dSLR thread

[ddrueding]

I believe in good optics, I'm just not sure that a $700 L lens isn't up to the task. I am a big fan of panos, but I've shot most of them with a 35/2 on a 1.6-crop body. That would be 21-ish with a FF sensor, and I'm still wishing for a little more from time to time. Quite a few of my shots have been spoiled because the light changed too much before I could manage a second row of shots, so getting a wide enough lens is quite useful.

 

[ddrueding]

BTW, don't you shoot mostly panos? If so, why not just get a cheap macro lens like a Sigma 50/2.8? I used one on a Nikon for this pano

I've heard several times that cheap macro lenses have high quality (was it Tannin that said it?). What is the deal there?

That pano is great, lots of detail and fun to explore. What hardware/settings/software did you use?

 

[e_dawg]

BTW, If you're willing to step away from the world of Canikon, Olympus has a brilliant lineup of WA zooms. I use Olympus gear exclusively for my WA and travel photography needs now as any WA lens you pick is a winner. All of them are better than any Canikon WA zoom except for the Nikon 14-24, IMHO.

The 11-22/2.8-3.5 is my favourite travel / walkaround lens, but the 9-18 and the 7-14/4 are brilliant as well. I believe you've seen my Europe pics taken with the 11-22 already.

 

[Handruin]

There is a rumored Canon 24-70 F2.8 IS. I have no idea if it will be any good, but maybe there is hope.

 

[Tannin]

That's been rumoured since about the time that stone tablets were invented.

On the NO side, people say that it's too difficult and bulky to put IS into a FF f/2.8 zoom, and in any case it isn't needed as it's fairly short and quite fast already.

On the YES side, people point at other successful stabilised f/2.8 zooms (such as the 17-55) and say how incrdibly useful it would be for PJs who work in whatever light they get.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that Canon have been refreshing a lot of their shorter EF glass lately, feeling the pressure from the nice new short Nikkors no doubt, and you'd think they would do the 24-70 sometime soon - probably to coincide with the next round of pro bodies.

 

[Handruin]

I should have specified that my hope was for improved optics and not so much of a hope for IS. I have the current 24-70 and I haven't felt like I needed IS with this lens. It might be a nice feature, but I wouldn't want to spend an extra $300-$500 for IS...I'd rather see crisp, colorful, and consistent images throughout the range. My current love of a lens is my 135mm F/2.0. I tend to keep it on most of the time. I know it's an odd range and hardly a birding lens for you, but I'm fine for moving around for my subjects.

 

[Tannin]

the 136/2 is, by reputation Doug, one of the very finest lenses Canon, or indeed any other manufacturer, has ever made. I'd love to own one, but the reality is that I'd practically never use it - it's a focal length that I rarely want. I use the 400+ range all the time, and the 10-100 range quite a bit, but the fairly rare occassions when I venture into the 100-300ish range are pretty well covered by the 100-400. Generally, I'm stopped down to f/11 or so then unless it's wildlife I'm doing.

The 100-400, in my view, is at its weakest in the 100-150ish range - not so much ultimate sharpness I miss as it is colour and contrast. The 24-105 (which has much better colour) runs out of steam, of course, at a nominal 105mm, so I could use something like a 70-200, but the need is pretty rare.

I do sometimes think about an 85/1.2 ... but why? What would I use it for? In reality, it would sit gathering dust most days because you can only carry so much gear, and the stuff I carry is the stuff I think I'm going to use today. In rough order, my most used lenses would be:

• 500/4
• 10-22
• 24-105
• 10-17 fish
• 100-400
• 60 macro

All the others are in the "I rarely use this" category. I think I'll sell the 24-TSE, maybe get a Sigma 150/2.8 macro.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't think I'm willing to step away from Canon at this point. I'm too comfortable with the tools, interface, and product lineup at the moment. I'm currently reconsidering a T1i and a 17-40L. That lens should be up for 15MP, and the crop body means the corners don't have to be as nice. I would like more dynamic range, and lower noise, but I don't have the money at the moment.

