Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 17, 2005, 6:57 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5
Default

OK people. I realy really appreciate your comments. And you really did made your point... maybe it is time to learn some more....about post processing and not only....
Now i would like to launch a new issue...one that will certanly help me, and others too......
What postprocessing techniques do you use? Let's consider 2 cases...in the first you have a one hundred photos to process and not a lot of time, and in the second, u only have one photo and u want it to turn out really good....
Oh, one last thing...please excuse me if i make some english mistakes....
And thank you....
andreicretu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2005, 4:41 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 25
Default

One word . . . "PhotoShop".

If money is tight then look to PhotoShop Elements, if you can budget for it then go for PhotoShop CS, or the newly released CS2. Like your dSLR, PhotoShop needs practice to get the most out of it, but the results are worthwhile.




HiltonP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2005, 4:06 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7
Default

Hello ,

Thank you all for your answers .
I'm not going to spend money tomorrow ....
I'm giving me the time to learn ... and I see that the results are improved .
so there is a learning curve factor ......

Regarding the statement that DSLR's are designed for post processing
I heard this statement a lot .... but if it is so

Why Canon engineers invested and added features like "direct printing" on the XT
if the images are "not ready " from the camera ?

I think that the jpeg output should be "ready" similar to P&S camera
and only the RAW output is designed for post processing .
I think that this was the intention of the Canon engineers .......

I tried other lenses as I mentioned before and I got better results than with the
kit lens so this convinced me that there is still a factor of the lens together with the learning curve ...



thanks again to every body that answered .

Amir

Amir_B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2005, 5:34 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7
Default

andreicretu wrote:
Quote:
thank you for your replyes. Amir, what you say is true. Is not that i deny the existance of the "learning curve", but i had a lot of decent compacts before, like the v1, and i always worked on manual.....
i also want to add the following link for future comments
http://www.pbase.com/franklin/canon_sigma
it's a comparison between the kitlens 18-55, the 17-85 IS and the sigma. For what i've seen, the 17-85 is by far the best. what do you guys have to say?
best regards,
Andrei

Hello ,

Now that I have more than 1000 shoots with my new DSLR I also can not deny the learning curve factor .
I improve from day to day ..

But in the same breath I still think that the 18-55 kit lens is a bad lens and the link above you gave proves it

the most convincing pictures that supports what I claim are the pictures that were taken with the 18-55 vs the 17-85 of the boats in the marine

please take a look there is a boat named "Lady k"

in the picture that was taken with the 17-85 the name is sharp and can be read at 17mm F4 !
while with the 18-55 at 18mm F3.5 it is impossible to read the name
BUT even when stopped on F8 the name is barely readable !! F8 vs F4 !
on F8 even the worst lens should give reasonable sharpness
and at F11 every lens should give good sharpness without post processing.

So this is absolutely the difference with the sharpness of the lens ..... this is exactly what I'm experiencing with this lens...

Amir

Amir_B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 12:15 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

HiltonP wrote:
Quote:
One word . . . "PhotoShop".

If money is tight then look to PhotoShop Elements, if you can budget for it then go for PhotoShop CS, or the newly released CS2. Like your dSLR, PhotoShop needs practice to get the most out of it, but the results are worthwhile.

I don't think that it should be necessary to post-process images from DSLRs to get them to look as sharp as pics from digi-cams...

I am however also experiencing some of the same frustrations. I recently went from a Minolta A200 to the Rebel XT, and the images I am getting don't look as good (and by good, I mean sharp) as they did from my Minolta.

I understand also that I have a lot to learn, but my Minolta A200 was a manual camera also, I read the books, practiced, and learned the basics.

Why would DSLRs be manufactured to intentionally look blurry unless post-processed? Even when I apply unsharp mask to images taken with my kit lens, they don't look nearly as clean and realistic as the ones straight out of my Minolta. I have upraded lenses now and there is definitely a difference, but when shooting with my Minolta A200 I never had to think,

"I'd like to shoot this at f2.8, but I want it sharp also so I'd better stop it down..."

