|
»
EOS Blurry pics.
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
EOS Blurry pics.
by Tom Williams-5
::
Rate this Message:
Hello all,
I am currently working on a presentation for work. I've taken some photos of the piece of equipment that is being introduced with the following: Eos 5D 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Tripod Cable release Manual Focus Mono light w/ umbrella Shutter speed was 1/100th When I brought the pics up on my computer screen I immediately noticed that they all looked slightly, but noticeable, out of focus. Not on the camera screen though. I spent some time today with the camera and lens combo checking my manual focus against the auto focus on the same point and it was on every time. I know that my diopter is set right. I've heard/seen posts that the 28-135 seems "softer" to some with a digital as apposed to film cameras. This didn't look soft, I would say out of focus. I haven't been doing digital that long so maybe I'm missing or not under standing something. I've never had to re-shoot pictures before now. Later today or tomorrow I'll have to retake them. Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Tom * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: EOS Blurry pics.
by Malcolm Stewart
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Tom,
I too have the EF28-135 and a 5D. Before going to the Alps last summer I ran some holiday snap type checks with my 28-135 and the new 5D. Although I've used it abroad in the past with film cameras and successfully, I left it at home this time as I noticed patches of poor definition when printed to A3. Instead I took my EF 28-80 f3.5-5.6 USM (Original version) and that was fine. So I'm not too surprised by your post. (Other lenses taken were EF 24 f2.8, EF 50 f2.5 and the lightweight EF 80-200 f4.5-5.6. All performed OK when required. Pleased that I travelled light as we got to high altitudes where oxygen depletion had an effect.) Malcolm Milton Keynes, UK --------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Williams" <Deshi135@...> To: <eos@...> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:14 PM Subject: EOS Blurry pics. > Hello all, > > I am currently working on a presentation for work. I've taken some photos > of the piece of equipment that is being introduced with the following: > Eos 5D > 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS > Tripod > Cable release > Manual Focus > Mono light w/ umbrella > Shutter speed was 1/100th > When I brought the pics up on my computer screen I immediately noticed > that they all looked slightly, but noticeable, out of focus. Not on the > camera screen though. > I spent some time today with the camera and lens combo checking my manual > focus against the auto focus on the same point and it was on every time. > I know that my diopter is set right. > I've heard/seen posts that the 28-135 seems "softer" to some with a > digital as apposed to film cameras. This didn't look soft, I would say > out of focus. I haven't been doing digital that long so maybe I'm missing > or not under standing something. I've never had to re-shoot pictures > before now. Later today or tomorrow I'll have to retake them. > Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > Tom * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: EOS Blurry pics.
by John Dudeck
::
Rate this Message:
I've heard that they say you should turn of IS when using a tripod. Could
that help? I've not had an IS lens myself to see what difference it makes... > Hello all, > > I am currently working on a presentation for work. I've taken some > photos of the piece of equipment that is being introduced with the following: > Eos 5D > 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS > Tripod > Cable release > Manual Focus > Mono light w/ umbrella > Shutter speed was 1/100th > When I brought the pics up on my computer screen I immediately > noticed that they all looked slightly, but noticeable, out of > focus. Not on the camera screen though. > I spent some time today with the camera and lens combo checking my > manual focus against the auto focus on the same point and it was on > every time. I know that my diopter is set right. > I've heard/seen posts that the 28-135 seems "softer" to some with a > digital as apposed to film cameras. This didn't look soft, I would > say out of focus. I haven't been doing digital that long so maybe > I'm missing or not under standing something. I've never had to > re-shoot pictures before now. Later today or tomorrow I'll have to > retake them. > Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > Tom John Dudeck SIM International Systems Tel: 803-802-7300 john.dudeck@... Charlotte, North Carolina -- "In American, an hour is about 40 minutes." -- German saying * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
RE: EOS Blurry pics.
by Bob Wise
::
Rate this Message:
Check out photomatix at www.hdrsoft.com - that's what I'm using. It's very cool and fun, although compute/disk intensive. You take photos at different exposure levels into a high-dynamic-range image and then compress it into a low-dynamic-range image. http://www.bobsplanet.com/gallery/v/New-Photos/Set01HDRI3from_IMG_9010-2.jpg .html for a landscape example. -bw -----Original Message----- From: owner-eos@... [mailto:owner-eos@...] On Behalf Of Valencic Miha Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:31 PM To: eos@... Subject: RE: EOS Blurry pics. Bob, what do you mean by HDR? Multiple exposure variations or something else? I've been playing with merging images... but due to lack of time, nothing that I can show. BTW, does anybody know (out of the top of their heads) how to calculate EV from ISO, Shutter speed and Apperture value? Miha > Next product shoot I do I'm going go all HDR, too. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EOS Blurry pics.
