How Do You Like My Bokeh Now?

[JohnKoerner]

Well, I finally took the plunge and got me a real live DSLR camera  

Got my Canon 50D today, which is a day early, even though I originally ordered a 100-400mm lens, but changed my mind to a 100mm USM macro for now. B&H made the switch and still got me the thing a day earlier than schedule. Upon receipt I was a bit dismayed by all the controls, and sat there scratching my head like a monkey for awhile trying to figure out how to get the thing to work  

I have never shot anything but a G9 (and a G7 prior to that), so after a bit or tinkering I figured I'd start w/ full auto and right out of the box I was able to take some decent shots:

[JohnKoerner]

Here are a couple more of a froggie

[DarkPenguin]

I quite like it.

Very nice.

(3 f'ing times the cat decides to step on the mouse and f up this posting.  Going to make mittens out of her yet.)

[jjj]

I see you garden is still full of critters that would make many people run a mile!  

Nice pics, but I'd say the subjects are a bit too centred, but once you get used to the camera, I'm sure you will play around a bit more.
Good to see you can still get things in focus even with a bigger sensor.  
I have contemplated getting the 100mm macro for the girlfriend as she loves doing macro shots with her Ixus P+S and she can put in on my barely used 20D.
Some of her pics - taken with an Ixus 850IS

Shield Bug


Spider carrying egg sac


Stink Bug, hatching


I built her a pond as a birthday surprise at her allotment and now she get very little done somedays,
as she spends all her time looking at the froggies. Probably looking for her prince.

[JohnKoerner]

I quite like it.
Very nice.

So do you think I got a good lens copy?

Everyone talks about maybe not getting a good copy right away, and I was kinda worried about that ...

I know this is a reduced .jpg, from a .tiff, processed from a raw, so I don't know if you can tell something like that from those pics or not  





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



JJJ,

Those are very nice shots! I like them all, the beetle for color, but I think that stinkbug hatching takes the prize  


I notice that your shots are clear acrossed the board, while mine are blurry everywhere but the center. I think that is because I was shooting f2.8 and f4, is that correct?

I am going to read my manual once a week, for 5 straight weeks, and perform every function that the camera is capable of, over and over again, until I completely familiarize myself with the controls/features. (LOL, about my garden ... and that is what I am waiting for, Spring, when all the critters come back  )

Hopefully, by that time I can really make this thing sing, and do something besides "point-n-shoot" with my DSLR 8^)

Jack

[jjj]

So do you think I got a good lens copy?

Everyone talks about maybe not getting a good copy right away, and I was kinda worried about that ...

I know this is a reduced .jpg, from a .tiff, processed from a raw, so I don't know if you can tell something like that from those pics or not

Only way to tell is to take shots of a detailed flat surface like  a dollar bill.

JJJ,

Those are very nice shots! I like them all, the beetle for color, but I think that stinkbug hatching takes the prize

They are my girlfriend's shots, so nothing to do with me.  I just bought her the camera.

I notice that your shots are clear acrossed the board, while mine are blurry everywhere but the center. I think that is because I was shooting f2.8 and f4, is that correct?

Partially. The main reason is that the sensor you are now using is way bigger than on a Canon Ixus pocket camera, plus you were using a 100mm lens and the ones I posted were shot on an 28mm equivalent] so even shorter in reality, probably only a few mm. So apart from close up work, everything tends to be in focus with small sensor cameras.
With a 50D and 100mm at close range even with f11, you will still have a very shallow depth of field, compared to what you are used to. The spider pic could have done with a slighter deeper DoF, so don't be afraid to stop down further when so very close, shutter speeds permitting, as the amount in focus will never be that great.
Heck, getting anything you want in focus at that magnification whilst using wide apertures, is an achievement.

[DarkPenguin]

I'd only worry if focus isn't where you think it should be a lot.  If you get a lot of images that you think should be in focus but aren't start shooting tests.

[JohnKoerner]

Only way to tell is to take shots of a detailed flat surface like  a dollar bill.

