Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
125 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Photography The Sony Alpha Thread V62, From A to E Mount!

views
     
domo_kun
post Nov 4 2015, 09:28 AM

domo_kun
*******
Senior Member
2,690 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: KL



QUOTE(lwliam @ Nov 3 2015, 09:45 PM)
Send the link you're confused about them at least we'll know what's it about you're referring to.
*
QUOTE(Eiraku @ Nov 3 2015, 11:28 PM)
Well, like lwliam said, send in the link and we'll figure it out together.

But from what you initially said ("setting a certain distance on the MF so that whenever I shoot, subjects covered in the distance will be focus whereas the rest would be out of focus") it pretty much sounds like Zone Focusing.

Okay, let's break things down to the basics. That said, I might be wrong so people feel free to correct me.

Zone Focusing = Prefocusing your lens so that you have a fair idea of what would be in focus, depending of DOF as per your set aperture and focal length.

Example: Set to f/8 and 3m (by the markings on your lens, in this case the Samyang) and you can be roughly sure that things should be in focus within a wide range around 3m (say roughly between 1m-5m... I lazy to calculate).

DOF = That range (1m-5m) where things can be (to you) considered as being "in-focus". This depends on set aperture and focal length (and to a lesser extent, to what level of sharpness you can accept something as being "in-focus").

The 2/12 is an UWA so it has a comparatively larger DOF at all aperture ranges compared to a lens with a longer FL (when focused at similar distances). That's why a 50mm set to f/2 focused to 1 metre gives you a much thinner DOF compared to a 12mm set to f/2 focused at the same distance.

Hyperfocal Distance = This refers to the distance at which you set your lens (according to the markers on the lens) for a set  aperture (say f/8) so that your lens will focus on a range between a certain set distance (say 1m) to infinity (the horizon... and beyond!).

In other words, what you achieve by setting your lens to this "Hyperfocal Distance" is a DOF that stretches between a certain distance to infinity - rather than between certain set distances (as with Zone Focusing).

So, in short:

When you are shooting landscapes, you want to maximise DOF, hence stopping down to smaller apertures (like f/8-11) and setting it to the Hyperfocal Distance to get as much things in focus as you can.

*Of course, you could actually stop it down even further to get even more DOF... but beyond f/16 diffraction sets in and that's an entirely different problem altogether*

That said, stopping down to smaller apertures mean that shutter speed will suffer (because you usually want to keep the camera at or around base ISO for best image quality - which usually is ISO200-400) - unless you're shooting in very good light.

So you mount your camera on a tripod so that it would still take sharp pictures at low shutter speeds.

Ze End.

Bear in mind this entire exercise is for shooting things with optimum DOF for landscapes. Shooting other stuff require entirely different approaches altogether lol.

Also, sometimes your might not *want* everything to be in focus lol.
*
WAH. I cannot believe I woke up to this... Haha. laugh.gif Why f/8? 3 meter or 3 feet? Because as on the lens, max is 3 feet, which is about 1 meter. And the Infinity mark, I believe it means anything beyond 1 meter or 3 feet, yeah?
IazHes
post Nov 4 2015, 10:59 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
371 posts

Joined: Dec 2010
QUOTE(Eiraku @ Nov 3 2015, 11:28 PM)
Well, like lwliam said, send in the link and we'll figure it out together.

But from what you initially said ("setting a certain distance on the MF so that whenever I shoot, subjects covered in the distance will be focus whereas the rest would be out of focus") it pretty much sounds like Zone Focusing.

Okay, let's break things down to the basics. That said, I might be wrong so people feel free to correct me.

Zone Focusing = Prefocusing your lens so that you have a fair idea of what would be in focus, depending of DOF as per your set aperture and focal length.

Example: Set to f/8 and 3m (by the markings on your lens, in this case the Samyang) and you can be roughly sure that things should be in focus within a wide range around 3m (say roughly between 1m-5m... I lazy to calculate).

DOF = That range (1m-5m) where things can be (to you) considered as being "in-focus". This depends on set aperture and focal length (and to a lesser extent, to what level of sharpness you can accept something as being "in-focus").

The 2/12 is an UWA so it has a comparatively larger DOF at all aperture ranges compared to a lens with a longer FL (when focused at similar distances). That's why a 50mm set to f/2 focused to 1 metre gives you a much thinner DOF compared to a 12mm set to f/2 focused at the same distance.

