable of far larger "maximum" print size than you are anticipating. Digital images, especially from raw camera format, can be printed out at much larger sizes than the simple math would predict, dividing the pixel count into some pre-determined printer dot density. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the quality of 20" x 30" inch prints from that camera.
I have been looking for a "point-and-shoot" for my wife. It is very frustrating that manufacturers have fallen over themselves in the rush to higher and higher megapixel counts to sell their cameras. I feel that 6 megapixels is the final point of diminishing returns for an APS-sized sensor. And I can’t find a single camera that offers 6 megapixel capability. They are all 10, 12 and even 14 megapixel.
At the point-and-shoot level of camera quality, higher pixel density translates to greater noise and many other problems. Image quality has decreased over the last several years in that camera category and I see no way of obtaining a small, pocketable camera that produces the image quality that would have resulted if they had continued to refine the 6 megapixel sensors. Bigger photosites, less noise, better high ISO performance. A 6 megapixel point-and-shoot, using today’s sensor technology would produce 8×10 prints of outstanding technical image quality and even 13 x 19 prints of extremely high quality.
In the D3 class of camera, the same problem may or may not limit higher megapixel count. There is no question that the D3’s 12 megapixel sensor is a superb chip. And in theory, smaller photosites in a 25 megapixel chip may result in loss of image quality at the expense of greater resolution. But that doesn’t have to be the case. It certainly holds for chips more dense than 25 megapixels due to the laws of physics. But Nikon may be able to bring a 25 to market with nothing but advantages over a 12, or enough advantages that any tradeoffs are inconsequential no brainers.
I have been looking for a "point-and-shoot" for my wife. It is very frustrating that manufacturers have fallen over themselves in the rush to higher and higher megapixel counts to sell their cameras.
Good point. The absurdity of this compact camera horsepower race is that the majority of its intended audience is going to be printing primarily online picture galleries, 4" x 6" printed images, with the occasional splurge up to 8.5" x 11", and printing on cheap inkjet bond. More serious problems than pixel count remain unaddressed: severe barrel and pincushion distortion; chromatic aberration, coma, lens resolution, often .jpg-only capture, and reflection-prone screens that are all-but-impossible to see in bright light for shooting or picture review.
How the hell does one actually see what one is doing? Electronic eyelevel viewfinders or other methods to compose and focus are a rarity — probably because they add bulk to these sleek anodized jewels. And holding the camera tentatively at arm’s length with three fingers is the new tripod.
Yes, these small cameras look cute and they fit neatly in your pocket or handbag. And put a prominent "12 megapixel" label on the front panel and you’ve got a market leader.
The willingness of the public to accept miserable fuzzy and noisy images is demonstrated by the sheer popularity of cellphone imagery, still and video. Maybe pixel count is the only thing that gets the naive picture taker’s attention when they want something "better".
First, the D3 is capable of far larger "maximum" print size than you are anticipating.
I did know that. I was just commenting on the Print Size that was "native" to a full frame-capture on the D3 without any rezzing-up.
Another factor with the D3 is its ability to capture a much extended range of luminosity compared with other digital cameras ย particularly that available on the point-and-shoots.
I agree with Neil’s comments about the point-and-shoots and although they may be handy, I wonder if anyone who is at all a keen photographer is going to be that thrilled with the results?
I think that your wife would do better with a nice little Olympus OM and some FILM than with one of those ย and it will cost you a lot less too!
Regarding
reflection-prone screens that are all-but-impossible to see in bright light for shooting or picture review
Check out the little stick-on LCD-hoods ย they really help and they are extremely inexpensive.
It could work out to be a lot less expensive than a DECENT digital camera ยand is she really going to be happy with the results that she will get from a low-end consumer point-&-shoot!
What about one of the consumer-level DSLRs? Wouldn’t that be a better choice?
Only Richard knows the answer to that.
I do keep a Canon Powershot 100 SX in the bottom of my handbag but I regard it as merely a toy; or something expendable to be taken on a jet-boat when I knew that both camera and self would get soaked.
