Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > image stabilization

Reply
Thread Tools

image stabilization

 
 
Charles Schuler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005

"Paul Wylie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:crf6qf$co2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Charles Schuler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg

>
> Very nice. Is that a full-res crop, or a resize? When I view the images
> I've shot at full-res, they're fuzzy[1], but if I resize them, they look
> fine.


It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.

> [1] By fuzzy, I mean that the image appears to have been upsized, or
> zoomed to 200%. A closer inspection reveals that the image looks heavily
> anti-aliased. That could be a function of the settings I used on the
> camera itself (I was in full-auto mode with default sharpening, etc.). I
> haven't tried shooting with that lens in RAW mode or using any of the
> creative zone modes yet.


The image was not shot in RAW. I have not found RAW to be worth the extra
effort for shots of this type. RAW IS worth the extra effort for scenes
with a large dynamic range.

As to the lens, yes it is a bit soft at full zoom but very acceptable based
on its cost. I find many of the comments about this lens to be far too
harsh. I have a lowly 300D camera, and if I had a 1Ds MKII, I'd definitely
get a better lens. In other words, consider a chain which always breaks at
the weakest link (no sense in adding one super-strong link).


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
leo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
Charles Schuler wrote:
> "Paul Wylie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:crf6qf$co2$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Charles Schuler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
>>>http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg

>>
>>Very nice. Is that a full-res crop, or a resize? When I view the images
>>I've shot at full-res, they're fuzzy[1], but if I resize them, they look
>>fine.

>
>
> It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.
>
>
>>[1] By fuzzy, I mean that the image appears to have been upsized, or
>>zoomed to 200%. A closer inspection reveals that the image looks heavily
>>anti-aliased. That could be a function of the settings I used on the
>>camera itself (I was in full-auto mode with default sharpening, etc.). I
>>haven't tried shooting with that lens in RAW mode or using any of the
>>creative zone modes yet.

>
>
> The image was not shot in RAW. I have not found RAW to be worth the extra
> effort for shots of this type. RAW IS worth the extra effort for scenes
> with a large dynamic range.
>
> As to the lens, yes it is a bit soft at full zoom but very acceptable based
> on its cost. I find many of the comments about this lens to be far too
> harsh. I have a lowly 300D camera, and if I had a 1Ds MKII, I'd definitely
> get a better lens. In other words, consider a chain which always breaks at
> the weakest link (no sense in adding one super-strong link).



The 75-300IS is alright. We, SLRers, are spoiled by Canon's L lenses'
sharpness and color. The picture quality of 75-300 at 300 (480 in 35mm
term)still beats many compact cameras.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charles Schuler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2005

> The 75-300IS is alright. We, SLRers, are spoiled by Canon's L lenses'
> sharpness and color. The picture quality of 75-300 at 300 (480 in 35mm
> term)still beats many compact cameras.


I'll go so far as to say that it easily beats most of the compact cameras
and at least equals the best of them. OK, now I have opened the flood
gates. Flame away!

Been to several camera stores and experimented with the extreme zoom
compacts and found that auto focus is not good. Auto focus is not all that
great on the 75-300 IS at full zoom but noticeably better than the compacts!
Can't comment on super zoom compact results (actual photos), however.


 
Reply With Quote
 
cqdx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2005
Thanks guys for all of your help. Greatly appreciated.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Wylie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2005
Robert R Kircher, Jr. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> What are you using to view the images? I had the same problem and finally
> traced it down to the picture viewer supplied with Microsoft Office 2003.
> ALL my images looked just ever so slightly blurry but if I resized them a
> bit they snap in quite nicely. Since I've stopped using that as my main
> image viewer and now use the software supplied by Canon.


I'm using Photoshop Elements 2.0 (for now--I'm about to upgrade to 3.0).
I don't have that problem with shots I've taken with any other lens.
Shots taken with the kit lens are plenty sharp, even when viewed at 200%.
Shots taken with the 50 mm f1.8 USM are even sharper (naturally).

> BTW: I've moved to RAW (didn't take long) and it's by far the way to go. I
> use Capture One to adjust the RAW images prior to saving them as JPEGs.


I shot quite a few photos in RAW when I had the A2, and quickly decided it
wasn't worth the hassle. PSE 3.0 has native RAW support, so I might use
RAW more when I upgrade to PSE 3.0, but for now, I'm not mucking with it
much.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Wylie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2005
Charles Schuler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.


So you haven't resized it at all? Were you at full zoom when you shot
that image? If so, then maybe my 75-300 is defective, because I would
definitely be able to see artifacts at full zoom with an image displayed
at 100% resolution.

[...]
> As to the lens, yes it is a bit soft at full zoom but very acceptable
> based on its cost. I find many of the comments about this lens to be
> far too harsh. I have a lowly 300D camera, and if I had a 1Ds MKII,
> I'd definitely get a better lens. In other words, consider a chain
> which always breaks at the weakest link (no sense in adding one
> super-strong link).


I'm not a good enough photographer yet to take advantage of a better
camera body, but I'd imagine that just about any camera could benefit from
sharper glass with a wider aperture. That said, it seems ludicrous to
think about putting a $1700 (or dramatically more expensive) lens on the
lowest-end DSLR on the market.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2005


Paul Wylie wrote:
>
> Charles Schuler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.

>
> So you haven't resized it at all? Were you at full zoom when you shot
> that image? If so, then maybe my 75-300 is defective, because I would
> definitely be able to see artifacts at full zoom with an image displayed
> at 100% resolution.


'Artifacts' are produced by post-image processing in digital images,
including 'display artifacts' with some image viewers which aren't
actually in the image itself.

AKAIK, lenses do not produce artifacts. They can introduce distortion,
reflections, or be unsharp, but they don't manufacture artifacts.

RAW images are the only way to eliminate processing artifacts. Also,
many zooms get an unjust reputation for being soft at the long end, when
most of the time it's due to slight mis-focusing, specially with AF.

Colin
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dalibor Bauernfrajnd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg


I don't like his facial expression, I think I'm gonna hide under my desk
Great pic!

--
Feel the Sound - www.audiofil.net
d.B.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lipsius
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2005
cqdx schreef in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera.
> Just how important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100
> more for it? Thanks, Mitch
>
>
>
>
>
>


I have a Canon S1 IS (Image Stabilizer) and was able to shoot wonderful
'close-ups' of my first encounter with a wild bear last summer. No tripod,
camera in hand, ready to run.
Believe me: it's worth the money.
 
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
Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization Al Clark Digital Photography 119 12-09-2006 01:30 PM
Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70 Alan Wonsowski Digital Photography 14 05-30-2004 03:48 PM
Long Zooms with Image Stabilization kjk Digital Photography 4 12-28-2003 12:36 PM
Which cameras have image stabilization?? JJVandJMB Digital Photography 18 10-22-2003 03:04 PM
Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization James E Kropp Digital Photography 8 08-02-2003 12:49 AM



Advertisments