bggrthnjsus
Member
you're having a gummi bear?MaizeRage25 said:Just pulled the trigger on a T2i. Gotta take lots of pictures of this guy:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
MaizeRage25
Member
bggrthnjsus said:
Does that mean my wife cheated on me with a gummy bear?
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
MaizeRage25 said:
You're already
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
chaostrophy said:
Canon rebates are awesome when they lower the price enough for the right lens. I remember spending $1,300 on the 50L because the winter rebates of last year lowered it by that much. I was on the fence with that lens, but with such a great price (and it was a lens I pined for) I had to get it.
I also bought the 24-70L and 60D on a spring rebate.
In short, I agree with you. Those rebates work well especially when the lower the price enough for what you want.
MaizeRage25 said:Just pulled the trigger on a T2i. Gotta take lots of pictures of this guy:
That is awesome, I also suggest getting a fixed prime lens for the little fellow once he is born.
Can't go wrong with the nifty fifty or the 85 f1.8.
Lucky Forward
Member
Topher said:
Your zoom lens is designed to be a jack-of-all-trades: it has to perform at 18mm, 55mm, and everything in between, so there are lots of trade-offs and compromises that are made in designing the internal lens groupings and mechanical elements. A fixed focal length lens like the Sigma 30 is more of a specialist, it is designed to do one thing (30mm optics) very well and without compromise.
MaizeRage25
Member
Hcoregamer00 said:
I was thinking the 50mm/f1.8. Only about $120 and should be pretty good for baby portraits.
DoctorWho said:
If you have it on autoISO yes.
It depends on the action though. If shooting handheld and trying to take pictures of people crank it up. You will get more noise, which the camera should (if left default) try and smooth out with some blur. Turn off "high ISO noise reduction" to keep the noise (and detail) intact. Much better to do NR latter after you can see it than the camera doing a blanket blur of the image. If you have a tripod (and nothing is moving) you can leave the iso low and do a long exposure.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
I figured this would be the best place to ask this, if not, then could someone point me in the right direction?
I'm looking at finally buying a camera after not having one for a couple years now and have no idea where to start. One of my friends suggested this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004M8SVBQ/?tag=neogaf0e-20 as something to start out with. Now I'd like something relatively inexpensive, but I also want something halfway decent that I can take good pictures with.
Wouldn't mind getting into photography as a hobby, as I'm looking for a new hobby to get into with my free time.
Any help is appreciated.
I'm looking at finally buying a camera after not having one for a couple years now and have no idea where to start. One of my friends suggested this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004M8SVBQ/?tag=neogaf0e-20 as something to start out with. Now I'd like something relatively inexpensive, but I also want something halfway decent that I can take good pictures with.
Wouldn't mind getting into photography as a hobby, as I'm looking for a new hobby to get into with my free time.
Any help is appreciated.
opticalmace
Member
I've been using a new-to-me Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and it is fantastic.MaizeRage25 said:
SpaceBridge
Member
Notrollious said:
Im in a similar boat. Id like to pick up a new camera for cheap but thats halfway decent. Any suggestions?
Any of you guys know of a good program or way to recover data from an SD Card? I went to a event over the weekend and took tons of videos and pictures only to come home and found out my card got corrupted. Some of those pictures were priceless. It really saddens me. I tried everything I knew to get it working. I have the worse luck when it comes to these things.
Jayayess1190
Member
CrudeDiatribe
Member
I really did like the 7D's body, and the feature set is absolutely amazing. I know a lot people are happy with it, so I don't want to step on any toes. I was using a 17-40L and a 50mm 1.8 II with it; they work very well on 5D with no issue. Though I certainly find myself using the 24-105 L a lot more... the 17-40 is simply a little too wide and short a zoom range to be useful for me on a full frame I think.
Specifically, I found that even with focus confirmation the things I was focusing on weren't in focus or a touch soft when even slightly enlarged. That isn't to say that it was always this way... one out of every ten shots roughly was in proper focus. And that's the really tough thing about the 7D for the two weeks I had one (though a different one per week, due to the returns). When the stars aligned and it worked properly, it was really quite nice.
