The right camera
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an unbiased view of the D50 from a new user, (applicable to the D70 as well really) send SpeedPig a PM. He sent me the very first pic that he took with his new toy and I could hardly match it with the D200. The quality is creamy smooth and the noise is, err, well - absent. I was delighted as he was. (Swine...)
Conan
Conan
Just wish I knew how Nut Loose produces pics like that with a Canon. Presumably hours of post-processing?
I have to take you to task on that one HD. You appear to be suggesting that Canon requires significant time in post processing, as opposed to other manufacturers, which is complete
If that were the case the professionals would have deserted Canon in their droves to find a quicker/easier product. After all time is money. That they have not and people like John Dibbs use them firmly indicates otherwise. Many of my images require no correction at all.
Heres two recent images. Total processing time from the RAW data is about two minutes. I'm including downloading from the CF card here too. All I've done with them is convert them to JPEG and reduced their size for this page, with the loss of quality that that entails. Software package used is from Google, a free download.
You may have a personal opinion that Canon images take longer to produce a quality shot, but it's not borne out by the facts. When freelancing at a sports event for a local rag, working with their photographer, the choices were made solely on the image, nothing to do with 'post processing time'. In getting images published we were about 50/50, him Nikon, me Canon. If there were any time issues that's where you'd find them, on the metaphorical front line. Trust me there aren't any.
rgds JS
I have to take you to task on that one HD. You appear to be suggesting that Canon requires significant time in post processing, as opposed to other manufacturers, which is complete
If that were the case the professionals would have deserted Canon in their droves to find a quicker/easier product. After all time is money. That they have not and people like John Dibbs use them firmly indicates otherwise. Many of my images require no correction at all.Heres two recent images. Total processing time from the RAW data is about two minutes. I'm including downloading from the CF card here too. All I've done with them is convert them to JPEG and reduced their size for this page, with the loss of quality that that entails. Software package used is from Google, a free download.
You may have a personal opinion that Canon images take longer to produce a quality shot, but it's not borne out by the facts. When freelancing at a sports event for a local rag, working with their photographer, the choices were made solely on the image, nothing to do with 'post processing time'. In getting images published we were about 50/50, him Nikon, me Canon. If there were any time issues that's where you'd find them, on the metaphorical front line. Trust me there aren't any.
rgds JS
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All depends on how you set the camera up really. There is so much that can be done these days in camera and if you nail it when you hit the tit, then there is so much less post processing to do. I would rate Canon and Nikon on an equal footing here, though we will all have some preferences.
Worth remembering that a lot of wedding photo bods and newspaper shooters rely on this approach as they don't get paid for extra PP time and instead of sitting with Photoshop, could be having a nice cup of tea, or spendig a relaxing ten miutes picking their noses. Their experience counts here. Shooting a thousand or two each week helps them hone the camera settings right down and they are masters at this. For a lot of people here, they will have to work off camera in Photoshop or similar to get the best from a shot, whether it be JPG or RAW format.
One of the biggest drawbacks for a lot of people, is the time that they spend post processing. It certainly didn't appeal to me initially, but now, I find it quite therapeutic - though I wouldn't half mind a bit more time for dunking teabags.
Conan
Worth remembering that a lot of wedding photo bods and newspaper shooters rely on this approach as they don't get paid for extra PP time and instead of sitting with Photoshop, could be having a nice cup of tea, or spendig a relaxing ten miutes picking their noses. Their experience counts here. Shooting a thousand or two each week helps them hone the camera settings right down and they are masters at this. For a lot of people here, they will have to work off camera in Photoshop or similar to get the best from a shot, whether it be JPG or RAW format.
One of the biggest drawbacks for a lot of people, is the time that they spend post processing. It certainly didn't appeal to me initially, but now, I find it quite therapeutic - though I wouldn't half mind a bit more time for dunking teabags.
