First pics with my new SLR - C&C please!
Discussion
Hi Guys,
Following on from this thread I took the plunge and bought a Canon 450D with 18-55mm kit lens and an additional bundle consisting of bag, card and 70-300mm Sigma lens.
I took these two pics this evening of my dogs using the Sigma, I was sat on the other side of the garden with the macro turned on. They looked better on the camera LCD, but I'm after some advice. Am I on the right lines?
As per the title - C&C more than welcome!!!
Following on from this thread I took the plunge and bought a Canon 450D with 18-55mm kit lens and an additional bundle consisting of bag, card and 70-300mm Sigma lens.
I took these two pics this evening of my dogs using the Sigma, I was sat on the other side of the garden with the macro turned on. They looked better on the camera LCD, but I'm after some advice. Am I on the right lines?
As per the title - C&C more than welcome!!!
Edited by R99 on Saturday 8th August 00:08
R99 said:
I took these two pics this evening of my dogs using the Sigma, I was sat on the other side of the garden with the macro turned on.
Well, I'm not familiar with the Sigma lens but do have a Canon 70-300 and that mentions macro but is not something you would switch on or off - it just identifies the closest focusing distance that the lens will work at. About 1.4 Mtrs on my lens.So unless the Sigma is very different or you have a rather small garden I doubt Macro would be the ideal setting.
If you are referring to the camera settings (Close up mode? That's the nearest I can see on my 400D) I imagine that simply makes a few decisions for you about various settings to use when shooting as close as the current lens will allow. I would not have though an across the garden shot would benefit, but a flower from a few cms or in the case of my lensm, anything about 1.4 meters away, just might. I can't be sure. I don't remember ever using the pre-defined modes.
Probably best to set the camera to P mode, the lens to AF and, if you have is, any shake reduction on, and use it like that for a while. The dogs look well enough exposed but a bit soft on the focus.
This is probably due to the settings giving a very shallow Depth of Field - the noses are quite sharp but very little behind them. For the background that is great - just what you want, but for the dog you really need sharper eyes and ears (at least). See and comparing is probably the best way to understand so if you get the chance try the same shots again but absent anything to do with macro/close-up and compare the results.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 8th August 00:35
Many thanks.
When I say Macro was switched on, I mean on the actual lens. There is a switch where you turn macro on/off. When it is on, the lens will only operate between 200-300mm as there is some kind of lock which prevents it being turned lower than 200mm.
I put Macro on, because I thought it would give me more detail. As you say though, the focus is not quite where I wanted it to be.
I'm under no illusions this is going to be a steep learning curve and so far I am loving it - so I will try the same shots tomorrow but in different settings.
When I say Macro was switched on, I mean on the actual lens. There is a switch where you turn macro on/off. When it is on, the lens will only operate between 200-300mm as there is some kind of lock which prevents it being turned lower than 200mm.
I put Macro on, because I thought it would give me more detail. As you say though, the focus is not quite where I wanted it to be.
I'm under no illusions this is going to be a steep learning curve and so far I am loving it - so I will try the same shots tomorrow but in different settings.
Turn the macro off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
The problem with the shots above is that the dog isn't in focus. The eyes should be pin sharp. Turning macro off should facilitate this.
The problem with the shots above is that the dog isn't in focus. The eyes should be pin sharp. Turning macro off should facilitate this.
Macro aside it's worth learning how to use basic photo editing tools, even if it's just a free one like Pisca or the utilities that came with your Canon.
DSLRs capture a "real" image and do very little processing in body like some point and shoots do. Nearly EVERY photo you take will benefit from a little sharpening, and curves tweaking to enhance contrast. A few easy steps can take an ordinary photo and turn it into a great photo.
DSLRs capture a "real" image and do very little processing in body like some point and shoots do. Nearly EVERY photo you take will benefit from a little sharpening, and curves tweaking to enhance contrast. A few easy steps can take an ordinary photo and turn it into a great photo.
R99 said:
Many thanks.