Film has always sucked for non-professionals. The idea that anyone would actually recommend film to a point-and-shoot candidate in 2008 is beyond me. Digicams are inexpensive, and provide
ย The ability to email an image.
ย Small flat digicams.
ย The ability to preview digital pix.
ย The ability to observe, learn, correct and reshoot failed pix.
ย The ability to share images with others in real time.
ย The ability to upload images to digital picture frames.
all FREE instead of 30 cents per pic for all pix (including the multitude of poor pix).
All those points pretty much cover the territory, except for the one most important to my wife . . . the camera must be cute!
Women, considering an item for purchase, can utter the phrase, "Oh, that’s cute!," in an infinite number of ways. All distinctly different. And most, if not all of which can actually mean they have no intention of buying.
Several camera models have apparently met the criterion. But no purchase decision has been made. "Cute," apparently encompasses magenta cameras, silver cameras and red cameras. But not black or gray, or any other color. I despair of winding up with anything that meets my criteria for photography. But it doesn’t matter, they’re all the same.
I wish my Moto Razr captured images with 1/10th the quality of that Samsung image.
Well, it did get a prescription-strength dose of ACR when I got home!
๐
Regarding Cute cameras:
the only thing that you can do is to take her to a large camera store and get them to bring out only the Pink and Red cameras. Then all she has to do is to choose the right shade of Pink. (Silver will probably be rejected in the end as being too gray anyway.)
It’s really in the same category of shopping as choosing jewellery or shoes!
And don’t forget to take your credit card with you on the trip!!!
I don’t think so Ramรณn. If she reads this thread she will understand that Richard really cares and not only wants the best camers but also wants the best camera to please his wife. I think she would be impressed that Rich cares enough to be concerned about something most people would consider trivial.
You would think that it’s about time that Nikon bought Foveon.
Billboard three miles away? Effective magnification? Size of lettering? etc, etc, A fighter pilot with 20/10 could probably do that with the same lens.
Thew original Bayer sensor array for digitals had two diagonal greens and a blue and red diagonally. Some cameras have other arrangements with four greens, or two pixels with no color filter in the middle , ad nauseam.
One more comment about Richard’s wife’s new camera…
Folks (seeing me tote a larger, "professional"-looking camera) will stop and ask me, "What is the best camera?" And I’ll respond, "The one that you’ll actually take pictures with; and not just sit gathering dust on the closet shelf."
Richard Rose is that the same Richard Rose we all know and love?
For Ann the Minolta lenses use the technology they purchased from Lieca and they did at least equal the old Lieca quality and perhaps even did better on many of their lenses. The New and old Nikon and lens perform better on the D3 then they do on their film counterpart.
I was very surprised to see this even the slight barrel distortion I had with 28mm PC lens with film cameras seems to be gone when used on the D3. ? Don’t know why but it is a blessing!
Sony however does make a better camera then most pros probably think, However unless I can put a shift lens on it it is fairly useless to me. But my speciality though it has a big impact on photography in general is still a very small segment of the photography profession so the Sony is probably a worthy competitor.
I would not dismiss it until you can get one in your hands. That is an important selling point of the Nikon D3 and from your own experience one of he reason Nikon D3 has been so successful. The biggest failure of Canon is not only are the cameras heavy they are awkward to hold and work with and truly not balanced, I found them dislikable for that reason mostly. The quality of the image bothered me as well.
But the D3 once you hold this rather heavy camera in your hand and realize this is not at all awkward and very well balanced then you know this is something I can work with under many conditions. You like it right away.
My clients love what I can offer them that I might not have in the past.
So it is not just a question of the specs and Richard’s wife is correct is it cute an if it is not then it probably worthless a well designed camera will look and feel right. Like the Legendary Lieca M2. it looked great it felt great and it performed like nothing else until the D3,
And I am not certain that you will be able to blow up a 24 Megapixel file larger then the D3 12 Mega Pixel file unless the image quality is there as well.
Keep in mind this is Sony real first serious attempt to enter the professional market and unfortunate for them they are still consumer oriented so there will be consumer oriented features.
I was very surprised to see this even the slight barrel distortion I had with 28mm PC lens with film cameras seems to be gone when used on the D3. ? Don’t know why but it is a blessing!