Conan
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumpseater - my camera and L lenses simply will not produce pics like that. Check some of my aircraft shots at www.brendan-mccartney.fotopic.net. Maybe not all Canon cameras, but certainly the EOS20 (which I have) has a reputation for "soft-focus" - just read all about it on the Canon forums. The forums are always going on about "bad copies" of lenses. Some of these professionals get through 2-3 lenses before they are happy. What does that say for Canon "quality"? I have an ex-colleague who is also a professional photographer.. he says he often needs to post-process with his top-of-the-range Canon. At the Farnborough Air Show I was near a very keen photographer - shoulder full of lenses, etc. He asked me about my gear.. and told me that I must always, always shoot "RAW", then post-process out of the camera. I accept what they say, but I think it's a nonsense when you can spend 2k on some kit and not obtain shots as good as I got with my old Fuji at a fraction of the price. I don't understand the logic of sharpening afterwards when the camera has produced a "soft" picture. Surely the other way round would be best - get the best, sharpest pic possible out of the camera and soften it if so desired?
All that said, pics which are post-processed are phenomenal and beat the pants off anything I can take.... I just don't like mucking about afterwards.
All that said, pics which are post-processed are phenomenal and beat the pants off anything I can take.... I just don't like mucking about afterwards.
HD,
the RAW image that comes out of the camera is exactly what the sensor saw and recorded with no in camera processing at all. A JPEG is a RAW image that has been processed by the camera using whatever facilities the camera has.
JPEG are much smaller on account of data loss when being processed.
As for getting a soft image that is fine by me as I can determine just how much to sharpen an image (using USM) rather than have the camera do something that cannot be undone.
rgds
Paulc
you missed a good slide show on Oshkosh last month
the RAW image that comes out of the camera is exactly what the sensor saw and recorded with no in camera processing at all. A JPEG is a RAW image that has been processed by the camera using whatever facilities the camera has.
JPEG are much smaller on account of data loss when being processed.
As for getting a soft image that is fine by me as I can determine just how much to sharpen an image (using USM) rather than have the camera do something that cannot be undone.
rgds
Paulc
you missed a good slide show on Oshkosh last month
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can really only speak for Nikon, but what Paul sys is not strictly true. Tweaks made in camera are carried over in RAW shots, at least using Nikon Capture NX and you can then post process from there, but if you are not happy, are free to change things as you see fit. If you shoot in RAW+JPG modes, then your jpg is already pretty much sorted straight out of the box and actually, so is the RAW shot. Things like Adobe don't see these in camera tweaks, so you work from scratch there. Nikon Capture NX is a very, very good addition for any Nikon DSLR and especially when you have another editing program, such as Photoshop. They dovetail quite well.
I would love to shooot JPG as the job is then done. It saves time. I will never leave RAW though, because you can fix so many of your goofs after the event without loss of quality. A JPG is a shrinkwrapped ready to go, zipped and done deal. If you have mucked it up badly, then you have done just that.
The reason that sharpening (NEVER simply sharpen - use Unsharp Mask) takes place as a last step, is so that when the manipulation of the image is done, that when you sharpen with USM, that artefacts are not introduced into the image. If you use USM first, then you will enhance the image, but also enhance any noise or artefacts already present or that have been introduced by heavy PP, sharpening them too and making them more visible. In Photoshop or similar, noise removal is the very first step for similar reasons. The aim here, is to get rid of as much noise as possible nd to let you work on the purest image that you can, without modifying and amplifying that noise.
HD, I sympathise with you and your feelings. The thing is that you have much more freedom with the DSLR and it sometimes seems that a point and shoot will give you at least equal results. It is an illusion. It works everything out for you and that tiny sliver of glass or plastic has enormous depth of field. It doesn't even matter whether it is in focus at all sometimes. That DOF is so deep, that it will be ok anyway. Jumpseater always produces some jaw droppers on here and whilst it is possible to get as good shots, his is a high benchmark. If you have a nasty or troublesome shot that you think might benefit in post processing, then you are welcome to send it along to see if I can get anything different to you from it. I can only try, but an happy to attempt it for you.
