*CONTENTS: **00:01** Intro **01:15** Depth of focus vs. Nikon 70-200 **03:39** No focus shifting **04:24** Color consistency/Moire **07:20** Why did I do this Moire test this way? **08:09** Sharpness/Micro-contrast and Diffraction Limits **13:20** Chromatic Aberrations/Distortion/Coma (refer to 3rd party site) **13:39** Macro (a more practically useful analysis) **16:47** BOKEH SECTION WITH DOZENS OF EXAMPLES **16:55** Indoors w/Controlled Light vs. 10 other lenses **17:50** Bokeh outdoors / wide open and behavior of speculars when stopping down **22:47** Bokeh of Voigtlander and Zeiss vs. OEM lenses **24:05** The case of Multi-Layered Bokeh (Otus 55) **25:24** Voigtlander 125mm Mid-Distance and Far-Distance Painterly Bokeh **27:50** Bokeh Conslusion **28:50** Length coverage at f/2.5, close to mid-distance **29:19** Dimensionality/"3D-Pop"/Field Curvature **31:10** Cooperation with TTL/NCLS **32:59** Mechanics, Filters, Flaring, Be careful with elements, etc **31:51** A Surprise Lens*
Same to you! No goodies, it's not a popular holiday over here. But now that you mentioned it, I have 5 pair of shoes, 3 of them are identical Reebok sneakers (the forest pair, the Sunday pair, and the family events pair). I'm turning into Matlock. (but when I was dancing, I had 8 different pairs of dancing shoes).
Friend, I wonder why raising ISO saves from moire? And how to understand the limit to which it should be raised and does it work on video? And I recently studied the sharpness of sensors for reference at f5.6 aperture Gh7 resolves 103 L\mm and Z6II 60 L\mm, but the situation with tonal transitions is different Gh7 at iso 100 gives 327 gradient transitions of shades, and Z6II 578. And here, of course, a larger pixel captures more color transitions. But what is more important for landscape photographers, landscape sharpness or richness of color transitions? After all, oddly enough, but based on the laws of physics, diffraction on a 60mp full-frame sensor should begin at 6.3. And on high-resolution sensors of 4|3 format much later! And I would also like to recommend you a mini-series about one of the outstanding Brazilian racers, very chicly filmed: Senna!
This type of moire I'm showing is a result of very sharp lenses in areas of specific texture, very adjacent to the focus point. *This is a lens with macro applications, that's the only reason I tested for moire.* The Nikon 28mm 1.4E also moires blue-jean fabrics at around 2-8 meters when in sharp focus with side light. Solutions: *a)* Increase the sensor resolution (the Fuji GFX 50 was notorious for very frequent moire, the GFX 100 not at all). *b)* Blur the image (anti-aliasing filter on the sensor). *c)* Re-process the image (ISO is image processing, raising it by a little bit usually works). There's no formula to determine the amount, it's like stirring soup. *d)* Re-process the image in post - the "Enhanced Resolution" feature in AdobeCameraRaw, which I *never* use, gets rid of both aliasing and moire in GFX and other files, although it was never designed for this purpose. Fashion photographers will just change the angle of shooting or lighting a few times until it stops.
PS. As far as tonal transitions and diffraction: a) We pay tons of money to get high res cameras and sharp lenses, and then each RAW converter (Adobe, CaptureOne, etc) opens it up with different profiles and *different contrast.* Not to mention what you can print or not. So I stopped worrying about it. b) DIFFRACTION: You won't see it at f/6.3 (the theoretical number) in sharpness, but you will see it at around f/8, and it starts by screwing up fine textures. *DIFFRACTION DESTROYS REAL RESOLUTION AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE WHO BUY CROP CAMERAS OVER 24 MEGAPIXELS ARE WASTING THEIR MONEY AND SCREWING UP THEIR IMAGES WHEN THEY HAVE TO STOP DOWN A BIT*. That's why this guy on YT couldn't see difference in his Fuji X files when he bought the higher resolution new Fuji. Because whatever more pixels he had, the lens can't keep up (we're talking equivalent of over 60mp that the lens can't resolve on a tiny sensor), plus diffraction. On the plus side, diffraction kills moire (because it blurs it).
And for this: The most important are a) what feelings it invokes (drama): christopherpjones.medium.com/view-of-toledo-by-el-greco-da3662e397c2 b) Interplay of light and shadow, weather elements (calm sunny day vs. dramatic thunderstorm approaching) c) Feel related to framing (from the "grandiose" images of Ansel Adams all the way to minimalism (my daughter's image at time point 0.31 in the video ua-cam.com/video/jTUfEjyB1fI/v-deo.html). Watch my video "The Scene Menu".
