No no, I'm not saying vertical instead of horizontal, I'm saying pointed downwards instead of straight ahead (or more commonly you get converging lines when you point up at like a building). Try pointing up at a building and look at your picture. At the bottom of the picture the building is as wide as the entire picture, but at the top it's much smaller. But the building is a rectangle, so why does this happen? It's called converging lines, though I'm not smart enough to explain it.
On second though though, I think this here is mostly just being too close at too wide an angle, a limitation of lenses we have to learn to live with.
You mean perspective.
Convergence or divergence of lines...
Oh I miss the words in english...
It's just the way it is, you expect too much from your equipment. At 2.8 the 16-35 is not very good near the edges. Stop down to like 5.6 if you want the edges to be good at 16mm...also, the reason there is no detail in the man standing there is because he takes up so little of the picture, i.e. very few pixels are of him, so he doesn't have much detail.
As far as those first two you showed up 200% crops of, they both look fine to me.
Thank you. You are encouraging !!!
Give hope, courage
The man's face and the woman's face look the same to me, but a 5D would have slightly more detail yes. However, the edges of your pictures will be even worse since you are using more of the lens (no crop factor). If you want the most detail buy a 1Ds Mk2. Seriously though, if you are thinking about a 5D, wait until after Photokina in the first week of October.
now i have to tell you somethig.
i was born in november than i am a scorpion
latin in plus.
it means i get nervous and envolved strogly and quickly.
i hoppe i have not been rude to eveyone.
if i have i appolagige.
thank you for the time spent in me.
scorpions have durty caracter :D:D
You mean perspective.
Convergence or divergence of lines...
Oh I miss the words in english...
Heh, yeah, and it's too bad my portuguese is even worse than my spanish...and I can't speak spanish
But yeah, since it's angled everything gets pulled/stretched. The better idea would have been to stop back and use 35mm since you get more distortion at a wider focal length.
Heh, yeah, and it's too bad my portuguese is even worse than my spanish...and I can't speak spanish
But yeah, since it's angled everything gets pulled/stretched. The better idea would have been to stop back and use 35mm since you get more distortion at a wider focal length.
As a matter of fact I am an lausy amateur pretending to take good pictures.
For this purpose I have bought sofisticated equipment as I think it helps to take good pictures...
From what I gather from your posts you are expecting the 20D to take great photos simply because it is an expensive camera and that it will automatically do whatever is necessary to take great pictures. All you need to do is point. And that is not true.
You are shooting at wide apertures while pointing a camera at an angle, such as up at a building, and wondering why the top of the building is not as sharp as the bottom. Its not the camera's fault.
I'll give an example. I used to own a 1992 Corvette. 300hp engine, 6-speed manual transmission, big brakes, stiff suspension, etc. And I took it to a high performance driving school because 1) I wanted to drive on a real race track, and 2) I wanted to learn how to drive fast. My first time out behind the wheel, instructor at my side, and I'm following a Volkswagon Jetta. A Jetta, folks. And I could not keep up with him in the corners. What an embarassment. Turns out the Jetta was being driven at the time by an advanced instructor, not the student.
The problem was not the car. All that money I spent was not going to magically turn into fast lap times. I had to learn to drive, and then I could outrun the Jetta no matter who drove it. The same is true with an advanced camera.
To my eye, all your complaints about the pictures are user error, not camera error.
By the way, anyone who owns a fast car who has not gone to a driving school, you have no idea how much learning, and how much fun, you are missing out on!
Antonio, it's not reasonable to compare the four people shots.
The two portraits are under controlled conditions, with your lighting set and your subjects holding still.
The two shots you're unhappy with are shot at 35mm and 1/60th, with subjects who appear to be moving.
You may expect identical results if you wish. But you will never, ever get them. 1/60th is simply not fast enough to utterly freeze the movement. In my opinion you have a tiny amount of motion blur. Under the circumstances, your two people shots are exactly what I'd expect.
The chicken shot is at 16mm and 2.8. I speak from experience when I say that the 16-35 will give you soft edges when it's at 16mm and f2.8. Frankly, it will give you soft edges at greater focal lengths and smaller aperatures too (on a full frame.) This is why Andy thought it a good idea to spend a princely sum on a 21mm Distagon lens - the Distagon is not soft on the edges. So the chicken shot is also what I would expect.
Which only leaves the doorway shot. I don't care that the man isn't terribly sharp - he's moving and small, so it won't take much for him to blur. As for the balcony, I think it might be the 16-35's soft edges striking again. The blurry area is exactly where you'd expect it to be on a wide open 16-35.
