Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 28, 2010, 7:57 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

The 18-55 is a very good little lens, doesn't feel well made (it's cheap for sure) but performs well enough for the average user. It's much sharper than its predecessor.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 8:33 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

This is a classic example of why viewing at 100 percent is not the way to judge a camera. It's the picture, not the pixels that's important.
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 9:39 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

any chance of posting some of his images just incase on the off chance of the camera being defective

that said you mentioned areas out of focus as noted that is a beneficial thing in many situations and is controlled via the aperture - the larger the aperture the more blurred the out of focus area will be (just to confuse you large aperture means small number) if you set the aperture of the lens to about f8 you should get large depth of field so have lots in focus - you can go to smaller apertures than f8 but after a certain point the image quality begins to degrade so if you can try not to go about f11 or so
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 11:03 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Chenbin-

Most 18-55mm kit lens today are of very good quality. Here is an example photo from the Sony A-230 equipped with the Sony 18-55mm kit lens. The image quality ois really very good.

Please just click on the link below:

http://anchorse.smugmug.com/Other/So...9_7zZFE-X3.jpg

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 11:11 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

It is a good inexpensive lens pretty. But it is a price point lens. So AF speed is not one of it's strength. But you mention low light, you may want to consider some of the sigma and tamron 2.8 short zooms. like the sigma 17-50 or 24-70 or tamron 17-50 or 28-75. Having a constant 2.8 will be allot better for low light shooting then 3200 or 6400iso. I rather have gains in aperture vs gain in iso if I had to choose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chengbin View Post
@fldspringer

That's what I've noticed. The high ISO capabilities of the DSLR makes low light shooting possible.

Can anyone comment how good the 18-55mm lens that come with the kit?
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 11:52 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

The 18-55mm IS lens is pretty good. Here are a few shots with mine.


corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 1:52 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.Pattullo View Post
any chance of posting some of his images just incase on the off chance of the camera being defective

that said you mentioned areas out of focus as noted that is a beneficial thing in many situations and is controlled via the aperture - the larger the aperture the more blurred the out of focus area will be (just to confuse you large aperture means small number) if you set the aperture of the lens to about f8 you should get large depth of field so have lots in focus - you can go to smaller apertures than f8 but after a certain point the image quality begins to degrade so if you can try not to go about f11 or so
I accidentally "cut" and paste (instead of copy and paste) the folder of his pictures when transferring from my hard drive to his memory card (he used my card, and since I only had one card reader, I had to copy to hard drive to compare pictures). I had the intention of keeping his pictures, but for some reason I still "cut" his pictures. That's why I didn't post comparison pictures on my first thread.

I did try to use a file recovery software, but I got less than 1/3 of his images, which makes comparison pictures hard to find. Nevertheless, I found them. They're probably not the best comparison pictures that we took, because I couldn't recover the first 30-40 pictures, which is most of our shots taken just for sake of comparison, but this is what I recovered.

I can't find a good comparison picture for the 28-90mm lens, so I just chose a picture that accurately represent the true quality of the (rather crappy) lens. For the S1800 I chose a picture of a wall that both of us took just for detail. Unfortunately I couldn't recover that image, otherwise it would have been the perfect comparison to show how the t1i with 28-90mm lens was inferior to the S1800 where both were perfect shots. Nevertheless, this S1800 picture is used to compare the brick wall and plants of the two camera, even though they're taken at different places.

These pictures are the original JPEG pictures, uploaded untouched, because I've always strongly believed this sticky thread's idea

Canon t1i with 28-90mm lens

S1800 wall and plants

Canon t1i with 75-300mm lens

S1800 vs t1i with 75-300mm lens

Last edited by chengbin; Aug 28, 2010 at 1:56 PM.
chengbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 7:21 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

well no expert on this camera or the lenses used but got to admit those results dont look too good - the first one might just be the lense not being brilliant

the second one of the grass, i would ask how close you were to the grass when taking that shot and what the minimum focusing distance of the lens is? as its entirely possible that you were simply to close for the lens to focus on the grass - p&s often have macro capability in them that a dslr doesn't without putting a specialised macro lens on.

if you were within the focus distance of the lens then there is something wrong (major camera movement or technological in nature) or that lens is even worse than the first
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 7:36 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.Pattullo View Post
the second one of the grass, i would ask how close you were to the grass when taking that shot and what the minimum focusing distance of the lens is? as its entirely possible that you were simply to close for the lens to focus on the grass - p&s often have macro capability in them that a dslr doesn't without putting a specialised macro lens on.
We took the grass picture standing up pointing the camera downwards, so the lens were about 1.5 meters (5 feet) away, which is the minimum distance for the 5-300mm lens. I probably used zoom on my S1800.

EDIT: I see. That grass picture was bad, not focused + hand shake. Here is another picture of grass, but it is only focused at the center. If the picture was taken properly, assume the sharpness is about the same as that picture's center focused part.

Canon t1i grass 75-300mm

S1800 grass

Last edited by chengbin; Aug 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM.
chengbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 9:21 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The first thing you'll notice when looking at those two images is that, because of the larger image sensor, the T1i has a much more shallow the depth of field than the S1800. At those settings, on the S1800, everything from about 2 feet to infinity will be in focus. But with those settings on the T1i, anything closer than 4.98 feet, or further than 5.02 feet will be out of focus. Another issue with your comparison is that the T1i was shot at 210mm, which is an angle of view of about 8, but the shot you took with the S1800 was shot at 5mm which is an angle of view of about 75! While they're both photos of grass, that's where the similarity ends.

The differences are so extreme that, with those photos, you're really trying to compare apples and oranges.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 5:00 PM.