Actually, the moire pattern peaks right where the focus is - due to the nature of how the raster image capture works, and the demosaicing. Just on the picture it is less visible because the upper row patches are low-key, or because the actual focus is set closer to you than where you focused on your camera (it is typical for cameras to focus a little bit closer to you than where the actual focus point is, probably because subjects in motion typically tend to come towards you when you photograph them). I mean the difference in the distance between the word "Mixing" and the most moired patches is minimal. Moire is actually a method of focusing I use with my manual-focus lenses like the Milvus 135. I see where I have the center of the focus based on where there is most moire pattern in the viewfinder.
*A)* I should have specified that the bottom part of the color patch Cylinder is closer to the lens (the cylinder it tilted). I thought it's obvious from the image. That was done on purpose, to make sure that the top part (the word "Mixing") was in 100% focus, since I focused it on the sensor in LiveView with the Nikon (back-button AF on the sensor), and manually using a Zacuto loupe in Live View with the Voigtlander. I confirmed this by magnifying the RAW files on the screen to check them before I made the video. *B) Thus, due to the tilting, the part of the cylinder where the moire happens is closer to the lens than the focused point by about 1-1.5 inches.* The bottom of the cylinder is about 4-5 inches closer to the lens. That is why you see the bottom patches blurrier. *C)* Lloyd Chambers had a similar image from the GFX 50 where the shingles on a roof, not in 100% focus but about there, I would say, 98% focus, had strong moire. In his case, ACR Enhance Details fixed it automatically. *Of course, the GFX 100 has no moire issues* and he stated: "If anyone wonders whether a Fujifilm GFX100 is better than a Fujifilm GFX 50RS, just take a look at the pixels-freedom from moiré, color aliasing, etc. I have not seen any of these ugly 'digital' problems in any of my field shots, whereas the 50S/R are plagued by them. Oversampling is critical to best image quality, and it appears that 100 megapixels via 3.7 micron pixels gets the job done on the 44 X 33mm sensor." *This is of course the case with ultra-sharp lenses. You shouldn't notice moire with lenses that don't come close to sensor resolution. As a matter of fact, the most common camera method to eliminate moire is the anti-aliasing filter, which acts like a lens-blurring element, but without affecting the items in perfect focus. Sharpness tests between the D800 and the D810 reveal just that: the perfect focused items are identical with the D810, and the difference starts when one pixel-peeps the adjacent points. The D810 has moire in the adjacent points only.* *D)* I had the same result in the past with some pictures I took of my daughter with the Nikon 28 f/1.4. Parts of her blue jeans that were in perfect focus (which was also visible in magnification) were free of moire. Parts 5-10 inches closer to me, had strong moire, sill appearing in great focus in magnification (but not perfect, as an upscaling test revealed). *E)* As far as focusing on the moire patterns, this is the first time I'm hearing this - and I would not recommend it, although in practice it works, because the DOF covers the other items as well. Items that are in absolutely perfect focus should not exhibit moire.
PS. In addition to my large comment, please keep in mind that if what you are saying was correct, the GFX100 would exhibit strong moire, stronger than the GFX 50, especially in the sharper aperture values. In reality the GFX 100 has no moire at all, while the GFX 50 was famous for strong moire in so many areas and cases, that sometimes covered 10-15% of a 3D image (not a flat piece of fabric, but actual landscapes!!!), depending on the item pattern. Since it's impossible to have an entire 3D item in perfect focus (house rooftops), and only parts of it can be in perfect focus, Lloyd's test was revealing. *I featured his image* at time point 0.45 in the video ua-cam.com/video/WTpjWxMqeCI/v-deo.html 5 years ago.
@@CameraMystique Well, Thanks for your take on it! I will definitely experiment with it to see, and adjust my methods to get technically better shots. :) I also witnessed that lenses that don't outresolve the sensor don't give moire, and it is very logical with regards to my understanding of it. I've observed most of it using my Canon 5DsR (50 MP with the AA-filtering canceled) and my sharp Milvus lenses. By the way, I saw that the sheet was tilted, but not at a very aggressive angle, which made me assume that the distance between "Mixed" and the most moired patches was rather small (perhaps some millimeters or so, if even one). I've previously had the issue of my cameras always focusing closer. Now when I shoot with manual-focus lenses, given enough time, I usually go into live view, zoom in 100% or more (as far as I can), and focus that way, back and forth, until the focus is as spot-on as I can get it. There is actually one example of the moire effect and where it tends to reveal peak focus (at least from what it seemed to me - something I now need to verify for myself): Shooting into an LCD screen at a slightly tilted angle (which practically never gets perfect, pretty much always revealing moire at the most focused point as far as I can remember).