by Bob Wise
::
Rate this Message:
Before my 5D I had a 20D. I borrowed a friend's 28-135IS once and the results were so awful that I gave it back to him with the "bad copy, send it to canon for repair" suggestion. He said "I never liked the pictures I took with that camera". He'd had the lens for a couple of years as his only lens! Tom - has this this lens has given you good results in other settings? -Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-eos@... [mailto:owner-eos@...] On Behalf Of Malcolm Stewart Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:17 PM To: eos@... Subject: Re: EOS Blurry pics. Hi Tom, I too have the EF28-135 and a 5D. Before going to the Alps last summer I ran some holiday snap type checks with my 28-135 and the new 5D. Although I've used it abroad in the past with film cameras and successfully, I left it at home this time as I noticed patches of poor definition when printed to A3. Instead I took my EF 28-80 f3.5-5.6 USM (Original version) and that was fine. So I'm not too surprised by your post. (Other lenses taken were EF 24 f2.8, EF 50 f2.5 and the lightweight EF 80-200 f4.5-5.6. All performed OK when required. Pleased that I travelled light as we got to high altitudes where oxygen depletion had an effect.) Malcolm Milton Keynes, UK --------------------------------------------------------------- * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
Re: EOS Blurry pics.
by Rob Chandler
::
Rate this Message:
I had a 28-135IS about 5 years ago and the only camera it ever worked
properly with was my Rebel 2000 (film). It wouldn't focus properly with my Elan 7e or 7ne which were bought a few years later. The lens went back to Canon 3 times to be repaired, after the 3rd time they sent me a new lens. The new lens had the same problem as the original lens. I sold the lens to someone who was using an EOS-3 and he said it worked fine with his camera. Funny thing though, I knew two people that had older 28-135IS lenses. Their older lenses worked properly on my Rebel, Elan 7e and Elan 7ne cameras. I wonder if Canon changed manufacturing plants or something in the process somewhere. I started buying L lenses after my experience with the 28-135IS. Rob bob wrote: > Before my 5D I had a 20D. I borrowed a friend's 28-135IS once and the > results were so awful that I gave it back to him with the "bad copy, send it > to canon for repair" suggestion. He said "I never liked the pictures I took > with that camera". He'd had the lens for a couple of years as his only lens! > > Tom - has this this lens has given you good results in other settings? > > -Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-eos@... [mailto:owner-eos@...] On Behalf Of Malcolm Stewart > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:17 PM > To: eos@... > Subject: Re: EOS Blurry pics. > > Hi Tom, > > I too have the EF28-135 and a 5D. Before going to the Alps last summer I > ran some holiday snap type checks with my 28-135 and the new 5D. Although > I've used it abroad in the past with film cameras and successfully, I left > it at home this time as I noticed patches of poor definition when printed to > > A3. Instead I took my EF 28-80 f3.5-5.6 USM (Original version) and that was > > fine. > > So I'm not too surprised by your post. > > (Other lenses taken were EF 24 f2.8, EF 50 f2.5 and the lightweight EF > 80-200 f4.5-5.6. All performed OK when required. Pleased that I travelled > light as we got to high altitudes where oxygen depletion had an effect.) > > Malcolm > Milton Keynes, UK > --------------------------------------------------------------- > **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
EOS lens choice
by Ken Durling
::
Rate this Message:
OK, another "what lens" post. I'd appreciate being indulged some
feedback - I know it's ultimately my decision. I've been shooting with a large arsenal of FD lenses for a long time, the only EF lenses I have are the 50/1.8, Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro and the 28-135 IS. I shoot wildlife, concerts, people, landscapes and want to do more portraiture. All my wildlife shooting has been done with manual focus long teles. The EOS bodies I currently own are an Elan 7 and a 30D. I'm planning to add an EOS 3 soon and eventually a 1D Mk.II, or a 5D, or whatever's equivalent when I have the money. For concert shooting I've mainly been using the 50/1.8 and 30D, due to it's excellent high ISO performance, at least for smallish prints. In the big picture, I need a long lens, probably the 300/4 IS and 1.4TC combo, a wide, probably the 16-35/2.8 and the choice I'm now considering, between the EF 135/2.0L and the 70-200/ 2.8L IS. I know one is twice the price of the other, and that's a factor. I also realize that the 70-200 is more versatile. But I love the 135 focal length (as it would be on the Elan) and on the 30D the 210 equivalent reach could be great at f/2 for concerts. Of course the 70-200 covers it, at a stop slower, and the IS is