Learning the 20D

[TheMadApe]

Can anyone help me with images that are not quite sharp on a 20D.
Flash or no flash, tripod or not, the images do not seem crisp when I blow them up to 100% in Photoshop CS2.
Maybe I'm expecting too much from my lense, and need to upgrade to a L Lense. I had to sell my L lenses years ago to pay my way through school. They were quite crisp on 35mm film, and wondering if the lack of one is my problem now?

I am using a 20D with the latest firmware and a 75-300 III USM lense. The unsharp mask in Photoshop seems to make the images crisper. I also opened the image in the Canon browser to verify where the autofocus points were. When I shoot this on my 1V and check the film, it is quite sharp. But then I'm not comparing apples to apples.

I am just getting back into photography after a few years, so I'd like to try to work with what I've got initially.  

One example I can post is shot on a tripod with no flash at f11, and time delay triggered, inside, so that there should be no movement of the target or the camera.

I also notice a grey cast over all of my images, varying in density from image to image, that I can clean up with photoshop's levels.

I experience these problems both in RAW and jpg. RAW is initally cleaned up through Canon's RAW image Pro.

Any help, insight pointers in the right direction would be great, and I would be willing to send the image if anyone wants to anayze the original CR2 or TIFF.

Cheers,

Brad

[davaglo]

I shoot a 20D with 17-40L and 70-200L mostly at iso 400 and don't see anything like you are describing. I don't yet shoot with a tripod. The gray, I couldn't tell you, but you might want to bump up your iso.


Jerry

[DarkPenguin]

The 75-300 is a pretty iffy lens past 200.  It is also prone to CA and has somewhat poor contrast.  The poor contrast might be the problem you are seeing.  Post an image, and it's exif and we might have a better idea what you're talking about.

[TheMadApe]

DarkPenguin,

here are a couple of test shots, both a crop of 100%. The first one is RAW converted to jpgtiff the second was jpg, brought into photoshop and exagerating with the levels, the grey cast becomes quite apparent. This cast is even subtle in my outdoor shots

1. Stroller

ISO 100
f11
1 second, no flash, studio light @ 5000k
80mm on a 75-300
RAW converted to 16 bit tiff
on tripod with self timer


2. human subject

File Name
     IMG_0256.JPG
Camera Model
     Canon EOS 20D
Shooting Date/Time
     3/29/2006 11:46:49 AM
Shooting Mode
     Auto
Tv( Shutter Speed )
     1/60
Av( Aperture Value )
     4.5
Metering Mode
     Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation
     0
ISO Speed
     400
Lens
     28.0 - 80.0 mm
Focal Length
     45.0 mm
Image Size
     3504x2336
Image Quality
     Fine
Flash
     On
Flash Type
     External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation
     0
Red-eye Reduction
     Off
Shutter curtain sync
     1st-curtain sync
White Balance Mode
     Auto
AF Mode
     AI Focus AF
Parameters Settings
     Contrast  Mid. High
     Sharpness  Mid. High
     Color saturation  Mid. High
     Color tone    0
Color Space
     sRGB
Noise Reduction
     Off


[attachment=405:attachment][attachment=404:attachment]

[joedevico]

I would say that your image sharpness is in line with the lens and body you are using. When is that last time you've printed and viewed a 35mm frame at 24x36"? That's roughly the size of the print you need to make to get a similar magnification.

Remember when viewing at 100% your images are much larger than you probably intend to print them. To get an idea of what a print will look like, set your image dpi in the "image size" dialog in Photoshop, making sure that "resample image" is unchecked. I like to use 300dpi...

All digital images need sharpening - however I might add the following. The shot of the stroller probably has some camera shake unless you used mirror lockup and forgot to mention that. The gray cast is from underexposure of the shot. When you boost the levels you lose some saturation and the shadows become gray. The image also needs the proper white balance setting. Attached are two very quick edits on the images you posted.

Hopefully that helps you...I'm never satisfied with 100% magnification, but I soon realized that unless you printing large prints (I rarelly print above 13x19 with the 20D) you'll never be viewing an image under such close scrutiny.

joe

NOTE - the images are saved at a low .jpg setting to conserve Michael's bandwidth
[attachment=406:attachment][attachment=407:attachment]

[TheMadApe]

Thank you!
I have decided to try the 17-85mm EF-S until I can pick up a L lense.

Cheers,

Brad

[DarkPenguin]

Contrast on the 17-85 can be a wee bit lower than one might like.  (Try the local contrast adjustment mentioned on this site.)  From 17-24 it has a fair amount of CA.  (Easily fixable in RSE/RSP.)  From 24-85 it is a very nice lens.

All in all it should be a vast improvement over that 75-300.  (Although it only overlaps by 10mm.)

www.slrgear.com has interesting lens tests.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Cheap glass will cripple the ability of any camera to record clear images. It isn't unreasonable to spend more on lenses than the body, even with digital, if you want to maximize your results.