@@mk0x55 One thing that I always say in this channel is *don't trust what you read, do your own tests, don't even trust me!".* Always examine your own copies of your own lenses, you never know! I have had 4 copies of the Zeiss Distagon 28 for a client, and all 4 exhibited different behaviors, as I illustrated in the two videos "Old Man Activities". And even Lloyd Chambers (a fanatic pixel peeper) has said many times "refocus and shoot again" because he's aware of variations. To give you an idea, to do this test, which I did for my own purposes because I want to get rid of one of those lenses, every time I focused, I went back to my office to have a cigarette and then came back to refocus. And I have had more than one instances where I said, in the field, "oh great", and then back home "oh shit" (time point 3.39 in the video ua-cam.com/video/GhBmkPEoCVc/v-deo.html
@@CameraMystique I also remember having moire issues with very fine patterns with my 5DsR and sharp lenses, but nothing close to that crazy as that roof picture from Lloyd's site. The two sensors (5DsR and GFX50) have roughly the same resolution, but the GFX is 44mm on the longer side compared to 36mm on the 5DsR. Both also have a traditional Bayer array. Perhaps that was an issue related to Adobe's software... I've been using Capture One since long time ago, and never had anything close to that extreme degree of moire; although I have had some I had to deal with in post. I can also easily understand why the GFX50*-cameras had so much moire. Most lenses made for them actually outresolved the sensors big time. That is no longer the case with their GFX100-series. Also, the moire pattern there is much finer, and often is eliminated by downsizing the image toward its final form (e.g., when printed in reasonable sizes, uploaded to Flickr, or other places on the Internet).
![[tech] Hyperfocal distance outdated || Close-Focus DOF differences | Context & Dimensional Rendering](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GhBmkPEoCVc/mqdefault.jpg)
*CONTENTS: **00:01** Intro **01:15** Depth of focus vs. Nikon 70-200 **03:39** No focus shifting **04:24** Color consistency/Moire **07:20** Why did I do this Moire test this way? **08:09** Sharpness/Micro-contrast and Diffraction Limits **13:20** Chromatic Aberrations/Distortion/Coma (refer to 3rd party site) **13:39** Macro (a more practically useful analysis) **16:47** BOKEH SECTION WITH DOZENS OF EXAMPLES **16:55** Indoors w/Controlled Light vs. 10 other lenses **17:50** Bokeh outdoors / wide open and behavior of speculars when stopping down **22:47** Bokeh of Voigtlander and Zeiss vs. OEM lenses **24:05** The case of Multi-Layered Bokeh (Otus 55) **25:24** Voigtlander 125mm Mid-Distance and Far-Distance Painterly Bokeh **27:50** Bokeh Conslusion **28:50** Length coverage at f/2.5, close to mid-distance **29:19** Dimensionality/"3D-Pop"/Field Curvature **31:10** Cooperation with TTL/NCLS **32:59** Mechanics, Filters, Flaring, Be careful with elements, etc **31:51** A Surprise Lens*
The lenses look so similar yet so different.
Yup. It's all in the details, and the proper identification of the image elements.
love your analyses and taste in lenses 😁👍🏻
Thank you!
Dec 6th. Happy Saint Nicolas. I hope you got some nice goodies in your shoe. I have too many shoes and can never find my goodies.
Same to you! No goodies, it's not a popular holiday over here. But now that you mentioned it, I have 5 pair of shoes, 3 of them are identical Reebok sneakers (the forest pair, the Sunday pair, and the family events pair). I'm turning into Matlock. (but when I was dancing, I had 8 different pairs of dancing shoes).
Friend, I wonder why raising ISO saves from moire? And how to understand the limit to which it should be raised and does it work on video? And I recently studied the sharpness of sensors for reference at f5.6 aperture Gh7 resolves 103 L\mm and Z6II 60 L\mm, but the situation with tonal transitions is different Gh7 at iso 100 gives 327 gradient transitions of shades, and Z6II 578. And here, of course, a larger pixel captures more color transitions. But what is more important for landscape photographers, landscape sharpness or richness of color transitions? After all, oddly enough, but based on the laws of physics, diffraction on a 60mp full-frame sensor should begin at 6.3. And on high-resolution sensors of 4|3 format much later! And I would also like to recommend you a mini-series about one of the outstanding Brazilian racers, very chicly filmed: Senna!