not a big factor here as motion blur is a bigger issue since I'm usually using a tripod. Out in the field that would be a different story, and I'm sure it would come in handy. Both of these lenses are among the most highly praised and rated I've ever seen. I'd have to scrimp and save to get the 70-200, and for indoor shooting I really don't like big white lenses. That may seem trivial . . . but. I like to be discreet. I'm guessing there would be next to no IQ difference at equivalent f-stops? Am I wrong? I shoot with mostly primes on my T-90 and FTb, and am pretty convinced of their superiority, but the only modern zoom I have experience with is the 28-135, (and a day with the 24-70/2.8L - nice!) which I love for many uses, but is slow and not critically sharp. I do end up zoomed all the way out and at f/5.6 a lot, so the idea of a super sharp fast, compact stable 135 is very attractive. I can't twist this into a coherent question, but if anything in the above makes you think of something, fire away. Ken * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
EOS lens choice 135/2 + 70-200
by Ken Durling
::
Rate this Message:
OK, another "what lens" post. I'd appreciate being indulged some
feedback - I know it's ultimately my decision. I've been shooting with a large arsenal of FD lenses for a long time, the only EF lenses I have are the 50/1.8, Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro and the 28-135 IS. I shoot wildlife, concerts, people, landscapes and want to do more portraiture. All my wildlife shooting has been done with manual focus long teles. The EOS bodies I currently own are an Elan 7 and a 30D. I'm planning to add an EOS 3 soon and eventually a 1D Mk.II, or a 5D, or whatever's equivalent when I have the money. For concert shooting I've mainly been using the 50/1.8 and 30D, due to it's excellent high ISO performance, at least for smallish prints. In the big picture, I need a long lens, probably the 300/4 IS and 1.4TC combo, a wide, probably the 16-35/2.8 and the choice I'm now considering, between the EF 135/2.0L and the 70-200/ 2.8L IS. I know one is twice the price of the other, and that's a factor. I also realize that the 70-200 is more versatile. But I love the 135 focal length (as it would be on the Elan) and on the 30D the 210 equivalent reach could be great at f/2 for concerts. Of course the 70-200 covers it, at a stop slower, and the IS is not a big factor here as motion blur is a bigger issue since I'm usually using a tripod. Out in the field that would be a different story, and I'm sure it would come in handy. Both of these lenses are among the most highly praised and rated I've ever seen. I'd have to scrimp and save to get the 70-200, and for indoor shooting I really don't like big white lenses. That may seem trivial . . . but. I like to be discreet. I'm guessing there would be next to no IQ difference at equivalent f-stops? Am I wrong? I shoot with mostly primes on my T-90 and FTb, and am pretty convinced of their superiority, but the only modern zoom I have experience with is the 28-135, (and a day with the 24-70/2.8L - nice!) which I love for many uses, but is slow and not critically sharp. I do end up zoomed all the way out and at f/5.6 a lot, so the idea of a super sharp fast, compact stable 135 is very attractive. I can't twist this into a coherent question, but if anything in the above makes you think of something, fire away. Ken * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
Re: EOS Blurry pics.
by Harman Bajwa
::
Rate this Message:
--- Rob Chandler <rob@...> wrote:
> properly with was my Rebel 2000 (film). It wouldn't > focus properly with > my Elan 7e or 7ne which were bought a few years > later. The lens went For some reason this lens gets a very bad rap most of the time, esp. from DSLR users. I have this lens and use it without any problems. Perhaps in low light/contrast it will not be able to, unassisted, pass enough light through for the body to be able to determine focus. But that is to be expected, a characteristic of this lens - it is not a "wide open" lens - that fact is well established before one buys it. So then what does "would not focus properly" mean ? Not attain Focus Lock/Hunt ? Or does it mean it focus lock is achieved even without the subject being in focus ? I thought it was the camera body that decides what the correct focus is - not the lens (the lens is just moved back and forth until focus is determined to be achieved by the body's algorithm). As long as there is enough light getting to the sensor in the body (behind the lens, but not in it), focus should be achieveable . If not, the body/algorithm is at fault, certainly not the lens. Keep in mind many bodies will take the shot even without focus lock, such as during predictive focus or Servo mode etc. Just curious about how much is established fact and how much is opinion really about this lens ... - Harman ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
Re: EOS Blurry pics.