Conan
I would love to shooot JPG as the job is then done. It saves time. I will never leave RAW though, because you can fix so many of your goofs after the event without loss of quality. A JPG is a shrinkwrapped ready to go, zipped and done deal. If you have mucked it up badly, then you have done just that.
The reason that sharpening (NEVER simply sharpen - use Unsharp Mask) takes place as a last step, is so that when the manipulation of the image is done, that when you sharpen with USM, that artefacts are not introduced into the image. If you use USM first, then you will enhance the image, but also enhance any noise or artefacts already present or that have been introduced by heavy PP, sharpening them too and making them more visible. In Photoshop or similar, noise removal is the very first step for similar reasons. The aim here, is to get rid of as much noise as possible nd to let you work on the purest image that you can, without modifying and amplifying that noise.
HD, I sympathise with you and your feelings. The thing is that you have much more freedom with the DSLR and it sometimes seems that a point and shoot will give you at least equal results. It is an illusion. It works everything out for you and that tiny sliver of glass or plastic has enormous depth of field. It doesn't even matter whether it is in focus at all sometimes. That DOF is so deep, that it will be ok anyway. Jumpseater always produces some jaw droppers on here and whilst it is possible to get as good shots, his is a high benchmark. If you have a nasty or troublesome shot that you think might benefit in post processing, then you are welcome to send it along to see if I can get anything different to you from it. I can only try, but an happy to attempt it for you.
Conan
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks paulc and Conan. I know all about RAW v JPEG bit and I now shoot 99% JPEG because what comes out of the camera is better. If, as is suggested elsewhere, the EOS20 is designed to produce "soft" images it means that when you apply USM (or a special EOS20 CSPro plug-in for CS2 in my case) you are surely attempting to add, or manipulate what is not there to start with? My brain says you should start with lots information you may not want and can then remove it (I derive this from my radio training which says it's a waste of time having an amplifier near the radio rather than at the aerial as it can't amplify what's been lost in the cable). If I take a pic on a tripod with my EOS20, then another with my wife's Sony credit-card size 7MP camera, or my old Fuji 9600 zoom the difference can be seen immediately - two the pictures leap out and smack you in the eye and the Canon is dull and uninteresting. Incidentally I've now set the Canon to sharpen and apply more vivid colours and more contrast but it still doesn't satisfy me. Take a look at any picture on
http://www.planepictures.net/ then look at my pics from the link above. The pics on PP seem to be smooth yet razor-sharp at the same time so what are they doing that I'm not? I've had many pictures rejected by PP for being too fuzzy or out of focus!! Is it possible that all the photographers on PP are spending ages sharpening their pics?
If I wasn't an OAP I'd dump the Canon gear and go for Nikon as I've seen some very, very good pics from Nikon - particularly from my son's 4500, which he uses for Astro photography.
http://www.planepictures.net/ then look at my pics from the link above. The pics on PP seem to be smooth yet razor-sharp at the same time so what are they doing that I'm not? I've had many pictures rejected by PP for being too fuzzy or out of focus!! Is it possible that all the photographers on PP are spending ages sharpening their pics?
If I wasn't an OAP I'd dump the Canon gear and go for Nikon as I've seen some very, very good pics from Nikon - particularly from my son's 4500, which he uses for Astro photography.
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpening itself, is a bit of an illusion. What is does is to increse the contrast between light and dark areas, an effect most prevalent on edges. It is just that the brain interprets this as extra contrast and makes it simply "look" sharper.
Your radio analogy is a good one, but consider this. If you put an amp in nearer the radio on a lossy or long lead, then it will amplify not only signal, but noise too. If you put the amp in a little earlier, then the signal to noise ratio would be better. TV boosters are a great example. They are often put in to amplify the already compromised signal from a poor aerial and you get noise visible on screen. This is what happens in post processing with pictures. If you can get the purest "signal" and then sharpen that, you will get far better results than if you were to try to sharpen the lot, with existing noise and artefacts also being sharpened. This is why you should stick to noise first, sharpening last.