In retrospect, I think the focusing system on both cameras was probably not aligned correctly; this combined with what can be a soft image in many exposure situations.
Counter to this, without changing the way I shoot and the glass I'm using, I'm able to get results like this with the 5D Mark II:
I've only had it about a week, and I'm still figuring things out, but I'm happy with my messing around and results so far.
Specifically, I found that even with focus confirmation the things I was focusing on weren't in focus or a touch soft when even slightly enlarged. That isn't to say that it was always this way... one out of every ten shots roughly was in proper focus. And that's the really tough thing about the 7D for the two weeks I had one (though a different one per week, due to the returns). When the stars aligned and it worked properly, it was really quite nice.
In retrospect, I think the focusing system on both cameras was probably not aligned correctly; this combined with what can be a soft image in many exposure situations.
Counter to this, without changing the way I shoot and the glass I'm using, I'm able to get results like this with the 5D Mark II:
I've only had it about a week, and I'm still figuring things out, but I'm happy with my messing around and results so far.
CrudeDiatribe said:
Wow. This really works. To think there are companies out trying to make money off of you by selling programs or having you send your physical media. I tried some of that stuff. Even bought Undelete but none of them really works.
You have no idea how happy I am because of this. Thank you and Jay for helping me out.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
CrudeDiatribe said:
I recommend PhotoRec too. I used the Windows version just the other day to recover photos from a HD that had, for some reason, suddenly gone from having NTFS partitions to having RAW partitions. It was kinda clunky to use until I got the hang of it, but once I did, it worked like a charm, and I managed to save all the photos.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
Kadey said:
You're welcome! Discovered it 5-6 years ago when my cousin formatted the family camera at the end of their vacation.
Combichristoffersen said:
I helped a friend in a far-off city use it to recover an entire HDD on his wife's laptop. He didn't have a USB enclosure or the right cables to plug it into his PC tower, so had him put a live CD of Ubuntu on the laptop and we used Photorec to pull the files off it to a SMB share on his PC.
It was still hairy enough that I think he's looking into backup solutions.
In less stellar HDD rescuing stories, I accidentally started restoring a dead drive to my co-worker's 'C' drive instead of the waiting replacement drive. Block-by-block. Idiot.
Flo_Evans said:
It does save each lens, but the issue was more... having to compensate for every single lens by a significant amount. And even then, still not getting sharp images.
In comparison, the 5DII hasn't required a single tweak with the exact same lenses.
Here's a pretty good example of the issue after tweaking the lens with the otherwise super sharp 50mm. I'm using spot focus here, selecting my point manually as I always do.
This is a hinge I found:
Things seem okay when it's at this size, but let's go into the rounded edge of the hinge, which is what I was focusing on.
Still back focusing significantly... and this is after making pretty major adjustments. On top of that, it's still relatively soft.
I had this issue with every lens, in pretty much every picture. It was a bummer.
It looks like it focused a few mm behind the end... It also looks like you had the lens wide open, which will never produce the sharpest image. A fast lens is bending a huge amount of light to a relatively small sensor. You need to stop it down to "straighten" the light. At that distance and aperture even just your breathing can move the focal plane.
The focus box in the viewfinder is actually much smaller then the area the AF sees. For critical macro shots like that, manual is the only way to go. A tripod may be required unless you have a very steady hand.
Now I suspect why you find the 5d sharper is a combo of 2 things. 1, it is sharper! 2, by the nature of a crop sensor, a 50mm lens is wider angle on a FF, and easier to hold steady.
The focus box in the viewfinder is actually much smaller then the area the AF sees. For critical macro shots like that, manual is the only way to go. A tripod may be required unless you have a very steady hand.
Now I suspect why you find the 5d sharper is a combo of 2 things. 1, it is sharper! 2, by the nature of a crop sensor, a 50mm lens is wider angle on a FF, and easier to hold steady.
