Will a more expensive lens on my Canon 20D improve this pic?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: question about Canon focus points on viewfinder
Next: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
From: Chrlz on 15 Jan 2010 22:15 Charles, you;ve been given good advice here by everyone except 'Better Info'. Off topic information follows.. 'Better Info'/'Outing Trolls' is, of course, the anti-DSLR troll formerly known as Vern/Keoeeit/Dave Ingols/MartinS/Casiobear/ Baumbadier/etc. Here's a picture of Keoeeit: http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369 And here's an old post from him including a heavily abridged list of his former aliases and an admission of his behavior: http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/7b2ff557caafe5bd?dmode=source ... suffice to say he doesn't like to stick with one name, for very obvious reasons. On this thread, why change his name for the second post? Keoeeit has often been asked for examples of his imaging prowess. He has claimed that we are not worthy. But he did actually post quite a few images back when he was a vigorous forum poster (not so much now that he has been banned from just about every place he went (hardly surprising)). Despite his cowardly attempts to delete all evidence, some remain: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96572 (Beetle macro - ok, but terribly over-processed) http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Drop_a.jpg (Water droplet - this is actually ok, but does seem to be showing CA/ PF, even at that size..) http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685 (IR fox - says Keooeeit - "I'll admit it's not a very good photo...") http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96582 (Raccoons - sometimes content overcomes technical issues, but not always..) http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597 (Raccoons II...) http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=97424 (nice example of aliasing artefacts in the whiskers) http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=99180 (Chipmunk - oversharpened and badly cropped) http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=101398 (He posted this as 'proof' of P&S low-light superiority.. go figure) http://iz.carnegiemnh.org/cranefly/images/Photos/Limonia_immatura_by_Keoeeit.jpg (crane fly) http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233 (oversharpened geese panorama) If Keoeeit/Better Info has better ones, perhaps he might like to post them? Otherwise, those will remain his legacy for all time, and they give a good idea of Keoeeit's quality standards and thence why he recommends small sensor cameras.. Outing trolls isn't fun, but sometimes it is.. necessary.
From: LOL! on 16 Jan 2010 01:04 On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:15:31 -0800 (PST), Chrlz <mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Charles, you;ve been given good advice here by everyone except 'Better >Info'. > >Off topic information follows.. > >'Better Info'/'Outing Trolls' is, of course, the anti-DSLR troll >formerly known as Vern/Keoeeit/Dave Ingols/MartinS/Casiobear/ >Baumbadier/etc. Here's a picture of Keoeeit: >http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369 > >And here's an old post from him including a heavily abridged list of >his former aliases >and an admission of his behavior: >http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/7b2ff557caafe5bd?dmode=source >.. suffice to say he doesn't like to stick with one name, for very >obvious reasons. On this thread, why change his name for the second >post? > >Keoeeit has often been asked for examples of his imaging prowess. He >has claimed that we are not worthy. But he did actually post quite a >few images back when he was a vigorous forum poster (not so much now >that he has been banned from just about every place he went (hardly >surprising)). Despite his cowardly attempts to delete all evidence, >some remain: >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96572 >(Beetle macro - ok, but terribly over-processed) >http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Drop_a.jpg >(Water droplet - this is actually ok, but does seem to be showing CA/ >PF, even at that size..) >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685 >(IR fox - says Keooeeit - "I'll admit it's not a very good photo...") >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96582 >(Raccoons - sometimes content overcomes technical issues, but not >always..) >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597 >(Raccoons II...) >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=97424 >(nice example of aliasing artefacts in the whiskers) >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=99180 >(Chipmunk - oversharpened and badly cropped) >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=101398 >(He posted this as 'proof' of P&S low-light superiority.. go figure) >http://iz.carnegiemnh.org/cranefly/images/Photos/Limonia_immatura_by_Keoeeit.jpg >(crane fly) >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233 >(oversharpened geese panorama) > >If Keoeeit/Better Info has better ones, perhaps he might like to post >them? Otherwise, those will remain his legacy for all time, and they >give a good idea of Keoeeit's quality standards and thence why he >recommends small sensor cameras.. > > >Outing trolls isn't fun, but sometimes it is.. necessary. Awww... the poor DSLR-Trolls are all upset again. Boo hoo. They always get like this every time they've been proved DEAD WRONG. AGAIN. LOL!!!!!!!!
