Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT (
-   -   Opinions (

Darlene2 Aug 31, 2006 6:14 PM

I'm still mastering my 5D, after using the heck out of the thing for 10-11 months now. I've learned a ton, and overall I've been happy, and my clients have definitely been happy. But I'm still just not mastering this thing the way I feel it should probably be functioning. I was peeking at another board (I do mostly childrens photography), looking at everyone's shots, and there are some that are just so crisp, nice clean, sharp images, and kick-butt colors. Most of them seem to use the Canon 20D, Nikon D70 or's crazy how good theselook! I'm wondering if I don't have some sort of focusing problem with this camera, because Ijust don't getshots like that. I've beenblaming myself up until now, which is still very likely the cause. ;) How would I detemine if there were a focus problem, outside of bringing it in to a shop and dropping some dinero? I think I remember seeingsomehwere a focus test that you could perform on your own, and see which numbers showed up sharply? Oris the 5D just not notoriously a sharper imagescamera?

I mainly use the Minolta 50mm 1.7 for all of my portraits, whether inside or out.

I could post some shots, if that ouwld help answer anybody's questions.

Thank you in response!

Aug 31, 2006 7:07 PM

Shots would help........

tmoreau Aug 31, 2006 7:11 PM

Its certainly you. No, really, I'm not being rude!!! Take this opertunity to study the differences between your pictures and others, and try to brainstorm new techniques. Your camera and lens are absolutely capable of the same results as a $10,000 canon pro rig in your conditions. There might be a focus problem, but I'd really doubt that.

The first few things that come to mind are:
-Lighting. It amazes me what a skilled photog can accomplish by arranging light skillfully. The sun, reflections, etc, not just artificial light.
-Photoshop. Tweaking colors, tonal ranges, and contrast can have as much effect on crispness as unsharp mask.

If your not shooting RAW, try it. Raw gives you much more to work with.

Darlene2 Aug 31, 2006 7:51 PM

Oh no please, I definitely am not offended...I'd much rather hear that it's something I can improve upon with oractice than having to drop money into something else. I'll upload a few photos to show you all what I'm referring to.

cope Aug 31, 2006 8:00 PM

I agree that it's probably technique and not the camera. I have heard from several former KM users who went to Canon and say that they really miss their Minolta gear. Most left because Sony didn't come out witjh what they wanted.

Mercury694 Aug 31, 2006 10:02 PM

Also keep in mind that the Minolta seems to represent colors more faithfully, lacking the 'punch' that some other DSLR's gain by enhancing the image after it's shot. There is a setting in the menu to up the saturation and or exposure compensation. To emulate the other cams, Friedman recommends (his book isoutstanding) adjusting exposure comp. to +0.5, color mode to natural+, saturation to +1, and sharpness to +1. I only actually use sharp+1 and natural+. I prefer the more natural color rendition from the overly red Canon shots.

Shooting in RAW does make a difference, though I am just getting into using it. The tools for correction are better, and the RAW file has a lot more information (and color depth) to work on.

Would love to see some examples though, kid shots are cool. :cool:

Darlene2 Sep 1, 2006 2:24 PM

Here are a couple, these are fairly decent in terms of what I can get out of my camera right now. I know they're not"bad", but I guess I'm just looking for that super crisp sharpness, which I've never seen from my camera, and would love to know how to achieve it. I could post a couple links to some photographer's sites that I'm referring to, so you can understand what I mean. That's "legal", right? Here's just an example...the photos look super sharp, very clean and crisp. http://www.susanbraswellphotography....ons/index.html

Here's a couple of mine:

Darlene2 Sep 1, 2006 2:26 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Wow, that one above lookslighter, almost a little washed out on here than it does on my screen at home with PS. Hmm.

tango_28 Sep 1, 2006 5:10 PM

I have look at that website you were refering to, they done a lot of post processing workon those photos. Hope you don't mind thatI did little post processing work your photo. It's a 1 minute job

Darlene2 Sep 1, 2006 5:36 PM

I don't mind at all, I welcome it! It looks awesome! Throughout the day, posting and reading here and there, I've come to realize that you're exactly right...they do a lot of Photoshop work on those photos to make them look like that. I guess that's where my mystery lies, which is half-encouraging to know. At least I know it's notALL in my technique.:roll:

What exactly did you do there, btw? Out of curiosity...

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:09 AM.