17-55 and the 24-70 are probably the 2 best options for all around lenses for the 7D, that is IMO. However, even my 7D took some getting used to. I thought my lens was a little soft but it really isn't. The 7D is no 5DMII and a zoom lens is no prime.ConvenientBox said:
If you want uber sharp, you have to sacrifice zoom for a prime. I'm looking at a nifty fifty (50mm 1.4) but may settle for the 85mm 1.8 due to cost.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
If you want real sharpness at the pixel level just get a Leica M9 with its lack of AA filter :3
I gotta ask at what size are you printing shit out that it is even an issue? 99% of my photos get raped by facebook resizing and .jpg compression. The other 1% get printed at 4x6. And I own a printer that can do 46"x infinity. I don't have enough wall space to hang 500 huge ass prints.
To tell you the truth Mercutio, that hinge photo would of been worse if the focal plane was on the end cap. 7d did you a favor
To tell you the truth Mercutio, that hinge photo would of been worse if the focal plane was on the end cap. 7d did you a favor
smokeandmirrors
Banned
tino said:
Well that's what he had recommended. I can go to $300. Just wanted to see what would be worth the money I'd spend.
I think I did, in retrospect, pick a poor example of the softness issue.
I'll have to go through the photos that came out really poorly tonight when I'm back from work. I picked the hinge as an example because I'd already had it online with a closer shot of problematic areas. Even with the plane of focus in the wrong area, I still feel like the areas that are in focus are incredibly soft even when zooming into the image slightly. And yeah, the hinge is wide open, but I've got so many other images at 2.8 or 4 that were still quite soft in the areas I'd planned to focus on.
I dunno. The 5D Mark II is probably not the best camera to compare to. I'm simply looking for a leap in image quality from the D200 and GF1 I've previously owned and am comparing directly to: both with wide open lenses of roughly the same focal length left me with sharp and pleasing images. I just don't feel like the 7D was capable of the same, and was very frustrated by it.
I'll have to go through the photos that came out really poorly tonight when I'm back from work. I picked the hinge as an example because I'd already had it online with a closer shot of problematic areas. Even with the plane of focus in the wrong area, I still feel like the areas that are in focus are incredibly soft even when zooming into the image slightly. And yeah, the hinge is wide open, but I've got so many other images at 2.8 or 4 that were still quite soft in the areas I'd planned to focus on.
I dunno. The 5D Mark II is probably not the best camera to compare to. I'm simply looking for a leap in image quality from the D200 and GF1 I've previously owned and am comparing directly to: both with wide open lenses of roughly the same focal length left me with sharp and pleasing images. I just don't feel like the 7D was capable of the same, and was very frustrated by it.
Fair enough, I just think to call the 7d "soft" is a little off base. Maybe because I grew up shooting film I have a different tolerance for softness. I am constantly blown away by what modern DSLRs can do.
Of course my d7000 is producing shit like this all the time:
So I feel no need to go full frame.
Of course my d7000 is producing shit like this all the time:
So I feel no need to go full frame.
Flo_Evans said:Of course my d7000 is producing shit like this all the time:
IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PjP4A.jpg[/IMG]
So I feel no need to go full frame.
what lens are you using? the stock one?
Here's one that struck me as kind of funny. And I'm not normally a pixel peeper... I think this is the first time I've ever really cared. For an image as large as the 7D produces, I think this is kind of odd.
Now, zooming in on that house to 100%:
Maybe it's kind of cruel to go in that far, but I've cut into 5DII and D200 images that were quite similar and they've always been pretty sharp. Here's the info on this one:
Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Then I started hunting around online, and I really started to feel like it was similar to the issues described here:
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
Now, zooming in on that house to 100%:
Maybe it's kind of cruel to go in that far, but I've cut into 5DII and D200 images that were quite similar and they've always been pretty sharp. Here's the info on this one:
Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Then I started hunting around online, and I really started to feel like it was similar to the issues described here:
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
It's pretty unfair to compare cropping into shots from a APS-C sensor to a full frame. The 5D2 not only has more megapixels than the 7D, but also has 2.5x the sensor area. Even a plain old 5D should have more detail in crops than APS-C.
That being said, there's been enough reports of soft images out of the 7D that I do think it's a bigger problem compared to other Canon DSLRs. A proper 7D shouldn't produce photos like the ones you've been posting.
