dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)

[risc32]

i don't think you've commented on what has been done here by a few members with your shot. are they fairly close to what you were hoping for? when you where getting stuff you liked with your older camera, were you also shooting it in RAW? have you changed your editing since? What about the "picture styles"? you say they looked pretty good on the camera's LCD but then not so much on the old computer? maybe you should shoot RAW + jpg, and see how raw's need some extra love, or just shoot jpg for a bit and see how that goes.

your posted shot certainly isn't lacking from recomposing, AF performance, diffraction limits, depth of field or bad lenses. I don't know the 24mm first hand but at f10 nearly every lens can get it done. i do know the 100mmf2 first hand, and it's very good.

I also wouldn't have guessed you used a CPF for that shot, not that it changes anything.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Just to add for the shot in question - I got a Cokin circular polarizer with a used copy of a 70-200 f/4L IS and after a short time of use, quickly replaced it. I found it a very inferior filter. I do have the Cokin P square filters, but only use those in certain situations.

When I went from primarily using a 60D to a 5DII, I was initially disappointed. I expected to be mesmerized, and I wasn't initially. FF sensors produce a broader range of color, and your approach to post processing has to be, by nature, somewhat different. Once I became accustomed to the new workflow, I found that that I didn't enjoy the results from the 60D nearly as much.

That being said, I saw an immediate difference when going from the 5DII to the 6D (which I now own two of). Better tonal graduation and a much cleaner output. I love them.

 

[wickidwombat]

i did use a cokin CPL on a lot of these shots including this one.

I see...in that case, a little softness at f/10 (which should be quite sharp, otherwise) doesn't come as a surprise.

yep i think its inferior quality filter that might be the culprit try a high quality hoya or B+W

 

[DJL329]

theres lots of space because its a desert! thats what i was trying to get across. i have hundreds of different pyramid photos, but this is sadly one of the more successful captures.

There's lots of space not because it's a desert, but rather because of where in the frame you placed the subject. In fact, the empty sky, not the desert, takes up more than half the frame! Some quick horizon basics. Also, there's nothing on the right side of the frame to draw your attention over there, so there's no balance -- it's just wasted space. Finally, study the Rule of Thirds to get better placement of the subject in the frame.

 

[Aglet]

i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off..

Just to confirm, did you have the AF option set to single-shot? if so, focus and recompose should work fine on that example shot.

If it was set to AiAF or any other mode then the system may be AF-ing on something else as you re-compose.
Even experienced photogs can sometimes miss that little detail when rushed.

 

[jimjamesjimmy]

thanks for all the input , yes i had it on one shot focus, i used back button focus also.

i like waht people have done with the picture, but my point wasnt really about the composition, i have many variatins of this photo examp[e, more sky, less sky, foreground people at different area of the frame etc l its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from. even when processing, im struggling with getting good punchy images. i did used to shoot raw before aswell.

i suppose my problem could be dealing with subject matter, the heat and humidity might be one fo the problems i was encountering, plus possibly poor quality Polariser. i was going for the wider landscapes this time, rather than a 'street' style were everything is closer.

 

[Marsu42]

its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from.

Unless you post a full resolution image we'll never be able to tell, will we? If this board doesn't allow such a large attachment upload it somewhere else like imageshack and give us the link.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from.

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you ... having seen the pic you posted, I feel that it is your lack of skill that is the cause and there is nothing wrong with your camera or the lenses ... that image clearly shows that the basics of photography were not applied. I know you say you've got lots of other photos with better composition, if so, you should have posted those images instead of this very poorly composed image.

Also, you have to get up early in the morning or wait till sunset to get great landscape shots. If that is not possible than try bracketing your shots and have a go at HDR.

 

[jimjamesjimmy]

what basic rules of photography have i not applied? aside from the rule of thirds.

 

[Jura]

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you ... having seen the pic you posted, I feel that it is your lack of skill that is the cause and there is nothing wrong with your camera or the lenses ... that image clearly shows that the basics of photography were not applied. I know you say you've got lots of other photos with better composition, if so, you should have posted those images instead of this very poorly composed image.

Also, you have to get up early in the morning or wait till sunset to get great landscape shots. If that is not possible than try bracketing your shots and have a go at HDR.

With due respect I have to tell you that you come across as an ass in this post...having seen the comment you posted, I feel that it is your lack of tact that is the cause, there's nothing wrong with your spelling or grammar...that post clearly shows that basic manners were not applied. I'm sure you've got lots of other posts with better levels of politeness, if so you should have referred to those in terms of how to behave in this instance instead of posting this rude drivel.

In other words:
easy on the personal attacks, the guy asked for some advice about why the image quality he's getting from his new gear isn't as good as he hoped for and you start laying into his composition and saying he lacks skill and did not apply the basics of photography?!

 

[Don Haines]

i did use a cokin CPL on a lot of these shots including this one.

I see...in that case, a little softness at f/10 (which should be quite sharp, otherwise) doesn't come as a surprise.

yep i think its inferior quality filter that might be the culprit try a high quality hoya or B+W

I concur. When I got my 70-200 I also bought a cokin circular polarizer for it. With it on, all shots were soft. With it off, they were sharp. I returned it. It cost me a week of fuzzy pictures to find it out.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you ... having seen the pic you posted, I feel that it is your lack of skill that is the cause and there is nothing wrong with your camera or the lenses ... that image clearly shows that the basics of photography were not applied. I know you say you've got lots of other photos with better composition, if so, you should have posted those images instead of this very poorly composed image.