From: Charles Packer on 16 Jan 2010 08:04 On Jan 15, 12:15 pm, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Using a zoom for the type of project outlined introduces too many > variables. Yes, they could all conceivably be controlled, but why spend > more money when a good fixed focal length lens will give superior results?? A zoom is the only practical solution for my project. For the three scenes I'm shooting with a tripod at a fixed location (sometimes in the rain!), I need to go from wide angle to close in with a minimum of fuss, adjusting to put my left and right marker posts close to the edges of the frame for each shot. As for suggestions to use software, I want to avoid algorithms that go beyond information that is actually in the image, which is what I understand that the unsharp mask does. Since nobody said yes you need the $800 lens, I'm inclined to look favorably on that Sigma 28-70mm for $100 that I mentioned. It is f2.8, which will let in more light than the f3.5 of my kit lens, right? I can use all the speed I can get for the low light conditions I'm shooting in. I've completed two years of this project. The first year I used an Olympus SP-350 and the improvement by going to the Canon 20D is, on inspection of the images at full resolution, obvious, but hard to describe. It's basically an increase in color depth and subtlety. And eventually, somewhere, I hope to exhibit the time-lapse movies on a screen large enough to show show them at full resolution. -- Charles Packer http://cpacker.org/whatnews mailboxATcpacker.org
From: Martin Brown on 16 Jan 2010 08:29 M-M wrote: > In article <iW_3n.24536$XU.19081(a)newsfe03.iad>, > Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> http://cpacker.org/aa.png where there is >>> obvious chromatic distortion of the white marker >>> post. This image is a crop of the right lower corner of >>> a full-size image. >> The whole image looks a bit soft to me. Unsharp mask 3 pixels and 65% >> brings the image more nearly alive. Was it taken in mist or fog? > > > Manual levels adjustment to squeeze the histogram will also bring out > the colors better. > > How do you determine USM 3px and 65%? Would it be the same if the image > was higher resolution? I never know where to start with that. Experience. Basically you look for a sharp edge or specular reflection in the image and try to judge how sharp the point spread function is. 3px & 65% is a good starting point when the image does not look tack sharp. Particularly good for sharpening up image scans that are slightly lacking in sharpness before stretching the contrast. > > Also, I don't really see CA but perhaps motion blur? Or the resolution > of the lens is at it's limit. Zoom in and look at the edges of the white post bottom right and the fence posts. The red image scale is about 1 pixel out of register with the green and blue images at the extreme edge of field. Leaving a green fringe on the inside and a red halo to the outside. Software interpolation can be used to correct some of this chromatic abberation in post processing. Or you could manually separate to R,G,B and rescale the G & B images to be a fraction larger crop them to original size and recombine if your software does not offer easy chromatic abberation correction. This won't help with any wavelength dependent focus errors but it removes fringes. Regards, Martin Brown Regards, Martin Brown
From: ransley on 16 Jan 2010 08:43
On Jan 16, 7:04 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > On Jan 15, 12:15 pm, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Using a zoom for the type of project outlined introduces too many > > variables. Yes, they could all conceivably be controlled, but why spend > > more money when a good fixed focal length lens will give superior results?? > > A zoom is the only practical solution for my project. > For the three scenes I'm shooting with a tripod at > a fixed location (sometimes in the rain!), I need to > go from wide angle to close in with a minimum of fuss, > adjusting to put my left and right marker posts close > to the edges of the frame for each shot. > > As for suggestions to use software, I want to avoid > algorithms that go beyond information that is actually > in the image, which is what I understand that the > unsharp mask does. > > Since nobody said yes you need the $800 lens, I'm > inclined to look favorably on that Sigma 28-70mm for > $100 that I mentioned. It is f2.8, which will let in > more light than the f3.5 of my kit lens, right? I can > use all the speed I can get for the low light conditions > I'm shooting in. > > I've completed two years of this project. The first year > I used an Olympus SP-350 and the improvement by going to > the Canon 20D is, on inspection of the images at full > resolution, obvious, but hard to describe. It's > basically an increase in color depth and subtlety. And > eventually, somewhere, I hope to exhibit the time-lapse > movies on a screen large enough to show show them at full > resolution. > > -- > Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews > mailboxATcpacker.org Go to a camera store thats sells them and try them there. The new version of the canon Kit lens is very good, go read reviews of it. Im sure its better than the sigma from the reviews ive read. What I see in your photo is a camera usage-knowledge issue. To get another $100 lens when you have a $100 lens only makes sense if your present lens is defective, which it may very well be. A good store would help you the most since they can use the camera and help you if you show them the photos you have, nobody here can. |