This type of moire I'm showing is a result of very sharp lenses in areas of specific texture, very adjacent to the focus point. *This is a lens with macro applications, that's the only reason I tested for moire.* The Nikon 28mm 1.4E also moires blue-jean fabrics at around 2-8 meters when in sharp focus with side light. Solutions:
*a)* Increase the sensor resolution (the Fuji GFX 50 was notorious for very frequent moire, the GFX 100 not at all).
*b)* Blur the image (anti-aliasing filter on the sensor).
*c)* Re-process the image (ISO is image processing, raising it by a little bit usually works). There's no formula to determine the amount, it's like stirring soup.
*d)* Re-process the image in post - the "Enhanced Resolution" feature in AdobeCameraRaw, which I *never* use, gets rid of both aliasing and moire in GFX and other files, although it was never designed for this purpose.
Fashion photographers will just change the angle of shooting or lighting a few times until it stops.
PS. As far as tonal transitions and diffraction:
a) We pay tons of money to get high res cameras and sharp lenses, and then each RAW converter (Adobe, CaptureOne, etc) opens it up with different profiles and *different contrast.* Not to mention what you can print or not. So I stopped worrying about it.
b) DIFFRACTION: You won't see it at f/6.3 (the theoretical number) in sharpness, but you will see it at around f/8, and it starts by screwing up fine textures. *DIFFRACTION DESTROYS REAL RESOLUTION AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE WHO BUY CROP CAMERAS OVER 24 MEGAPIXELS ARE WASTING THEIR MONEY AND SCREWING UP THEIR IMAGES WHEN THEY HAVE TO STOP DOWN A BIT*. That's why this guy on YT couldn't see difference in his Fuji X files when he bought the higher resolution new Fuji. Because whatever more pixels he had, the lens can't keep up (we're talking equivalent of over 60mp that the lens can't resolve on a tiny sensor), plus diffraction. On the plus side, diffraction kills moire (because it blurs it).
And for this:
The most important are
a) what feelings it invokes (drama): christopherpjones.medium.com/view-of-toledo-by-el-greco-da3662e397c2
b) Interplay of light and shadow, weather elements (calm sunny day vs. dramatic thunderstorm approaching)
c) Feel related to framing (from the "grandiose" images of Ansel Adams all the way to minimalism (my daughter's image at time point 0.31 in the video ua-cam.com/video/jTUfEjyB1fI/v-deo.html).
Watch my video "The Scene Menu".
Actually, the moire pattern peaks right where the focus is - due to the nature of how the raster image capture works, and the demosaicing. Just on the picture it is less visible because the upper row patches are low-key, or because the actual focus is set closer to you than where you focused on your camera (it is typical for cameras to focus a little bit closer to you than where the actual focus point is, probably because subjects in motion typically tend to come towards you when you photograph them). I mean the difference in the distance between the word "Mixing" and the most moired patches is minimal.
Moire is actually a method of focusing I use with my manual-focus lenses like the Milvus 135. I see where I have the center of the focus based on where there is most moire pattern in the viewfinder.
*A)* I should have specified that the bottom part of the color patch Cylinder is closer to the lens (the cylinder it tilted). I thought it's obvious from the image. That was done on purpose, to make sure that the top part (the word "Mixing") was in 100% focus, since I focused it on the sensor in LiveView with the Nikon (back-button AF on the sensor), and manually using a Zacuto loupe in Live View with the Voigtlander. I confirmed this by magnifying the RAW files on the screen to check them before I made the video.
*B) Thus, due to the tilting, the part of the cylinder where the moire happens is closer to the lens than the focused point by about 1-1.5 inches.* The bottom of the cylinder is about 4-5 inches closer to the lens. That is why you see the bottom patches blurrier.
*C)* Lloyd Chambers had a similar image from the GFX 50 where the shingles on a roof, not in 100% focus but about there, I would say, 98% focus, had strong moire. In his case, ACR Enhance Details fixed it automatically. *Of course, the GFX 100 has no moire issues* and he stated: "If anyone wonders whether a Fujifilm GFX100 is better than a Fujifilm GFX 50RS, just take a look at the pixels-freedom from moiré, color aliasing, etc. I have not seen any of these ugly 'digital' problems in any of my field shots, whereas the 50S/R are plagued by them. Oversampling is critical to best image quality, and it appears that 100 megapixels via 3.7 micron pixels gets the job done on the 44 X 33mm sensor."
*This is of course the case with ultra-sharp lenses.
