If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article , pixby
wrote: Since buying Canon gear I've seen many photographers with 20D problems and experienced some severe problems with my own gear which should not have happened. People seem to think quality is related to price. Canon have disproved that with their 20D. Those who don't get the faults, don't push their cameras. There are too many people with money who buy cameras like the 20D and have no knowledge of photography. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks all,
My suspicions were aroused when I took a photo of a stream and surrounding vegetation whilst on a walking track (hand held) - it just looked plain blury. I went back later on that day and set the camera up on a tripod. On my 20D with kit lens (zoomed all the way out) At 100 ISO and F29? (or there abouts - stopped down as far as it would go) I ended up with a exposure of 2.5 sec (not a breath of wind, so not worried about anything moving in the breeze). Back on the PC EVERYTHING just didn't appear to be as sharp as I would have expected (shot in RAW too). The whole thing just appeared hard on the eyes - it wasn't until I ran an unsharp mask at 200% over it that it started to look "normal". Not sure if this is the camera, or if I'm expecting too much. I did take some photos of some graph paper later on that night, and it "sort of" appeared OK (difficult to tell). I could send it in for checking, but it probably means doing without it for a couple of weeks Cheers, CC "Cockpit Colin" wrote in message ... Hi all, I have a nagging suspicion that the focus on my new 20D isn't all that it should be. Do any of you have any suggestions on the best way to test this? I was thinking of photographing a sheet of A4 "Math - graph" type paper. If the camera's focus is out, will it be out consistently when focusing on close and distant objects? Should I have the lens wide open or stopped down for the test. Is it possible for an image to be in focus through the viewfinder, and yet be out of focus at the CMOS sensor? Any other thoughts (I only have the one kit lens at this time, so I can't do any lens comparisons). Thanks for your input. Cheers, CC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cockpit Colin wrote: Thanks all, My suspicions were aroused when I took a photo of a stream and surrounding vegetation whilst on a walking track (hand held) - it just looked plain blury. Depending on what active focus point was looking at, the camera might have misfocused for the scene. IMHO using all seven focus points can be a trap if one of the outer points happens to be the one chosen by the camera, and it's looking at an object that is not representative of the scene distance. For this reason I always have my camera set for the centre point only. I went back later on that day and set the camera up on a tripod. On my 20D with kit lens (zoomed all the way out) At 100 ISO and F29? (or there abouts - stopped down as far as it would go) I ended up with a exposure of 2.5 sec (not a breath of wind, so not worried about anything moving in the breeze). The lens stops down to f/22 at 18mm, and f/38 at the 55mm end - where you had the lens set - and at that aperture the image will be badly affected by diffraction, so it will not be anywhere near as sharp as at f/11 or f/8. Basically, that sort of aperture is unusable for normal photography. Back on the PC EVERYTHING just didn't appear to be as sharp as I would have expected (shot in RAW too). The whole thing just appeared hard on the eyes - it wasn't until I ran an unsharp mask at 200% over it that it started to look "normal". Not sure if this is the camera, or if I'm expecting too much. I did take some photos of some graph paper later on that night, and it "sort of" appeared OK (difficult to tell). I could send it in for checking, but it probably means doing without it for a couple of weeks Set it up on the tripod - is it a sturdy tripod, or a $30 model that vibrates like a tuning fork? {:-) - and take a shot of the houses across the street from your front porch, or similar, at f/8 and again at f/11 using the Av option, at 100 ISO, using the delayed action to fire the camera, and then have a look at the resultant images. A Canon rep somewhere advocated using an unsharp mask at 300% and 0.3 pixels, no threshold. I use this setting, and the images fair leap off the paper at A4, even with Large Fine jpeg images, though I use RAW for all my serious stuff. Regards, Colin D. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Colin D
writes The lens stops down to f/22 at 18mm, and f/38 at the 55mm end - where you had the lens set - and at that aperture the image will be badly affected by diffraction, so it will not be anywhere near as sharp as at f/11 or f/8. Basically, that sort of aperture is unusable for normal photography. True-ish; f/38 will be very much below optimum for anything other than a pinhole or bottle end. However, it may well be obligatory to get the depth of field required in high ratio macro work (don't forget that that diffraction is determined by effective aperture (which is measured aperture x (1+m)). Also, in large format work, f/45 is quite routine. Yes, it is sub-optimum, but at least you have a lot of resolution to spare. Finally, a ^good^ lens should be best (in resolution terms) at something a lot wider than f/11. F/5.6 for a really well corrected lens, f/8 is not bad. David -- David Littlewood |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... Back on the PC EVERYTHING just didn't appear to be as sharp as I would have expected (shot in RAW too). The whole thing just appeared hard on the eyes - it wasn't until I ran an unsharp mask at 200% over it that it started to look "normal". Not sure if this is the camera, or if I'm expecting too much. I did take some photos of some graph paper later on that night, and it "sort of" appeared OK (difficult to tell). IF you're shooting at really small apertures things aren't going to be as sharp due to diffraction. Running an unsharp mast will help a bit, and in general all DSLR images need some final sharpening to achieve optimum results. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
