Printable View
Often true, but -- much to my surprise -- there are plenty of shutterbugs that don't use CND filters on 90mm lenses. And there are plenty of CND filters that are stronger, and weaker, than 1.5f.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/center5.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Quote:
Originally Posted by r.e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
At the risk of being off-topic a bit, let me elaborate (I think this is relevant to the discussion however). I am, in essence, saying that I do, and recommend that you learn how to, compose completely independently of the ground glass. I use a viewing frame (a Zone VI viewing filter to be exact, but any such device such as a simple rectangle cut in a card or a director's viewfinder will work - I like the Zone VI filter for its small size). I find my exact viewpoint and framing using the viewing filter and one eye. The distance between my eye and viewing filter tells me the focal length I need. I set up my tripod and position it under my chin. I then set up the camera with the predetermined lens. Every now and then I find I need to change lenses; usually not. Even less do I have to move the tripod or even adjust height except for the occasional inch this way or that to get exact convergences that I want.
What this means is that I do not have to see much on the ground glass. I just need to know that the composition I want is "in there" somewhere. I crop to the exact borders and and aspect ratio in the darkroom when enlarging. It's nice when a lens gives me a full-frame image from the camera position I've chosen, but that's rarely the case. Usually I need to go with a little more image than I really need and crop later.
So, I check to make sure my borders are there and then just have to apply movements and focus. These latter only require me to examine the two to four focus points I've already chosen, for which I use my loupe.
What this means is that in low-light situations, or in cases where the camera position is really extreme and viewing the ground glass is awkward, I don't have to expend a lot of effort doing so. I've make exposures where I've only looked at two small things on the ground glass through the loupe. Being able to do this means I don't need an advantageous camera position for viewing, nor do I need to carry a heavy and bulky brighter lens. Sure, I love taking time viewing the ground-glass image, but I don't have to if it's not easy.
I don't think this way of working is ridiculous at all. Check my webpage for the results.
The answer is, "yes, of course there will be a discernible difference; and that difference will be one stop." An f/8 lens will give you half the light of an f/5.6 lens; that's what one stop difference is. The real question is, "do you need that much light and are you willing to carry the heavier lens and bear the expense of the lens itself and the accessories it needs." It's really up to you to decide; just make an informed decision that you'll be happy with. I'm perfectly happy with my f/8 and f/9 lenses and use them successfully in lots of low-light situations. You may not find that that works for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Best,
Doremus
You don’t really need my confirmation, but that approach has worked for me over the years too.
I don't use a separate viewing frame, but still from time to time I make exposures without being able to see all parts of the composition clearly on the GG, whether because of falloff on the periphery with extreme wide angle lenses or issues with less extreme setups because of dim ambient lighting. Sure, given the cost per sheet I'll be more conservative when I'm shooting bigger formats than when I'm shooting 4x5 or 5x7, but for my purposes taking a gamble now and then to see how it comes out is just part of doing photography in a satisfying way, something that goes with the territory.