Click on the thumbnail below (on the very, very bottom of this post). I actually took a shot of a mossy old dowel that was sticking up out in the field. It has a "flat" top surface with a lot of different textures, so do you think this will suffice? I notice there seems to be a "line" of focus, cross-ways, and that everything before that "line" is blurry ... and everything behind that line is blurry. Is that good?

Partially. The main reason is that the sensor you are now using is way bigger than on a Canon Ixus pocket camera, plus you were using a 100mm lens and the ones I posted were shot on an 28mm equivalent] so even shorter in reality, probably only a few mm. So apart from close up work, everything tends to be in focus with small sensor cameras.

Interesting. That is the criticism I got from a butterfly shot I took w/ the G9 that the background focus ruined the shot. Yet in some instances (like that stinkbug shot you have on the leaf), I think it looks better to have the whole thing in focus. Like for instance, I took another shot of the jumping spider and most of him is out of focus:



Jack

[stever]

the 100 macro is probably one of Canon's most consistent lenses, don't worry - but take advantage of the 50D focus adust for fine tuning and use liveview if the subjects will hold still

if you're shooting macro, then you generally need to be at f8 or greater - with the 50D you will start to lose sharpness from diffraction at f16 but it may well be worthwhile for depth of field

i've been able to hand-hold macro in bright sunlight, but generally need flash for consistent results - another learning experience

[JohnKoerner]

the 100 macro is probably one of Canon's most consistent lenses, don't worry - but take advantage of the 50D focus adust for fine tuning and use liveview if the subjects will hold still

Thanks Steve, I think it will come along just fine as I come along in my learning curve.

What is interesting is that, with the G9, I loved the Live View and have shot over 4000 images without ever once using the viewfinder. With the 50D it is exactly the opposite now: it take almost every photo with the viewfinder, and only use the LCD for looking at the images afterward. Regarding micro-adjust, I haven't read about that yet ... but both you and Ray have mentioned it now, and I am certain that is going to become an important tool for me to use.

if you're shooting macro, then you generally need to be at f8 or greater - with the 50D you will start to lose sharpness from diffraction at f16 but it may well be worthwhile for depth of field

As I have been reading the manual, I also have the option to use the "Landscape" setting which is supposed to increase it, as well as a dedicated "A-Dep" (auto-depth-of-field) setting, specifically for this need. I have not used it yet, but tomorrow I will. I am sure that, in addition to the traditional stopping down that there are a myriad of ways this camera will allow me to fine-tune everything to my liking ... I just have to discover them.

i've been able to hand-hold macro in bright sunlight, but generally need flash for consistent results - another learning experience

Speaking of flash, my next purchase is going to involve their MT-24 Macro Ringlight Flash, but first I need to learn how to walk with this thing before I go to trying to run  

Thanks again,

Jack

[jjj]

What is interesting is that, with the G9, I loved the Live View and have shot over 4000 images without ever once using the viewfinder. With the 50D it is exactly the opposite now: it take almost every photo with the viewfinder, and only use the LCD for looking at the images afterward.

IIRC you can trigger camera from a laptop and use the live view to tweak focus, which could be handy for some macro/nature shots as you as away from camera.

As I have been reading the manual, I also have the option to use the "Landscape" setting which is supposed to increase it, as well as a dedicated "A-Dep" (auto-depth-of-field) setting, specifically for this need. I have not used it yet, but tomorrow I will. I am sure that, in addition to the traditional stopping down that there are a myriad of ways this camera will allow me to fine-tune everything to my liking ... I just have to discover them.

Just use aperture priority  and set the aperture you need - if light is changing. Otherwise, use manual and set shutter speed to match your desired aperture. Manual is often easier than auto as lighting tends to be constant, but the subject matter in the light may change nd confuse meter.

[jjj]

Click on the thumbnail below (on the very, very bottom of this post). I actually took a shot of a mossy old dowel that was sticking up out in the field. It has a "flat" top surface with a lot of different textures, so do you think this will suffice? I notice there seems to be a "line" of focus, cross-ways, and that everything before that "line" is blurry ... and everything behind that line is blurry. Is that good?

By flat, I mean someting like a dollar bill on a wall and camera absolutely perpendicular and square to it. The intricate pattern on the banknote will show up any focusing problems or iffy lens quality, as well as how lens quality varies at different apertures .

