07-12-2017 08:25 AM
To me, the most accurate way to compare pictures is to display them at the same size (100% or 200% or whatever), if you zoom in more in the smartphone picture than in the reflex camera picture, you obviously will see more noise/blur things.
When you have twice as many megapixel when you zoom both in 100% you've actually zoomed in twice as far on the 1300D than you did on the cellphone. So you are not zooming both in to the same size.
If you take the same picture with both cameras and you zoom both in 100%, the zoomed in part on your 1300D will be twice as big as the zoomed in part on your cellphone, because the 1300D has more megapixels making up the entire image.
07-12-2017 08:28 AM
07-12-2017 08:31 AM
" Try setting the camera to the 'Landscape' scene mode and take a landscape photo, how did that photo look? What settings did the camera choose? Try different scene modes like sports and portrait, how do the settings change, and most importantly why do they change?"
I did that before but it hasn't solved the problem so far.
That suggestion is not meant to solve a problem. It is meant to have the camera help educate you on which settings to use.
07-12-2017 08:35 AM
It's true it's really fast but I purposely set it that way then we can't say the picture is blur because I didn't use a tripod. I'm not sure why you think I'm confused there. Does putting the shutter speed 1/2000 instead of 1/400 affects the quality of the picture? To me it just affects the brightness of the picture.
It didn't effect the brightness because other things changed to compensate for it. The aperture was wide open (which is bad) and the ISO was higher than it needed to be. So yes setting the shutter speed to 1/2000 instead of 1/400 did / does effect the image quality.
07-12-2017 11:14 AM
What TTMartin is saying, correctly, perhaps in a condescending way, is it does depend on the way you view the pictures.
Take the same type shot on you iphone and display it on you computer monitor. It is actually not the number of pixels but the size of the sensor in each that matter. Your iphone has a small screen. That is the difference.
Almost no lens is at its best wide open. Which is maximum aperture, BTW, not minimum as one responder called it. Again most lens aberrations do not show up unless you enlarge them enough. This includes diffraction. However, a lesser quality lens will always produce lesser quality photos.
This brings us to correct exposure. Your samples look slightly underexposed to me. When exposure is off a bit other things tend to show up more.
Remember people that are displaying beautiful shots here are showing their best. Not the one that got away as fishermen say! Nobody hits 100%.
07-12-2017 04:29 PM
TTMartin -> "When you have twice as many megapixel when you zoom both in 100% you've actually zoomed in twice as far on the 1300D than you did on the cellphone. So you are not zooming both in to the same size.
If you take the same picture with both cameras and you zoom both in 100%, the zoomed in part on your 1300D will be twice as big as the zoomed in part on your cellphone, because the 1300D has more megapixels making up the entire image."
I understand what you mean but what I want to say there is that, to me, what matters when I see the picture is what it looks like when I display it on my computer.
If I display on my computer a picture of a landscape I took from my smartphone and then one from this camera, I see that the first one looks nice and the other doesn't. And at the end of the day, even if we need to examine things by zooming in and doing other stuff, it's what it looks like when you display on the computer that matters for me because that's where I watch my pictures most of the time and that gives me a good idea of what I can print out or not (I've printed about 10 pictures 60x40cm big so far and it looks nice on my wall).
That's why, to me, zooming in more for the reflex camera than for the smartphone one doesn't make sense here because I want to see what they look like when there are the same size on my computer and not when one is zoomed in twice as much as the other.
"Did you watch these specific videos?
No, I'll go watch them, thanks.
"It didn't effect the brightness because other things changed to compensate for it. The aperture was wide open (which is bad) and the ISO was higher than it needed to be. So yes setting the shutter speed to 1/2000 instead of 1/400 did / does effect the image quality."
Ok, it's true the aperture was wide open since I didn't know it could affect the quality to leave it wild open. The ISO is not big though (400)...
But otherwise, if it wasn't wild open, it would it affect the quality?
"Remember people that are displaying beautiful shots here are showing their best. Not the one that got away as fishermen say! Nobody hits 100%."
Ahah yeah I know, but the ones I show you on the forum are also the best ones I took (talking about quality of the details, not about depth of field or if it's under/overexposed).
I keep learning because of you guys and I'll keep watching videos
07-12-2017 05:40 PM - edited 07-12-2017 05:51 PM
Does this seem accurate to you guys ?
It's a graph of what aperture not to overstep to not see blur from diffraction. It has to do with what some of you guys told me in earlier responses :
But it seems like that diffraction thing is more visible when the aperture is lower (f thing higher) according to this tool (sorry it's in french) :
07-12-2017 08:12 PM
But it seems like that diffraction thing is more visible when the aperture is lower (f thing higher) according to this tool
Yes, the higher the f/number the more diffraction. However, lenses tend to be sharper when stopped down a little. So it is a balance between lens sharpness and diffraction as explained in the Canon DLC article.
Another good article that explains diffraction.
07-30-2017 12:12 PM - edited 07-30-2017 12:31 PM
Photography can be maddening because everything is a tradeoff. If your shutter is faster it lets in less light so you have to open up the aperture size and/or you have to boost ISO sensitivity. The 1/2000 in the test shot certainly takes camera shake off the table, but it cost you in aperture and ISO.
Especially if you are going to blow the image up to 100% you really want to stay at ISO 100 or 200 whenever you can on a crop camera. By ISO 400 you are losing detail, not just picking up a little noise. In bright daylight, and shooting a non-moving subject the world is your oyster because there is plenty of light and no need for a fast shutter. Drop the shutter down to the reciprocal of your focal length, and multiply x 1.6 to compensate for the crop sensor in your Rebel. Example: if you are zoomed to 100mm, then the rule of thumb is you need a 1/100th shutter speed. Zoom to 200mm and you need to step up to 1/200th shutter speed because the distance amplifies the appearance of blur. Aim a laser pointer at something 6 inches away and you seem to have the steady hands of a surgeon. Aim the red dot at a wall at the far end of your office building and the dot is shaking so much it looks like you are ill. Anyway, you then need to multiply the speed by 1.6 because the crop sensor effectively adds that much zoom by cropping away the outside of the image circle. So at 100mm you need a 1/160 shutter to avoid camera shake. At 200mm you need 1/320th.
But then there is image stabilization. Your lenses are both stabilized I believe. A low cost lens with IS should be good for 2 or maybe 3 stops of help. A stop is a doubling or halving of the light, so getting 2 free stops off of 1/320th would mean you could shoot down to 1/80th. (320 / 2 / 2 = 80). With a nonmoving subject of course; image stabilization only addresses camera shake,not subject motion blur.
Anyway, 1/100th or 1/200th on a bright day would give you plenty of cushion to use a nice sharp moderate aperture with a large depth of field like f/5.6 or f/8 and a nice low ISO 100 to 200. I try not to push it too far with image stabilization because I am not sure it is entirely flawless but it is there if you need it.