 

[e_dawg]

Not sure why you would want a 17-40 as a wide-angle lens on a APS-C body. You'd have to go with something like the 10-22 for that. And, not sure why you'd want another Rebel class body when you could just keep the XSi or just get a 5DII. A T1i is just an unnecessary diversion, IMHO (and if you really want another Canon APS-C body, why not get the 50D instead?). If you've already sold the XSi, then you really don't have much invested in Canon anymore. If you want wide-angle, not sure why you'd want to stay.

I don't think I'm willing to step away from Canon at this point. I'm too comfortable with the tools, interface, and product lineup at the moment.

Well the interface can be learned within a week. Unless you've used other systems enough (as in shooting with them for weeks, and thousands of shots) to say that it can't do the job, then it's just conjecture at this point. And the product lineup doesn't really fit your needs either, does it? Not if you like wide-angle photography.

I would like more dynamic range, and lower noise, but I don't have the money at the moment.

As you know, I am of the opinion that you have more than enough dynamic range as it is even without resorting to HDR. A GND filter is a very cheap way to increase your effective DR by 2 stops, and is what most landscape photographers use to control DR. Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell swore by GND's for good reason. You don't need to spend $2500 on a new body when a $60 filter will do.

And noise is something that a lot of new photographers obsess over until they understand that the solution is better light, not by cranking up the ISO in camera. ISO can never substitute for light. Not if you want good looking pictures. If you're birding like Tannin is, you can't just rely on good light. You NEED decent ISO performance because you're using long lenses. But for a landscape photographer like yourself, you can and should wait for the right light, and you really don't need high ISO performance. For other situations when you think you might need higher ISO, the answer is usually a proper lighting setup, not shooting "natural light" with high ISO.

 

[e_dawg]

Not sure why you would want a 17-40 as a wide-angle lens on a APS-C body. You'd have to go with something like the 10-22 for that. And, not sure why you'd want another Rebel class body when you could just keep the XSi or just get a 5DII. A T1i is just an unnecessary diversion, IMHO (and if you really want another Canon APS-C body, why not get the 50D instead?). If you've already sold the XSi, then you really don't have much invested in Canon anymore. If you want wide-angle, not sure why you'd want to stay

Well the interface can be learned within a week. Unless you've used other systems enough (as in shooting with them for weeks, and thousands of shots) to say that it can't do the job, then it's just conjecture at this point. And the product lineup doesn't really fit your needs either, does it? Not if you like wide-angle photography.

On a side note, I don't think anyone needs to just stick with one system. It doesn't hurt to try out different systems to learn what other tools are like. That's an artist's job is to know the characterstics of the available tools out there. Yes, it costs a bit of money to buy/sell gear, switching systems, etc. But you can always rent for a week instead. You really don't know until you use something for yourself and process the images.

As you know, I am of the opinion that you have more than enough dynamic range as it is even without resorting to HDR. A GND filter is a very cheap way to increase your effective DR by 2 stops, and is what most landscape photographers use to control DR. Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell swore by GND's for good reason. You don't need to spend $2500 on a new body when a $60 filter will do.

And noise is something that a lot of new photographers obsess over until they understand that the solution is better light, not by cranking up the ISO in camera. ISO can never substitute for light. Not if you want good looking pictures. If you're birding like Tannin is, you can't just rely on good light. You NEED decent ISO performance because you're using long lenses. But for a landscape photographer like yourself, you can and should wait for the right light, and you really don't need high ISO performance. For other situations when you think you might need higher ISO, the answer is usually a proper lighting setup, not shooting "natural light" with high ISO.

 

[Tannin]

(bits cut & pasted from a PM because I though they might be of general interest)

The tilt-shift lens is a weird thing to use, Dave. Don't know if it would suit you. I bought it for landscapes. Essentially, I was sort of groping towards a way of capturing the vast, flat Australian landscape, and I thought that the TSE would give me that masive depth of field I thought might do it.

Well it does, more or less, but I can get even more DOF by simply using a shorter focal length, and very often that's what I want anyway (for other reasons).