When it comes to being "lossy" nothing can beat a JPG, which is a major reason that many prefer RAW and also that the latter will give you so much more elbow room in post processing. You are not only the photographer with RAW, but also the lab and printing house too.
Conan
Your radio analogy is a good one, but consider this. If you put an amp in nearer the radio on a lossy or long lead, then it will amplify not only signal, but noise too. If you put the amp in a little earlier, then the signal to noise ratio would be better. TV boosters are a great example. They are often put in to amplify the already compromised signal from a poor aerial and you get noise visible on screen. This is what happens in post processing with pictures. If you can get the purest "signal" and then sharpen that, you will get far better results than if you were to try to sharpen the lot, with existing noise and artefacts also being sharpened. This is why you should stick to noise first, sharpening last.
When it comes to being "lossy" nothing can beat a JPG, which is a major reason that many prefer RAW and also that the latter will give you so much more elbow room in post processing. You are not only the photographer with RAW, but also the lab and printing house too.
Conan
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
HD - I've had a look at some of your images and agree they don't seem very sharp for some reason. However, I've seen plenty of pretty exceptional ones taken by a Canon 20D; so, it may just be either a setting issue or perhaps a focus fault with your actual camera.
If you have juggled all the settings and checked your taking photos with the correct shutter speeds for the situation and lens fitted; and still no joy - It may be time to let Canon check it out.
I can't advise further as I'm a Nikon user myself! Nikon D70 at the moment but, looking to upgrade to poss the D200 at some point.
If you have juggled all the settings and checked your taking photos with the correct shutter speeds for the situation and lens fitted; and still no joy - It may be time to let Canon check it out.
I can't advise further as I'm a Nikon user myself! Nikon D70 at the moment but, looking to upgrade to poss the D200 at some point.
CtL ta re the 'jawdroppers', very kind of you to say so. I wish I had the eloquence and ability to talk and write technically about this as well as you do.
HD which 'L' lenses are you using? I have two colleagues who have 20's and overall get very good results, without too much post processing. I know and it is well known that there have been problems with some of their 100-400IS/USM's, I understand there are several factories producing them and there doe's seem to be a few 'Monday morning, Friday afternoon' examples about. I don't know of a similar problem with other Canon 'L' and 'L' IS/USM lenses though. I must admit to not having 'done' the photo forums, having seen how pprune and another forum I'm a member of gets 'chaff' in the forums, its sometimes difficult to see the wood for the trees!
I know exactly what you mean and where you're coming from re the post processing, in the past having shot transparency 90% of the time. I must admit I'm nowhere near as far up the foodchain on photoshop as you are if you are using CS, and CtL's offer of playing with one of your images, may be a useful test. Perhaps if you have someone who can lend you a body to swap lens' on, do a set of test shots and see if there are significant differences.
My basic settings on my 1D are
jpeg quality all at 10 = highest
parameters = set1
colour matrix = 4adobe RGB
noise reduction off
iso expansion off
I have no idea if those will work on your 20, but if they're there it may be worth trying those, or some of them.
For info my post processing is done very quickly for forum/web page/thumbnail work in Google's Picassa. A free download with very basic 'control', it is surprisingly effective though, with a RAW converter built in!
rgds js
HD which 'L' lenses are you using? I have two colleagues who have 20's and overall get very good results, without too much post processing. I know and it is well known that there have been problems with some of their 100-400IS/USM's, I understand there are several factories producing them and there doe's seem to be a few 'Monday morning, Friday afternoon' examples about. I don't know of a similar problem with other Canon 'L' and 'L' IS/USM lenses though. I must admit to not having 'done' the photo forums, having seen how pprune and another forum I'm a member of gets 'chaff' in the forums, its sometimes difficult to see the wood for the trees!