Hyperfocal Distance = This refers to the distance at which you set your lens (according to the markers on the lens) for a set  aperture (say f/8) so that your lens will focus on a range between a certain set distance (say 1m) to infinity (the horizon... and beyond!).

In other words, what you achieve by setting your lens to this "Hyperfocal Distance" is a DOF that stretches between a certain distance to infinity - rather than between certain set distances (as with Zone Focusing).

So, in short:

When you are shooting landscapes, you want to maximise DOF, hence stopping down to smaller apertures (like f/8-11) and setting it to the Hyperfocal Distance to get as much things in focus as you can.

*Of course, you could actually stop it down even further to get even more DOF... but beyond f/16 diffraction sets in and that's an entirely different problem altogether*

That said, stopping down to smaller apertures mean that shutter speed will suffer (because you usually want to keep the camera at or around base ISO for best image quality - which usually is ISO200-400) - unless you're shooting in very good light.

So you mount your camera on a tripod so that it would still take sharp pictures at low shutter speeds.

Ze End.

Bear in mind this entire exercise is for shooting things with optimum DOF for landscapes. Shooting other stuff require entirely different approaches altogether lol.

Also, sometimes your might not *want* everything to be in focus lol.
*
Wow, i've learn a lesson here. Thanks for the explaining !!

Wonka
post Nov 4 2015, 11:58 AM

U n k o ™
******
Senior Member
1,643 posts

Joined: Apr 2007
From: U n k o L a n d


Hi all,

I am planning to get a FF camera probably by end of this year. Well my budget only can get me either a Sony a7 or a7m2. I have read online that a7m2 is an upgrade version of a7 but is the difference big? I mean in terms of specs and all. Just wanted to know the difference between the 2 models spoken.

Also the lens. Either FE2470f4 or FE55f1.8 cause I am not sure which direction I am going to but more of a casual photog. I have never used FF before so I am not sure if 55mm will be too tight on it. I have tried to find any Sony centre that has an a7 model with 55mm attached to it to test biggrin.gif

Thanks!
philipcs
post Nov 4 2015, 01:42 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,581 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Wonka @ Nov 4 2015, 11:58 AM)
Hi all,

I am planning to get a FF camera probably by end of this year. Well my budget only can get me either a Sony a7 or a7m2. I have read online that a7m2 is an upgrade version of a7 but is the difference big? I mean in terms of specs and all. Just wanted to know the difference between the 2 models spoken.

Also the lens. Either FE2470f4 or FE55f1.8 cause I am not sure which direction I am going to but more of a casual photog. I have never used FF before so I am not sure if 55mm will be too tight on it. I have tried to find any Sony centre that has an a7 model with 55mm attached to it to test biggrin.gif

Thanks!
*
If budget permit, go for A7II, just the IS is the major improvement over A7, not yet mention other new features... smile.gif

As start, 55 1.8 and 28 2.8 are good start. personally, i only prefer fixed focal length, zoom, too many thing to consider while using it biggrin.gif
Eiraku
post Nov 4 2015, 02:45 PM

Geeking since 1985!
*******
Senior Member
7,037 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(domo_kun @ Nov 4 2015, 09:28 AM)
WAH. I cannot believe I woke up to this... Haha.  laugh.gif Why f/8? 3 meter or 3 feet? Because as on the lens, max is 3 feet, which is about 1 meter. And the Infinity mark, I believe it means anything beyond 1 meter or 3 feet, yeah?
*
Yeah sorry, feet, not metres. Lens distance scales are (almost) always imperial (damn Yanks) but as with most other Malaysians I tend to fall back to metric.

Why f/8? Err... just because? I was simply giving an example, and by f/8 that slice of things in focus (DOF) would be nice and wide.

So, set to f/8 and 3 feet and the lens should show a things in focus between say 1 feet to about 4 feet (again, pulling these numbers out of my behind as I lazy to go open the DOF calculator). Set to f/8 and 1 feet things should be good and sharp between 0.2 feet to 3 feet (or something like that - again these are just some bogus numbers used to prove a point).

Of course normally if you want even MORE things in focus (bigger DOF), you go up to f/11 or f/16... but beyond f/16 diffraction starts to rear it's ugly head already - not to mention the lens would be very dark and EVEN slower shutter speeds (or higher ISOs) would be needed.

