p.1 #1 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
I am unsure how I got results this good but the following 72 photos display the test I have done with my Canon gear today in my back yard. I think the results show the absolute potential of this gear and I think the gear I've got is absolutely insane based on these results.
What puzzled me is what I must be doing wrong as I never get results that are as sharp as this ever. In fact what sparked me to do the test was that I thought my 40D or my 70-200 needed calibrating because the results weren't what I thought they should be.
Anyways, if you have any ideas how I can get results like this I'd love to hear from you. Please use the following pictures as a simple resolution test.
All images were processed exactly the same. Exposure was compensated for on all shots and all of the final exposures were an equivalent to 6400 2.8, 3200 4.0, 1600 5.6 , 800 8.0 , 400 11.0
All images shot in RAW and then converted to TIFFs using DPP with a sharpness setting of '3'. For uploading the photos were then converted to JPEGs using a final sharpness setting of '100' in the RGB tool box.
For each focal length the images taken were at wide open, -1 stop, -2 stops. I have taken them on both cameras and all images were downrezzed(only with 40D) to 8.2MP (3504x2336).
All comments welcome, how do you think the gear is performing especially the 70-200 2.8 / 40D combo.
p.1 #3 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
I used a tripod and turned IS off but should that matter when shooting at like 1/3200th. It was more to make them align than anything else.
I suppose IS could make an effect in real world shooting but I wouldn't have thought it would be that evident. Especially when all the glass is there anyway even when its turned off.
p.1 #4 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
I can not offer anything to help you here because I don't even understand the problem, if there is one. However, being a dedicated brick wall photographer myself, I have enjoyed your abundant images.
p.1 #8 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
My "take" on this post is that Fred is surprised to get really excellent results while shooting the wall, but not so good when shooting in "real life". That's why I asked about the tripod, which tends to give great results, plus working with a tripod gives you time to relax and think about what you're doing. Taking sharp handheld photos is not a trivial pursuit, even with IS and decent shutter speeds. Also, things like curvature of the plane of focus and DOF can interact in ways that provide undesirable results (for sharpness) that are not in line with the photographers expectations.
p.1 #9 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
Yeh thats basically my point. I also kinda aimed to show people the potential of the lenses if they were on the edge and to also demonstrate that even with all the Nikon rave going on at the moment Canon still have exemplary IQ.
So how should I go about getting these kind of results when not shooting with a tripod?
I by the way should say that I aim to use a tripod a lot more soon. I have at the moment a Jessops TP327, just about the cheapest tripod money can buy but will soon be upgrading to a Manfrotto system (hopefully a 458B and a 468MGRC2 if santa is in a good mood ) . Can you give me any tips on ballhead QR systems you recommend considering I use a 30D/40D and the above tested lenses on a regular basis.
Thanks everyone, I hope the post provides something as it took ages to do
p.1 #10 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
jcolwell wrote:
My "take" on this post is that Fred is surprised to get really excellent results while shooting the wall, but not so good when shooting in "real life". That's why I asked about the tripod, which tends to give great results, plus working with a tripod gives you time to relax and think about what you're doing. Taking sharp handheld photos is not a trivial pursuit, even with IS and decent shutter speeds. Also, things like curvature of the plane of focus and DOF can interact in ways that provide undesirable results (for sharpness) that are not in line with the photographers expectations. ...Show more →
In that cas ethe technically acceptable brick images are not very useful. Perhaps it would be better for the OP to show a *few* of the substandard ones?
p.1 #12 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
All Images now uploaded - full size to come soon
Oct 12, 2008 at 04:00 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
Hi Fred,
That is the type of shot that is going to benefit considerably from a tripod. I assume you were using a small aperture (f/8 or so on your cameras would probably be a good starting point), and the best light for these types of shots is typically in the early morning or just before sunset, so naturally you need a slow shutter speed. In a shot like this you also need to make sure that you don't focus too far on the mountains in the distance or you will loose focus on the near foreground. The small aperture will give you a wide area of depth of field, but you have to be careful that the foreground is in focus. Finally, the corners when using a wide angle lens (as in the crop above) are always a challenge. Only a very few, very expensive lenses have no degradation in the corners. So don't expect perfect corners at 100% crops unless you want to spend thousands of dollars. All in all, I think this is a pretty good shot and the sharpness in the 100% crop is not too bad at all. My biggest complaints about the shot would be the composition, which isn't too bad, but the creek in the valley below draws my eye and then leads it to nowhere. I hope this helps.
p.1 #14 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
The picture was shot at f16 so I can imagine there was no loss of focus. The lens I used performed flawlessy in the test. I focused on the foreground but the mountains are just the same.
p.1 #16 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
You certainly don't need a tripod to get sharp shots, unless you have shaky hands. What you're really asking is "how do I become a better photographer?".
There's no need to upload so many images. Actually none are needed.
p.1 #17 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
dcmiller wrote:
You certainly don't need a tripod to get sharp shots, unless you have shaky hands. What you're really asking is "how do I become a better photographer?".
There's no need to upload so many images. Actually none are needed.
It's also useful for people who might be thinking about getting those lenses featured here. Let them see the lens potential, so it's not as useless as you might think.
p.1 #20 · If Canon have got it wrong let me know how........
Fred Lindsey wrote:
The picture was shot at f16 so I can imagine there was no loss of focus. The lens I used performed flawlessy in the test. I focused on the foreground but the mountains are just the same.
Is it in my processing?
Thanks
The images looked OK to me, for what you are doing. Shooting at f/8-11 rather than f/16 may help IQ by reducing diffraction. For landscape work you should consider an FF/FX body. Panning/stitching can allow for more detail if subjects are static.
My thoughts exactly!!