L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
wow. natural light. others have argued natural light was purely for hobbyists and that it is counter productive to making a living.

hmmm....

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

But I don't know too many top notch fashion photographers who only shoot natural light. They usually can shoot with natural light, Strobes or even mixed light.

I like the saying -- all light is available -- some of it you just have to plug in.

Anyways Benjamin's work is always top notch -- studio or location and natural light -- I always enjoy seeing his editorials.

Did you say you shot some of the images through broken glass Benjamin?

Rik Austin wrote:
Ben, great work.  Thanks for sharing.  Sorry for the interruption.

Thanks a lot Rik! Appreciated!

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Part of the topic is the Nikon D800 or the underlying theme.
Still can't tell just by the images if it was shot on a Nikon or Canon or what ever camera.

I would appreciate it if you stopped stalking me. If you persist, I will have to complain to the Moderators here.

Shot in 5:4 mode thus the resolution of 30.2 megapixels.

Chicchowmein wrote:

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

But I don't know too many top notch fashion photographers who only shoot natural light. They usually can shoot with natural light, Strobes or even mixed light.

I like the saying -- all light is available -- some of it you just have to plug in.

Anyways Benjamin's work is always top notch -- studio or location and natural light -- I always enjoy seeing his editorials.

Did you say you shot some of the images through broken glass Benjamin?

All of them and some beer glasses :-)

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

I would appreciate it if you stopped stalking me. If you persist, I will have to complain to the Moderators here.

Shot in 5:4 mode thus the resolution of 30.2 megapixels. In the future do not poison my posts!

I don't think what Chris, in this post,  has done comes close to stalking. He has merely stated that by the look of the images one can't tell what it were shot on, a point that relates to resolution as applied to magazines and the web, rather than billboards. He may not have seen any detectable Nikon difference from a Canon. He also has a rather marvellous history in photography working with some of the greats as an assistant and he is not a shabby photographer himself. He may strike some as contrarian in his thinking but often people these days celebrate the camera, announce its presence, and when grey hairs were absent from my head people would celebrate the LENS. Digital cameras are a marvel and your new camera certainly is.

But is there anything noticeably different when doing a photo for a magazine between a Canon or Nikon these days in full-frame in the actual viewing of it. Can you yourself tell the difference when you print it out, say 9 x 13 inches. I am not writing about the wonderful formatting in your camera when you pick a size that works out to one-page magazine ratios. The final look?

LA StarShooter wrote:
I don't think what Chris, in this post,  has done comes close to stalking. He has merely stated that by the look of the images one can't tell what it were shot on, a point that relates to resolution as applied to magazines and the web, rather than billboards. He may not have seen any detectable Nikon difference from a Canon. He also has a rather marvellous history in photography working with some of the greats as an assistant and he is not a shabby photographer himself. He may strike some as contrarian in his thinking but often people these days celebrate the camera, announce its presence, and when grey hairs were absent from my head people would celebrate the LENS. Digital cameras are a marvel and your new camera certainly is.

But is there anything noticeably different when doing a photo for a magazine between a Canon or Nikon these days in full-frame in the actual viewing of it. Can you yourself tell the difference when you print it out, say 9 x 13 inches. I am not writing about the wonderful formatting in your camera when you pick a size that works out to one-page magazine ratios. The final look?

Trust me...I KNOW Chris and this is not the first time he has pushed my buttons! As to the differences in quality in the magazine. No, no differences at all. Just a question of personal preference. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Blad, Contax, etc. could do the trick as well.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I think I'll pass on Bens forums as it seems to me he has issues.... unless his arse is being kissed which seems to be the only reason he posts opposed to a intelligent and constructive discussion.

No Chris..."I don't have issues.." I do have a PROBLEM with YOU. So let's just leave it at that!

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Trust me...I KNOW Chris and this is not the first time he has pushed my buttons! As to the differences in quality in the magazine. No, no differences at all. Just a question of personal preference. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Blad, Contax, etc. could do the trick as well.

Personal preference. Didn't you dump Pentax because their lenses were too soft.. or could be the sensor was not calibrated, hyperfocal distance.

People will say 'Ben says the Pentax is ok' they buy it and find out it's soft.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I think the ability to shoot 4:5 is absolutely an important factor in making life easier on set.  The main reason I always hated 35mm as a format is because the aspect ratio is useless for anything I've ever had to do.  4x5 or 6x7 works perfectly.