So again... WTH is the difference between Hyperfocal Distance and just setting your lens to Infinity?

When you set it to infinity, optically the lens is set to be sharp from infinity to a certain distance from the camera (depending on aperture and thus DOF). This certain distance is usually quite far, so things nearer to the lens tend to not be as sharp.

When you set the lens to its Hyperfocal Distance, you get things NEARER to you sharper (aka, stuff in the foreground) that would otherwise be not as sharp when you set to infinity - but as a tradeoff the DOF doesn't TRULY reach infinity, it just theoretically "brushes" it - which means that things in the far distance are actually slightly less sharp compared to the Infinity setting.

In normal speak: Use Hyperfocal is when you want everything (including things closer to you) within the scene to be sharp (at the expense of far away detail). Why would you wanna do this? If your main subject is closer to the foreground BUT you're greedy and you want your backgrounds to be (relatively) sharp as well.

Use Infinity is when you want far away things to be sharp (at the expense of things closer to you). Why would you wanna do this? If your main subject is on the background and you don't give a rats behind about your near foreground being sharp or not.

Use Zone Focusing when you're shooting in narrow(er) DOF situations so that you have an idea of what is in focus without having to rely on focus peaking all the time. Why would you wanna do this? For streeting of course... but you need to be able to judge distance accurately for Zone Focusing to be of any use to begin with.

That's why I don't bother to set for Hyperfocal unless I have something close to focus on lol. Just aim at something not too close to me, set a small aperture (f/8-f/16 - again, the smallest apertures to use before diffraction sets in) and set focus to Infinity and VOILA!

BTW - all this mambo jumbo actually only really applies to vintage and full MF lenses that ACTUALLY have a Focus Distance Scale. Heck, the older vintage lenses (and a very small number of the new ones, mostly Voights and Loxias) even come with actual DOF scales that make this entire process even easier (which our Samyangs unfortunately do not have).

See below image for an example of both scales (in both metric and imperial YAY) on a 35mm Loxia (courtesy of the folks at The Phoblographer):

user posted image

Most modern E-mount AF lenses (save for the Batis) doesn't even tell you jack scheisse about focus distance except for that tiny weeny focus meter icon thingy that doesn't really help much.

So while the theory of Hyperfocal Distance and Zone Focusing all still applies to modern E-Mount AF lenses... setting it all up could ("could") actually prove to be a tad harder nowadays.

To be fair though, Zone Focusing was developed to help MF photographers focus faster to deal with the lack of AF back then so maybe it has simply grown irrelevant as of now lol.

This post has been edited by Eiraku: Nov 4 2015, 03:40 PM
Eiraku
post Nov 4 2015, 03:31 PM

Geeking since 1985!
*******
Senior Member
7,037 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(Wonka @ Nov 4 2015, 11:58 AM)
Hi all,

I am planning to get a FF camera probably by end of this year. Well my budget only can get me either a Sony a7 or a7m2. I have read online that a7m2 is an upgrade version of a7 but is the difference big? I mean in terms of specs and all. Just wanted to know the difference between the 2 models spoken.

Also the lens. Either FE2470f4 or FE55f1.8 cause I am not sure which direction I am going to but more of a casual photog. I have never used FF before so I am not sure if 55mm will be too tight on it. I have tried to find any Sony centre that has an a7 model with 55mm attached to it to test biggrin.gif

Thanks!
*
Get the A7II lol... IBIS alone is worth the price difference. Also, the shutter button is in the right place (YAY).

Other than those two major differences up top (yeah, shutter button location is actually a big thing lol) it's actually just a simple toss up between a faster camera (A7ii) and a cheaper one (A7).

Also, IINM the Sony Center at the Curve/KLCC usually has both cameras on display. Need to test a particular lens with a particular camera? Just ask the folks there and they would (usually) be happy to oblige.

This post has been edited by Eiraku: Nov 4 2015, 03:33 PM
idoblu
post Nov 4 2015, 05:17 PM

stars for sale
********
All Stars
11,308 posts

Joined: Feb 2008
uncompressed raw coming to A7ii - Nov 18th

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwired – November 03, 2015) – B&H Photo would like to share the announcement of a new firmware update for the Sony Alpha a7 II Mirrorless digital camera, which is scheduled for release on November 18. This update brings the uncompressed raw option — first seen in the a7S II and a7R II — to the a7 II, and provides users with the choice between smaller file sizes via compression or the retention of as much image data as possible for advanced raw file development. Along with this, the camera’s AF system sees a massive boost in performance with the 117-point on-sensor phase detection AF array now supporting adapted lenses, such as those from Sony’s A-mount line. This is similar to what we have already seen with the a7R II, and ensures fast, accurate autofocus performance with a vast variety of glass, making the move to mirrorless much easier. Additionally, Sony is adding more customization options to the camera, allowing movie recording to be assigned to a custom key.

