after some opinions... is my 100-400 soft and in need of calibration, or is it just me being paranoid?
http://ninjaduck.smugmug.com/photos/293831548_i6CEs-O.jpg
ninjaduck Member  138 posts Joined Feb 2008 Location: Kent, UK More info | May 16, 2008 15:18 | #1 after some opinions... is my 100-400 soft and in need of calibration, or is it just me being paranoid? 40D with grip, 70-200 f/4L, 100-400 f/4-5.6L, 50mm f/1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
FlyingPhotog Cream of the "Prop"  57,560 posts Likes: 178 Joined May 2007 Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft More info | May 16, 2008 15:25 | #2 Considering what you chose as a test subject, it looks pretty good to me but that's a helluva dynamic test. Jay
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JoYork Goldmember  3,079 posts Likes: 7 Joined Dec 2007 Location: York, England More info | May 16, 2008 15:27 | #3 |
May 16, 2008 15:32 | #4 JoYork wrote in post #5538350 Are you being serious? whats that supposed to mean? 40D with grip, 70-200 f/4L, 100-400 f/4-5.6L, 50mm f/1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 16, 2008 15:33 | #5 reason i ask, is my first one the AF failed and have had this replacement for a few weeks. it could just be me being paranoid, but im not convinced its sharp 40D with grip, 70-200 f/4L, 100-400 f/4-5.6L, 50mm f/1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Quad Goldmember  1,872 posts Likes: 3 Joined Nov 2005 More info | May 16, 2008 15:33 | #6 A fine example of the famous British sense of humour.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 16, 2008 15:35 | #7 Quad wrote in post #5538410 A fine example of the famous British sense of humour. Just in case you are not just a really funny man f/14 is probably getting into diffraction territory on the 1.6 crops. I think it starts to show at f/11. That photo does not look like diffraction is causing any problems though. So it could just be a case of i need up stop up? 40D with grip, 70-200 f/4L, 100-400 f/4-5.6L, 50mm f/1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 16, 2008 16:14 | #8 FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5538339 I think I'd rather try the three battery test or the test chart method first. please explain 40D with grip, 70-200 f/4L, 100-400 f/4-5.6L, 50mm f/1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
condyk Africa's #1 Tour Guide  20,887 posts Likes: 22 Joined Mar 2005 Location: Birmingham, UK More info | May 16, 2008 16:22 | #9 JoYork wrote in post #5538350 Are you being serious? Wot she said https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php?t=1203740
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JC4 Goldmember  2,610 posts Likes: 3 Joined Apr 2007 Location: Columbus, Ohio More info | Look at the writing on the top of his knee puck. It's perfectly sharp. John Caputo
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 16, 2008 16:37 | #11 JC4 wrote in post #5538770 Look at the writing on the top of his knee puck. It's perfectly sharp. Like above, not the best test subject, especially for pixel-peeping. The distance between you and the bike is changing, rapidly, so your counting on the camera's AI-servo to keep up. And, your panning, in a non-linear motion. Which even if done exactly right, only leaves one very small portion of your image without motion blur. You just can't assess sharpness in this picture, yet it looks VERY good. 3 batteries: Place them on a table, side-by-side with about a battery width between them. The center one is your target. The left battery should be about 1 battery width closer to you, and the right one back one battery width. Put your gear on a tri-pod, and shoot. You should use One-shot AF. You should de-focus before engaging AF. Then pixel-peep. thanks mate, much appreciated 40D with grip, 70-200 f/4L, 100-400 f/4-5.6L, 50mm f/1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
riyazi Goldmember  1,047 posts Joined Jun 2007 Location: London More info | I think there is something wrong with the lens - look at the background it is all soft and not sharp while the guy and the bike are tack sharp. Also you cant see the ridges on the tyre. I think this is a defective lens which only allows the shape of the bike and guy to be captured in sharp detail while everything else is fuzzy. Throw the lens away - you could send it to me and I will destroy it in an eco-friendly way Website
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BillRoberts revolting peasant  3,079 posts Joined Apr 2006 Location: UK More info | May 16, 2008 17:42 | #13 ninjaduck wrote in post #5538288 after some opinions... is my 100-400 soft and in need of calibration, or is it just me being paranoid? http://ninjaduck.smugmug.com/photos/293831548_i6CEs-O.jpg It's you being paranoid. BiLL
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Grentz Goldmember  2,874 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Midwest, USA More info | May 16, 2008 18:00 | #14 Looks very good to me. Search.TechIslands.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Chandler. Goldmember  2,784 posts Likes: 4 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Issaquah More info | May 16, 2008 18:00 | #15 JoYork wrote in post #5538350 Are you being serious? +1. There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. ~ Ansel Adams
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is MWCarlsson 1011 guests, 145 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
Sorry - in case it wasnt obvious, the above was another attempt at weak British humour - apologies to the OP