Besides, the TSE is horribly difficult to use. It's not the manual focus (though it is always hard getting accurate focus on a modern DSLR with crop factor and no focus aids in the VF), it's the manual focus plus the fiddling with the tilt, followed by refocussing, followed by adjusting the tilt again, and all of this accompanied by lots of fiddling with my stupid 3-way trpod head, around and around and around. It isn't at all difficult to spend 10 or 15 minutes doing what you want to do with the TSE to get a single shot. I already spend that amount of time and often much longer getting (and as frequently not getting!) a bird shot, I really need to be able to take my landscape shots faster than that - birds are my priority, of course

A quality viewfinder helps A LOT. So I mostly want to use the TSE with the 1D III - you wouldn't dream of using one with a little pentamirror thing like a 500D - and that means the Mark III isn't ready for bird shots of opportunity, plus I have to screw in the tripod bracket (for bird work it's a different tripod with the Arca-Swiss bracket on the lens, not the camera) and reset everything to different settings (ISO, MLU, metering, single shot, other stuff) and set it all back when I'm finished. (On the newer Canons - 40D, 50D, or 5D III - you can pre-set all that and select it with just one knob twist - much better!)

Plus it means I need to carry the second tripod (you wouldn't want to use the TSE hand-held), and I can't sensibly carry 1S III ands 500/4, big tripod, 20D & 24-105, 40D & 10-22 or 10-17, sometimes 50D & 100-400 and the little landscape tripod. So, in short, it's not a good lens for me. I've practically never used it. I have never used the shift, only the tilt. No point in shift for me. And I think, if I ever get another one, that a longer focal length would suit me better. 90mm maybe.

It's better to think of the TSE 24 as ideal for architecture (nothing else can get those lines straight and vertical) and product photography, especially stuff like food.

You buy a new TSE-24 in Australia for AU$2200 (slightly cheaper from grey market places, I imagine, but that's a good price for an official Canon authorised copy). So I guess around AU$1800 would be reasonable. That's about $1550 USD. You can buy one new in the USA much cheaper than that.

In any case, you'd do better with a 5D II (or even a used 5D Mark 1) and a 17-40.

 

[ddrueding]

I can't remember the last time I went over ISO 400, most are at 100, so that isn't the source of my noise. Some of these are long exposures (10s-30s) but I'm getting some noise in the gradation of the sky that is annoying me. I'll try and find some samples.

I have a 10-22 that is still partially working after falling down a cliff in Hawaii (it lives @ 10-14mm now, adjusting into the rest of the range requires quite a bit of force, but it is always a clear shot). I should take it in to be repaired, as I should take in Tannin's old 20D with the busted shutter, but don't have a relationship with a photo shop that uses lube (they all bend you over, I just want one that feels guilty about it).

You are all correct, of course. I should just get the 10-22 repaired, use whatever body I have (as my skill is clearly not pushing the tech), and get out there shooting some more. A GND is a great idea.

I tend to start obsessing over new hardware when I'm overworked and can't take pictures.

 

[e_dawg]

Actually dd, another thing came to mind that would, IMHO, go a ways to improving the quality of your work... which would be to address your monitor situation. It is my contention that you're not seeing a true representation of your pictures, and thus your reference point for an accurate representation of the original image is skewed. I see that you have a Sharp Aquos LCD TV as your computer monitor. For photographic PP work, that is not really going to give you an accurate representation of reality -- especially if it's uncalibrated, which I assume yours is. I would not be surprised if your monitor's gamma tracking and linearity in the shadow region is very poor. This would explain your truant shadows, IMO.

Another limitation of using this screen for PP work is the massive pixel pitch. It would be difficult to properly assess how much to sharpen photos when your display is so coarse and low res. It's like trying to PP with a monitor that has the dot pitch of a 230 k pixel 2.5" LCD on the back of your camera.