This post has been edited by idoblu: Nov 4 2015, 05:20 PM
domo_kun
post Nov 4 2015, 07:39 PM

domo_kun
*******
Senior Member
2,690 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: KL



QUOTE(Eiraku @ Nov 4 2015, 02:45 PM)
Yeah sorry, feet, not metres. Lens distance scales are (almost) always imperial (damn Yanks) but as with most other Malaysians I tend to fall back to metric.

Why f/8? Err... just because? I was simply giving an example, and by f/8 that slice of things in focus (DOF) would be nice and wide.

So, set to f/8 and 3 feet and the lens should show a things in focus between say 1 feet to about 4 feet (again, pulling these numbers out of my behind as I lazy to go open the DOF calculator). Set to f/8 and 1 feet things should be good and sharp between 0.2 feet to 3 feet (or something like that - again these are just some bogus numbers used to prove a point).

Of course normally if you want even MORE things in focus (bigger DOF), you go up to f/11 or f/16... but beyond f/16 diffraction starts to rear it's ugly head already - not to mention the lens would be very dark and EVEN slower shutter speeds (or higher ISOs) would be needed.

So again... WTH is the difference between Hyperfocal Distance and just setting your lens to Infinity?

When you set it to infinity, optically the lens is set to be sharp from infinity to a certain distance from the camera (depending on aperture and thus DOF). This certain distance is usually quite far, so things nearer to the lens tend to not be as sharp.

When you set the lens to its Hyperfocal Distance, you get things NEARER to you sharper (aka, stuff in the foreground) that would otherwise be not as sharp when you set to infinity - but as a tradeoff the DOF doesn't TRULY reach infinity, it just theoretically "brushes" it - which means that things in the far distance are actually slightly less sharp compared to the Infinity setting.

In normal speak: Use Hyperfocal is when you want everything (including things closer to you) within the scene to be sharp (at the expense of far away detail).  Why would you wanna do this? If your main subject is closer to the foreground BUT you're greedy and you want your backgrounds to be (relatively) sharp as well.

Use Infinity is when you want far away things to be sharp (at the expense of things closer to you). Why would you wanna do this? If your main subject is on the background and you don't give a rats behind about your near foreground being sharp or not.

Use Zone Focusing when you're shooting in narrow(er) DOF situations so that you have an idea of what is in focus without having to rely on focus peaking all the time. Why would you wanna do this? For streeting of course... but you need to be able to judge distance accurately for Zone Focusing to be of any use to begin with.

That's why I don't bother to set for Hyperfocal unless I have something close to focus on lol. Just aim at something not too close to me, set a small aperture (f/8-f/16 - again, the smallest apertures to use before diffraction sets in) and set focus to Infinity and VOILA!

BTW - all this mambo jumbo actually only really applies to vintage and full MF lenses that ACTUALLY have a Focus Distance Scale. Heck, the older vintage lenses (and a very small number of the new ones, mostly Voights and Loxias) even come with actual DOF scales that make this entire process even easier (which our Samyangs unfortunately do not have).

See below image for an example of both scales (in both metric and imperial YAY) on a 35mm Loxia (courtesy of the folks at The Phoblographer):

user posted image

Most modern E-mount AF lenses (save for the Batis) doesn't even tell you jack scheisse about focus distance except for that tiny weeny focus meter icon thingy that doesn't really help much.

So while the theory of Hyperfocal Distance and Zone Focusing all still applies to modern E-Mount AF lenses... setting it all up could ("could") actually prove to be a tad harder nowadays.

