First question, probably not the last
Discussion
I bought my first DSLR over the weekend and had chance yesterday to give it a bit of a test.
The Camera's a Canon 550D with the 18-55 IS lens. First set of results have disappointed me a bit, they seem to lack sparkle somehow some of them looking positively washy. I've chosen one of the better here, which is not too bad to my eyes.
However when I zoom in on the top right I'm seeing some blue lines around parts of the image and red lines around other parts. This might show them, it's hard to know if they will be visible on an uploaded photo. (edit yes they are clearly seen)
The shot was taken on full Auto ISO 100, F8, 1/60th, focal length was 21mm. I'm thinking the shutter speed is a bit low, perhaps there is some camera shake?, but I'm puzzled by these coloured lines.
Here's another one, which again looks a bit washy and I can see lines on the vertical edges when looking very closely.
ASA 100, F6.3, 1/60th, 36mm
EDI.. uploaded the wrong shot.. oops,
The Camera's a Canon 550D with the 18-55 IS lens. First set of results have disappointed me a bit, they seem to lack sparkle somehow some of them looking positively washy. I've chosen one of the better here, which is not too bad to my eyes.
However when I zoom in on the top right I'm seeing some blue lines around parts of the image and red lines around other parts. This might show them, it's hard to know if they will be visible on an uploaded photo. (edit yes they are clearly seen)
The shot was taken on full Auto ISO 100, F8, 1/60th, focal length was 21mm. I'm thinking the shutter speed is a bit low, perhaps there is some camera shake?, but I'm puzzled by these coloured lines.
Here's another one, which again looks a bit washy and I can see lines on the vertical edges when looking very closely.
ASA 100, F6.3, 1/60th, 36mm
EDI.. uploaded the wrong shot.. oops,
Optics. The lines thing you mention is chromatic aberration : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
The kit lens isn't bad by any means, but good glass is expensive..
1/60th is pushing it a bit. Ideally you are meant to keep above x2 of the effective focal length..
so your camera is a 1.6 crop
36mm x 1.6 = 57.6
57.6 x 2 = 115
So that means something like 1/120th shutter speed or better.
As with everything is a guide, not a hard and fast rule.
ETA : quite like the first one, nice clouds and sunlight, just needed more sky, less car park
The kit lens isn't bad by any means, but good glass is expensive..
1/60th is pushing it a bit. Ideally you are meant to keep above x2 of the effective focal length..
so your camera is a 1.6 crop
36mm x 1.6 = 57.6
57.6 x 2 = 115
So that means something like 1/120th shutter speed or better.
As with everything is a guide, not a hard and fast rule.
ETA : quite like the first one, nice clouds and sunlight, just needed more sky, less car park
CA can be addressed through software a bit.
Did you shoot these raw? if so try canons DPP and use the DLO option for your lens.
The 18-55IS kit lens isnt a bad lens but it is a cheap kit lens and CA is one thing that I guess is not corrected well, didnt think it was that bad but some scenes can show it more than others.
Did you shoot these raw? if so try canons DPP and use the DLO option for your lens.
The 18-55IS kit lens isnt a bad lens but it is a cheap kit lens and CA is one thing that I guess is not corrected well, didnt think it was that bad but some scenes can show it more than others.
As said, the colour fringing is CA. The best answer, as you're getting fussy quickly, is to sell the kit lens on eBay and invest in some expensive glass. Then you get the quality built-in without having to fanny about in software.
The 'washiness' in the second one looks like a touch of over-exposure. Find out what a histogram is and learn to use it, so you can judge exposure on site.
DSLRs do give good results but sometimes you have to work at it.
Good luck
The 'washiness' in the second one looks like a touch of over-exposure. Find out what a histogram is and learn to use it, so you can judge exposure on site.
DSLRs do give good results but sometimes you have to work at it.
Good luck
Simpo Two said:
As said, the colour fringing is CA. The best answer, as you're getting fussy quickly, is to sell the kit lens on eBay and invest in some expensive glass. Then you get the quality built-in without having to fanny about in software.
The 'washiness' in the second one looks like a touch of over-exposure. Find out what a histogram is and learn to use it, so you can judge exposure on site.
DSLRs do give good results but sometimes you have to work at it.
Good luck
Sorry Simpo, we posted at roughly the same time. I wil have a look at Histograms.The 'washiness' in the second one looks like a touch of over-exposure. Find out what a histogram is and learn to use it, so you can judge exposure on site.
DSLRs do give good results but sometimes you have to work at it.
Good luck
Can't really afford to start trading Lenses just yet to be honest, though I'm wondering if there is any merit in trying to get an adaptor for my old FD 50mm 1.4, I bet the optics on that are streets ahead of the Zooms.
velocemitch said:
Thanks CA certainly seems to be the issue here then, I'm wondering if I've not helped the issue by attaching an old UV filter (which was far from clean) which I've had for twenty years or more.
what do you make of exposure on the second shot, looks a bit over cooked to me?.
I'd certainly try again without the old UV filter what do you make of exposure on the second shot, looks a bit over cooked to me?.
(UV filters aren't essential these days, just if you want something to protect the front lens element - though obviously a hood will help there too)
If you do want to use filters then the normal rule of get-what-you-pay-for applies - new thin multi-coated filters are worth the money...
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Wednesday 19th September 22:21
velocemitch said:
Thanks CA certainly seems to be the issue here then, I'm wondering if I've not helped the issue by attaching an old UV filter (which was far from clean) which I've had for twenty years or more.
what do you make of exposure on the second shot, looks a bit over cooked to me?.
ditch the filter! i dont use filters any more on any of my 10 nikon lenses - degrades quality.what do you make of exposure on the second shot, looks a bit over cooked to me?.