Indeed. The last three shoots I did with the Nikon D800 was so close to spot on for the magazines I work with. We generally need to crop about 2-3 percent on either side (vertical) and that does it. So effectively the Nikon is a great MF 5:4 ratio format DSLR of 30+ megapixels with a much wider dynamic range. The fact that it actually does the crop for you and it is marked in the viewfinder is amazing. Now all they need to do is come up with a firmware that allows you to input the exact format or dimension of the magazine and it adjusts accordingly.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Ben, do you use capture one?  That's what I tether to and it has a neat overlay feature. You can have a cover template (text, masthead, etc) overlay on your photos as your shooting. I tried it recently and the AD loved it.

Yes I do. But I much prefer being able to use my focus points closer to the face which is not the case in 24x36 format. In 5:4 it is much closer. Not perfect but close enough.

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

Yes I do. But I much prefer being able to use my focus points closer to the face which is not the case in 24x36 format. In 5:4 it is much closer. Not perfect but close enough.

Can you not tether in 4:5 with the D800?

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Can you not tether in 4:5 with the D800?

Yes, of course I can.  I did so for my last shoot. What I mean, is I like seeing the real crop in camera and not cropping after the fact.

Thanks
Ben

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Yes of course I can.  I did so for my last shoot. What I mean, is I like seeing the real crop in camera and not cropping after the fact.

Well, yes, I think we all feel that way, hence my original post on the subject.  Still, it's a handy feature to have, especially for a cover shot to make sure all of the elements play nicely.  I'm also using it for some compositing work to insure the elements I photograph in-studio work with the elements shot on location and it's also good for that.  Like I said, the AD really liked it, so I thought I'd mention it, that's all.

Anyway, as I said before, lovely work as always.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

wow. natural light. others have argued natural light was purely for hobbyists and that it is counter productive to making a living.

hmmm....

I've heard such a statement about people that use artificial continuous lighting. This is not a true statement either.

FBY1K

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
No Chris..."I don't have issues.." I do have a PROBLEM with YOU. So let's just leave it at that!

There seems to be a correlation between compassion and trauma or put more directly, the more you have to loose, the less apt one is to shit on their proverbial doorstep.

lovely work though.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

There seems to be a correlation between compassion and trauma or put more directly, the more you have to loose, the less apt one is to shit on their proverbial doorstep.

Whatever that means...?

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

Yes I do. But I much prefer being able to use my focus points closer to the face which is not the case in 24x36 format. In 5:4 it is much closer. Not perfect but close enough.

I haven't shot the 5x4 on my D800 yet, but it's been intriguing me. I thought I remembered someone talking about the problem with 5x4 was that it was difficult getting the focus points up on the face because of the way nikon crops to 5x4.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

I haven't shot the 5x4 on my D800 yet, but it's been intriguing me. I thought I remembered someone talking about the problem with 5x4 was that it was difficult getting the focus points up on the face because of the way nikon crops to 5x4.

I shot my avatar with the new 85.1.8 G last Friday. First time ever using the lens. I must agree it is very sharp. However, my old 1.8 D was certainly no slouch. I'd certainly need some more practice and direct comparisons to really know how much sharper. Still, as much as I still like my D700, I love my 800e a tad more as I favor big files for printing. It's a no lose combo for beauty and fashion in my opinion.

London Fog wrote:

I quote my own quote, the newer G version also suffers with more distortion than the older 1.8D, which itself is regarded as being inferior to the awesome 1.8 AF-N introduced in 1991 (one of Nikon's sharpest ever lenses tested).



Will I be getting the G version, hell no!

...but to keep things on topic, and if haven't already mentioned it, great work Benjamin!

????

The 50mm 1.8G is far better than the 50mm 1.8D.

50mm is one of my most used focal length lenses so I test then carefully.

The 50mm 1.8g is downright outstanding compared to many 50mm lenses, even far more expensive ones.

It blows away the 50mm 1.8D


50mm 1.8g


50mm1.8D

These confirm tests I've done.

When I test I use a 4x6 foot target to mimic full length and a smaller one to mimic portrait distance. Also test then outside on a few of my standard "props" for consistent comparisons.

Many opinions out there.... I prefer tangible image testing with images showing the results.

Shooting wide open puts particular demands on camera and lens.

Dynamic range and good lens contrast in this case (Ben's images) is important IMO. Having more info in the shadows gives the hair more depth, especially with the soft natural light.

I own Canon and Nikon. I would use my Nikon's (d800) in this light.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

I haven't shot the 5x4 on my D800 yet, but it's been intriguing me. I thought I remembered someone talking about the problem with 5x4 was that it was difficult getting the focus points up on the face because of the way nikon crops to 5x4.

Same as any other in camera cropping. I have suggested having an option with offset cropping... like this:


Nikon's current option.


Additional option I would like.

That said you can use live view to focus anywhere you want.

Fred Greissing wrote:

Same as any other in camera cropping. I have suggested having an option with offset cropping... like this:


Nikon's current option.