You shouldn't notice moire with lenses that don't come close to sensor resolution. As a matter of fact, the most common camera method to eliminate moire is the anti-aliasing filter, which acts like a lens-blurring element, but without affecting the items in perfect focus. Sharpness tests between the D800 and the D810 reveal just that: the perfect focused items are identical with the D810, and the difference starts when one pixel-peeps the adjacent points. The D810 has moire in the adjacent points only.*
*D)* I had the same result in the past with some pictures I took of my daughter with the Nikon 28 f/1.4. Parts of her blue jeans that were in perfect focus (which was also visible in magnification) were free of moire. Parts 5-10 inches closer to me, had strong moire, sill appearing in great focus in magnification (but not perfect, as an upscaling test revealed).
*E)* As far as focusing on the moire patterns, this is the first time I'm hearing this - and I would not recommend it, although in practice it works, because the DOF covers the other items as well. Items that are in absolutely perfect focus should not exhibit moire.
PS. In addition to my large comment, please keep in mind that if what you are saying was correct, the GFX100 would exhibit strong moire, stronger than the GFX 50, especially in the sharper aperture values. In reality the GFX 100 has no moire at all, while the GFX 50 was famous for strong moire in so many areas and cases, that sometimes covered 10-15% of a 3D image (not a flat piece of fabric, but actual landscapes!!!), depending on the item pattern. Since it's impossible to have an entire 3D item in perfect focus (house rooftops), and only parts of it can be in perfect focus, Lloyd's test was revealing. *I featured his image* at time point 0.45 in the video ua-cam.com/video/WTpjWxMqeCI/v-deo.html 5 years ago.
@@CameraMystique Well, Thanks for your take on it! I will definitely experiment with it to see, and adjust my methods to get technically better shots. :)
I also witnessed that lenses that don't outresolve the sensor don't give moire, and it is very logical with regards to my understanding of it. I've observed most of it using my Canon 5DsR (50 MP with the AA-filtering canceled) and my sharp Milvus lenses.
By the way, I saw that the sheet was tilted, but not at a very aggressive angle, which made me assume that the distance between "Mixed" and the most moired patches was rather small (perhaps some millimeters or so, if even one). I've previously had the issue of my cameras always focusing closer. Now when I shoot with manual-focus lenses, given enough time, I usually go into live view, zoom in 100% or more (as far as I can), and focus that way, back and forth, until the focus is as spot-on as I can get it.
There is actually one example of the moire effect and where it tends to reveal peak focus (at least from what it seemed to me - something I now need to verify for myself): Shooting into an LCD screen at a slightly tilted angle (which practically never gets perfect, pretty much always revealing moire at the most focused point as far as I can remember).
@@mk0x55 One thing that I always say in this channel is *don't trust what you read, do your own tests, don't even trust me!".*
Always examine your own copies of your own lenses, you never know!
I have had 4 copies of the Zeiss Distagon 28 for a client, and all 4 exhibited different behaviors, as I illustrated in the two videos "Old Man Activities". And even Lloyd Chambers (a fanatic pixel peeper) has said many times "refocus and shoot again" because he's aware of variations. To give you an idea, to do this test, which I did for my own purposes because I want to get rid of one of those lenses, every time I focused, I went back to my office to have a cigarette and then came back to refocus. And I have had more than one instances where I said, in the field, "oh great", and then back home "oh shit" (time point 3.39 in the video ua-cam.com/video/GhBmkPEoCVc/v-deo.html
@@CameraMystique I also remember having moire issues with very fine patterns with my 5DsR and sharp lenses, but nothing close to that crazy as that roof picture from Lloyd's site. The two sensors (5DsR and GFX50) have roughly the same resolution, but the GFX is 44mm on the longer side compared to 36mm on the 5DsR. Both also have a traditional Bayer array. Perhaps that was an issue related to Adobe's software... I've been using Capture One since long time ago, and never had anything close to that extreme degree of moire; although I have had some I had to deal with in post.
I can also easily understand why the GFX50*-cameras had so much moire. Most lenses made for them actually outresolved the sensors big time. That is no longer the case with their GFX100-series. Also, the moire pattern there is much finer, and often is eliminated by downsizing the image toward its final form (e.g., when printed in reasonable sizes, uploaded to Flickr, or other places on the Internet).
Where are the affiliate links for all the equipments
Also you should declare conflicts of interests
@@jeremytok I'm still drafting my GDPR compliance...
Muahahahahaha!
The Tamarians and their "imagery."
"sokath, his eyes uncovered"
Nice reference!
I burned a flash zoom motor last year, and I thought "flash, continuous, when the walls fell". Nikon fixed it ("Nikon and its flash, on the ocean").