by James B.Davis
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:31:30 -0800, "bob" <bob@...> wrote/replied to:
>Before my 5D I had a 20D. I borrowed a friend's 28-135IS once and the >results were so awful that I gave it back to him with the "bad copy, send it >to canon for repair" suggestion. He said "I never liked the pictures I took >with that camera". He'd had the lens for a couple of years as his only lens! I have a 10d and a 28-135 IS and I love the combo. Damned sharp lens is what it is. Quick focusing, good zoom range, etc etc. The IS does work too, hard not to like it. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits, Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts. 1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America. STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
Re: EOS Blurry pics.
by Craig Zendel
::
Rate this Message:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harman Bajwa" <harman006@...> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:02 AM >(snip).... I thought it was the camera body that decides >what the correct focus is - not the lens (the lens is >just moved back and forth until focus is determined to >be achieved by the body's algorithm). As long as there >is enough light getting to the sensor in the body >(behind the lens, but not in it), focus should be >achieveable . If not, the body/algorithm is at fault, >certainly not the lens.....(snip) Harman, This is not so. The lens is also responsible. This is why there is software adjustment available for lenses. CraigZ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
Re: EOS lens choice 135/2 + 70-200
by Malcolm Stewart
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Ken,
I've had the 135 f2L for many years, and I'm sorry to say that whilst I appreciate its sharpness, contrast etc. when I do take it out, I prefer carrying the much lighter EF135 f2.8SF. (I don't do indoor sports!) Previously I was accustomed to the size and weight of the Minolta 135 f2.8MD. What I'm thinking of here is the extra weight of adding the 135 f2L to an already heavy bag. (I did injure my shoulder some years ago due to carrying my over-weight camera bag.) Can't comment on your other choice as I've yet to convince myself that any L zoom is worth getting for me. (I do have several L teles and take them out as required for nature shooting.) I have carried the ridiculously cheap and lightweight 80-200 f4.5-5.6 several times, and been pleasantly surprised by how good the images have been - albeit at around f8 / 11. When already suffering from oxygen exhaustion at high altitude, the less weight the better - and high brightness came with the territory! (Current body 5D and printing to A3+ for an indication of my sharpness requirements.) Malcolm Milton Keynes, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Durling" <kdurling@...> To: <eos@...> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:54 AM Subject: EOS lens choice 135/2 + 70-200 > OK, another "what lens" post. I'd appreciate being indulged some > feedback - I know it's ultimately my decision. > > I've been shooting with a large arsenal of FD lenses for a long time, the > only EF lenses I have are the 50/1.8, Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro and the > 28-135 IS. I shoot wildlife, concerts, people, landscapes and want to do > more portraiture. All my wildlife shooting has been done with manual focus > long teles. > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
Re: EOS lens choice 135/2 + 70-200
by James B.Davis
::
Rate this Message:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:45:42 -0000, "Malcolm Stewart"
<malcolm_stewart@...> wrote/replied to: > >Can't comment on your other choice as I've yet to convince myself that any L >zoom is worth getting for me. (I do have several L teles and take them out >as required for nature shooting.) I have carried the ridiculously cheap and >lightweight 80-200 f4.5-5.6 several times, and been pleasantly surprised by >how good the images have been - albeit at around f8 / 11. When already >suffering from oxygen exhaustion at high altitude, the less weight the >better - and high brightness came with the territory! Well the reason I got the EF100-400L IS was to cut down on weight. Yes, it's heavy but so are two or three other lenses and who wants to be changing lenses while hiking? Risk of dropping getting dirt in camera on lenses, etc, yuck! I find the trick to carrying weight is in using a good backpack AND keeping the weight down. With the 100-400 and one other wide angle I cover all lengths I might need and rarely have to change lenses or worry about lenses banging each other, padding them etc. So an L zoom can really make your life easier, but as always it depends on what you like to shoot and where you do it. I might put on a wide angle when I see a spectacular view hiking, but mostly keep the telezoom on because I'm shooting stuff at a distance. BTW, 100mm makes a nice landscape lens as do the focal lengths between 100 and 200, a wide angle is not always the right choice for landscapes. I used to enjoy my 75-300 zoom too and got good images from it, along with really low weight for the zoom range it had. But the 100-400 really is a big step up in focus ability, sharpness, and IS. I love it. Still without a real wide angle for my 10d, but my Digital Elf 400 is really filling in the gap. Travelling really light with only the little guy in my pocket can be a real joy. I might be looking for something with more megapixels soon in a small small size. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits, Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts. 1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America. STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm *********************************************************** |
|
|
RE: EOS Blurry pics.
|
