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: ransley on 16 Jan 2010 08:47 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 You shoot in the Rain with non weatherproof equipment! Thats a good way to make good equipment junk.
From: John McWilliams on 16 Jan 2010 10:52 On 1/16/10 PDT 5:04 AM, Charles Packer 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. Are you using different zoom lengths for the same series, or different ones? I was only thinking of one series, one set up to capture the exact same frame as the day before. > > 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. To me, the beauty of your project is 90% color. I, too, would not use USM, unless printing. > > 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. Yes, you'll have a bit more light, but not nearly as much as the 50mm 1.8 lens I was thinking of. > > 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. To this latter end, may I suggest you think in terms of a frame in the ratio of 16:9, the size of HD displays. I've cropped a number of images to that, and the result is gorgeous on my HD TV (58"). Best of luck. Nice project.... -- John McWilliams
From: SMS on 16 Jan 2010 11:01 Charles Packer wrote: <snip> > Online I see a Sigma 28-70mm DG for $100 and a Sigma > 28-70mm EX DG for $350. On Craiglist somebody locally > is offerring a Canon EF 28-70mm for $800. Would any > of these make an _obvious_ difference in the example > scene? I'd avoid the Sigma lenses at all costs. Be very careful about craigslist lenses since I've often seen them costing the same or more than what you'd pay for the same lens, with a warranty, from B&H or Amazon. If it's a lens you need for a project that's not going to take many weeks, you can rent a good lens. You might also consider just getting a 50mm f1.8 fixed lens which are very good and not expensive.
From: Martin Brown on 16 Jan 2010 11:25 Charles Packer 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. It is a bit unfortunate to put them at edge of field since being high contrast and linear they draw attention to the small residual chromatic abberation. > > 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. Unsharp mask boosts the local high frequencies in a controlled manner and attentuates the low frequencies without accentuating the noise. If you were doing quantitative work then you would not want to do it, but a small amount of unsharp masking will help to bring the images alive. DSLRs tend to have rather conservative default internal USM settings after the demosaic and you can get a more pleasing image with a bit of external processing. The same applies to correcting for CA. You would always want to keep the originals, but I think using software to compensate for some of the mist and lost contrast in frames would make the animation smoother. > > 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. It isn't a big change going from f3.5 to f2.8 2/3 fraction of a stop but every little helps. You may get less off axis abberations with either lens if you stop down to f4 or f5.6 and increase the exposure. > > 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. Its an interesting project. I admire your patience! Regards, Martin Brown
From: bob on 16 Jan 2010 16:16
look at the tests here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx you can look at results from various lenses. As to the tree photos being a 'special project', it does not look special to me. and if you are the Charles Packer of http://cpacker.org/ I would not spend a moment near you - you must be extremely dull. |