Sorry, man, I think you're unnecessarily upset with your equipment. The more you shoot with the 16-35, the more you'll recognize its strengths... and its weakenesses. Ditto for shooting moving people in natural light.
The man's face and the woman's face look the same to me, but a 5D would have slightly more detail yes. However, the edges of your pictures will be even worse since you are using more of the lens (no crop factor). If you want the most detail buy a 1Ds Mk2. Seriously though, if you are thinking about a 5D, wait until after Photokina in the first week of October.
Ok I have to ask why wait till October to buy 5D?
I was just about to pull the trigger before the Canon rebates end.
From what I gather from your posts you are expecting the 20D to take great photos simply because it is an expensive camera and that it will automatically do whatever is necessary to take great pictures. All you need to do is point. And that is not true.
You are shooting at wide apertures while pointing a camera at an angle, such as up at a building, and wondering why the top of the building is not as sharp as the bottom. Its not the camera's fault.
I'll give an example. I used to own a 1992 Corvette. 300hp engine, 6-speed manual transmission, big brakes, stiff suspension, etc. And I took it to a high performance driving school because 1) I wanted to drive on a real race track, and 2) I wanted to learn how to drive fast. My first time out behind the wheel, instructor at my side, and I'm following a Volkswagon Jetta. A Jetta, folks. And I could not keep up with him in the corners. What an embarassment. Turns out the Jetta was being driven at the time by an advanced instructor, not the student.
The problem was not the car. All that money I spent was not going to magically turn into fast lap times. I had to learn to drive, and then I could outrun the Jetta no matter who drove it. The same is true with an advanced camera.
To my eye, all your complaints about the pictures are user error, not camera error.
By the way, anyone who owns a fast car who has not gone to a driving school, you have no idea how much learning, and how much fun, you are missing out on!
Interesting point of view...
As I said before money does not give you Heath and Happiness but helps a LOT.
The same with the camera or the Corvett.
The car was a help but not enought.
I know a litlle bit of photography and, as frequent user in this forum, you may have noticed that I am modest in what regards my knowledge of photography and other matters too.
I have much to learn as the more I learn, the more ignorant I understand I am and the more there is to learn...
The endless surch for knowledge ...
But please look at the picture with the balcony. Is there any accentuated perspective that justifies the lack of sharpness in the balconny ?
I don't think so. There is a problem in the lens or the camera or both.
I do no know where or what or which.
I do not think that we must always blame the camera for the errors.
But I don't think either to blame only the photographer.
There is a line in between. Blame both. Each with his own share.
May be the blame is on me for some pictures but the blame is also on the camera/lens.
But to drive a good car is a pleasure isn't it ? Even if you can't follow closely the Jettas of the world ... :
Antonio, it's not reasonable to compare the four people shots.
The two portraits are under controlled conditions, with your lighting set and your subjects holding still.
The two shots you're unhappy with are shot at 35mm and 1/60th, with subjects who appear to be moving.
You may expect identical results if you wish. But you will never, ever get them. 1/60th is simply not fast enough to utterly freeze the movement. In my opinion you have a tiny amount of motion blur. Under the circumstances, your two people shots are exactly what I'd expect.
The chicken shot is at 16mm and 2.8. I speak from experience when I say that the 16-35 will give you soft edges when it's at 16mm and f2.8. Frankly, it will give you soft edges at greater focal lengths and smaller aperatures too (on a full frame.) This is why Andy thought it a good idea to spend a princely sum on a 21mm Distagon lens - the Distagon is not soft on the edges. So the chicken shot is also what I would expect.
Which only leaves the doorway shot. I don't care that the man isn't terribly sharp - he's moving and small, so it won't take much for him to blur. As for the balcony, I think it might be the 16-35's soft edges striking again. The blurry area is exactly where you'd expect it to be on a wide open 16-35.
Sorry, man, I think you're unnecessarily upset with your equipment. The more you shoot with the 16-35, the more you'll recognize its strengths... and its weakenesses. Ditto for shooting moving people in natural light.
You pointed at something that I have already suspected and did not wrote here because I dind't remember (!!)
"In my opinion you have a tiny amount of motion blur." Here is a very important issue for the lack of sharpness in the woman's portrait.
May be you are right. I can even say: you are most probably right. Because I sometimes take the pictures in a bit of a hurry ... Blame on me. Shame on me.
