Hi Charlie,
Yes, we had to prune it to keep the squirrels from using the branch as a
launching pad to reach the bird feeders.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Geilfuss" <charles.geilfuss@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Point Lobos [was Edward Weston - NY Times feature]
> Indeed Jim. You also pruned your tree.
>
> Charlie
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Jim Nichols
> <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> I recently shot the view out of my home office window with my E-510 and
>> Elmarit-R 2.8/28, and was surprised at the difference from a shot made
>> several years earlier with my F10. I do not have the apertures recorded,
>> but
>> the difference in DOF is very obvious.
>> E-510 and Elmarit-R:
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Back+Yard+in+Spring.tif.html
>>
>> F10:
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/WindowView02a.JPG.html
>>
>> Jim Nichols
>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: [OM] Point Lobos [was Edward Weston - NY Times feature]
>>
>>
>> > The F10 actually has a 1/1.7" sensor which is a bit smaller than a 2/3"
>> > sensor. DOF at f/7.1 and 14mm at the hyperfocal distance of 12-1/4
>> > feet
>> > should would be just over 6 feet to infinity. Since I guesstimate the
>> > depth of the image at perhaps 50 feet, focus at 10 feet would have
>> > given
>> > a DOF of 5-1/2 to 54. But, that's very little gain for taking a risk
>> > of
>> > losing the longer side of the DOF if you should misjudge the point of
>> > focus and focuse a bit too short. For example, if you actually focused
>> > at 9 feet vs. 10 feet the DOF on the long side would drop from 54 feet
>> > down to 34 feet. It's best to go for an approximation of the
>> > hyperfocal
>> > distance and overestimate on the long side. If you can learn to judge
>> > 15 feet, for example, the short side would only increase from 6 feet to
>> > 6-3/4 feet and you'd be assured of infinity on the long end.
>> >
>> > While I was on my long trip around the country it quickly became
>> > apparent to me (and quite a surprise) that my most used lens was
>> > turning
>> > out to be the Tamron 20-40 and almost always shot at either 20 or 40mm
>> > and little in between. As soon as I realized that I fired up the
>> > laptop
>> > and produced a little hyperfocal cheat sheet for 20 and 40mm that I
>> > kept
>> > in my wallet. It says:
>> >
>> > f/stop 8 11 16 22
>> > ====== == == == ==
>> > 20mm 6 4 3 2
>> > 40mm 20 15 10 8
>> >
>> > Those are the rounded-up hyperfocal distances in easily guesstimated
>> > even feet. Nearest focus, of course, is half of that. It worked very
>> > well for getting landscape shots with good foreground focus. I did use
>> > f/16 on occasion but f/11 is the limit to avoid diffraction on a 5D.
>> >
>> > I haven't done any precise calculations but, for the small F10 sensor
>> > at
>> > 6MP I'd guess that you're already diffraction limited above f/4 and
>> > most
>> > certainly by f/5.6.
>> >
>> > Incidentally, your link to the modified photo didn't work.
>> >
>> > Drs. D&D
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Moose wrote:
>> >
>> >>> and 984. 984 I really like, but would love to have it all in focus
>> >>> front-to-back.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm.... Those last 11 images are from the F10. What I can't figure
>> >> out
>> >> is how they got to that size for the gallery. My usual work flow
>> >> tracks
>> >> aren't there and the color balance on 394 is obviously wonky. The
>> >> rocks
>> >> weren't purple.
>> >>
>> >> And you are right, it's pretty fuzzy. Shot at f7.1, 14 mm on a 2/3"
>> >> sensor camera, it should have considerable DOF. Dr. D&D probably knows
>> >> how much - and also that resolution is probably diffraction limited @
>> >> f7.1
>> >>
>> >> So I've posted a new version to the gallery. Not exactly tack sharp,
>> >> but
>> >> pretty much equal sharpness throughout. The overall slight lack of
>> >> definition is probably partly diffraction limiting and partly the
>> >> difficulty of rendering complex foliage at that size.
>> >> <cid:part1.02070206.00060609@gmail.com<cid%3Apart1.02070206.00060609@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > --
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