I'm thinking that by improving your monitor and/or calibration, this will improve your PP results. While the monitor would be a bigger decision to have to deal with, getting a calibrator is relatively affordable, and something you can use with future monitors as well. IMHO, a monitor calibrator is absolutely essential when for PP work. I use the i1 Display 2 device. The datacolor Spyder 3 Pro is a good calibrator as well. Not a big fan of the Pantone Huey that is cheap and popular, but not tested to be as accurate. If you set it to a target gamma of 2.0 or 2.1 that should give you great shadow detail so that you don't have to artificially boost them to see anything.

 

[ddrueding]

An excellent point e_dawg. This is the one you use? It is in my shopping cart now.

 

[Stereodude]

Keep in mind it could be as simple as the fact that the TV is expecting 16-235 levels and your PC is delivering 0-255.

 

[udaman]

An excellent point e_dawg. This is the one you use? It is in my shopping cart now.

You're expecting e_dawg to magically appear and answer

Impulse buying can result in buyers remorse...I've heard it said .

Why not go read some reviews about the Pros/Cons of each system, it's not like you have been put to a complete stop by not having a calibrater up until now?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/coloreyes-display.shtml

Fortunately over the past couple of years devices such as the ColorVision Spyder2Pro, Monaco x-rite Pro and Gretag Macbeth Display 2 have gotten to the point where their features, functionality, and price are within reach of just about anyone that takes their colour work seriously.
Each of these hardware devices comes with appropriate software for screen profiling, and sometimes calibration. But, is the provided software good enough?



One of the first advantages of ColorEyes is that it will work with virtually every colour calibration device currently on the market, including those from Gretag Macbeth, XRite, Sequel, Spectrocam, and even the proprietary puck that comes with the Sony Artisan monitor. So, if you feel that the software that came with your monitor calibrator isn't doing the job properly, there's no need to buy a new one. It just may be your software that needs upgrading.


What helps set ColorEyes apart is the attention paid to calibrating and linearizing the gray balance of your monitor. The software uses an iterative process that double checks itself each step along the way.
Unique to this software, and patented, is what is called L* technology for setting gamma. While you can set Gamma 1.8 or 2.2, or whatever else you wish, L* creates separate tonal curves for the shadow areas, mid-tones, and highlights. This is claimed to provide smoother transitions, and therefore more accurate colour reproduction.


Its versatility also extends to setting the screen's colour temperature. You can set it to the standard D50 or D65, or any specific value that you wish. You can also set any specific chromaticity coordinates on the X / Y axis, by entering values, or by using the colorimeter to measure the screen's actual native white point. Or, if you want to balance your screen to the same colour temperature as your print viewing box you can point the colorimeter there and take a measurement, which will be then applied to your monitor settings. (Note that only LCD monitors have a native white point. CRTs do not).


Unlike most monitor calibration software, ColorEyes allows you to also match luminance levels across multiple monitors. And, on a Mac at least, calibrating and profiling dual monitors is a cinch [ P...get a Mac) ], with each monitor automatically loading its own profile on boot-up. (Windows machine with dual monitors may need a second video card, or a special dual monitor card).

Read the reviews @this site:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews.html

 

[ddrueding]

You're expecting e_dawg to magically appear and answer

Meh, I don't have to order until noon and it will still ship today.

 

[e_dawg]

Yeah, that's the one, dd. Never tried nor researched the ColorEyes software / bundle uda linked to but it sounds pretty good.

It is also possible that your Sharp is only capable of interpreting / rendering 7-8-bit-ish tonal precision whether it's the D/A conversion, look-up tables, backlight performance envelope, or something else... whereas better computer LCD monitors are capable of more. I bought a Sharp 26" LCD TV for my parents, and I was very disappointed with its tonal performance. Surely, your larger, more premium model is of higher quality, but I still have reservations about using a TV as a computer monitor for photo editing. Smaller and cheaper computer LCD monitors suffer from the same problem (24" LCD's are usually when they generally start getting good; 19" and below analog LCD's are usually pretty bad in that respect).

 

[ddrueding]

e_dawg, great, because I already ordered it


Re: Monitor accuracy

My left screen (Viewsonic 2130b) is really stating to lose it's backlight. If I were to replace it with something in the 24" range with an eye towards color accuracy, where is the sweet spot? My right monitor is a Dell S2309Wb, would something like this be good enough? The higher resolution looks tempting. I'm guessing it uses the same panel as this one.