On the other hand, Andy is right telling me to shoot in Manual. In this mode we can control better the speed and the aperture ...
I must MUST be carefull about this trambling thing.
Next saturday we are going to drive our cars (at home we own a blue convertible Mercedes SLK ) slowly to a farm and taste whine. The sun is shinning and the wheather is nice.
I'll shoot cars, people, sellars etc.. I MUST be carefull and take my time to get dam sharp pictures...
Everybody likes his pictures to appear sharp.
As I said before in this post:
Money does not give Heath or/and Happiness but helps a LOT.
So does a good equipment.
I'll try hard for good pictures because the equipment is good.
Thank you.
You mean, the price of the 5D will come down ?...
Yes, nost probably...
Right, but also, it seems pretty reliable that some new full frame will be released, the question is at what price point. Photokina is the biggest show, and while I could be completely wrong about there being a full frame camera released then, you can be fairly certain that something will be released at Photokina that you will want.
Because I sometimes take the pictures in a bit of a hurry ... Blame on me. Shame on me.
Antonio, just to be clear... when I say motion blur, I mean that your subjects (the women and the man) are moving. I don't mean that you have camera shake. Your shutter speed (1/60th) isn't enough to freeze the movement of your subjects, and so you get a tiny amount of blurring.
Right, but also, it seems pretty reliable that some new full frame will be released, the question is at what price point. Photokina is the biggest show, and while I could be completely wrong about there being a full frame camera released then, you can be fairly certain that something will be released at Photokina that you will want.
Sounds like I might just set back relax :jose and see what happens
Give me time for mo money too
Right, but also, it seems pretty reliable that some new full frame will be released, the question is at what price point. Photokina is the biggest show, and while I could be completely wrong about there being a full frame camera released then, you can be fairly certain that something will be released at Photokina that you will want.
The dark site of the thing is THE PRICE ! :D:D
Are you going to Photokina ?
I would like to. Cost of living is very high in Germany ...
From what I gather from your posts you are expecting the 20D to take great photos simply because it is an expensive camera and that it will automatically do whatever is necessary to take great pictures. All you need to do is point. And that is not true.
You are shooting at wide apertures while pointing a camera at an angle, such as up at a building, and wondering why the top of the building is not as sharp as the bottom. Its not the camera's fault.
I'll give an example. I used to own a 1992 Corvette. 300hp engine, 6-speed manual transmission, big brakes, stiff suspension, etc. And I took it to a high performance driving school because 1) I wanted to drive on a real race track, and 2) I wanted to learn how to drive fast. My first time out behind the wheel, instructor at my side, and I'm following a Volkswagon Jetta. A Jetta, folks. And I could not keep up with him in the corners. What an embarassment. Turns out the Jetta was being driven at the time by an advanced instructor, not the student.
The problem was not the car. All that money I spent was not going to magically turn into fast lap times. I had to learn to drive, and then I could outrun the Jetta no matter who drove it. The same is true with an advanced camera.
To my eye, all your complaints about the pictures are user error, not camera error.
By the way, anyone who owns a fast car who has not gone to a driving school, you have no idea how much learning, and how much fun, you are missing out on!
I think Bill has an excellent analogy. To cut the the heart of it: it's all about seat time! You can have the best equipment in the world (car, camera, whatever) and if you don't REALLY know how to use it you'll get junk. To REALLY know, it takes time and practice.
Just watch out for the driving schools, you'll get addicted! I spent way too many weeknds at autocrosses (though it certainly is satisfying to watch a poorly driven exotic show up then blow his time in the weeds with my much-cheaper car )
Antonio, just to be clear... when I say motion blur, I mean that your subjects (the women and the man) are moving. I don't mean that you have camera shake. Your shutter speed (1/60th) isn't enough to freeze the movement of your subjects, and so you get a tiny amount of blurring.
Have a great weekend, sounds wonderful!
I understood as camera shake.
Language/understanding problem.
Anyway I keep what I said. It probably is my fault.
I have to be aware of this.
No, I am aware of this but sometimes I do forget it.
When I am concentrated I do this:
which is, no doubt, a great picture !
Here is the exif: http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=65676676
It was shot at 1/30 and I hold it !
I am the best ! :D:D OOL
Lens opened at 2.8 no blur at the ends !
What do you say to this magnificent shot ??
I think Bill has an excellent analogy. To cut the the heart of it: it's all about seat time! You can have the best equipment in the world (car, camera, whatever) and if you don't REALLY know how to use it you'll get junk. To REALLY know, it takes time and practice...
but it helps to have the best equipment, doesn't it ?
Like money, bla bla...
Lens opened at 2.8 no blur at the ends !
What do you say to this magnificent shot ??
Excellent shot!
You do have blur, but you don't notice it. Why? Because you're expecting those areas to be out of focus, due to your shallow depth of field. The wall above his head, and his pants, are not sharp. But because of your shallow DOF, you're not expecting them to be.
You do have blur, but you don't notice it. Why? Because you're expecting those areas to be out of focus, due to your shallow depth of field. The wall above his head, and his pants, are not sharp. But because of your shallow DOF, you're not expecting them to be.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
Well.
I thing this is acceptable. This is normal.
What is not normal nor acceptable is to have this blur at a rectangle at the ends of the picture.
It's a wide angle lens. Not only that, but it is a rectilinear wide angle lens. They are expected to have softness at the edges due to how they are made. To me it looks normal. I've seen other photos with wide angle lenses that have similar distortion. Just one of the limitations you have to deal with, especially when photographing buildings, with wide angle lenses.
It's a wide angle lens. Not only that, but it is a rectilinear wide angle lens. They are expected to have softness at the edges due to how they are made. To me it looks normal. I've seen other photos with wide angle lenses that have similar distortion. Just one of the limitations you have to deal with, especially when photographing buildings, with wide angle lenses.
This is an endless discussion... :
I never meant the distortion. I knew it all along.
Look at the shapness at the edges. Here is a good example of the good performance of the lens.
The exif goes like this: http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=75977714
Non photoshoped
and photoshoped. Is this a good work ?
Comments
Convergence or divergence of lines...
Oh I miss the words in english...
Give hope, courage
i was born in november than i am a scorpion
latin in plus.
it means i get nervous and envolved strogly and quickly.
i hoppe i have not been rude to eveyone.
if i have i appolagige.
thank you for the time spent in me.
scorpions have durty caracter
Heh, yeah, and it's too bad my portuguese is even worse than my spanish...and I can't speak spanish
But yeah, since it's angled everything gets pulled/stretched. The better idea would have been to stop back and use 35mm since you get more distortion at a wider focal length.
You are shooting at wide apertures while pointing a camera at an angle, such as up at a building, and wondering why the top of the building is not as sharp as the bottom. Its not the camera's fault.
I'll give an example. I used to own a 1992 Corvette. 300hp engine, 6-speed manual transmission, big brakes, stiff suspension, etc. And I took it to a high performance driving school because 1) I wanted to drive on a real race track, and 2) I wanted to learn how to drive fast. My first time out behind the wheel, instructor at my side, and I'm following a Volkswagon Jetta. A Jetta, folks. And I could not keep up with him in the corners. What an embarassment. Turns out the Jetta was being driven at the time by an advanced instructor, not the student.
The problem was not the car. All that money I spent was not going to magically turn into fast lap times. I had to learn to drive, and then I could outrun the Jetta no matter who drove it. The same is true with an advanced camera.
To my eye, all your complaints about the pictures are user error, not camera error.
By the way, anyone who owns a fast car who has not gone to a driving school, you have no idea how much learning, and how much fun, you are missing out on!
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
The two portraits are under controlled conditions, with your lighting set and your subjects holding still.
The two shots you're unhappy with are shot at 35mm and 1/60th, with subjects who appear to be moving.
You may expect identical results if you wish. But you will never, ever get them. 1/60th is simply not fast enough to utterly freeze the movement. In my opinion you have a tiny amount of motion blur. Under the circumstances, your two people shots are exactly what I'd expect.
The chicken shot is at 16mm and 2.8. I speak from experience when I say that the 16-35 will give you soft edges when it's at 16mm and f2.8. Frankly, it will give you soft edges at greater focal lengths and smaller aperatures too (on a full frame.) This is why Andy thought it a good idea to spend a princely sum on a 21mm Distagon lens - the Distagon is not soft on the edges. So the chicken shot is also what I would expect.
Which only leaves the doorway shot. I don't care that the man isn't terribly sharp - he's moving and small, so it won't take much for him to blur. As for the balcony, I think it might be the 16-35's soft edges striking again. The blurry area is exactly where you'd expect it to be on a wide open 16-35.
Sorry, man, I think you're unnecessarily upset with your equipment. The more you shoot with the 16-35, the more you'll recognize its strengths... and its weakenesses. Ditto for shooting moving people in natural light.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I was just about to pull the trigger before the Canon rebates end.
Thanks
Fred
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos
The word on the street is that something will be coming...even if it's not a 5d replacement I'm sure it will affect their prices.
Interesting point of view...
As I said before money does not give you Heath and Happiness but helps a LOT.
The same with the camera or the Corvett.
The car was a help but not enought.
I know a litlle bit of photography and, as frequent user in this forum, you may have noticed that I am modest in what regards my knowledge of photography and other matters too.
I have much to learn as the more I learn, the more ignorant I understand I am and the more there is to learn...
The endless surch for knowledge ...
But please look at the picture with the balcony. Is there any accentuated perspective that justifies the lack of sharpness in the balconny ?
I don't think so. There is a problem in the lens or the camera or both.
I do no know where or what or which.
I do not think that we must always blame the camera for the errors.
But I don't think either to blame only the photographer.
There is a line in between. Blame both. Each with his own share.
May be the blame is on me for some pictures but the blame is also on the camera/lens.
But to drive a good car is a pleasure isn't it ? Even if you can't follow closely the Jettas of the world ...
Thank you for your words.
You pointed at something that I have already suspected and did not wrote here because I dind't remember (!!
"In my opinion you have a tiny amount of motion blur." Here is a very important issue for the lack of sharpness in the woman's portrait.
May be you are right. I can even say: you are most probably right. Because I sometimes take the pictures in a bit of a hurry ... Blame on me. Shame on me.
On the other hand, Andy is right telling me to shoot in Manual. In this mode we can control better the speed and the aperture ...
I must MUST be carefull about this trambling thing.
Next saturday we are going to drive our cars (at home we own a blue convertible Mercedes SLK ) slowly to a farm and taste whine. The sun is shinning and the wheather is nice.
I'll shoot cars, people, sellars etc.. I MUST be carefull and take my time to get dam sharp pictures...
Everybody likes his pictures to appear sharp.
As I said before in this post:
Money does not give Heath or/and Happiness but helps a LOT.
So does a good equipment.
I'll try hard for good pictures because the equipment is good.
Thank you.
Yes, nost probably...
Right, but also, it seems pretty reliable that some new full frame will be released, the question is at what price point. Photokina is the biggest show, and while I could be completely wrong about there being a full frame camera released then, you can be fairly certain that something will be released at Photokina that you will want.
Antonio, just to be clear... when I say motion blur, I mean that your subjects (the women and the man) are moving. I don't mean that you have camera shake. Your shutter speed (1/60th) isn't enough to freeze the movement of your subjects, and so you get a tiny amount of blurring.
Have a great weekend, sounds wonderful!
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Sounds like I might just set back relax :jose and see what happens
Give me time for mo money too
Thanks
Fred
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
The dark site of the thing is THE PRICE !
Are you going to Photokina ?
I would like to. Cost of living is very high in Germany ...
I think Bill has an excellent analogy. To cut the the heart of it: it's all about seat time! You can have the best equipment in the world (car, camera, whatever) and if you don't REALLY know how to use it you'll get junk. To REALLY know, it takes time and practice.
Just watch out for the driving schools, you'll get addicted! I spent way too many weeknds at autocrosses (though it certainly is satisfying to watch a poorly driven exotic show up then blow his time in the weeds with my much-cheaper car
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Language/understanding problem.
Anyway I keep what I said. It probably is my fault.
I have to be aware of this.
No, I am aware of this but sometimes I do forget it.
When I am concentrated I do this:
which is, no doubt, a great picture !
Here is the exif:
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=65676676
It was shot at 1/30 and I hold it !
I am the best !
Lens opened at 2.8 no blur at the ends !
What do you say to this magnificent shot ??
Like money, bla bla...
Excellent shot!
You do have blur, but you don't notice it. Why? Because you're expecting those areas to be out of focus, due to your shallow depth of field. The wall above his head, and his pants, are not sharp. But because of your shallow DOF, you're not expecting them to be.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I thing this is acceptable. This is normal.
What is not normal nor acceptable is to have this blur at a rectangle at the ends of the picture.
http://redbull.smugmug.com
"Money can't buy happiness...But it can buy expensive posessions that make other people envious, and that feels just as good.":D
Canon 20D, Canon 50 1.8 II, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40 f/4 L, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 430ex.
I never meant the distortion. I knew it all along.
Look at the shapness at the edges. Here is a good example of the good performance of the lens.
The exif goes like this: http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=75977714
Non photoshoped
and photoshoped. Is this a good work ?