Interesting. That is the criticism I got from a butterfly shot I took w/ the G9 that the background focus ruined the shot. Yet in some instances (like that stinkbug shot you have on the leaf), I think it looks better to have the whole thing in focus.

Some shots work better with more DoF and some with less. You'll learn as you go along.

[jjj]

I quite like it.
Very nice.

(3 f'ing times the cat decides to step on the mouse and f up this posting.  Going to make mittens out of her yet.)

My computer is currently called ijju83swe45FA4tewrerhdeybrty6grhthhhhhtrewh7h5CGFCQFYBG6N87R5CDAQ !  
I suspect one of the fetid breathed felines has been dancing a jig on the laptop,whilst I wasn't looking.
They try and look sweet,but underneath that fur is some seriously cunning hackers.

[JohnKoerner]

These were taken as .jpgs. The left image was shot in full auto. The right image was shot with me trying to figure out how to use manual mode.

The left image was not processed (other than re-sampling). The image on the right was dark and I tried to made it brighter.

Jack

Edit: My mistake: those were taken as raw and converted to .jpg. What I did was convert straight to .jpg. I typically convert to .tiff first, and tinker with it in .tiff, and then I convert to .jpg. I just haven't set up my new ZoomBrowser to convert to .tiff yet. Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks.

[Marlyn]

What breed are those cats ?

I ask because the bottom one looks a lot like a NFC (Nowegian Forest Cat).

Mark

[JohnKoerner]

Here is another shot from a more level perspective, taken at f/4 so as to show a more pronounced bokeh in the fore- and backgrounds.

It was taken in raw, processed in .tiff (sharpened a hair), and converted to .jpg and it is a pretty big file.

What do you honestly think of the lens quality? Bokeh?

(Taking into account I hardly know how to make the camera work yet  )

Thanks and goodnight for now ...

Jack

[Tony Beach]

Here are a couple more of a froggie

Oh, I really like that second shot.

Welcome to the club Jack, in no time you will being picking up the G9 (for old time's sake) and be baffled by it instead of the 50D.

[David Sutton]

My biased opinion is you have a fine camera and a good copy of that lens Jack. You are going to have a lot of fun.
I don't know how what I'm using (40D and 70-200 with close up lens) compares to the 100mm, but I find I can't go under f16 much and have any depth of field at all. And to hand hold at that aperture I really have to use a flash, mounted on a bracket to get it off to the side, and use manual exposure and let the camera and flash sort it out. But I prefer your naturally lit shots to this the "flash look"
[attachment=10789:93.jpg]
[attachment=10788:_MG_8023.jpg]
even though I couldn't have got these in low light any other way.
BTW, have you tried live view yet for focusing? David

[jjj]

What breed are those cats ?

I ask because the bottom one looks a lot like a NFC (Nowegian Forest Cat).

Mark

Well spotted. We got him from the pets section of the local forum, as when we were looking for a cat last year, my girlfriend showed me a photo of 4 three day old kittens and I said I want the tabby one [as they are my favourite]. It was only on third visit when we went to finally take him home we were told he was a wegie.
He didn't get his huge fluffy tail and longer hair until later. So a bit of an unexpected bargain as he was free, rather than the usual £400+. Apparently the mum was a bit small for a wegie, so not good enough for official breeding!! I'd never heard of them before as I tend to have had waifs and strays before, but I highly recommend these cats.
Ianto, the rescue cat [the other moggy in shot] that we got at same time seems slightly Bengali, same beautiful eyes and a bit of a spotty tummy.
Loki, the wegie is a real character, more like a dippy scavenging mutt on speed than your average somnolent cat. He loves DIY, which is just as well as we had house gutted this year. Still growing and he's bigger than his parents already at 10 months and apparently wegies can keep growing for up to 4 years according to vet!!   .

 His tail is now bigger than he was then!


And to get back on topic here's the adjacent image from the flickr set

[jjj]

Here is another shot from a more level perspective, taken at f/4 so as to show a more pronounced bokeh in the fore- and backgrounds.

What do you honestly think of the lens quality? Bokeh?

I meant to shoot money like this