When I say Macro was switched on, I mean on the actual lens. There is a switch where you turn macro on/off. When it is on, the lens will only operate between 200-300mm as there is some kind of lock which prevents it being turned lower than 200mm.
I put Macro on, because I thought it would give me more detail. As you say though, the focus is not quite where I wanted it to be.
I'm under no illusions this is going to be a steep learning curve and so far I am loving it - so I will try the same shots tomorrow but in different settings.
Ah ha, OK. My lens merely has an indicator that one is in the macro zone of the focus range - but it only applies when using the manual focus ring. AF will do what it wants to do anyway.When I say Macro was switched on, I mean on the actual lens. There is a switch where you turn macro on/off. When it is on, the lens will only operate between 200-300mm as there is some kind of lock which prevents it being turned lower than 200mm.
I put Macro on, because I thought it would give me more detail. As you say though, the focus is not quite where I wanted it to be.
I'm under no illusions this is going to be a steep learning curve and so far I am loving it - so I will try the same shots tomorrow but in different settings.
Well, I guess ther is no time like the day (or so) after buying one's first SLR to dive into the Depth of Field deep end ...
Firstly I assume that the 450D has an A-Dep setting on the mode dial, The 400D has. Have a lok at what the manual says about the setting (as a primer to full understanding) and try a few shots with to see what happens. Keep for reference and check the Exif information using Canon's Zoombrowser or other advanced image viewing software that will display the Exif information in some detail. You are looking for shutter speed and lens f-stop information for reference.
Now have a look at a Depth of Field calculator - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html seems good.
Select you camera (the sensor characteristics, especially size, matter), the approximate shooting distance across your garden (for example) and the lens length you were using to achieve the headshot composition you wanted and the f-stop required for reasonable exposure for whatever speed you needed to set to avoid camera shake. (The images look good to me so something like those settings would be a good starting point.) The calculator will tell you the distance range from the camera that our eyes will interpret as being in focus when we see the image on screen or printed.
So if I guess that the lens works best at around f8 and that the dogs were about 30 ft away and you were zoomed to about 200mm your Depth of Focus where things will appear sharp will be about 2 ft with just under half of that infront of the point of focus and just over half of that behind the point of focus. Assuming the point of focus was the nose, and given the size and shape of the dog's head, the eyes will be just about in focus (ish) but everything behind that will likely not. That is good for a nice background but less good for the rest of the portrait. A human face (or a different breed of dog) would likely not appear so 'soft'. There is nothing in front of the nose so half of your available sharp area is wasted.
If you used the same settings and had the focus point on the eyes, as GC suggested above, the relatively shallow DoF would likely work well enough for the shot.
If you were using the lens at closer to 300mm the DoF will be less. At, say, 100mm the DoF will be greater, but the subject smaller in the image ... and so it goes.
There are a number of ways to adjust things to obtain a greater DoF should you wish, but each significant change comes with enforced changes in other settings. All of which is why SLRs are so much more entertaining than compacts ....
Enough for now. Get a feel for DoF - a general understanding of the effects and a feel for the results is probably adequate in most cases outside a Pro environment, especially since a DSLR can give you a fairly quick idea of whether an exposure is correct or not. Once happy with that you can consider the effects of changing other settings.
I also agree with the comments about editors and sharpening and so on. Can make a huge difference with some images. If you only have the Canon suppplied software don't worry, it's actually pretty good in what it does but a little clunky for some things. Also be aware that if you have the camera set to record jpg images you may want to check you are using the best quality settings and then play with the styles a little to understand what they do.
Personally I always shoot RAW with the DSLR and accept the additional processing time required to make the image visible - mainly because you have so much more control over the end result. JPG outpur will have pre-processed some aspects of the shot in camera in a way that cannot be readily amended. For example Portrait modes often do things with Skin tones and 'soften' skin areas because human portraits are thought to be more flattering when not ultra sharp. Personally I would prefer to have a sharp version availble and soften it myself, if required, in post processing.
Hope this takes you forward a pace or two.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff