12-12-2012 09:22 PM
12-12-2012 09:37 PM
Glad to be of help & that's the lens I was suggesting. I've owned the 70-300 DO (much more $$$) and although my copy was very good most suggest the less expensive IS version is very close in Image quality. Even if you want to upgrade later to something better just having it for the trip (if bought right) & sold once it's over seems a logical way to go. At least 1/2 of the equipment I use was bought used (usually face to face) & in the case of lenses they still are worth what I paid for them after considerable use.
12-17-2012 07:30 PM
12-18-2012 02:53 AM
I went ahead and ordered that EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM from canon refurb. It should arrive in two days.
I don't think my crop to zoom idea would work that well. With my 24-105mm L lens, I've taken a few hundred shots now in a variety of situations and subjects and looked at various image qualities/sizes from full raw 20mb, mraw 11mb, jpeg L 20mb, and jpeg M 8.9mb and none of them are very sharp when zoomed in to 100%.
In fact I'm quite shocked at how unsharp and unfocused they all look at 100%. It seems like they're not even as sharp as my canon s100 point and shoot is. From a "fit to screen" look on my 17" monitor they look ok, but they're sure not that impressive when zoomed into 100%.
Given that the 6D is my first dslr, maybe my expectations were too high--but I was really expecting laser sharp focus and sharpness even at 100% zoom. Is that unrealistic? Not that I'm going to blow them up to giant proportions anyway (most will just reside as snapshots on my computer) but I was expecting to really be able to blow up to 16x24 or 20x30 if I found a shot that warranted it. Maybe I'm getting some distorted view of reality though by looking at my monitor with its 72dpi resolution? Just a bit underwhelmed by the camera so far unfortunately.
12-18-2012 05:38 PM
Now that you have it you have to learn how to hold it properly & you need to be sure you have decent shutter speeds for the situation. You also need to learn how to set it up to match what you like re output if shooting jpg's or how to process the RAW files including how to sharpen them. You also need to learn that as the resolution goes up so does the effect of very minor shake. With higher resolution seensors what would have been a 1 or 2 pixel smear is now 5 or 6 & maybe a 7 pixel smear. Viewing at 100% is nice but the reality is that 50% is supposed to be the maximum at which these things should be judged.
12-18-2012 06:58 PM
I'll try to post some shots to get some input. Not sure if it's better post to flickr and link to them or to inert them into the post. Will try to work on that later.
12-18-2012 07:10 PM
"Now that you have it you have to learn how to hold it properly & you need to be sure you have decent shutter speeds for the situation. You also need to learn how to set it up to match what you like re output if shooting jpg's or how to process the RAW files including how to sharpen them. You also need to learn that as the resolution goes up so does the effect of very minor shake. With higher resolution seensors what would have been a 1 or 2 pixel smear is now 5 or 6 & maybe a 7 pixel smear. Viewing at 100% is nice but the reality is that 50% is supposed to be the maximum at which these things should be judged."
That's part of what I'm trying to figure out--the camera's limitations and what are realistic expectations.
I think I'm holding and shooting fine--I've been shooting SLR for nearly 30 years ...film, that is for SLR-- my digitals have all been point and shoot until now.
Shutter speeds--well if I'm shooting on auto mode then I think it should choose the shutter speed correctly. I've shot on all modes of the camera--all of the differnt programs, tv,av, p, ca, a+, etc. and I'm getting similar results. I shot a dozen or more last night in the house on a tripod with the delayed shutter to eliminate any hand shake and got similar results.
Outputs may be where I need some help...this is my first time shooting in raw and I've heard people say that they often don't look that good and maybe that's the issue. I have played with the canon DPP program a bit but I haven't gotten deep into them. I can tell the the colors and sharpness of the same jpeg image often does look better so maybe it's just a question of me knowing what I should expect. And maybe I should only be viewing at 50% if that's the way to look at it then the images obviously do look a lot better. But again, Raw and a Dslr is new to me so I'm trying to figure it all out before I leave for Japan in 5 days.
Thanks for your input guys. I'll post a few shots later today and maybe you can let me know what you think.
12-18-2012 07:54 PM - edited 12-18-2012 07:58 PM
What ISO are you using? You may want to see how high you can go before seeing noise. It may surprise you what it can do. As for comparing it to film unless you had a darkroom you NEVER blew up the negatives in the same way you do a digital file which is why we don't do a fair comparison. If you did do some darkroom work think of the comparison of 100% on screen to using that little magnifer we set on the print easel to fine tune the enlarger to paper focus before actually putting paper onto the easel. Also remember that you're likely sitting relatively close to your monitor but if you print 16 X 20 or 20 X 30 you'll view it from much further back. One other thing many don't consider is the quality of their monitor & it's brightness setting. Serious editing requires an IPS panel for accurate color reproduction & in general the brightness will be below 25%. I use a Dell 24 inch monitor & with the brightness set at 20% what I see on screen (brightness & colors) matches my printers as accurately as my eyes can detect.
12-18-2012 09:07 PM - edited 12-18-2012 09:10 PM
Ok here are a few photos. I didn't take any of them with any artistic intent at all...just trying to get a feel for the camera's output and capabilities and how I need to shoot moving forward.
General info -- 6D with 24-105L lens. IS on. Mraw or raw. Mostly hand held but the christmas ones are on a tripod with a 2 second timer delay to eliminate shake.
tree bark - mraw (11mb), 1/60, f4, 1250 ISO, full zoom on 24-105 L, 100% blowup
truck - mraw (11mb), 1/250, f5.6, 100 ISO, full zoom on 24-105 L, 100% blowup
wall - mraw (11mb), 1/160, f7.1, 100 ISO, full zoom on 24-105 L, 100% blowup
christmas - full raw (24mb), 1/30, f4, 400 ISO, full wide on 24-105 L, 100% blowup, on tripod and 2 second shutter delay to eliminate shake
These are just a few examples but they reperesent what I've seen from a couple hundred shots now. With the exception of the truck, nothing else looks very sharp to me. It seems to me that nothing is very sharp unless there's a lot of light, more specifically sunlight, because in the christmas shot it was fairly bright in the house even though it was evening. I'd say there was a good 800-1000 watts of lights on in the room.
So what do you guys think? Am I missing something here or are my expectations just too high? And yes, I realize that in the real world I won't be blowing these up to 100% prints, but it just seems to me that if the fine detail is not that good then the larger photo that those fine details make up won't be that good either.
Thank for any advice or clarification!