I know exactly what you mean and where you're coming from re the post processing, in the past having shot transparency 90% of the time. I must admit I'm nowhere near as far up the foodchain on photoshop as you are if you are using CS, and CtL's offer of playing with one of your images, may be a useful test. Perhaps if you have someone who can lend you a body to swap lens' on, do a set of test shots and see if there are significant differences.
My basic settings on my 1D are
jpeg quality all at 10 = highest
parameters = set1
colour matrix = 4adobe RGB
noise reduction off
iso expansion off
I have no idea if those will work on your 20, but if they're there it may be worth trying those, or some of them.
For info my post processing is done very quickly for forum/web page/thumbnail work in Google's Picassa. A free download with very basic 'control', it is surprisingly effective though, with a RAW converter built in!
rgds js
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumpseater, job done. can I have my cheque now please?
Something sounds awry with HDs setup. A file might also prove useful in the Exif settings, A great boon for digital photographers. The shooting data is kept with the file and so I should be able to tell at least something about the settings, though a Canon user would read more through their dedicated software I am sure. I learn a lot from these settings and you can often see where a shot went wrong through technique or a camera issue. Believe me, the in camera settings, especially for JPG users, are so sophisticated that it is easy to miss out and for users to feel that they have taken a backwards step. Part of the ultimate flexibility that you have with a DSLR, but also, until right, a source of concern for any user that has just parted with spondooliks for something they expect to give better results.
I think that on the airliner shots that I have seen, then something may well not be as it ought. A common problem is one of front or back focusing, where the camera AF is slightly out of kilter and is in essence confused by what it sees, the assumed focus being a bit in front or behind. I can't actually see this so much as the A/C shots should be near infinity and not so badly affected. Ultimately, it might be worth letting Canon look at this, but I could help narrow it down a bit with a few RAW and JPG files. The EOS20D is crawling around the bazaars and is known for producing high quality shots. I think that you don't have proper spot metering on the 20, but centre weighted should help those shadows a bit. HD, don't lose heart. we might be close to identifying a particular problem here and nobody will be happier than me.
Conan
Something sounds awry with HDs setup. A file might also prove useful in the Exif settings, A great boon for digital photographers. The shooting data is kept with the file and so I should be able to tell at least something about the settings, though a Canon user would read more through their dedicated software I am sure. I learn a lot from these settings and you can often see where a shot went wrong through technique or a camera issue. Believe me, the in camera settings, especially for JPG users, are so sophisticated that it is easy to miss out and for users to feel that they have taken a backwards step. Part of the ultimate flexibility that you have with a DSLR, but also, until right, a source of concern for any user that has just parted with spondooliks for something they expect to give better results.
I think that on the airliner shots that I have seen, then something may well not be as it ought. A common problem is one of front or back focusing, where the camera AF is slightly out of kilter and is in essence confused by what it sees, the assumed focus being a bit in front or behind. I can't actually see this so much as the A/C shots should be near infinity and not so badly affected. Ultimately, it might be worth letting Canon look at this, but I could help narrow it down a bit with a few RAW and JPG files. The EOS20D is crawling around the bazaars and is known for producing high quality shots. I think that you don't have proper spot metering on the 20, but centre weighted should help those shadows a bit. HD, don't lose heart. we might be close to identifying a particular problem here and nobody will be happier than me.
Conan
HD,
re jumpseaters point of trying another body / lens - I would be happy for you to use mine when you next visit Popham (8th October is final event of season)
Having 1 or 2 pictures on airliners.net / jetphotos net it can take a while to get an image up to their standard but judging by the queue length on both sites enough people manage. It is also possible that you do have a fault with either camera or lens - my 20D body suffered a partial autofocus failure at RIAT in 2005 which was very frustrating but it worked enough of the time to get some shots.
rgds
Paulc
re jumpseaters point of trying another body / lens - I would be happy for you to use mine when you next visit Popham (8th October is final event of season)
Having 1 or 2 pictures on airliners.net / jetphotos net it can take a while to get an image up to their standard but judging by the queue length on both sites enough people manage. It is also possible that you do have a fault with either camera or lens - my 20D body suffered a partial autofocus failure at RIAT in 2005 which was very frustrating but it worked enough of the time to get some shots.
rgds
Paulc
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Croydon
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canon Focusing
I've had a 10D and a 1D MkII that both needed the focusing setting up properly and produced much better results after I'd done so. I got a great deal of flannel from the retailer when I expressed my frustration about the focusing abilities of my 10D shortly after buying it so I chose to go to H Lehmann in Stoke to get it sorted out (Canon have a terrible reputation for taking ages and not resolving these problems). H Lehmann calibrated everything while I waited and the whole job was sorted in about an hour (under warranty). Once sorted, this camera produced some very good results and it became a treasured posession until some toerag stole in earlier this year.
I had similar problems with my 1D MkII and this was sorted out under warranty by Fixation in London (again without going through Canon). This camera went the same way as the 10D.
Canon must have improved things (or I just happened to get two rogue cameras) because my replacement cameras (A 5D and a 1D MkIIn) both perform absolutely fine.
Lenses
Too many people spend theirt budget on their camera body and then compromise on their lenses, only to wonder why their results aren't as expected. Without good glass even remarkable cameras produce mediocre results. I've seen people blame the Canon 100-400 for being soft and unreliable. I had my first one die on me after 4 months but the replacement's still producing the goods after a further two and a half years of very heavy use so they're not all bad. I've seen so many people using this lens like a trombone: continually varying the focal length as they follow a 'plane, so it's no surprise they're disappointed with the results from their particularly expensive acquisition. Zooms are best used in steps like a series of fixed focal length lenses - let the subject fly into the frame as you follow it rather than continually varying the focal length.
Good action shot can be obtained with modest cameras if you get your technique sorted out through practice and heeding the advice of those who've already mastered the art.
Rob
I've had a 10D and a 1D MkII that both needed the focusing setting up properly and produced much better results after I'd done so. I got a great deal of flannel from the retailer when I expressed my frustration about the focusing abilities of my 10D shortly after buying it so I chose to go to H Lehmann in Stoke to get it sorted out (Canon have a terrible reputation for taking ages and not resolving these problems). H Lehmann calibrated everything while I waited and the whole job was sorted in about an hour (under warranty). Once sorted, this camera produced some very good results and it became a treasured posession until some toerag stole in earlier this year.
I had similar problems with my 1D MkII and this was sorted out under warranty by Fixation in London (again without going through Canon). This camera went the same way as the 10D.
Canon must have improved things (or I just happened to get two rogue cameras) because my replacement cameras (A 5D and a 1D MkIIn) both perform absolutely fine.
Lenses
Too many people spend theirt budget on their camera body and then compromise on their lenses, only to wonder why their results aren't as expected. Without good glass even remarkable cameras produce mediocre results. I've seen people blame the Canon 100-400 for being soft and unreliable. I had my first one die on me after 4 months but the replacement's still producing the goods after a further two and a half years of very heavy use so they're not all bad. I've seen so many people using this lens like a trombone: continually varying the focal length as they follow a 'plane, so it's no surprise they're disappointed with the results from their particularly expensive acquisition. Zooms are best used in steps like a series of fixed focal length lenses - let the subject fly into the frame as you follow it rather than continually varying the focal length.
Good action shot can be obtained with modest cameras if you get your technique sorted out through practice and heeding the advice of those who've already mastered the art.
Rob
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob.. Interested about the adjustments being done while you wait.. I've asked this on the Canon forum with no result - why can't one "calibrate" one's camera oneself? I'm a Radio Amateur and have spent my life setting up my own radio gear and plenty of other domestic stuff too. What's involved in the "calibration"? If it's simply taking a panel off and twiddling a screw I'd prefer to do it myself.
I've checked my EOS20 and my 17-40 and 24-105 "L" lenses with a focus chart and everything focuses "in the middle" so I'm not sure it's a focus problem. I'm not a professional, far from it, but do understand the basics of DoF, shutter speed, f numbers, etc., having used SLR cameras for 40+ years.