That being said, there's been enough reports of soft images out of the 7D that I do think it's a bigger problem compared to other Canon DSLRs. A proper 7D shouldn't produce photos like the ones you've been posting.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Reading about it and seeing examples it does seem like an overly aggressive AA filter. Strong enough that it looks like a haze instead of just smearing of small detail. Some sharpening is required though (when manipulating the RAW image) to clear it up.
With that said photos where most of the image is at Infinity can be quite tricky for most AF systems. It'll focus once and lock and if its off by just a little the whole image becomes out of focus. Your example with the hinge doesn't instill confidence in how the 7D's AF was calibrated, looked to be back focusing a bit (and this can translate to photos that are off at Infinity).
Just out of curiosity here's a shot I know is pretty sharp at Infinity with my Zeiss 50/1.7 stopped down to f/8 (definitely outresolves the sensor which is 8 Mega pixels)...
No RAW sharpening: http://k.min.us/ilwiao.JPG
RAW sharpening +3: http://k.min.us/il04EC.JPG
And here's one that sort of has the same scenario as your lake photo. This was handheld at 1/60s though...
No RAW sharpening: http://k.min.us/il0Uso.JPG
RAW sharpening +3: http://k.min.us/il0W0w.JPG
It looks subtle but I honestly believe when sharpening at the RAW level is applied and used in conjunction with good sharpening actions with Photoshop it can really help with a camera that has a strong AA filter. With that said I think the most offensive thing about the 7D is what it seems to be doing to contrast. It looks to be much less punchy than some other Canon bodies but that doesn't change the fact that I've seen some amazing photos from it (I believe mrkgoo shoots with one, phenomenal Landscape photos from him).
With that said photos where most of the image is at Infinity can be quite tricky for most AF systems. It'll focus once and lock and if its off by just a little the whole image becomes out of focus. Your example with the hinge doesn't instill confidence in how the 7D's AF was calibrated, looked to be back focusing a bit (and this can translate to photos that are off at Infinity).
Just out of curiosity here's a shot I know is pretty sharp at Infinity with my Zeiss 50/1.7 stopped down to f/8 (definitely outresolves the sensor which is 8 Mega pixels)...
No RAW sharpening: http://k.min.us/ilwiao.JPG
RAW sharpening +3: http://k.min.us/il04EC.JPG
And here's one that sort of has the same scenario as your lake photo. This was handheld at 1/60s though...
No RAW sharpening: http://k.min.us/il0Uso.JPG
RAW sharpening +3: http://k.min.us/il0W0w.JPG
It looks subtle but I honestly believe when sharpening at the RAW level is applied and used in conjunction with good sharpening actions with Photoshop it can really help with a camera that has a strong AA filter. With that said I think the most offensive thing about the 7D is what it seems to be doing to contrast. It looks to be much less punchy than some other Canon bodies but that doesn't change the fact that I've seen some amazing photos from it (I believe mrkgoo shoots with one, phenomenal Landscape photos from him).
It does break my heart to knock the 7D at all. I REALLY liked the body, but then, I like the 5D body just as much.
I know with a lot of work I could get what I wanted out of the RAW files with it, but only after Canon adjusted the focusing system. And really, he hinge was on the first 7D, and the lake house was on the second though; so this is an issue that is relatively widespread.
I found myself sitting there, looking at my second 7D and its images and then the comment boards where people had sent 3-5 bodies back to Canon for adjustment. Some people eventually got the camera they wanted, but the hassle would have been just too time consuming.
Taking the second 7D back and paying the full frame "tax" and getting a camera that did everything I wanted was totally worth it.
I know with a lot of work I could get what I wanted out of the RAW files with it, but only after Canon adjusted the focusing system. And really, he hinge was on the first 7D, and the lake house was on the second though; so this is an issue that is relatively widespread.
I found myself sitting there, looking at my second 7D and its images and then the comment boards where people had sent 3-5 bodies back to Canon for adjustment. Some people eventually got the camera they wanted, but the hassle would have been just too time consuming.
Taking the second 7D back and paying the full frame "tax" and getting a camera that did everything I wanted was totally worth it.