How? On the surface, it doesn’t make sense. Unless you are using camera with a smaller sensor — one that just reads the center "sweet spot" on a lens, you should see the same barrel or pincushion distortion with the same lens (at the same focal length), film or pixel. For a full-frame sensor, isn’t the lens aiming light at the same places on the "film plane" for either camera type?
Unless, maybe, the film being exposed is slightly curled and not drawn perfectly flat as a sensor would be.
The biggest failure of Canon is not only are the cameras heavy they are awkward to hold and work with and truly not balanced, I found them dislikable for that reason mostly. The quality of the image bothered me as well.
There will be plenty of Canon users who would disagree with this assessment.
"But my point is: at what point do the megapixels resolve better than the glass on the camera?"
It depends on the sensor, the lens, and very importantly, the aperture the lens is shot at, assuming that you are shooting on a heavy tripod with mirror up shooting technique, and accurately focused.
The biggest limiter is diffraction, and you can all look this up at cambridgeincolor.com fror a great visual. The Canon 1DsMK3 has 6.4 micron pixel size and at that size, you hit lens diffraction when you stop down past f/8. Stop down to f/11 and you’re effectively at 16-17 mp resolution, go to f/16 and you’re at 12-13 equivalent. The best lenses peak at somewhere between f/4 and f/8 depending on the lens, and if you can shoot in that range, then there is still room for improvement in image quality in higher density sensors. If you have to stop down for depth of field or whatever reason, you will never see any benefit.
As it stands right now, some of Canon’s lenses stand up to their flagship 21+ megapixel pixel resolution and some don’t. Lenses like the 85L, the 135L and the 200 1.8 and 2.0, as well as the 2.8 versions of the 300 and 400mm lenses, will all perform quite well, while some of the wide zooms will see what appears to be soft edges and corners. Of course, it does depend entirely on the final print size and even lenses that looks marginal when pixel peeping can look just great in print.
Even the highest res digital cameras today cannot match the inherent resolution in the sharpest equivalent films, when looking at a magnafied image of the film through something like a moderate powered microscope. Even the best drum scanners can’t quite record every detail on the film. Shoot a film like the discontinued Tech Pan black and white and you’ll see an even bigger difference. William Castleman used to do all of his lens tests on Tech Pan and routinely hit over 90 l/mm on the film. That’s not even mathematically possible on these new cameras. They come close, but not quite. There are even medium format lenses that can hit 120 l/mm on T-Max 100. That’s amazing.
For the record, there are definitely different opinions regarding camera ergonomics. I find the Nikons completely foreign and an extremely at ease with the Canons. This coming from a dedicated Nikon user of 25 years. Different strokes. Who gives a crap. Use whatever feels good to you. I do find the new found evangelism of Ann and Wade very amusing though.
Thanks, Peter, for shedding some more light on this.
Different strokes.
Once again, the best camera for anyone is the one that is actually used, whether $4K Nikon or Canon, $200 P&S, or $5 throw-away. A camera gathering dust on a closet shelf is worthless.
Well Neil the barrel distortion on the Nikon was very minimal but was noticeable it is gone on the D3 which is full frame it is much more noticeable with the canon Shift tilt lens. And I believe is possible for Nikon to correct this effect if they know the nature of the distortion and if that is a constant factor and true for all lenses. However it would be tricky to do this for the old 28 MM PC lens to detect this is not a modern lens. The Nikkor 24 mm PC definitely show none and that I understand being a very modern and advanced lens.
But regardless of how hey did this they definitely have eliminated an issue Cannon did not address.
As far as some Cannon users disagreeing about the awkwardness of the Canon cameras I think you are incorrect about this i think most agree that it could be better balanced as it is one of the main criticism about the camera and always have been at least from what I remember reading about in the past. I found it difficult to work with even on a tripod.
In any event I have been very successful using the D3 and if they do not come out shortly with the D3x I will probably buy a D700 as a back up Camera.