Also, you have to get up early in the morning or wait till sunset to get great landscape shots. If that is not possible than try bracketing your shots and have a go at HDR.

easy on the personal attacks,

"personal attacks"? ??? ... relax a little and read my post again, there is no personal attack. :

 

[Don Haines]

There are a pair of great articles from Roger at Lens Rentals about filters. The first one, http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/12/the-glass-in-front-of-your-glass-all-about-filters, is a general article, but the second one, http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters, shows the effect of a bad filter on your image.

 

[oscaroo]

Gday.

I can relate to jimjamesjimmy
I have a 6d, a 24 f2.8 non IS, a 100 f2 and I recently went to Egypt!
Here's a photo.

I found that Egypt photos are tricky.
Firstly, the sky is always dusty, even a clear day is still kinda dusty.
Secondly, it's really really bright. Which means, everything is pretty bright and stuff can wash out and you need to raw it back into reality, with bits dark and bits light.
Thirdly, the "picture style" can help, like 'Landscape". Not in this case though.

When I view my photo, and view your photo, they both look "equally as bland" in terms of colours. However, I recall that during the trip, the photo I took is /exactly/ the way it really looked like in the day.

Sometimes the expectation of what you want it to look like, is nothing like what it looks like. This results in you having to 'raw' it waaaaaaaay more.

First attachment was raw'd by DPP
Second through LR4. Different settings though. (I just raw'd this one right now)

I now think the second photo is better :/ but the first one is more realistic and took less time to prepare

 

[oscaroo]

Also .. I wasn't using the 100 f2 nor the 24 2.8 non IS.

That was with the 24-105L I think.

If you look at the-digital-picture resolution charts, you'll find out that if you're shooting at small apertures there isn't any point to using a prime lens.

I find my 100 f2 to be inappropriate to use during the day. Too easy for purple fringing to occur if the AF misses, at f2.

The 24 2.8 has beautiful softness/vignetting off centre. So it's good to focus stuff in the centre. For daytime, it's ok - but watch the flare! That lens LOVEs to flare.

 

[Albi86]

thanks for all the input , yes i had it on one shot focus, i used back button focus also.

i like waht people have done with the picture, but my point wasnt really about the composition, i have many variatins of this photo examp[e, more sky, less sky, foreground people at different area of the frame etc l its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from. even when processing, im struggling with getting good punchy images. i did used to shoot raw before aswell.

i suppose my problem could be dealing with subject matter, the heat and humidity might be one fo the problems i was encountering, plus possibly poor quality Polariser. i was going for the wider landscapes this time, rather than a 'street' style were everything is closer.

Photos on snow/sand in a sunny day are tricky. Haze (especially in long shots), reflections, dark shadows, etc.

The polarizer is supposed to solve some of the issue. It might be that you didn't set in the right position.

 

[rpiotr01]

I was in Armenia about a month ago and ran into similar trouble with landscape type photos. There was a haze everywhere in mountain valleys, nothing could be done about it. I imagine being in Egypt is the same - between heat and crummy air quality certain kinds of photos during the day are just going to be bland. As others have said, you have to go early or late, but sometimes on vacation that isn't possible due to schedule or safety concerns so it is what it is. In those cases you concentrate on not the big, grand shots that you can't get but the smaller ones that you can that still hopefully tell part of the story in a creative or personally meaningful way.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I hope you enjoyed the trip otherwise, and I'd bet the farm the 6D and 100 f2 will give you lots of quality shots in the future (it's one of my favorite lenses!).

 

[jimjamesjimmy]

Also .. I wasn't using the 100 f2 nor the 24 2.8 non IS.

That was with the 24-105L I think.

If you look at the-digital-picture resolution charts, you'll find out that if you're shooting at small apertures there isn't any point to using a prime lens.

I find my 100 f2 to be inappropriate to use during the day. Too easy for purple fringing to occur if the AF misses, at f2.

The 24 2.8 has beautiful softness/vignetting off centre. So it's good to focus stuff in the centre. For daytime, it's ok - but watch the flare! That lens LOVEs to flare.

yeah i chose that 24mm becuase of the image quality at the wider end (according to those charts) compared to more expensive lenses was pretty close. (plus i got a deal on ebay) i was hoping it would make a good all round travel /landscape lens. would people agree with that?

it is a coincidence you have the same set up, yes the pyramids sites were dusty and bright, i wish i hadnt turned up at 2pm but for me it was either early afternoon, or 8am (due to my schedule) shame they dont let you into the site at sunset or sunrise.

i am confuused now though, for landscape shots, where overall focus is desirable, what is a maximum aperture, people are saying oooh f10, youll get diffraction, but i thought that was a good trade off between diffraction and overall focus. would an f5.6 have been better? sharper?


interestingly the other area i visited was a wet uganda in the higlands, same problems, though slightly better results. the humidity and the overall cloudy mistiness was part of what i was trying to capture, but this gave flat pictures, others have taken good shots in these areas, so one day i must be able too!

 

[Jura]

I feel that it is your lack of skill that is the cause
that image clearly shows that the basics of photography were not applied
instead of this very poorly composed image.

easy on the personal attacks,

"personal attacks"? ??? ... relax a little and read my post again, there is no personal attack. :

well if they're not a personal attack and that's your normal way of offering advice, critique or just passing comment then I hope you dont have your heart set on a career as a diplomat...

 

[rpiotr01]

i am confuused now though, for landscape shots, where overall focus is desirable, what is a maximum aperture, people are saying oooh f10, youll get diffraction, but i thought that was a good trade off between diffraction and overall focus. would an f5.6 have been better? sharper?

I think the diffraction thing is way overblown. Nothing wrong with f8-16. OOF areas are going to look a lot less sharp than in focus areas with a little diffraction in play.