Re: focus isn't much
- From: Husky <cbminfo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:14:03 -0400
On 19 Oct 2005 08:47:11 -0700, "piperut" <rbehunin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Check out the photos at http://www.seacruisechat.com/reviews48.htm
Don't take the comments wrong. I did check out all the images. Subject and
cropping are excellent. Maybe I'm just asking too much from a digital camera.
I've never used a fisheye. So I'll avoid commenting on them since I have no
idea what a good FI shot should look like. I think they're funny and novelties.
But hardly of any use to me.
I saw several actually in focus with good depth of field. the Florida Panther
in particular was a good shot.
But the majority were pretty much what I'm getting with this new 5 meg freebie
digital. There's no sharpness or depth of field to speak of.
that blue plaque [I assume in Salem], The contrast between the lettering and
the background of the plaque is nearly non-existent. Maybe that's the way the
plaque appears in person.
Who are the Vikings img_1562. Maybe it's what happened posting it to the web
maybe not. Totally out of focus on the smaller words. Depth of field could have
sharpened that lettering with a film slr. IIRC I seldom used any ISO lower than
100. Normally 400-1000 and let the lens and camera do the work.
I found one web site similar with images, but problem was those images were
posted by professionals that were selling the cameras. Not a bad or even poor
shot in the lot.
A few bad ones of yours would have been a good selling point for the rebel. Are
you new at digital also and still feeling it out ?
I shot 19 of the same shot yesterday on a tripod where the only thing that
changed was the different settings. I think I got one keeper. And that was on a
I'm trying to find out if all digitals are trash.. I almost got a rebel. But
figured I really need to see more of what it can do before putting out that
sort of cash.
IMG_1859 girl in red and white robe. It's all blurred. Trees are a blur of
leaves, even the girl isn't as sharp as she should be. I'm not saying you need
to be able to count the hairs on her arm sharpness. But a little more
definition to her hands and features would be nice.
Example: One of my best shots [think it was ISO 32 infra red film] Rear shot of
a Wood church in South Dakota shipped from England. Woods to the right of it.
You could see the leaves and grain of the wood from a distance of about 100
feet. The church itself filled the viewfinder with just a hint of sky and trees
to the side.
That's something I hadn't even thought of. Can digitals do infra red ?
Here's a suggestion you might try, if this is normal for how your shots come
out.. Go to a photo shop and get a small hand tripod. And a short shutter
release cable. You can get mechanical, or air release. I used 14 inch
mechanicals and 20 ft air releases.Those two go a real long way to removing
hand jiggle. And you don't have to kill yourself jumping the sofa to get into
the shot b4 the timer misfires at the wrong moment.
That's assuming the rebel is capable of using a shutter release and hand
tripod. Actually if the camera can't use a tripod [see my RS spy pen camex],
it's not worth much and you'll never see good shots. Oh yeah add a small bean
bag to your toolkit to mount the hand tripod on uneven surfaces.
Oh the shots on the site are 320x480. You might consider increasing the
resolution. I'm guessing that's how I got the in focus shot the other day. I
was using the small size and normal setting, but switched to fine and a larger
image. 200 blurries aren't what I want if I can get 24 sharp ones.
If they were resized to 320x480 for the site, that would account for a lot of
Except for the panther. Possibly the sharpest shot. And nothing changed when I
resized it to 200x.
Thanks for the pictures, but if that's normal, I'm real sure I don't want a
>The photo at the top of the page is not mine. I am not sure where the
>webmaster dug that photo up from. It is just a photo of that ship.
>After the review of the cruise that is written in prose there are a
>number of photos I shot with a Canon Digital Rebel. All of the shots
>were taken hand held. Some of them are taken with the kit lens, some
>with a Tamron 28-70 lens, some with a Peleng 8mm fish-eye lens, some
>with a Canon 70-300mm lens. The webmaster is not into photos, so he
>didn't put which photos were shot with which lens on the website.
>Now the photos on the website are cut down from the size of the photos
>on my computer. (The jpeg files are around 4 meg give or take depending
>on the ISO settings, and if a flash is used, and the shutter speed, and
>which mode I shoot in, etc.)
>If I shoot in RAW mode, the file is up over 6 meg. Anyway, take a look
>at those photos. That might give you an idea.
>Also, the Canon 350 has a few more funtions then the Digital Rebel, and
>has a larger file size. Some men complain about the size of the 350's
>body as they are unable to get their hands on it. The women seem to
>like the size of the body.
>Both the Digital Rebel and the 350 are under $1000 U.S. for the kit.
>The body only is less.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
- Re: focus isn't much
- From: piperut
- Re: focus isn't much
- Prev by Date: Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
- Next by Date: Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
- Previous by thread: Re: focus isn't much
- Next by thread: Re: focus isn't much