Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 10D simple test

Reply
Thread Tools

10D simple test

 
 
Tomash Bednarz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2003
tamron is also good lens but not perfect - i got it for 3 days and finally
decide to change to 28-135IS
u know, the quality is very important and using tamron its possible to get
good pics too, but its usualy more soften as seen in the pics
so i think the better idea is to buy 28-135 even it has not 300mm but
quality is really impresive
maybe tamron 28-200 xr is better than 28-300 xr, but am not sure - i havent
got it in my hands
and comparing 50mm to 28-135IS u can see the quality is similar, so maybe
one glass in enough (28-135)
i will test it more in near future (50mm vs 28-135mm)
best regards,
Tomash


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2003

"Lionel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:bfibvb$16i$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:38:59 -0700, in <Fl2Ta.13748$Bp2.577@fed1read07>,
> "Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> >My 10D works just fine, thanks.
> >As to your comments...
> >-Check it Bub...
> >The pics posted are 2048x1360.
> >Maybe he's using a "10D Jr.?"

>
> Eh? - I think there's something the matter with your browser. I've got
>

<http://trans2.cm.kyushu-u.ac.jp/fotk...mm-vs-28300mmX
R/canon50.JPG>
> open in front of me right now, & Opera 7.0 reports that it is indeed
> 3072x2048, which is exactly what my eyes are are telling me, as well.


Someone else figured out the discrepancy:
The images in the first link are full res.
The images in the second are smaller as I reported.
So... I guess we're both right.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
W Bauske
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2003
Tomash Bednarz wrote:
>
> tamron is also good lens but not perfect - i got it for 3 days and finally
> decide to change to 28-135IS
> u know, the quality is very important and using tamron its possible to get
> good pics too, but its usualy more soften as seen in the pics
> so i think the better idea is to buy 28-135 even it has not 300mm but
> quality is really impresive
> maybe tamron 28-200 xr is better than 28-300 xr, but am not sure - i havent
> got it in my hands
> and comparing 50mm to 28-135IS u can see the quality is similar, so maybe
> one glass in enough (28-135)
> i will test it more in near future (50mm vs 28-135mm)
> best regards,
> Tomash


Just curious, but how careful were you when you took
the pictures? In particular, did you match aperture
settings on both lenses and try more than one aperture
to see what effect it had on the sharpness of the image?

Wes
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Kerby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2003
On 7/22/03 1:27 AM, in article
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed), "Todd Walker"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> All of the camera magazines are raving about the
> Tamron lens and compared to the Canon 50 it looks pretty bad. Of course
> you are comparing a 10x zoom to a prime so I guess if you take that into
> account, it's not too bad but the difference is quite significant.

Todd, in most all occasions a zoom will NEVER compete with a prime. You gain
on one hand but lose on the other. That's thje reason I pull what's left of
my hair when someone starts talking about how GREAT their Smegma 50-500mm...


__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lionel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2003
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:43:42 -0700, in
<SW5Ta.13787$Bp2.10914@fed1read07>, "Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>Someone else figured out the discrepancy:
>The images in the first link are full res.
>The images in the second are smaller as I reported.
>So... I guess we're both right.
>


So it would seem.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Chien
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2003
Is it a focusing issue?

Wondering if you tried to focus manually with the 28-300 and/or use a
f/stop of f/11-32 in order to minimize softness caused by slight misfocus.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
test test test richard Computer Support 3 01-24-2007 05:18 AM
TEST TEST Test...Blah Blah Blah generalbatguano@pacbell.net Computer Support 2 09-15-2006 03:47 AM
TEST TEST Test...Blah Blah Blah Generalbatguano@pacbell.net Computer Support 6 09-13-2006 01:53 AM
TEST TEST TEST Gazwad Computer Support 2 09-05-2003 07:32 PM
test test test test test test test Computer Support 2 07-02-2003 06:02 PM



Advertisments