I've checked my EOS20 and my 17-40 and 24-105 "L" lenses with a focus chart and everything focuses "in the middle" so I'm not sure it's a focus problem. I'm not a professional, far from it, but do understand the basics of DoF, shutter speed, f numbers, etc., having used SLR cameras for 40+ years.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Croydon
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, I didn't see what they were doing, they spirited my camera away while they did it at Lehmanns and Fixation didn't offer a while you wait service, I had to pick it up the next day. Both of my cameras demonstrated a marked tendency to back focus. Perhaps if you ring one of the aforementioned service agents they'll explain the process?
H Lehmann Ltd
247-249 London Road
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
ST4 5AA
Tel 01782 413611
Fax 01782 744579
Fixation
Suite 508
71 Bondway
London
SW8 1SQ
Tel 020 7582 3294
Fax 020 7582 9050
This isn't a process I'd trust Canon to do themselves. From what I've read on photography forums they takes ages and don't do a good job.
H Lehmann Ltd
247-249 London Road
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
ST4 5AA
Tel 01782 413611
Fax 01782 744579
Fixation
Suite 508
71 Bondway
London
SW8 1SQ
Tel 020 7582 3294
Fax 020 7582 9050
This isn't a process I'd trust Canon to do themselves. From what I've read on photography forums they takes ages and don't do a good job.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEATHROW DIRECTOR........do you have a filter on the lens? I was quite disappointed with my new 75-300 IS USM lens due to soft images. I spoke to Canon and they said they would re-calibrate it.
Before I gave the lens back to Canon a "pro" suggested that it may be the filter (good quality one) that was giving the problem. So off it came and now the images are sharp.
BTW I was about to get a 100-400L this weekend, is quality control that bad?
Before I gave the lens back to Canon a "pro" suggested that it may be the filter (good quality one) that was giving the problem. So off it came and now the images are sharp.
BTW I was about to get a 100-400L this weekend, is quality control that bad?
Last edited by Offchocks; 29th Sep 2006 at 12:22.
With the 100-400's there are some known isues with them. They occaisionally develop a 'ERROR' fault. To clear this you need to turn the camera off and take the lens off, and put it back on. I know one person who has one who has had the problem, the lens is at Canon at the mo, the other person has had no problems with his. They are a pretty good lens, and if I didnt have 'coverage' for those focal lengths, I wouldn't hesitate to get one.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offchocks.... thanks for that tip. I do use a filter - Hoya Uv just as a lens protector on the L lenses. I have the kit lens 18-55 with which I did not use a filter. Pics taken with that and the 17-40 L are absolutely indistinguishable from each other so maybe the filter is causing problems. I'll take it off for a while and see.
As far as lens issues goes... On the Canon forum the US people are very fond of referring to getting a "good copy" of a lens. They buy a lens, try it and return it for replacement if they don't like the results. With some L lenses this seems to be commonplace and they say things like: "Excellent lens, as long as you get a good copy". If one is paying £1k (as we would over here) for a decent lens I think you should get the goods A1 to start with.. My first EOS20 had to be replaced due to appalling amounts of dust on the sensor. Dealer just swapped it immediately without quibble as it it was something he was used to doing!!
I'd still like to know how to calibrate the set-up as I'm itching to do it myself, just as I do my own sensor cleaning.
As far as lens issues goes... On the Canon forum the US people are very fond of referring to getting a "good copy" of a lens. They buy a lens, try it and return it for replacement if they don't like the results. With some L lenses this seems to be commonplace and they say things like: "Excellent lens, as long as you get a good copy". If one is paying £1k (as we would over here) for a decent lens I think you should get the goods A1 to start with.. My first EOS20 had to be replaced due to appalling amounts of dust on the sensor. Dealer just swapped it immediately without quibble as it it was something he was used to doing!!
I'd still like to know how to calibrate the set-up as I'm itching to do it myself, just as I do my own sensor cleaning.