David Littlewood wrote:
Unfortunately, current AF bodies (except top-of-range models like Canon's 1-series) are stuck with screen almost totally unhelpful for manual focussing. This is, BTW, a major problem with using DSLRs for photomicrography, one of my main interests. David That should've read, come stock with an AF screen http://www.keoptics.com/Canon20D.htm Although, it will add some $$ to the orig purchase price, at least there is an option available. -- Slack |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
pixby wrote:
Snip Since buying Canon gear I've seen many photographers with 20D problems and experienced some severe problems with my own gear which should not have happened. People seem to think quality is related to price. Canon have disproved that with their 20D. Those who don't get the faults, don't push their cameras. Problems with the 20D? I haven't experienced any problems with my 20D. I use my cameras in ways that I've always used my cameras. I had problems with the BG-E2 battery pack not being usable with AA batteries, but that problem took about 15 minutes to go away. I drove to the Canon repair center and told them about the problem. They took my camera to their repair lab and before I had the chance to finish reading a magazine article while waiting, they came back with a NEW BG-E2 battery pack. While there, they asked to see my equipment and updated firmware and accomplished a series of checks on my camera bodies and lenses. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , pixby wrote: Since buying Canon gear I've seen many photographers with 20D problems and experienced some severe problems with my own gear which should not have happened. People seem to think quality is related to price. Canon have disproved that with their 20D. Those who don't get the faults, don't push their cameras. There are too many people with money who buy cameras like the 20D and have no knowledge of photography. There are many people who buy expensive cars who have no interest in lifting the engine hood. When the DOD was dumping aircraft into the civilian market, I know people who bought T-28 North American built trainers, who didn't know how to fly. But the price was right, so they learned how to fly. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Cockpit Colin wrote:
Thanks all, My suspicions were aroused when I took a photo of a stream and surrounding vegetation whilst on a walking track (hand held) - it just looked plain blury. I went back later on that day and set the camera up on a tripod. On my 20D with kit lens (zoomed all the way out) At 100 ISO and F29? (or there abouts - stopped down as far as it would go) I ended up with a exposure of 2.5 sec (not a breath of wind, so not worried about anything moving in the breeze). Back on the PC EVERYTHING just didn't appear to be as sharp as I would have expected (shot in RAW too). The whole thing just appeared hard on the eyes - it wasn't until I ran an unsharp mask at 200% over it that it started to look "normal". Not sure if this is the camera, or if I'm expecting too much. I did take some photos of some graph paper later on that night, and it "sort of" appeared OK (difficult to tell). I could send it in for checking, but it probably means doing without it for a couple of weeks Cheers, CC "Cockpit Colin" wrote in message ... Hi all, I have a nagging suspicion that the focus on my new 20D isn't all that it should be. Do any of you have any suggestions on the best way to test this? I was thinking of photographing a sheet of A4 "Math - graph" type paper. If the camera's focus is out, will it be out consistently when focusing on close and distant objects? Should I have the lens wide open or stopped down for the test. Is it possible for an image to be in focus through the viewfinder, and yet be out of focus at the CMOS sensor? Any other thoughts (I only have the one kit lens at this time, so I can't do any lens comparisons). Thanks for your input. Cheers, CC According to Canon (again) application of an unsharp mask of 300% with a radius of 0.3 is required to offset the effects of their anti-alias filter (on a 10D) The AA filter on a 20D is less aggressive but still needs about 200% at 0.2 to reach the out of camera sharpness of a Nikon or Olympus image. -- Douglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
advice on battery chargers for Canon | bill a | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 07:28 PM |
Canon G2: working around crummy autofocus | John Faughnan | Digital Photography | 10 | November 26th 04 10:37 AM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
Canon digicam advice please | joe at salerno dot com | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 2 | September 3rd 04 03:01 AM |
Need advice to choose Canon Elan 7N, 7NE or Nikon N80 | JZ | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | August 8th 04 07:49 AM |