Mirror Lockup and sharpness test with Canon 300D

Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" writes:

Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

Wow. Cool. Thanks for doing that.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Siddhartha Jain" writes:

Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

Wow. Cool. Thanks for doing that.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
ups.com...
Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

On the D-Rebel were you using the timer since you don't have a remote?

"Todd H." wrote in message ...
"Siddhartha Jain" writes:

Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

Wow. Cool. Thanks for doing that.

For those of us without time to download the raw data and analyze it
ourselves -- What did you conclude?

"Todd H." wrote in message ...
"Siddhartha Jain" writes:

Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

Wow. Cool. Thanks for doing that.

For those of us without time to download the raw data and analyze it
ourselves -- What did you conclude?

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

- Siddhartha

As the owner of a 300D, and considering the Wasia hack, I was very
interested in your test, Siddartha.

I have some downstream questions, though, that you might be kind enough
to answer for the enlightenment of interested people.

1. How rigid was the tripod? Was it lightweight, or a pro or semi-pro
tripod?
2. Was the centre column raised, and/or was it properly tightened up
with the screw?
3. Was the pan-tilt head secure, and was the rotate bearing under the
head tight, to prevent rotary motion?
4. Were the tripod legs firmly set on the ground, with no play where
they support the centre yoke?
5. Were the shots indoor or outdoor? if outdoor, was there any wind?
6. What were the actual shutter speed and aperture settings used, and
was it the same for both shots?
7. Looking at the original images, the blurring seems to me to be more
like slight out-of-focus, rather than camera shake initiated by the
mirror. Was the camera set on autofocus, or was it critically focussed
manually? I presume the lens was the 18-55mm kit lens (which is pretty
good).

Questions 1 to 5 basically ensure that tripod movement is ruled out as a
cause of loss of sharpness; q.6 could be interesting, as higher speeds,
say 1/200 upwards tend to be too quick for the shake to be apparent, and
slow speeds of 1/2 sec or slower tend to mask any movement that might
happen in a 1/10 second or thereabouts.

Question 7 is the most interesting one. If autofocus was used, slight
errors in focussing and refocussing can easily cause loss of definition,
specially with wide-aperture shots. I have found there seems to be some
hysteresis built-in to autofocus systems, to avoid having the lens
constantly hunting for focus. Repeated focussing on a subject without
moving the camera results in the lens stopping at slightly different
points each time. With normal subject matter, depth of field usually
masks any slight misfocus, but when shooting a flat surface where DOF
doesn't apply, slight misfocus can be all too apparent.

I mention all of this because, as I said in q.7, the blur looks very
much like out-of-focus blur, and not like the blur one gets with camera
movement - a sharp image smeared in one direction.

Colin

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Nothing very scientific - just a small test.
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/MLU-Test.html

- Siddhartha

As the owner of a 300D, and considering the Wasia hack, I was very
interested in your test, Siddartha.

I have some downstream questions, though, that you might be kind enough
to answer for the enlightenment of interested people.

1. How rigid was the tripod? Was it lightweight, or a pro or semi-pro
tripod?
2. Was the centre column raised, and/or was it properly tightened up
with the screw?
3. Was the pan-tilt head secure, and was the rotate bearing under the
head tight, to prevent rotary motion?
4. Were the tripod legs firmly set on the ground, with no play where
they support the centre yoke?
5. Were the shots indoor or outdoor? if outdoor, was there any wind?
6. What were the actual shutter speed and aperture settings used, and
was it the same for both shots?
7. Looking at the original images, the blurring seems to me to be more
like slight out-of-focus, rather than camera shake initiated by the
mirror. Was the camera set on autofocus, or was it critically focussed
manually? I presume the lens was the 18-55mm kit lens (which is pretty
good).

Questions 1 to 5 basically ensure that tripod movement is ruled out as a
cause of loss of sharpness; q.6 could be interesting, as higher speeds,
say 1/200 upwards tend to be too quick for the shake to be apparent, and
slow speeds of 1/2 sec or slower tend to mask any movement that might
happen in a 1/10 second or thereabouts.

Question 7 is the most interesting one. If autofocus was used, slight
errors in focussing and refocussing can easily cause loss of definition,
specially with wide-aperture shots. I have found there seems to be some
hysteresis built-in to autofocus systems, to avoid having the lens
constantly hunting for focus. Repeated focussing on a subject without
moving the camera results in the lens stopping at slightly different
points each time. With normal subject matter, depth of field usually
masks any slight misfocus, but when shooting a flat surface where DOF
doesn't apply, slight misfocus can be all too apparent.

I mention all of this because, as I said in q.7, the blur looks very
much like out-of-focus blur, and not like the blur one gets with camera
movement - a sharp image smeared in one direction.

Colin

Colin D wrote:
[]
I mention all of this because, as I said in q.7, the blur looks very
much like out-of-focus blur, and not like the blur one gets with
camera movement - a sharp image smeared in one direction.

That was very much my impression as well.

David

Colin D wrote:
[]
I mention all of this because, as I said in q.7, the blur looks very
much like out-of-focus blur, and not like the blur one gets with
camera movement - a sharp image smeared in one direction.

That was very much my impression as well.

David