I posted a temp gallery with a couple examples. Here are 2 shots from My A200, and 2 from my Rebel XT, no processing on any of them. You will notice that the ISO is set higher on my XT, but that's one of the reasons I bought it.

Dialup warning: Images are in their natural resolution:

http://www.pbase.com/chris_miller/temp

So some might say "If you liked your Minolta that much, buy it back..." I still like the Rebel XT more, with it's quickness, interchangeable lenses, etc. I even enjoy this challenge of getting sharp pictures... So, those with experience please continue this discussion and help us newbies learn and understand. We appreciate it...
ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 3:23 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7
Default

ChrisDM wrote:
Quote:
HiltonP wrote:
Quote:
One word . . . "PhotoShop".

If money is tight then look to PhotoShop Elements, if you can budget for it then go for PhotoShop CS, or the newly released CS2. Like your dSLR, PhotoShop needs practice to get the most out of it, but the results are worthwhile.

Quote:

I don't think that it should be necessary to post-process images from DSLRs to get them to look as sharp as pics from digi-cams...

I am however also experiencing some of the same frustrations. I recently went from a Minolta A200 to the Rebel XT, and the images I am getting don't look as good (and by good, I mean sharp) as they did from my Minolta.

I understand also that I have a lot to learn, but my Minolta A200 was a manual camera also, I read the books, practiced, and learned the basics.

Why would DSLRs be manufactured to intentionally look blurry unless post-processed? Even when I apply unsharp mask to images taken with my kit lens, they don't look nearly as clean and realistic as the ones straight out of my Minolta. I have upraded lenses now and there is definitely a difference, but when shooting with my Minolta A200 I never had to think,

"I'd like to shoot this at f2.8, but I want it sharp also so I'd better stop it down..."

I posted a temp gallery with a couple examples. Here are 2 shots from My A200, and 2 from my Rebel XT, no processing on any of them. You will notice that the ISO is set higher on my XT, but that's one of the reasons I bought it.

Dialup warning: Images are in their natural resolution:

http://www.pbase.com/chris_miller/temp

So some might say "If you liked your Minolta that much, buy it back..." I still like the Rebel XT more, with it's quickness, interchangeable lenses, etc. I even enjoy this challenge of getting sharp pictures... So, those with experience please continue this discussion and help us newbies learn and understand. We appreciate it...
Chris ,

With the 4 picture gallery you conviced me even more that a DSLR with a good lens can produce images that do need proccesing and are sharp as we are used from the p&S cameras . again the 50mm F1.8 is superb lens , look how sharp is the picture that was taken at F3.5 !! .Even that I'm new to DSLR I was also able to produce very sharp images with this lens. but with the 18-55 kit lens I can not get even close to this sharpness .....

Amir
Amir_B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 4:07 PM   #17
Member
 
EOS-Rob-UK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 56
Default

Well, solid advice from all. I heard horror stories about the kit lens and yes with the 350D (rebel XT)does produce "soft" results. Now shooting on Pref - SET 1 sharpness turned all the way up

i am new to DSLR's (practika MTL3 and 1 megapixel Sony camcorder till now) and am over the moon with my 350D performance, even shooting motorcycles i can get a reasonable shot (see post) even before photoshop with practice, shot over 1800 pics so far in a week and now feeling a lot more confident with it. the noise control is amazing.

Am looking at the Canon 100-300 EF S/H on ebay as have only 100-200 GB pounds or should i look elsewhere? Any ideas guys?

would love a fast Sigma

I prefered the feel of the 350d over the D70S even as it comes with a far superior kit lens.

Rob B
Attached Images
 
EOS-Rob-UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 10:57 AM   #18
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

EOS-Rob-UK wrote:
Quote:

Am looking at the Canon 100-300 EF S/H on ebay as have only 100-200 GB pounds or should i look elsewhere? Any ideas guys?

Rob B
70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro II Super £159 inc VAT from

www.warehouseexpress.com

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens...0-300mmAPO.htm

That's a pretty good MTF for the price, and a decent macro lens to boot.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:17 AM.