Additional option I would like.

That said you can use live view to focus anywhere you want.

Did they get back to you on this?

Thanks
Ben :-)

Fred Greissing wrote:
????

The 50mm 1.8G is far better than the 50mm 1.8D.

50mm is one of my most used focal length lenses so I test then carefully.

The 50mm 1.8g is downright outstanding compared to many 50mm lenses, even far more expensive ones.

It blows away the 50mm 1.8D


50mm 1.8g


50mm1.8D

These confirm tests I've done.

When I test I use a 4x6 foot target to mimic full length and a smaller one to mimic portrait distance. Also test then outside on a few of my standard "props" for consistent comparisons.

Many opinions out there.... I prefer tangible image testing with images showing the results.

Shooting wide open puts particular demands on camera and lens.

Dynamic range and good lens contrast in this case (Ben's images) is important IMO. Having more info in the shadows gives the hair more depth, especially with the soft natural light.

I own Canon and Nikon. I would use my Nikon's (d800) in this light.

Sorry to disagree with you Fred, but these are not my findings and according to these guys http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff the newer G suffers with more barrel distortion, 1.1% when compared to the D version at .3%, plus it really is not any sharper, especially at 5.6 and beyond.

On top of this, the D version is known to be inferior to the older Japan made 50mm 1.8 AF-N lens, in just about all respects.

Sorry but there is no way my 50mm 1.8 gives me results such as those in your test results above, if it did I'd bin it, but clearly it doesn't!

Therefore with all due respects, I disagree with your findings.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Same as any other in camera cropping. I have suggested having an option with offset cropping... like this:


Nikon's current option.


Additional option I would like.

That said you can use live view to focus anywhere you want.

Yes - it was your post I remembered. That's why I haven't tried 5x4 which otherwise I'd probably use a lot. But not being able to get focus points up to the face with full-body is a real mess - Also I'm tending to use 9-point continuous focus a lot nowdays for fashion movement. So this limit would kind of kill me I think. I do hope Nikon takes the suggestion.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Really nice work. I particularly like the shot posted at the top of the thread.

Plus 1..=*^)

Lovely!

London Fog wrote:
Sorry to disagree with you Fred, but these are not my findings and according to these guys http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff the newer G suffers with more barrel distortion, 1.1% when compared to the D version at .3%, plus it really is not any sharper, especially at 5.6 and beyond.

On top of this, the D version is known to be inferior to the older Japan made 50mm 1.8 AF-N lens, in just about all respects.

Sorry but there is no way my 50mm 1.8 gives me results such as those in your test results above, if it did I'd bin it, but clearly it doesn't!

Therefore with all due respects, I disagree with your findings.

Those are not my chart tests. they are from a review site that  has side by side chart tests for both lenses throughout the aperture  range.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi … &APIComp=0


Also taking a look at photozone you linked to their tests confirm my findings too.

Wide open the 50 1.8G is sharper by a lot and is sharper mid frame and corners throughout the full aperture range. Bokeh is also far cleaner on the 1.8g particularly when stopped down. only issue is distortion. 1.3% while not as good as .3 it is still very good for an inexpensive lens.

Distortion images:

50mm 1.8D


50mm 1.8g

very little difference. It will be very hard to notice any difference in real world fashion images unless you are shooting on a very geometric background and camera perfectly aligned.


1.8g is less prone to flare artifacts

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi … nsComp=638

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Yes - it was your post I remembered. That's why I haven't tried 5x4 which otherwise I'd probably use a lot. But not being able to get focus points up to the face with full-body is a real mess -

Really...? For a full-body crop, in most cases, the difference in plane from face to waist is negligible. I do not hesitate to use 5:4 crop when shooting for a known layout like a magazine page because I don't want my client to have to grow the side crop to fill a full page (I happen to like full page tearsheets). I value the option for 5:4 cropped files and have since the D3X came out. With the D800 there is even more focus point options. 'A Real Mess'....please!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Fantastic to hear of such success here on MM.

Many congratulations on fabulous work Benjamin.
I'm not going to go into the technical stuff as I am just viewing and seeing great pictures.

Wonderful work, deserved success and an interesting profile. What punk bands were you in?

Thanks Elisa

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Fantastic to hear of such success here on MM.

Many congratulations on fabulous work Benjamin.
I'm not going to go into the technical stuff as I am just viewing and seeing great pictures.

Wonderful work, deserved success and an interesting profile. What punk bands were you in?

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Thanks Elisa

i haven't heard of that punk band.

but weren't you in a band called the "Existers"?

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

Thanks Elisa

I was the drummer in two bands. One called the Poles and the other was the Existers. Both Toronto based bands.