Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Canon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 2, 2009, 11:59 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

trigger-

I think that Hards/Dustin has put forward an excellent suggestion. Let's take a close look at the photos where you find focus to be an issue. Some 100% crops would be very useful.

Even if you went with a single lens solution like the tamron 18-250mm or the 18-270mm, I would still keep the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, as that is the area (18-55mm) that will show the most optical artefacts. The other option is to go to the Sigma 18-250mm lens where the optical artefacts don't show up until you get to 200mm and above.

The Canon SX-10 may indeed be a very viable alternative for you considering your desire to keep your kit smaller. However, be sure to visit a shop and physically handle the SX-10, I was quite surprised when I did that. The SX-10 was actually bigger than I had visualized it to be in advance of handling the actual camera.

Age is only a means of counting the years. Please don't let age deter your creativity and what you want to do. I am actually older that you, trigger, and I don't plan on letting age hold me back in any way.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2009, 8:39 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 85
Default Is it Canon Technology or just skill

Hards80,... I'm very glad to see young people heading out to work. It give me great comfort to know someone is paying taxes.

Yes I will go back and find a few examples, but it seems to me there are some strong restrictions on this web site as to image size limitation. I've look for a "Sticky" that would teach one the in's and out's of posting images but can't find it. The bottom line is that I feel that there is a "Dead Zone" of focus for my Camera that sometimes seems to work out, and I would probably be happy if that happened even 50% of the time,..but it does not. I would estimate 85% are not focused correctly. Before I waste any of your time, I'm going to re-read and study the articles I found by Ken Rockwell which I have linked below.

Today I found someone that seems to give me a totally new view of image sharpness and his article on Auto focusing and his explanation seem to confirm what kind of problems I'm having.

However, before I leave this point, I need to add a comment for Susan and some more info about the Canon 18-200 mm IS lens she recommened for me. I'm not picking on her,.. it's just that I think this information answers one issue on what lens to buy. Here is the link to his article on that lens.

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/18-200mm.htm

The design issues he has pointed out don't seem to be something I would spend that kind of money on.

Here is another link to his article on "Sharpness"

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm

And finally here is his article on Sharpness versus F/stop.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...on/f-stops.htm

It seems to me these articles actually agree with what many of you are already saying,... it is the skill, not the technology. The skill can and will compensate for the lack of good technology.

That's enough for me today.... back to more reading.

Edit----------------Strange thing today,... after I had added all my comments and went to post this data, yes it immediately said I was not logged in and directed me back to a place to login. I had already saved my post data by making a copy, but once I logged in, it went ahead and actually posted all the information I had added. Sometimes it works,... sometimes it won't.

Last edited by trigger1937; Nov 2, 2009 at 8:43 PM.
trigger1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2009, 9:13 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

trigger-

You keep referring to a "Susan," who are you actually referring to in your post? Here is an example from your last post.

"...However, before I leave this point, I need to add a comment for Susan and some more info about the Canon 18-200 mm IS lens she recommened for me. I'm not picking on her,.. it's just that I think this information answers one issue on what lens to buy. Here is the link to his article on that lens..."

Firstly my name is Sarah, not Susan. Secondly I have never recommended the Canon 18-200mm lens. That lens has received average to poor reviews. I have only discussed the Tamron 18-250mm lens and the Tamron 18-270mm lens in these discussions. Perhaps it is time to exit this discussion, as I really don't want to be quoted as doing something which I have most certainly have not done at all.

I sincerely try to help, to provide valid honest data, and have been very willing to be a part of this extended discussion. In fact, I am the only female in this discussion. There is no Susan, at all.

Perhaps this is all a very honest mistake. Perhaps I missed a vital piece of data in this thread, that is always possible.

Have a great evening

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2009, 10:05 PM   #14
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trigger1937 View Post

Yes I will go back and find a few examples, but it seems to me there are some strong restrictions on this web site as to image size limitation. I've look for a "Sticky" that would teach one the in's and out's of posting images but can't find it. The bottom line is that I feel that there is a "Dead Zone" of focus for my Camera that sometimes seems to work out, and I would probably be happy if that happened even 50% of the time,..but it does not. I would estimate 85% are not focused correctly. Before I waste any of your time, I'm going to re-read and study the articles I found by Ken Rockwell which I have linked below.
Trigger.

If you wish to share a full size image. It is possible to use a free file sharing website such as flickr,imageshack,photobucket,tinypic (some have file size restrictions, some don't, i think flickr and tinypic do not have restrictions even free version) or whatever and then just link us to this photo. as it is impossible to embed full-size images in the posts themselves on this forum as it exceeds file size restriction.

also 1 thing to keep in mind, is most dslr's have their default sharpening and contrast settings pretty low. this means they will appear softer than a point n shoot which has default sharpening and contrast up pretty high. however, this does not mean the detail is not there. they are processed softly to allow for more latitude in post-processing, allowing you to do the sharpening later.

also, as mentioned, in macro range, the depth of field can be pretty small at anything less than very small apertures.

hope this helps.
-Dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2009, 11:46 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 85
Default Is it the Canon Technology or just skill

Sarah,.... I'm so sorry, I don't know what else to say. I guess my only excuse is my age. When I think about it, I'm lucky I got the first letter right and it has 5 letters in your name. Most men would give me a PASS if I got it that close,... but not those people from Vensus.

I am totally mistaken. You had mentioned the Canon 55-250mm IS which you love, and you also mentioned your Tamron 18-200mm all in one. I have read, and posted, so many comments about ANY 18-250 in the last few days I got your Canon lens mixed up with these. All I can say is sorry.

Wait till you get to be my age and when you leave the room and go down the hall to get something and half way there you stop and wonder, "What was I going after and where was I going". Sometimes I'm not sure if it is the wine I make for myself, or just my age is beginning to show. I think it is a combination of both.

One last question,.. If there are problems with Focus, is it usually the lens or is it the Camera?
trigger1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 12:05 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 85
Default Is it the Canon Technology or just skill

I'm sorry,.. I forgot one more link to Ken's article on "Why focus Makes so much difference"

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/resolution-myth.htm

His point is if you are shooting at the wrong settings you will force the focus to be bad. You have to had tested you lens similar to how he has tested to see what f/stops begin to give you difraction noise.
trigger1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 11:33 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

trigger-

'Not to worry please, you have been very focused on this problem and just forgot. That was why I so vigorously seconded Hards/Dustin's suggestion that you use a good, sturdy tripod. The combination of your tripod, when used with small apertures on your camera is also another winning combination for image sharpness.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 11:24 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 85
Default Is it the Canon Technology or just skill

Sarah,... Today I figured out why my mind was so focused on "Susan". I help other Senior Citizens that are even more demented than myself with their computers. Yesterday I was on the phone for hours with Microsoft support of trying to install Windows 7 on my friends computer. My technicl support person was "Susan". It became cemented in my mind. (We never got it to work,... no one has drivers for Windows 7 so none of his wireless gear would work). Well that is enough of that.

One of the links to Ken Rockwell's articles indicates that the smaller the aperture the worse the difraction and the more loss of sharpness. He did a sample of 5 GOOD lenses at every stop from 2.X to F/16 and indicated that once you get past F/8 or even lower, the sharpness drops off. Any comment on that.

One thing that continues to bug me is all the various reviews of the SX10 and the SX20. Since the lens, and the Digic IV chip are the same,..the only difference is they came out with a new sensor at 12.1 MegaPixels but the physical size of the sensor is still the same. So each pixel is now smaller and therefore gathers less light from each color filter. I have yet to see a site that compaired these two side by side, on equal bodies, under identical conditions.

I've begun to create my own link to Flickr so I can post examples at others can download them at full image size. It is not ready yet.

Last night I had a dream that I was a professional Photographer, or maybe a nightmare as I twisted and turned and moaned all night long. I woke up the next morning and took a picture of myself and I've added the link to that picture below. I didn't think it could get this bad.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trigger1937/4074017542/
trigger1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2009, 8:24 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Good Morning, trigger-

Thanks for the link to that great photo. That says it all!

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2009, 12:22 PM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Trigger,

softness at small apertures is a result of diffraction. most macro photographers stay below f11 (give or take) and make the dof work for them by changing composition etc. i.e. shoot the bug sideways or near sideways instead of head-on. then shoot the head-on shot with a more open aperture (f8 or so) and make the selective focus part of the attributes of the photo.

-Dustin
Hards80 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 2:34 PM.