omarlyn wrote:
Keep in mind what I said in my earlier response...your 'brick wall test shots' are not alligned square & parallel. In other words, your focus-plane & subject-plane are not parallel to each other...hence each corner is at a slightly different distance to the sensor plane which on extreme wide angle can make a very big difference in focus.
HTH,
Omar
Ah, you are right.... (noticing lines in bricks compared to composition of frame, not parallel -- assume this is what you speak of)
Didn't think of that affecting such a thing.
I'll try to get a few better shots today.
There's a fellow over on another forum (don't know if we can mention here, it's a big review site) that says he went through 5 copies that he deemed bad because of the brick test. He saw mine and said to return. However... he didn't mentioned the consideration you just did. So this makes me wonder. Perhaps he was making this mistake as well.
omarlyn wrote:
Also, in camera sharpness setting has no effect on RAW images.
Didn't know this. I used the program provided with my camera that allows editing of raws. At any rate, whenever I import raws their sharpness is set to 3... corresponding to my in camera setting.
There is only one plane of focus, but depth of field at 11mm is VERY wide, so even if you were a little crooked, perhaps should be covered, even at f/5.6. At 16 it would probably need to be straight.
Remeber RAW is compressed, but much less than JPEG, so I try to shoot it how I want it. If you doubt this look at file sizes and 1. how small they are 2. how they vary. Uncompressed they wouldn't vary. File sizes average about 13 meg with my 40D. But I don't think sharpness settings would affect things much. But I could be wrong.
AF is iffy, I wonder if some bad reviews come from poor focus. I use live view and zoom in to 10x. Makes little difference how good the lens is if it isn't focused.
There is only one plane of focus, but depth of field at 11mm is VERY wide, so even if you were a little crooked, perhaps should be covered, even at f/5.6. At 16 it would probably need to be straight.
Remeber RAW is compressed, but much less than JPEG, so I try to shoot it how I want it. If you doubt this look at file sizes and 1. how small they are 2. how they vary. Uncompressed they wouldn't vary. File sizes average about 13 meg with my 40D. But I don't think sharpness settings would affect things much. But I could be wrong.
AF is iffy, I wonder if some bad reviews come from poor focus. I use live view and zoom in to 10x. Makes little difference how good the lens is if it isn't focused.
They are losslessly compressed. This means there is no degradation of the file during the process. It is 100% identical to the original after being read/uncompressed.
Ohh, and even though the tests are a bit odd. On a quick glance, my copy is far sharper.
They are losslessly compressed. This means there is no degradation of the file during the process. It is 100% identical to the original after being read/uncompressed.
Maybe, but I have seen the difference in photos, specifically B+W contrast at 0 and +4. I am using DPP, perhaps photoshop is different?
AmbientMike wrote:
They are losslessly compressed. This means there is no degradation of the file during the process. It is 100% identical to the original after being read/uncompressed.
Maybe, but I have seen the difference in photos, specifically B+W contrast at 0 and +4. I am using DPP, perhaps photoshop is different?
You misunderstood I think.
What goes into the raw compression is what you get back out. The raw file does not loose any information by being compressed.
This is UNLIKE most jpg compressions, where you loose a crapton of information.
SloPhoto wrote:
They are losslessly compressed. This means there is no degradation of the file during the process. It is 100% identical to the original after being read/uncompressed.
Ohh, and even though the tests are a bit odd. On a quick glance, my copy is far sharper.
what area -- corners? Without processing? What camera? (yada yada yada) From what I can see, mine seems to be comparable to most of what I see. Just need to make a decision on this before I leave thursday.
FWIW, all.... did some informal testing again... this time left top corner looked worst. I believe those of you who pointed out the necessity for proper alignment are correct, as my results apparently vary with it, at least to an extent.