Thanks, Peter, for shedding some more light on this.
yes, agree. Thanks Peter for the insite. I am a hard core Canon user and do agree about the use ability of said camera, but Nikon seems to be pushing the envelope harder with bodies. I really can’t justify buying a Nikon body because of the investment I have in Canon lenses, but it’s comforting when one who speaks from experience shares their value.
There are always going to be some who prefer one brand over the other, when we’re talking about Nikon vs. Canon, and in terms as if they’re the only options out there. There is no right or wrong, only your personal opinion, which is most likely influenced by the brand and model you’ve spent the most tiime with. Even among different models within the same maker there are major differences. I’m in the process of selling both my 5D and 1DsMK2 to make way for the second 1DsMK3. Having two identical cameras with the same batteries, chargers and menu functions make a huge difference, and hardware redundancy is only a smart business decision.
While it’s true that there is a small amount of barrel distortion in Canon’s 24mm T/S lens, it’s actually very small and very easily corrected using Photoshop’s rather crude lens distortion filter. There are other software options out there that provide much more sophisticated corrections, even fixing the complex moustache distortions of some of the ultra wide lenses like the Zeiss 21mm Distagon. Another viable option for Canon users is to process their raw files using Canon’s DPP software which provides automatic distortion and chromatice abberation correction for a range of Canon lenses.
While Nikon has made great strides in the last year, especially in a few of their new lens offerings (14-24G) Canon just yesterday announced the highly anticipated 5DII, which looks on paper to be very very competitive – a full frame 21 mp DSLR for $2699 list. While admittedly, megapixels are not everything, not even the only thing, they do play a role in marketing – this camera at that price point is going to be very appealing.
Mike – One of the great things about Canon’s lens mount is that the opening is wide and the register distance is only 44mm – shorter than anything except the old Minota mount – and that let’s you adapt a variety of other maker’s lenses to Canon. I’ve been using Nikon, Olympus, Leica (the 28mm 2.8 Elmarit-R is one sweet lens) and, of course, Contax/Zeiss, all on the Canon.
Canon also announced yesterday a new version of their 24mm 1.4. I fully expect them to respond to Nikon’s PC lens with a revised version of the 24 T/S.
Yea I hear ya. I’m so joansing for a 1DsMK3, but the cheapest I can find it is 6,800.00. Im starting to get into fashion photography and night club shooting. Bought a massive ring light and it’s a limiting factor in lens selection with all that rigging and shooting with a 5D. Space and distance is always a problem between the lens and subject, so lens selection for any particular night is always a problem. I’m wondering if I can get the 14mmL lens to work with all that…
I love the 1DsMK3 enough that I picked up another one today. I’d be very wary of a $6800 price. That’s technically below dealer cost and even the biggest retailers are only giving a couple hundred off list now, ten months after introduction. I bought mine from Samy’s, which is having a tax free sale through this weekend. As a holder of a Ca. State Board of Equalization resale permit, I have to declare out of state purchases and pay Use Tax on those, so this is the least expensive way for me to buy.
What ring-lite did you buy? I’m not sure how the logistics are going to be much different on a 1 series body, but maybe. There are other alternatives to give that look without having that contraption attached to your camera.
I shoot both in the studio and out. I’ve been doing a lot of shots of the band my girlfriend is in – Vaud and the Villains (look ’em up on myspace) shooting in L.A. clubs at ISO 3200 with all the fast glass – 200 1.8, 85 1.2, 135 2.0, 24 1.4, etc. I’ve shot the same stuff with a 5D, a MKII and MKIII, and the MKIII files just have more pop to them than anything else. Last week I also did some very cool headshots of one of the band’s singers in the dressing room at Cafe Fais Do Do, using nothing but the four inch round tungsten makeup lights. Beautiful stuff.
I’ll send you a couple of links.
But again, what I’m writing is not about whether one should use any particular brand. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and whichever one you’re most comfortable with is probably the one that will yield the best results. By and large this a very interesting time to be involved in digital photography. The options are good everywhere you look.
What ring-lite did you buy? I’m not sure how the logistics are going to be much different on a 1 series body, but maybe. There are other alternatives to give that look without having that contraption attached to your camera.