To be fair though, Zone Focusing was developed to help MF photographers focus faster to deal with the lack of AF back then so maybe it has simply grown irrelevant as of now lol.
*
notworthy.gif notworthy.gif notworthy.gif notworthy.gif notworthy.gif notworthy.gif notworthy.gif
hensky
post Nov 4 2015, 07:54 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
644 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(idoblu @ Nov 4 2015, 05:17 PM)
uncompressed raw coming to A7ii - Nov 18th

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwired – November 03, 2015) – B&H Photo would like to share the announcement of a new firmware update for the Sony Alpha a7 II Mirrorless digital camera, which is scheduled for release on November 18. This update brings the uncompressed raw option — first seen in the a7S II and a7R II — to the a7 II, and provides users with the choice between smaller file sizes via compression or the retention of as much image data as possible for advanced raw file development. Along with this, the camera’s AF system sees a massive boost in performance with the 117-point on-sensor phase detection AF array now supporting adapted lenses, such as those from Sony’s A-mount line. This is similar to what we have already seen with the a7R II, and ensures fast, accurate autofocus performance with a vast variety of glass, making the move to mirrorless much easier. Additionally, Sony is adding more customization options to the camera, allowing movie recording to be assigned to a custom key.
*
Nice rclxms.gif one more reason to buy a7ii instead of a7
philipcs
post Nov 4 2015, 09:15 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,581 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(idoblu @ Nov 4 2015, 05:17 PM)
uncompressed raw coming to A7ii - Nov 18th

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwired – November 03, 2015) – B&H Photo would like to share the announcement of a new firmware update for the Sony Alpha a7 II Mirrorless digital camera, which is scheduled for release on November 18. This update brings the uncompressed raw option — first seen in the a7S II and a7R II — to the a7 II, and provides users with the choice between smaller file sizes via compression or the retention of as much image data as possible for advanced raw file development. Along with this, the camera’s AF system sees a massive boost in performance with the 117-point on-sensor phase detection AF array now supporting adapted lenses, such as those from Sony’s A-mount line. This is similar to what we have already seen with the a7R II, and ensures fast, accurate autofocus performance with a vast variety of glass, making the move to mirrorless much easier. Additionally, Sony is adding more customization options to the camera, allowing movie recording to be assigned to a custom key.
*
Yeah! Cant wait! biggrin.gif icon_rolleyes.gif
dctravels
post Nov 5 2015, 10:24 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
222 posts

Joined: Nov 2015
Dear sifus,

Can I get some advice on a good quality tripod for my A7RII? It has to be compact and light, ideal for travelling. Carbon fibre? Aluminum?

Thanks in advance!
Eiraku
post Nov 5 2015, 10:35 AM

Geeking since 1985!
*******
Senior Member
7,037 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(dctravels @ Nov 5 2015, 10:24 AM)
Dear sifus,

Can I get some advice on a good quality tripod for my A7RII? It has to be compact and light, ideal for travelling. Carbon fibre? Aluminum?

Thanks in advance!
*
Travel = Sirui T-0025x Carbon Fibre tripod. Light and steady as a rock, without even breaking the 1k mark. That said, being light does mean it has fewer features compares to other "fully-featured" tripods. Like the Manfrotto BeFree CF, if you have the dough (they cost a bit more).

Why CF? Light and vibration dampening. Why NOT CF? Expensive ler lol.

This post has been edited by Eiraku: Nov 5 2015, 10:38 AM
dctravels
post Nov 5 2015, 10:43 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
222 posts

Joined: Nov 2015
QUOTE(Eiraku @ Nov 5 2015, 10:35 AM)
Travel = Sirui T-0025x Carbon Fibre tripod. Light and steady as a rock, without even breaking the 1k mark. That said, being light does mean it has fewer features compares to other "fully-featured" tripods. Like the Manfrotto BeFree CF, if you have the dough (they cost a bit more).

Why CF? Light and vibration dampening. Why NOT CF? Expensive ler lol.
*
Wow, thanks for the prompt reply!

Any suggestions where I can buy the Sirui T-0025x? I'm based in Sarawak but I travel to KL quite frequently (will be going on the 10th Nov).

This post has been edited by dctravels: Nov 5 2015, 10:46 AM
Eiraku
post Nov 5 2015, 11:10 AM

Geeking since 1985!
*******
Senior Member
7,037 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(dctravels @ Nov 5 2015, 10:43 AM)
Wow, thanks for the prompt reply!

Any suggestions where I can buy the Sirui T-0025x? I'm based in Sarawak but I travel to KL quite frequently (will be going on the 10th Nov).
*
That I'm not so sure. It's been a while since I last went tripod hunting. YL Camera (Pudu and PJ) should have them in stock, but prices are slightly higher than on Shashinki (online).