 

[LunarMist]

This is the monitor you should get in the 24" range, or the similar one without SV if you don't want it.

 

[LunarMist]

An excellent point e_dawg. This is the one you use? It is in my shopping cart now.

Display 2 is a good consumer calibrator, with the benefit of direct hardware support on some monitors. Everyone has or has had at least one of those. What were you using prior to that?

 

[LunarMist]

An excellent point e_dawg. This is the one you use? It is in my shopping cart now.

Display 2 is a good consumer calibrator, with the benefit of direct hardware support on some monitors. Everyone has or has had at least one of those. What were you using prior to that?

 

[LunarMist]

Bloody slow site!

 

[ddrueding]

This is the monitor you should get in the 24" range, or the similar one without SV if you don't want it.

Ouch! I thought the days of paying $1k+ for a monitor were over! Even the 21" SV is over $1k. Over $500 would be tough for me at the moment.

 

[ddrueding]

What were you using prior to that?

Stock settings on the display and driver. No adjustments whatsoever.

I know, I know. :smack:

 

[LunarMist]

Is that why so many of your images have that awful exposure/curves look?

 

[ddrueding]

Probably. Come by and check it out on my screen, they look great

 

[LunarMist]

I thought I had a magic CRT in the 1990's until all my photos looked really magenta later on.

 

[ddrueding]

I knew that this was an issue, but I didn't know how serious. I also knew that when I took care of it, I would want to do it right. Unfortunately, things have changed and I just don't have the cash to splash around at the moment.

From what I understand, exact accuracy isn't as important as getting blacks black and whites white. Correct? That NEC is a great monitor, but I just can't do it. If this is like most tech, I can get 90% of the way there for 50% of the price. Right?

 

[LunarMist]

WHERE is my POST???

 

[ddrueding]

Hiding, no doubt

 

[LunarMist]

Let's try this again...

If the display is halfway decent (not a 6-bit POS) the I1D2 calibration will be good enough for practical purposes.

 

[LunarMist]

Let's try this one more time.

 

[LunarMist]

There is a GHOST. :alb:

 

[ddrueding]

I find that when my posts get eaten, my second draft is more to the point. It may lack information that may be of use (and if the post loss has caused that to happen, sorry), but it is always shorter.

 

[LunarMist]

An excellent point e_dawg. This is the one you use? It is in my shopping cart now.

So you ordered the last one they had in stock.

 

[ddrueding]

Oh, apparently I did. And it isn't just out of stock, it is completely deactivated. I must have bought the last of the old product. Crap.

 

[udaman]

Oh, apparently I did. And it isn't just out of stock, it is completely deactivated. I must have bought the last of the old product. Crap.

Young & impetuous = buyers remorse . What are you going to do next time?

You'll learn from this, no? We won't be hearing about your divorce in 5yrs from now, after having taken no responsibility for your lack of using a condom, being all bitter like FS because "she told me she was taking the pill"?

 

[ddrueding]

Where is the smiley that is flipping the bird? :nono: Close enough.

 

[udaman]

Where is the smiley that is flipping the bird? :nono: Close enough.

Was going to just put >>>

in this post as a reply, but that would have been 2 hardcor 'twitterish', like LM.

Ah crap, ran out of 5min to edit above.

2nd point (will garner another 3 finger salute ?)

You all remember how I linked to a super long thread discussing how u/l images to photosharing sites tend to be compressed. So you're not getting original IQ displayed? How Tannin (in a rare moment, kind of agreed with me ) u/l's all of his images uncompressed to his own site for that reason. How you need to be using an ICC aware browser, and all monitors from source to viewing end must be calibrated and be viewing an ICC profile attached file?

And you're all d/l the original uncompressed files of dd's to then view them w/PSlug or something, before you comment on IQ issues, correct? Otherwise, you're only seeing an approximation of what dd is seeing on his end?

>>>ok, you can all start with the 3 finger salute icons/posts