LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


new camera body or an L lens

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 22 Jul 2006 (Saturday) 12:18   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
ScruffyJohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2005
287 posts
Longmont, Colorado
[MORE/SHARE]

I went back and looked at the Exif
1st two images (from the 10-22mm)
- ISO : 100
- focal length : 22mm
- 1/50 at f16
2nd two images (from the 28-135mm)
- ISO : 100
- focal length : 135mm
- 1/40 at f16

I'll try with the 100mm macro lens too, to compare

Post #16, Jul 23, 2006 14:37:26


John

Canon 30D/300D
24-105L, 10-22, 100mm macro
Kit lens (18-55), 28-135, 100-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
aliflack
Senior Member
aliflack's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
401 posts
York, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Key thing on those pics - what was the shutter speed and how windy was it? If you had a shutter speed of say less then 1/60 and it was breezy enough to move the plant, then that would explain some of the lack of detail.

Other than that, did you shoot RAW or JPEG? If RAW how much sharpening (USM etc) did you apply??

Post #17, Jul 23, 2006 14:37:37 as a reply to post 1759019


40D, 16-35L F2.8, 24-70L F2.8, 70-300mm IS, 100mm F2.8, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, Elinchrom D-Lites, Mid Octa, 580 EX
My Portfolio: Alistair Flack Photographyexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
John_T
Goldmember
John_T's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
2,737 posts
Switzerland
[MORE/SHARE]

ScruffyJohn wrote:
I went back and looked at the Exif
1st two images (from the 10-22mm)
- ISO : 100
- focal length : 22mm
- 1/50 at f16
2nd two images (from the 28-135mm)
- ISO : 100
- focal length : 135mm
- 1/40 at f16

I'll try with the 100mm macro lens too, to compare

1/50s, 1/40s is too slow. Put your ISO up to 200.

In any case, I don't think that alone is your problem. Read my previous post and try that.

Post #18, Jul 23, 2006 14:48:17 as a reply to ScruffyJohn's post 10 minutes earlier.


Canon : 5DIII : 7DII : 40 2.8 : 50 1.4 : 35L : 85L : 100L IS Macro : 135L : 16-35L II : 24-105L IS : 70-200L II : 100-400L IS II : 1.4x & 2x TC III : 580EX : 430EX : G1XII : Markins Q10 & Q3T : Jobu Gimbal : Manfrotto Underware : etc...

LOG IN TO REPLY
ScruffyJohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2005
287 posts
Longmont, Colorado
[MORE/SHARE]

I appreciate all of you taking the time to review and make suggestions.
I did one of those too (ISO = 200)
this is from the 10-22mm lens, focal length=22mm, 1/100 at f16

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #19, Jul 23, 2006 15:16:43 as a reply to John_T's post 28 minutes earlier.


John

Canon 30D/300D
24-105L, 10-22, 100mm macro
Kit lens (18-55), 28-135, 100-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
John_T
Goldmember
John_T's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
2,737 posts
Switzerland
[MORE/SHARE]

Maybe there is a slight improvement, but it still looks soft to me.

Going back to your original post where you say 90% of your photography is landscapes, it is important to note that images taken from say 10:00 AM to 4:00PM will appear less sharp than those taken earlier or later due the angle of the sun, diffused reflections and UV. The earlier and later shots will have more contrast due to more shadow and the angle of the shadow and therfore appear sharper, though optically they won't be. Bright sunlight, snow, etc. will cause large and tiny highlight blowouts that make an image appear less sharp too. You need to determine the state of your equipment alone and then look at other factors that might contribute to apparent lack of sharpness as opposed to actual optical/sensor lack of sharpness. Make sense?

Post #20, Jul 23, 2006 16:01:22


Canon : 5DIII : 7DII : 40 2.8 : 50 1.4 : 35L : 85L : 100L IS Macro : 135L : 16-35L II : 24-105L IS : 70-200L II : 100-400L IS II : 1.4x & 2x TC III : 580EX : 430EX : G1XII : Markins Q10 & Q3T : Jobu Gimbal : Manfrotto Underware : etc...

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ScruffyJohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2005
287 posts
Longmont, Colorado
[MORE/SHARE]

1st image is from the 100mm macro lens 1/320 @f8
2nd is also from 100mm macro lens 1/80 @f16

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #21, Jul 23, 2006 17:29:00 as a reply to John_T's post 2 hours earlier.


John

Canon 30D/300D
24-105L, 10-22, 100mm macro
Kit lens (18-55), 28-135, 100-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
ScruffyJohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2005
287 posts
Longmont, Colorado
[MORE/SHARE]

these two are from the 28-135mm
1st is focal length: 85, 1/400 @f8, ISO=100
2nd is focal length: 135, 1/100 @f16, ISO=100

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #22, Jul 23, 2006 17:34:07 as a reply to ScruffyJohn's post 5 minutes earlier.


John

Canon 30D/300D
24-105L, 10-22, 100mm macro
Kit lens (18-55), 28-135, 100-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
ScruffyJohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2005
287 posts
Longmont, Colorado
[MORE/SHARE]

this ais another shot from the 10-22mm lens (ISO=100)
focal length = 22mm, 1/125 @f16

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #23, Jul 23, 2006 17:42:08 as a reply to ScruffyJohn's post 8 minutes earlier.


John

Canon 30D/300D
24-105L, 10-22, 100mm macro
Kit lens (18-55), 28-135, 100-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
John_T
Goldmember
John_T's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
2,737 posts
Switzerland
[MORE/SHARE]

Well John, in color and sharpness they look all about the same to me, but viewing in a browser, though my monitor is very good and calibrated, isn't something decisive. I say it is the camera. By contrast here is an image from a 20D and a 35L. I would say that 80% of the differences between your shots and this one is camera.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #24, Jul 23, 2006 18:10:03


Canon : 5DIII : 7DII : 40 2.8 : 50 1.4 : 35L : 85L : 100L IS Macro : 135L : 16-35L II : 24-105L IS : 70-200L II : 100-400L IS II : 1.4x & 2x TC III : 580EX : 430EX : G1XII : Markins Q10 & Q3T : Jobu Gimbal : Manfrotto Underware : etc...

LOG IN TO REPLY
ScruffyJohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2005
287 posts
Longmont, Colorado
[MORE/SHARE]

thanks for the input John_T, since the softness is occuring in all three lens, I'd have to agree.... but it occurs to me that I wonder if the UV filter is effecting this too...

Did you do any post processing on your image?

with some post process, I can get it close (I think)....

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #25, Jul 23, 2006 18:25:39 as a reply to John_T's post 15 minutes earlier.


John

Canon 30D/300D
24-105L, 10-22, 100mm macro
Kit lens (18-55), 28-135, 100-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
stanc30
Senior Member
stanc30's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
129 posts
North Carolina
[MORE/SHARE]

I vote for the "L" :D

I helped my wife to shoot a wedding last weekend, my job was to get the "other" shots...candids. So to keep me out of the way and the camera out of peoples faces so I could actually catch their faces she put me shooting the
70-200L. f2.8

I also had used the our Tamron 2.8...WOW what a difference the "L" made in the clarity of photo's...2.8 vs 2.8...the "L" was VISIBLY better!:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes I know that weddings are different than landscapes, but my wifes' landscapes WOW folks just fine and she uses her 70-200L for those too.

Post #26, Jul 23, 2006 18:50:19 as a reply to post 1759019


www.SCraddockPhotograp​hy.comexternal link

Canon: 30D, 20D, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 50 f1.8, 70-200L f2.8, 135L f2.0, 1.4x Sigma: 24-70 f2.8, 28-90 f3.5-5.6, 70-300 f4-5.6 Tamron: 17-35 f2.8-4
Stuff: 580 EX, 430 EX, 2x 800W Alien Bees, softboxes, 'brella's, reflectors and DIY's.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
John_T
Goldmember
John_T's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
2,737 posts
Switzerland
[MORE/SHARE]

ScruffyJohn wrote:
thanks for the input John_T, since the softness is occuring in all three lens, I'd have to agree.... but it occurs to me that I wonder if the UV filter is effecting this too...

Did you do any post processing on your image?

with some post process, I can get it close (I think)....

Agreed, hardly a qualitative difference between your shots. There is a muddiness in the colors and contrast too which is likely the camera.

The sharpening you did doesn't appear to have done much more that give you artifacts and the illusion that it is sharper, typical of when there isn't much there to sharpen in the original.

Depending on the quality of your UV filter, it will affect your images in two ways, one, reflections on and in the filter, and two, altering your colors. I don't use a UV filter at all, except maybe on hazy days. The lens shade and reasonable handling is more than adequate protection for a lens, so I find no merit for a UV filter on that score. Try the same shots without the filter.

The dragonfly shot is just any old shot I grabbed with no processing other than crop and jpeg cut down for the 100k limit. It is a 100% crop.

Post #27, Jul 23, 2006 19:09:48 as a reply to ScruffyJohn's post 44 minutes earlier.


Canon : 5DIII : 7DII : 40 2.8 : 50 1.4 : 35L : 85L : 100L IS Macro : 135L : 16-35L II : 24-105L IS : 70-200L II : 100-400L IS II : 1.4x & 2x TC III : 580EX : 430EX : G1XII : Markins Q10 & Q3T : Jobu Gimbal : Manfrotto Underware : etc...

LOG IN TO REPLY
John_T
Goldmember
John_T's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
2,737 posts
Switzerland
[MORE/SHARE]

What bothers me the most on your images is the general lack-lustre colors and contrast, and other than the camera itself, the only other thing that occurs to me is that perhaps your sensor has accumulated a haze from air polution and condensation from going in and out of the cold.

Post #28, Jul 23, 2006 19:42:53


Canon : 5DIII : 7DII : 40 2.8 : 50 1.4 : 35L : 85L : 100L IS Macro : 135L : 16-35L II : 24-105L IS : 70-200L II : 100-400L IS II : 1.4x & 2x TC III : 580EX : 430EX : G1XII : Markins Q10 & Q3T : Jobu Gimbal : Manfrotto Underware : etc...

LOG IN TO REPLY
ScruffyJohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2005
287 posts
Longmont, Colorado
[MORE/SHARE]

John_T wrote:
What bothers me the most on your images is the general lack-lustre colors and contrast, and other than the camera itself, the only other thing that occurs to me is that perhaps your sensor has accumulated a haze from air polution and condensation from going in and out of the cold.

On a few hiking trips I tried without the UV and didn't notice any difference in clarity.... think the 350 would get me the next jump up? I'd hate to take a $3000 camera (the 5D) snow shoeing ... and I'm not seeing good comments about the 30D ....

Post #29, Jul 23, 2006 21:12:34 as a reply to John_T's post 1 hour earlier.


John

Canon 30D/300D
24-105L, 10-22, 100mm macro
Kit lens (18-55), 28-135, 100-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
KevC
Goldmember
KevC's Avatar
Joined Jan 2005
3,154 posts
to
[MORE/SHARE]

Your 10-22 is pretty much an L in EF-S clothing. Hack your rebel to get MLU and use f/8 to f/11. Avoid stopping down more than f/11 and wider than one or two stops from wide open. I shoot landscapes at f/11 to get the DOF anyway.

It might be an issue with your camera body. You can send it to Canon to calibrate.

If you can't get nice sharp shots from your 10-22, I don't think moving to 30D/5D or getting an L would help.

Post #30, Jul 23, 2006 21:36:12


Too much gear...
take nothing but pictures .... kill nothing but time .... leave nothing but footprints

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
1,745 views & 0 likes for this thread
new camera body or an L lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00243 for 5 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
887 guests, 779 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Alex3uerfuer

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.