Globehopper
Member
After you tried two I can't fault you giving up on the 7D. Canon's QC has always been questionable. I went through three 10Ds before finding a good one and two 40Ds (one of which was just hopeless when it came to AF, much worse than your hinge example). However I got lucky with my 7D and the first one nailed autofocus every time out of the box.
With the right glass, the 7D can be WICKED sharp. It's much better than my 40D ever was. A few examples from my stuff:
Canon 10-22 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/beowulf99/4822104377/):
Canon 100-400L (http://www.flickr.com/photos/beowulf99/4895573163/):
Canon 100-400L (http://www.flickr.com/photos/beowulf99/5541737671/):
With the right glass, the 7D can be WICKED sharp. It's much better than my 40D ever was. A few examples from my stuff:
Canon 10-22 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/beowulf99/4822104377/):
Canon 100-400L (http://www.flickr.com/photos/beowulf99/4895573163/):
Canon 100-400L (http://www.flickr.com/photos/beowulf99/5541737671/):
And the hinge picture is AFTER adjusting the AF.
And your pictures look fantastic... that's exactly the kind of stuff I saw before buying the first 7D. Sharp and colorful, with that Canon "pop" that I wanted while I had Nikon gear. I took a look at the shots mrkgoo took of his cat way early in this thread too. Beautiful, down to every hair.
I'm not sure what is going on at Canon Japan, but it seems like the 7D is kind of a crapshoot. If you get a good one, it's the best damned crop-frame camera around; but if you don't you might be in for a long road.
And your pictures look fantastic... that's exactly the kind of stuff I saw before buying the first 7D. Sharp and colorful, with that Canon "pop" that I wanted while I had Nikon gear. I took a look at the shots mrkgoo took of his cat way early in this thread too. Beautiful, down to every hair.
I'm not sure what is going on at Canon Japan, but it seems like the 7D is kind of a crapshoot. If you get a good one, it's the best damned crop-frame camera around; but if you don't you might be in for a long road.
^^^ Aren't those images post-processed for higher sharpness, though? The moon picture definitely appears to have had a sharpening filter put on at some point based on the look of the lower edges.
Anyway, it sounds like you're not entirely sure whether the lack of sharpness you saw was due solely to the AF or if there was some other contributor. Isn't there an easy way to determine that by switching to manual focusing?
Anyway, it sounds like you're not entirely sure whether the lack of sharpness you saw was due solely to the AF or if there was some other contributor. Isn't there an easy way to determine that by switching to manual focusing?
tokkun said:
For me, the AF was faulty and MF did a better job, but images still looked soft.
Actually, looking at the ferris wheel picture, what is the main point of focus? The trees to the left and right look a little soft, and there's either very aggressive sharpening around the wheel or really bad compression.
Globehopper
Member
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was no post-processing on any of those images. I never upload anything without post, I consider it essential on all DSLR shots (probably doesn't need to be as heavy on a good FF like the 5D2 though). My point was just that you can achieve perfectly good final results with the 7D. I'm not trying to say it's better than a 5D2.
The leaves are a bit soft in the wheel shot for two reasons: one, my copy of the 10-22 is abnormally soft at the edges (I should send it in for service really but I use it too much), and two, the FOV stretching effect is occurring on the red leaves at the right as they were quite close to the camera (DOF is likely coming in to play too). The shot is at 13mm.
The moon is heavily sharpened of course, probably over-sharpened, but then it is hundreds of thousands of kilometers away through a whole atmosphere and photographed with consumer equipment by a rank amateur But if you'd told me 10 years ago I could take a photo like that I'd have laughed, it's amazing how much flexibility our equipment can give us now.
The leaves are a bit soft in the wheel shot for two reasons: one, my copy of the 10-22 is abnormally soft at the edges (I should send it in for service really but I use it too much), and two, the FOV stretching effect is occurring on the red leaves at the right as they were quite close to the camera (DOF is likely coming in to play too). The shot is at 13mm.
The moon is heavily sharpened of course, probably over-sharpened, but then it is hundreds of thousands of kilometers away through a whole atmosphere and photographed with consumer equipment by a rank amateur
But if you'd told me 10 years ago I could take a photo like that I'd have laughed, it's amazing how much flexibility our equipment can give us now.- Status