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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 27, 2006, 9:35 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15
Default

I just received my new Canon 30D and 17-40mm wide this morning. This is an upgrade from a Panasonic DMC-FZ20. I took the lens out for some test shots this afternoon and I'm... well, not all that impressed with what I am seeing. Is it possible to get a bad lens? Do I not know enough about the cameras auto focus points? I was expecting aBIG difference/improvement from my FZ20, but I'm not so sure that I can notice much, if any.

This is my first experience with Canon, and with digital SLR's. Can anyone give me any info on wheatherthis is a common occurance? I've researched this camera/lens combination for five weeks now and am feeling pretty sick at the moment. Thinking of returning it to B&H for a replacement.

Thanks... In2
In2Graphics is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 27, 2006, 10:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Remember, those Panasonics andall the otherdigicams out thereare set up with the intended user in mind- amatuers who probably want to have as little to do with the process as possible- DSLR's are not, and that means when you use a DSLR you cannot expect a super sharp, super saturated,"finished" image right out of the camera, even shooting JPEG's. You CANNOT compare the two on what you seestraight off the sensor.

You've just spent a chunk of change on a great camera and lens. Learn how to use Photoshop or whatever software you ownand use levels, unsharp masking and other corrections that can take your 30D images and make them as good as they can be.

Don't be like this guy:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=36

Results are directly proportional to the effortyou put in after pressing down onthe shutter release as I mentioned in the response in the above link, not to how much you spent on your equipment.If you aren't ready to do some work, you wasted a lot of money and are better off with the Panasonic- trading a lens or body in multiple times probably isn't going to help you if you don't really know what it's capable of.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 2:45 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

It's possible that you have a bad lens, but very unlikely compared to the prospect that you have a steep DSLR learning curve ahead of you.

There are ways to test your lens - do a search through this and other forums for how to go about it properly, chances are though that the equipment is fine.

Think of it this way...

Quality possible with setup: *=your current ability


|---Pana--------------------------------*--|


|----30D--------*-------------------------------------------|


I'm amazed at how much better my equipment seems to have gotten over the last 18 months as I have practiced and thought and critiqued and practiced some more.

Also remember that under some conditions suitable to the Pana you will be very hard pressed to tell the difference between it and any DSLR. The advantage of the SLR is that the range of conditions under which it is possible to take good photographs is vastly expanded (at vastly increased cost of course).



peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 6:36 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

You know i have the Fuji S9500, and just recently bought the Canon 350D and i printed few pictures to compare the two and guess what, I see no difference what so ever the only thing the canon is better at is ISO...
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 8:56 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

hercules wrote:
Quote:
You know i have the Fuji S9500, and just recently bought the Canon 350D and i printed few pictures to compare the two and guess what, I see no difference what so ever the only thing the canon is better at is ISO...
In many cases, that's true, but people buy a digital SLR for so many other reasons:

I hate electronic viewfinders. They'll have to get a lot better than they are today for me to ever even consider a camera with one, and I question whether that will change during my lifetime. In low light and in action situations when you shoot in burst mode, electronic viewfinders simply are not good enough- any view that's something less than real time means you'll miss getting the shot you want, and no EVF is real time. I will take the view of the optical finder with less clutter all over the image over any perceived convenience an EVF gives.

You mention the ISO, and I assume you mean the high ISO performance, and that's not trivial. I would also add, with the exception of the Sony R1, the physical size difference in sensors is also a big reason for choosing a digital SLR for obvious optical and image quality issues small sensors create with little to no DOF control and (see above) miserable high ISO performance, and no, not one digicam that offers high ISO settings can compare in image qualityto what you get with your Digital Rebel, either the original model or the XT/350 that's being sold today.

More people today shoot digital SLR's for the ability to record in RAW mode. Some digicams offer RAW too,but rates of capture and record speeds, to put it nicely, are abysmal compared to SLR's like the 30D, which have fast rates of capture and huge buffers that keeps SLR users shooting while someone with a digicam shooting RAW waits, seemeingly forever,for each file to write to a card. The Fuji S9500, according to the review done at DPReview, doesn't even allow for continuous shooting in RAW capture mode- hardly a camera I would want to own.

The one thing you can say, digicams are quantum leaps better now than they used to be in terms of overall speed in use- that is one area where SLR's used to be so much better as well, but you can't say that anymore. One only needs to compare a Canon A620 with a Canon A95 of just a couple of years ago to see how much faster in AF and capturespeed from the time you press the releasedigicams now are.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 9:24 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Greg

The EVF in the Minolta A2 is very different - There's actually two modes (high-resolution / high-scan rate) and it's actually quite a joy to use... you can actually use the EVF to focus or follow actions!

The A2 is also one of those camera where multiple RAW files are also buffered so one does not have to wait between sequence shots -> In many areas this camera is quite unique and doesn't fit most generalization - You should really try it out sometime... :-)

High ISO is probably the only one complain
(The Sony R1's EVF is a toy in comparison for the higher ISO)
-> but then how often do folks run into thoses situation for most of their shootings? :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 9:46 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Yes, NHL, the A2 is a very nice little camera.... it is also very discontinued and KM no longer makes cameras of any kind. It is an anomoly in the digicam world, and with digital SLR kitsnow starting at less than $800 there's little reason for anyone to produce anything like it again.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 10:17 AM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

hercules wrote:
Quote:
You know i have the Fuji S9500, and just recently bought the Canon 350D and i printed few pictures to compare the two and guess what, I see no difference what so ever the only thing the canon is better at is ISO...

Hercules - Peripatetic is 100% correct (nice graph - Peripatetic). Under optimal conditions you will be hard pressed to notice the difference. The key is the flexibility a DSLR gives you in non-optimal conditions. Want a quality 2.8 aperture at 400mm with nicely blurred background? Guess what, most digicams can't do that. Want 3 fps or 5 fps or 8fps burst for 20 shots? Sorry - need a DSLR. Want ultra-wide angle? Better 1:1 macro? There are a lot of benefits a dslr can provide beyond just high ISO performance. The key is determining whether or not you need the features a given camera provides for your particular shooting needs.

As an example, I shoot sports - so I need funtionality a digicam just can't provide. A digicam can't provide this kind of subject isolation nor take the 5 fps bursts that allow me to cherry pick between multiple shots of the person going over the same hurdle. If you don't shoot sports or wildlife the fps may be a meaningless feature. But the subject isolation and burst rate are examples of situations where (even with good lighting) you'll get better results from the DSLR than you will with the digicam.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 10:21 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

Now don't get me wrong but the 350D is a way better camera than the S9500 i was just comparing a couple photos in daylight,
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2006, 6:14 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
... with digital SLR kitsnow starting at less than $800 there's little reason for anyone to produce anything like it again.
Well I'm going against the tides here, and this is an enthusiast dSLR forum too... :-)
-> Case in point the Sony DSC-R1 you mentioned is very contemporary indeed, and comes with a pretty fast Carl Zeiss 24-120 lens (just poor execution in the EVF department). This camera has a wider coverage than a cropped 17-40L on a 30D (and 10Mpixels to boot) for landscape - which might even fit In2Graphics shooting style better

IMO a dSLR is not for everyone - The initial cost of a dSLR is just the tip of the iceberg. To get the effect of a 400mm f/2.8, like JohnG is advocating, that's another $6000. How many folks here will do that except for a living? And one needs to change to a different shooting style like mounting the equipment on a very sturdy platform that can't be moved around... Not too many enthusiasts I see, peripatetic is quite right "at vastly increased cost of course" which some folks might never achieve regardless... So we're talking about the middle-band in his chart where the two camera's style overlap one another :?

The fact of the matter is we the dSLR crowd are in the minority... Some folks are just happy enough with an all-in-one camera that can take equally good picture most of the time with no hassle of interchangeable lenses. Just check the various threads on people who just wanted 1 lens to carry around and never having to take it off again. Having to clean the sensor is a big deal for these folks. Lot of people also love the 'live preview' and why Kodak with no dSLR for example has the biggest Digicam market share in this country next to Sony, and why the Canon or the Nikon still make integrated camera like this... It's a god send feature on manual (in fact I set my dSLR to the A2 settings for night shots)


I took this picture of Trunk Bay with my 'noisy' D7's EVF all-in-one camera:





-> I came back a year later took the same shot with my dSLR - No difference!!!
It just costs more... :idea:
NHL 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 1:07 AM.