Also try Lelong for better prices - some of the Lelong sellers do cater for COD.
hensky
post Nov 5 2015, 11:12 AM

On my way
****
Senior Member
644 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(dctravels @ Nov 5 2015, 10:24 AM)
Dear sifus,

Can I get some advice on a good quality tripod for my A7RII? It has to be compact and light, ideal for travelling. Carbon fibre? Aluminum?

Thanks in advance!
*
I got one Jusino AX-254C carbon fibre tripod want to let go.
http://shashinki.com/shop/jusino-254c-carb...5kg-p-6516.html

If interested let me know. tongue.gif
Eiraku
post Nov 5 2015, 11:29 AM

Geeking since 1985!
*******
Senior Member
7,037 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


BTW, a basic how-to for Photography if anybody is interested to reinforce their basics, courtesy of the Phoblographer: http://goo.gl/63RBdp
mingyuyu
post Nov 5 2015, 12:13 PM

B A N N E D
Group Icon
Elite
3,249 posts

Joined: Oct 2011


QUOTE(Eiraku @ Nov 5 2015, 10:35 AM)
Travel = Sirui T-0025x Carbon Fibre tripod. Light and steady as a rock, without even breaking the 1k mark. That said, being light does mean it has fewer features compares to other "fully-featured" tripods. Like the Manfrotto BeFree CF, if you have the dough (they cost a bit more).

Why CF? Light and vibration dampening. Why NOT CF? Expensive ler lol.
*
I thought CF should be a lot stiffer and less flexing compared to aluminium?
Eiraku
post Nov 6 2015, 12:26 AM

Geeking since 1985!
*******
Senior Member
7,037 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(mingyuyu @ Nov 5 2015, 12:13 PM)
I thought CF should be a lot stiffer and less flexing compared to aluminium?
*
Yes it is... at the same time it dampens (absorbs) vibrations better than aluminium. It prolly sounds weird that something stiffer than aluminium can be more vibration absorbant but that's just how CF is.

That said I've yet to have enough dough to get myself my own CF Tripod so I personally don't know how it is in practice lol.

This post has been edited by Eiraku: Nov 6 2015, 12:43 AM
mingyuyu
post Nov 6 2015, 01:12 AM

B A N N E D
Group Icon
Elite
3,249 posts

Joined: Oct 2011


QUOTE(Eiraku @ Nov 6 2015, 12:26 AM)
Yes it is... at the same time it dampens (absorbs) vibrations better than aluminium. It prolly sounds weird that something stiffer than aluminium can be more vibration absorbant but that's just how CF is.

That said I've yet to have enough dough to get myself my own CF Tripod so I personally don't know how it is in practice lol.
*
hmm... interesting. But the difference would be pretty negligible I think?
Eiraku
post Nov 6 2015, 01:41 AM

Geeking since 1985!
*******
Senior Member
7,037 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(mingyuyu @ Nov 6 2015, 01:12 AM)
hmm... interesting. But the difference would be pretty negligible I think?
*
Not really. Take a hollow auminium rod/tube and tap it hard with an old 50 sen coin. It should vibrate (ring) for a while. Repeat with a hollow carbon fibre rod - it actually absorbs the force of the initial strike.

This experiment I can actually attest for, as I have an aluminium bicycle with CF parts. People use CF for bike handlebars and seatposts (amongst other parts) for this very reason besides just weight saving (and looking cool).

The downside? For the strength both aluminium and CF can prove surprisingly brittle when pushed beyond its tensile limits - they both don't bend (unlike steel and cromoly), they snap apart. And it's actually worse for CF as it snaps with sharp edges and bits.

But the above usually only holds true for both materials used in high stress applications, like bikes. For tripods I don't really think you'll ever stress the legs to that point (unless you plan to jump on your tripods).

Plus tripod legs are actually built with a combination of aluminum/CF and plastic parts, and plastic between the leg sections (the locks) also help absorb vibrations to a limited degree.

With that in mind, in the end the main advantage of CF in tripods is really just the weight reduction. The additional vibration absorbance is really just an extra bonus to begin with.

This post has been edited by Eiraku: Nov 6 2015, 09:37 AM

125 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0319sec    0.68    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 24th December 2025 - 11:53 AM