I bought it because I wanted to have better lighting control out in the field. I went full wireless or better stated, battery cell and not tethered to a 110 power cord. I have to shoot a band album cover here in San Francisco on the 27th and I thought what the hell, I might as well bite the bullet and get some real control with respect to lighting. Am getting tired of beating up images in ACR.
yeah, I would like to see some of your shots.
Question. I have the 50L fixed lens for portrate, but I hear the 85L is the dope unit to have. Have you shot with the 50L before?
How high can you set the ISO speed on your camera?
For capturing the full atmosphere of the Lighting Effects and character of the Band, you would do better if you can shoot with available light if you possibly can.
See if you can borrow a Nikon D3 for the evening of the 27th because those beasts can shoot at 6,400 ISO (with very acceptable quality) and can even push it to 25,600 ISO (!) if you have to.
They also write to CF card extremely quickly which allows you to shoot about 9-frames-per-second Bursts.
1500 W/S is pretty good for a ring lite. That should give you enough punch to shoot at a fair distance if you need to. As with everything, test it out beforehand. Make sure that the battery pack will give you enough exposures for your job. I always have spare batteries when using battery packs. They never last as long as advertised and the worst thing is to know you’re running out of juice before your shoot is really over.
Ring lights have a very specific look and isn’t right for every job, but when it works, it looks fantastic. I really like the look of flash outdoor at or near dusk, letting the background fill in or perhaps go a stop or so under. You could use camera movement to add a shadow around the edges if you’re not shooting against a wall or other solid backdrop. It’s obvious that you must have a specific look in mind if you bought the ring light because that’s the only way to get it. Earlier I mention alternatives, but they’re cumbersome for location work. There are some larger reflectors with camera portals that let you shoot right through the middle of the reflector – well, usually a bit below the middle, giving the ring light effect but with a larger light source. Just a thought.
I’m in the middle of something right now but will get you a couple of links soon.
And, btw, I would never borrow or rent a camera that I was not familiar with for use on a job without having plenty of time to know it inside and out. Musicians can be an impatient lot – ask me about Snoop Dogg – and you do not want to be figuring out anything in front of them.
It’s not so much about the ISO setting. I can have great lighting under "SOME" street lights. I can crank up the rate, but the subjects have to slow down or better yet stop. OKAY……
Um, try that with a bunch of drunk women who have had way too much and instantly become Paris Hilton or better yet, Betty Ford. Hell, you try and tell people plastered out of their mind to just be good kids and " stand still."
hmm…
;o)
I do find the Nikon units interesting, but for this particular set up, I have to run with what I know and throwing in a new computer process right before a shoot – may or may not work well. Plus, you have to understand that I work full time in commercial print. Photography is a hobbie at this point, but a put forth the effort to become better and get paid. Is that not what it’s all about?
Ring lights have a very specific look and isn’t right for every job, but when it works, it looks fantastic. I really like the look of flash outdoor at or near dusk, letting the background fill in or perhaps go a stop or so under.
Yes it looks so gooey if you know what I mean and THAT is what I want. I want sexy, drippy, hot you want me kind of pics. Not racy, sexy, but imaging that say something, and that is what a good shot is all about. Does it make you think and feel someting other then what you see. Get it?
It’s obvious that you must have a specific look in mind if you bought the ring light because that’s the only way to get it. Earlier I mention alternatives, but they’re cumbersome for location work.
Yes, and thanks for the advice. Check and recheck. I do have a shot set in my mind, but I have only some artistic license, and I think it’s going to be general chaos for 3 hours on the the streets with 5 thugs one of which is Carlos Santanna’s nephew. Big deal, Grew up with him since we were 14years old – and he asked – I go. Hard to come by long relationships of quality.
any ways,
This topic has way drifted but thanks for the insite.
so what about the 50L? I have been shooting with the 17 to 40 cuz of close range, but I literally have to throw myself together with a new dress and run out the door on the 27.
I know exactly the look your’e after and the closer you are to your subjects, the better it will look. Part of the look is the falloff on both sides of the faces equally and the soft shadow around, plus perfectly smooth skin. Have fun. I sent you some links to the email listed under your name. Is that the right account?
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