Ah the UV Filter debate I'd ditch it and try again, see if thing improve.
Yeah second one is a bit over exposed, be aware that the camera wont always get the metering right, especially in high contrast situations.
I'm sure there was a good link on here on reading histograms, but I can't find it. I guess you should find one if you google. Its worth understanding them - again they are a guide rather than a concrete rule imho.
Hope you don't mind I very quickly edited the 2nd one. Editing JPGs is a bit restrictive compared to editing RAW files.
I couldn't do much with the clouds, but I managed to get it looking a bit better (to my dodgy eyes at least
)
Edit : changed link, first was a bit too harsh. Still not great but due to JPG limitations.
I'd ditch it and try again, see if thing improve.Yeah second one is a bit over exposed, be aware that the camera wont always get the metering right, especially in high contrast situations.
I'm sure there was a good link on here on reading histograms, but I can't find it. I guess you should find one if you google. Its worth understanding them - again they are a guide rather than a concrete rule imho.
Hope you don't mind I very quickly edited the 2nd one. Editing JPGs is a bit restrictive compared to editing RAW files.
I couldn't do much with the clouds, but I managed to get it looking a bit better (to my dodgy eyes at least
)Edit : changed link, first was a bit too harsh. Still not great but due to JPG limitations.
Edited by Crafty_ on Wednesday 19th September 22:25
Get rid of the filter!
Also you needed more shutter speed I think tbh, handholding an 18mp SLR even with IS needs some skill, better to err on the side of caution.
Another tip, how many focus points are active? make sure it is ONE (go for the centre point for now & recompose)! otherwise the camera will focus on the closest thing which will mostly ruin your shots.
Also you needed more shutter speed I think tbh, handholding an 18mp SLR even with IS needs some skill, better to err on the side of caution.
Another tip, how many focus points are active? make sure it is ONE (go for the centre point for now & recompose)! otherwise the camera will focus on the closest thing which will mostly ruin your shots.
Thanks, lots to learn isn't there....
That does look so much better Crafty, I have adjusted another of the shots just using the Canon software on the PC and was astounded how much better it was afterwards, all I did was just darkened it slightly. It's all a bit new to me this, though I suppose it's just the modern equivalent of adjusting the exposure of a negative under the enlarger when you print it..... just a bit easier than blacking out the kitchen
That does look so much better Crafty, I have adjusted another of the shots just using the Canon software on the PC and was astounded how much better it was afterwards, all I did was just darkened it slightly. It's all a bit new to me this, though I suppose it's just the modern equivalent of adjusting the exposure of a negative under the enlarger when you print it..... just a bit easier than blacking out the kitchen
velocemitch said:
Thanks, lots to learn isn't there....
That does look so much better Crafty, I have adjusted another of the shots just using the Canon software on the PC and was astounded how much better it was afterwards, all I did was just darkened it slightly. It's all a bit new to me this, though I suppose it's just the modern equivalent of adjusting the exposure of a negative under the enlarger when you print it..... just a bit easier than blacking out the kitchen
Yeah, so much easier That does look so much better Crafty, I have adjusted another of the shots just using the Canon software on the PC and was astounded how much better it was afterwards, all I did was just darkened it slightly. It's all a bit new to me this, though I suppose it's just the modern equivalent of adjusting the exposure of a negative under the enlarger when you print it..... just a bit easier than blacking out the kitchen
...a good reason to shoot in RAW is that it'll store all the available sensor data (unlike JPG) - so if you want edit later it'll give you the most flexibility
ASA? Love it, so old school .... 
I have an old model 18-55 that came with my 400D some years ago and a more recent version with IS that came with my 600d back in June.
Using best quality jpg or RAW settings both give excellent results (relatively) for the price. Nothing like your images and I've not noticed any serious CA under typical shooting circumstances at normal sizes although I have no doubt I could find enough to keep me amused if I went pixel peeping at 100% enlargement. (Old terminology again )
Something doesn't look right but where, in the chain between taking the shot and viewing it on my screen, the problem might lie is not yet evident.
If things still look poor after you have ditched the filter we could try some more direct comparisons - afaik there is not much difference for basic photography between the 550D and 600D, so we have some potential for comparative testing.
I have an old model 18-55 that came with my 400D some years ago and a more recent version with IS that came with my 600d back in June.
Using best quality jpg or RAW settings both give excellent results (relatively) for the price. Nothing like your images and I've not noticed any serious CA under typical shooting circumstances at normal sizes although I have no doubt I could find enough to keep me amused if I went pixel peeping at 100% enlargement. (Old terminology again
)Something doesn't look right but where, in the chain between taking the shot and viewing it on my screen, the problem might lie is not yet evident.
If things still look poor after you have ditched the filter we could try some more direct comparisons - afaik there is not much difference for basic photography between the 550D and 600D, so we have some potential for comparative testing.
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 20th September 00:06
velocemitch said:
Can't really afford to start trading Lenses just yet to be honest, though I'm wondering if there is any merit in trying to get an adaptor for my old FD 50mm 1.4, I bet the optics on that are streets ahead of the Zooms.
If you like the idea of a 50mm prime, it may be easier to get Canon's 'nifty-fifty'. It's around £80 and will K.O. the kit lens on image quality.....but bear in mind, on your 550D it will be closer to 85mm on an old SLR.velocemitch said:
OK will look into a nifty fifty, I've heard people mention them. Shame about the FD converter, not sure what to do with my old stuff, I guess it will just go in a cupboard. 
Problem is the register distance for FD lenses is too short (lens needs to mount inside the body), so an adapter either needs an optical correction element or you loose infinity focus.Good ones with optical elements still impact IQ and cost a lot, and are quite rare.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff