Prev: Tyres... and stupidity.
Next: Happiness - possessions or experiences?
From: Paul Carmichael on 8 Aug 2010 14:17
Monkey escribió:

> What have you got the camera set to? Full auto, a 'scene' mode, or
> aperture / shutter priority?
>

Manual.

Focal length : 271.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0020 s (1/500)
Aperture : f/10.0
ISO equiv. : 100
Whitebalance : Auto
Metering Mode: pattern
Exposure : Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

--
Paul.
CBR1100XX SuperBlackbird (Buen mueble de patio), Orbea Dakar
BOTAFOT #4 BOTAFOF #30 MRO #24 OMF #15 UKRMMA #30
http://paulcarmichael.org/ (content pending)
From: Paul Carmichael on 8 Aug 2010 14:23
eatmorepies escribió:

> 1400 x 933 pixels? A 1000D's got a 3888 x 2592 sensor. Is your picture a
> crop or have you got your camera set on a low resolution mode?

It's scaled. People tell me off for posting links to full-size images.

> If it's the
> second try using the full resolution of the sensor (jpg fine or some
> such). You may be trying to see detail in your pictures that the system
> can't resolve.

It was jpegged down to 85% from the RAW.

> What lens is it? Some cheap telephoto lenses are very poor and you will
> get badly focussed pictures no matter how careful you are

Tamron AF70-300 pretend macro.

> - but try it on
> a tripod to give it it's best chance. These cheap lenses can't resolve
> detail and leaves on trees will never be resolved at those distances. You
> needn't worry about diffraction limiting in this instance because
> diffraction limiting doesn't start until f9.3 with this sensor and would
> certainly not be noticable at f10.

I'll buy a tripod next.

> A long lens used on scenery will be taking shots like this from some
> distance. Heat haze, airborne dust or water vapour will blur detail.

No water vapour around here, but heat haze and dust a plenty.

Cheers.

--
Paul.
CBR1100XX SuperBlackbird (Buen mueble de patio), Orbea Dakar
BOTAFOT #4 BOTAFOF #30 MRO #24 OMF #15 UKRMMA #30
http://paulcarmichael.org/ (content pending)
From: Monkey on 8 Aug 2010 15:21
"Paul Carmichael" <wibbleypants(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c8al5Fa3vU3(a)mid.individual.net...
> Monkey escribi�:
>
>> What have you got the camera set to? Full auto, a 'scene' mode, or
>> aperture / shutter priority?
>>
>
> Manual.

Brave man - I'd suggest sticking with Aperture or Shutter priority until you
get a lot more experienced. If you fix one setting, I find the camera
usually knows best about the other - you have to be pretty good (or do a lot
of trial and error) to get your exposure correct if you're manually setting
both.

--
ZX6R F2 - The Gravelseeker
BOTAFOT #121, BBB #2


From: eatmorepies on 8 Aug 2010 16:06

>
> It was jpegged down to 85% from the RAW.
>
>> What lens is it? Some cheap telephoto lenses are very poor and you will
>> get badly focussed pictures no matter how careful you are
>
> Tamron AF70-300 pretend macro.

1. The RAW image may be a lot better and it's the scaling down that's
producing image quality problems.

2. The lens is at the cheaper end of the scale. Here's my experience....

I bought a Canon 350D in 2006 as my first digital SLR.
I used it with my 70 - 300 Canon lens that I had used with my film EOS.
I got very poor pictures compared with those I saw on the net.
I emailed a bloke in the USA who was posting very sharp and detailed
pictures taken with his 350D.
His reply told me that he used expensive lenses - L series.
I bought a 70 - 200 f2.8L and it cost more than the camera.
The pictures were (and still are) truly stunning.
I sold my old 70 - 300 lens on eBay.

I now prefer to use a 70 - 200 f4L IS which is slightly cheaper than the non
IS f2.8 I started with. Fantastic quality even at full apeture.

Your 1000D is probably a better camera than the 350D and to get the best
from it you will need a better lens.

This site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ has loads of
information and a ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Sample Crop Comparison
section that you can spend hours on.

If you buy quality then the lenses you use will be with you for many years
and if you get fed with them will fetch very good money second hand.

I've uploaded a sample (
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38651422(a)N03/4872457241/sizes/l/in/photostream/)
from an L lens to Flickr but Flickr downscales it from 3.3Mp to 0.5Mb - it's
not as good as the original. This sample is a quarter of the frame of a 50D
with the lens on 200mm and the tractor about 80 yards away.The original
sample would show you what a Canon 1.6 crop body is capable of. I'm sure you
can find such samples if you poke about on the web. You could always take
your 1000D into a shop and audition a 70 - 200 f4L (non IS is much cheaper)
and see the difference �300 makes.

John








From: eatmorepies on 8 Aug 2010 16:23

"Paul Carmichael" <wibbleypants(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c82gdFpqrU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Been out playing again today, just experimenting with this camera, trying
> to
> get a feel for what all the settings do. Got a piccie here that I quite
> like. I haven't messed with it, as my main target at the moment is to
> learn
> the camera, not the software (every damned picture is fuzzy even after
> resting the camera on something). It's got trees on it. But some trees are
> more fuzzy than others ie; the ones in the middle. Just wondering if
> there's
> an obvious reason for this.
>
> http://paulc.es/tmp/IMG_1031.jpg

I've downloaded the RAW file and your problem is twofold.

1. The conversion system you used to get to jpg. Here's a conversion from
your original....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38651422(a)N03/4873142218/

It looks better on my screen here than it does on Flickr - they seem to
downsize and drop the quality.

It was done in Adobe CS5 but Elements or the software supplied with the
camera would have done a similar job. The jpg you posted was off colour and
too dark - your original is well exposed with good colour rendition.

2. Your lens. It is a bit pants. I think the 1000D may have the same sensor
(or similar) as my 40D. The 40D with a decent lens on it would have resolved
the railings on the house no problem. See my post of a few minutes ago.

John


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Tyres... and stupidity.
Next: Happiness - possessions or experiences?