April 18, 2014, 07:51:47 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - EOBeav

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27
61
The first thing I would explore is whether your un-sharpness is due to misplaced focus or due to camera/subject movement.

62
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: mirror lock up
« on: March 17, 2013, 05:16:57 PM »
so it seems that mirror lock up is in essence just a form of IS for fairly long focal lengths when locked off?

No. They're two totally different things.

Quote
i always thought it would be good practice for landscapes , to help achieve best sharpness, but it seems, its almost irrelevant for that from what im reading,my unscientific tests seem to point towards that for a 50 85 24 focal length for around 1/4 to 1/40 sec  so far.

Those would be focal length/shutter speed combinations that occasionally get used in landscape photography.


63
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: mirror lock up
« on: March 17, 2013, 02:44:52 PM »
I recently learned the value of mirror lock up from some knowledgeable individuals right here on CR Forum.  Bottom line: If you're at a long-ish focal length (like using a 70-200mm lens) and your shutter speed is anywhere around the 1/20 second area, you'd better put it to use. I learned my lesson.

Addendum: This is assuming, of course, that you're already on a sturdy tripod, with no other movement (wind, shaky ground, etc...) and you're tripping the shutter remotely. If you're not doing those things, then mirror lock up probably won't help you.

64
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:55:53 AM »
And for future reference (as someone else already mentioned), ISO 125 is not the best ISO for that camera body.  Check out this chart that shows the sawtooth noise produced by the type of amplifiers used in the 5D2.  You are better off at ISO 160.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II_14


Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. According to this chart, it looks like the sweet spots are ISO 160, 320 and 640.

65
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:06:40 AM »
Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.

Actually, a 1/20 s exposure is right in the range of shutter speeds (around 1/60 s to 1/2 s) where mirror slap can result in the camera shake-type blur you're seeing.

Looks like I just learned something. I can now see where mirror shake would be a bigger issue at this speed/focal length than it would at, say 1/500 or going the other way, at .5.  Thanks to neuro, agierke, jason, et al, for setting me straight on this one. I'm going to read up on doing that with my 5DmkII.

66
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 12:39:41 AM »
did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.

Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.

67
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:27:32 PM »
So what ended up being the problem?

A few things come to mind:
  • I was in a hurry and hit the shutter before I let the camera completely stop vibrating after moving it
  • At least one of the legs was in some soft ground, so it wasn't 100% stable
  • I didn't turn off the AF after getting the focal point where I wanted it, shaking the camera that much more

That bridge hasn't moved for 80 years or so, so it had to have been the camera. It was just a perfect storm of events caused from me not minding the store.

68
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 10:13:33 PM »
Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp.  The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur.  Check it out and see if you see the same.

If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing.  Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.

I looked at it as well, and its not up to expectations, it should be much sharper.  If your images are not sharper, something might be wrong.


Agreed, this has nothing to do with image conversion. The full size image I posted was just that...a full size jpg export from LR, unedited. 

Thankfully, I did a little test tonight and the lens is performing just fine. It was my own oversights that caused the blurriness.

69
Lenses / Re: Polarizing vs ND filter Europe trip.
« on: March 11, 2013, 06:12:58 PM »
Hi all,  I'm wondering if it's worth it to buy one or another of these 2 filter types for a 2 months Europe trip. I mean for landscapes and what would be the benefits of a Polarizing versus the ND etc. It would be a 82mm filter (tamron 24-70 VC ).. Thank you!

The bigger question is, what do you want your filters to do for you while you're in Europe?  Like neuro said, if you want to reduce glare, etc... get the polarizer. If you need to increase your shutter time, get the ND. I'm not a big fan of GND filters, so you'll need to get somebody else to convince you to get one of those.

70
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 06:10:03 PM »
Thanks to everybody who weighed in on this. I believe I have found the culprit and it is me. Yes, a higher ISO and/or IS would have eliminated this motion blur.  However, it wouldn't have happened in the first place had I taken the time to make sure everything was solid before I snapped the photo. That's what happens when you get in a hurry; you skip over some of the basics that you've been doing for a long time! All of the Canon 70-200 L's, regardless of aperture or IS, are really sharp, so that's why I was surprised to see this at first. I've used this same set up in creeks with exposure settings of .5 to a full second without any problems before.

In any event, I'll take care to keep everything still next time. Thanks again for the feedback.

71
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 01:06:55 AM »
On telephoto, setting, the mirror lockup special function gives you an additional way to reduce camera shake, there will be no mirror slap to cause motion-induced blur.

It hard to imagine the setting where 1/20 exposure would be required for such a shot in sunlight, even at golden hour.  Are you stopping way down?

ISO was 125, aperture was at f/8, normally the sweet spot for sharpness on this lens. I normally shoot as far to the right as I can go on the histogram, just before I start blowing highlights.  I'm going to do a few tests tomorrow to see what's going on. I'm thinking one of the legs was just in some soft ground (it was fairly wet up there).  I'm used to much sharper images than this.

72
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 12:34:43 AM »
Thanks dunbar...I neglected to mention that I use a cable remote. I pretty much take every precaution I can to keep my camera as still as possible. More to the point, though, was that I was wondering if this kind of non-sharpness was due to motion blur or just not being focused in the right area. To me, it looks like slight motion blur, but I'm not 100% for sure.

73
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 12:13:12 AM »
You can check the lens on a flat building or target and see if it is sharp.  There could have been some vibration or motion.
 
I avoid slow shutter speeds even with IS in favor of higher ISO settings.

There's no IS, but I was using a tripod.

74
I currently have two Yongnuo 565EX flashes, a Canon 580 EX, and a Canon 580EX II.

Canon 580EX - Synchronization is now off in the flash, preventing me from using it for my high speed work.
Canon 580EX II - Miniport no longer works.  I have to use a hotshoe to trigger it
Yongnuo 565EX - Both of them still work fine

I'm hearing more and more stories like this. A few years ago, Yongnuo got a bad rap because a lot of bad units were making their way past QC. The company seems to have improved this, though, and I'm hearing of much fewer reports of bad units being shipped. Personally, I have two 560's, and they work just fine for my occasional use.

75
Lenses / Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 10, 2013, 11:40:47 PM »
I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L and a 5DmkII. I've used this setup regularly for awhile now, and I've come across something I can't quite explain. I recently shot this bridge in Oregon. I used a sturdy tripod (Manfrotto ballhead/tripod combo), so stability isn't an issue. Still, several of these images came out much less sharp than I've been used to seeing from this lens. It looks like motion blur to me, but like I said, I was using a sturdy tripod. I shot at f/8, and even one of the images at f/11 had this same issue. Shutter speed was 1/20 and ISO was 125, and autofocus was directly on the front of the bridge itself.  I can't imagine this lens is suddenly misfocusing so badly.

I'm at a loss. I ~thought~ I had all three legs on steady ground, but of course anything is possible, and it's possible one of them may have been in some soft ground, slowly sinking during that shutter time. I just don't think that's the case, though. I don't have any other explanations than this. Like I said, I'm used to getting much sharper photos with this lens.  I thought I would throw this question out to the many qualified photogs on here. I'm not a beginner, I'm just not sure what happened. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments and suggestions.  I'm posting an unedited, straight-from-lightroom- image.  You can pixel peep at the full version size here. (2.4MB file)


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27