Lens, Camera or me?

KirkS518 wrote in post #16740157
Not really sure I agree with this.

When I go to dofmaster, and use the T2i at 55mm f/5.6, guessing an approximate distance to the window at about 15 feet, I get:
Depth of field
Near limit 12.9 ft
Far limit 17.9 ft
Total 4.94 ft

If I then choose the Kodak z730 (same size sensor as the z612 - 1/2.5in.), at 70mm f/4.5, I get:
Depth of field
Near limit 14.7 ft
Far limit 15.3 ft
Total 0.66 ft

I liked your thought process, but I think it's incorrect. There are two things working against what you said - a wider FL on the T2i (increasing dof), and a larger f/stop (decreasing dof) on the Kodak.

As I mentioned before, it's very likely the quoted FL is a 35mm equivalent, not the actual. I can't imagine that the cameras zoom range starts at an actual 35mm with such a small sensor.

edit: just checked a few sites to verify my assumption: the stated focal range for the Kodak is it's 35mm equivalent, not the actual (35-410mm)

DoF difference between sensors, and not understanding post processing. You don't have to post process, you can do it all in camera as other have said. But you can't compare a raw to a post processed and expect good results.

Also, if you want flowing water shots, you just need to get a 10 stop ND filter (or two if you're brave) and you can turn any stream or waves into a mist. Just do a search on ND filters on google or poke around some of the stickies and you'll see what I mean.

It won't take years to learn what you need to do, it might take years to make it perfect. Playing with 7 sliders in light room are about all it takes to make stunning differences in photos. You just have to either read a good tutorial on what each does or watch a video and then play with enough photos to understand it yourself. You're going to "over process" a few for a while (everyone seems to get saturation happy at first).

All the amazing pictures you see in the lens sample threads? None of them are straight out of camera raws. I'm not saying they've all been heavily photoshopped or anything, I'm just saying that development is still just as an important part of the art of photography today as it was in film.

Also, a copy of "understanding exposure" wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16740068
Focus mode was auto in that picture, for both cameras. Image stabilization was on. I tried one on Manual focus, and somehow it focused on the rock in the front (which I don't understand since I wasn't looking at the rock when I focused).

Thank you to everyone who mentioned it, I'll look into the picture styles. If I can make any of those work, I can deconstruct the settings for future use.

when i asked about AF mode, i meant one shot, AI servo, or AI focus...if you manually focused, and somehow the lens focused on something else...then either your diopter is off, or you're not very good at manually focusing

KirkS518 wrote in post #16740157
Not really sure I agree with this.

When I go to dofmaster, and use the T2i at 55mm f/5.6, guessing an approximate distance to the window at about 15 feet, I get:
Depth of field
Near limit 12.9 ft
Far limit 17.9 ft
Total 4.94 ft

If I then choose the Kodak z730 (same size sensor as the z612 - 1/2.5in.), at 70mm f/4.5, I get:
Depth of field
Near limit 14.7 ft
Far limit 15.3 ft
Total 0.66 ft

I liked your thought process, but I think it's incorrect. There are two things working against what you said - a wider FL on the T2i (increasing dof), and a larger f/stop (decreasing dof) on the Kodak.

i'm not quite sure what you put in there...but i can't imagine there is any way in hell that those numbers are right...if you could get that shallow of DOF from a point and shoot, everyone here would recommend them instead of recommending FF cameras all the time

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16740192
As I mentioned before, it's very likely the quoted FL is a 35mm equivalent, not the actual. I can't imagine that the cameras zoom range starts at an actual 35mm with such a small sensor.

edit: just checked a few sites to verify my assumption: the stated focal range for the Kodak is it's 35mm equivalent, not the actual (35-410mm)

Well, there you have it. I just pulled the info from the exif, thinking the camera was reporting actual FL. My bad. Thanks to everyone for jumping all over me!

Ok, crop factor for the Kodak is 6.02x, so the actual FL (70mm/6.02) was 11.63mm.

Now WhyFi's statement makes sense. So now, at f/4.8, 11.6mm, 15ft, here's the dof:
Depth of field
Near limit 8.31 ft
Far limit 77.3 ft
Total 69 ft

I think it's dopey that the camera reports FL in 35mm (FF) equivalent.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16740543
Well, there you have it. I just pulled the info from the exif, thinking the camera was reporting actual FL. My bad. Thanks to everyone for jumping all over me!

Welcome to the internet!

Seriously though, you should have known something was wrong when you were getting such amazingly thin DoF!

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16740028
No, no filter. The colors are always washed out. Even cheating on Auto mode.

I haven't finished reading the entire thread, but if you are shooting RAW, then you absolutely have to do some post processing. The RAW file isn't even an image, it's just raw data the the camera has collected and it must be run through a processor of some sort to create the image. With your Kodak, the camera did that processing into a jpeg. Your Canon is capable of doing that too, and I believe that you can even tweak some adjustments to help it convert the way you expect it to look. You can set the way the camera processes for brightness, contrast, sharpening, and noise reduction if it has the same settings that my 60D has. I've never done much with those settings since it only has meaning if you process in the DPP software that comes with the camera, and I've always used PS Elements or Lightroom. The Adobe products can't read any camera settings except white balance settings in a RAW file.

Your camera is extremely capable of making better images than that Kodak. My wife has a Kodak, and her images have always had that "pop" right out of the camera, but she has no real control over it. You can do the same thing with your Canon, but why have a DSLR only so that it can make photos which look like a Kodak? Hers all have a similarity to them that loses that something special which can be gained with a more personal touch in the conversion.

There are a number of way to make an image pop. P&S cameras usually do it by adding too much contrast or too much saturation. Looks pretty but not always realistic. It takes a bit more processing attention to make an image pop while retaining the look it had with the naked eye.

Here is a simple example of an image taken with T1i and 18-55 IS lens. This camera is one generation older than yours, with a slightly smaller sensor. It was shot in RAW and processed in Photoshop Elements.

Preeb wrote in post #16741084

Tree by Preeb, on Flickr

Great shot Rick, but where did you find a scene like that in The Bahamas?

rrblint wrote in post #16741162
Great shot Rick, but where did you find a scene like that in The Bahamas?

December 24, 2010. Foggy Christmas Eve morning on my wife's family farm in NE Colorado.

I always heard, "Coffee, tea or me?" <g>

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. Here is where I am:
Yes, my diopter was off. I must have hit it without knowing it. However, in testing, I found that using the viewfinder gave me not very sharp results, but switching to the LCD screen (which I hardly ever used) gave me much better results. I'll figure that out as I go along.
Next, I used Landscape picture style. That helped with my color. Then, using the LCD screen instead of the viewfinder, I used the lightest area in my view to gauge my exposure, instead of the overall brightness of the view I was looking at. The pictures were getting better, but still not crisp. So I took it in with me to a camera store to see about different lenses. The guy told me what people here have said, that the kit lens isn't a bad little lens to start with. Then he took a picture with my camera and said "There's something wrong." He checked several settings, took some more pictures, then finally put a different 18-55 on my camera. Night and day. I still have a way to go, but this picture looks a lot clearer to me than my previous ones. These are the actual colors in the picture, no post processing. (I am standing on a hill looking past an old mine storage tank)

So, did you buy a new 18-55 or did he swap it for you? Did he tell you what was wrong with the other one?

1Tanker wrote in post #16742704
So, did you buy a new 18-55 or did he swap it for you? Did he tell you what was wrong with the other one?

He swapped it for me. (He knows how to make the customer who is probably going to come buy another lens soon happy). He said that camera bodies and lenses have a "specification" level for acceptable, just like most other consumer goods. If a lens is off by the far end of acceptable specifications, and a camera body is off the other direction to the far end of specifications, they won't always play nice together (yes, he said that). He even said that sometimes people check several lenses on their cameras before they buy one to find the one that "works best". Occasionally, a new camera body won't work well (or at all) with those hand picked lenses because the original camera was at the far end of specification tolerance and the lenses were picked to go with that camera. (doesn't happen often but does happen). He thinks I just happened to get the two opposite far ends of the specification limits(or the lens was possibly out of tolerance), and probably won't have any trouble if I choose to buy other lenses, but he'd recommend coming to him and testing them on my camera before buying.

Good stuff... glad you got it rectified.

SVT Wylde wrote in post #16739702
Like Scatterbrained said, try adjusting your picture style settings. I have my 60D set on Faithful with +6 Sharpening +1 contrast and +1 saturation.

I use Lightroom and shoot in RAW now but those setting gave me a good starting point and I would tweak it from there with DPP.

If you're shooting raw, I don't think style settings matter a twit.