Look ma, no jaggies...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003.

  1. After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users worst
    nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
    hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
    definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
    shot down)
    http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the shadows)
    http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
    no avail)
    http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
    "digital noise" patten?)
    http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the really
    bad CA)

    I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost can't
    see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack sharp
    CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204

    And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack of
    detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
    http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
    http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
    http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552

    Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
    total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033

    After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
    convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
    2/3rds the sensor count.
    George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. George Preddy

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <bqcklc$em0$>, "George Preddy"
    <> writes:

    >Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one




    Just another poor sd9 shot. But you seem to post pic's that
    show how bad the sigma's are. Good for you !!!



    >After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
    >convert.



    Bout Fing time...................
























    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Nov 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Preddy wrote:
    > After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users worst
    > nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
    > hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
    > definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...


    George, I'm not sure exactly what your point is on these samples, but
    you are definitely obsessing over all this. Most of us just select a
    camera, take pictures, and enjoy the result. Sometimes we look at other
    cameras for upgrade, but it is not a life obsession. You seem to be
    happy with your camera, so what's your problem? Being misunderstood? The
    rest of the world doesn't understand how great the Foveon is? Well, so
    what? THe technology will take care of itself, if it actually is
    superior. Just show us a few of your pix every once in a while, but not
    to the extent of Annika.

    I am fascinated by the SD9 and the Foveon, it does seem to produce some
    really great stuff, but it does at times exhibit some problems, as do
    all cameras. It will be interesting to see whether brute force (i.e.
    megapixels) wins out over more sophisticated chip technology and image
    processing. It would also be very interesting if the SD10 had more
    pixels than the current chip, to get under the aliasing threshold at
    higher resolutions, but probably hard to do.

    I think the standards for judgement of digital imaging are fairly
    obvious - resolution would be foremost, with more megapixels producing
    the capability of larger images, to a certain point. Beyond that, I
    believe that the noise factor is the most important, because digital
    imaging has the potential for grain-free imaging that film finds very
    difficult, except with very large format, heavy cameras. It is these
    creamy smooth, super sharp images that are so compelling about digital.
    And also low noise is very important in dredging out the last bit of
    detail from the darker areas of the images. On top of those two
    requirements, add dynamic range as the final frontier, and you've got
    yerself a camera!

    Let's talk honestly and straightforwardly about these factors and not
    get into hyperbole about our favorite camera or technology. For example,
    I love my Oly E20 but I am a little disappointed in the new E1 for its
    noise control. If you have some statements about your SD9 w respect to
    the above points, state them in a calm, objective manner, and I would be
    willing to listen. But don't get into these bitch slapping sessions any
    more - it doesn't help anything and pisses off more people than
    convinces them.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Nov 30, 2003
    #3
  4. George Preddy

    jriegle Guest

    Nice shots! If your comparing cameras to one another, your comparison is
    flawed. The "original" sized shots are much larger with the 10D, around
    3,000 pixels on the long axis. The SD9 shots are only 2268 pixels. The
    images should be sized the same for a better representation. The cameras
    really need to be side by side shooting at the same subject for the best
    comparison.

    The Tiger Woods shot seems to have some side to side motion blur. The shots
    you call blurry were shot at f/22. Shooting at such small apertures will
    cause an optical phenomenon called diffraction to be prominent and blur the
    image.

    You comment on the 10D's dynamic range, yet you show us a SD9 image with
    blown out whites (see the shot ending in 204). Also, the SD9 or its user was
    afraid to show the blacks correctly in most of the images. Everything is
    murky grey. In any case, the dynamic range of digital is like that of slide
    film. It is easy to blow out highlights or lose detail in dark areas if one
    is not careful.
    John

    >"George Preddy" <> wrote in message

    news:bqcklc$em0$...
    > After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

    worst
    > nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
    > hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
    > definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
    > shot down)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

    shadows)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
    > no avail)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
    > "digital noise" patten?)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

    really
    > bad CA)
    >
    > I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

    can't
    > see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

    sharp
    > CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
    >
    > And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack

    of
    > detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
    >
    > Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
    > total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
    >
    > After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
    > convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
    > 2/3rds the sensor count.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    jriegle, Nov 30, 2003
    #4
  5. George Preddy

    Hans Kruse Guest

    Also I'm not sure what you try to prove. I would agree that the examples you
    found were not the best quality, maybe the lenses were poor quality.
    See this one from my 10D and a Sigma 15-30mm EX DG lens. Although this lens
    has some weaknesses and do produce blurry imnages at certain focal lengths
    and aperture, like close to 30mm and each end of the aperture range, I find
    it a quite excellent lens. So look at this one here i original format.
    http://www.pbase.com/image/23755970/large If you browse through my galery
    from Yosemite and Mono Lake you will find a mix of quite sharp pictures and
    some that are not completely sharp. Some actually taken at 30mm with the
    Sigma lens.
    Cheers and have fun,
    Hans

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bqcklc$em0$...
    > After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

    worst
    > nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
    > hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
    > definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
    > shot down)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

    shadows)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
    > no avail)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
    > "digital noise" patten?)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

    really
    > bad CA)
    >
    > I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

    can't
    > see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

    sharp
    > CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
    >
    > And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack

    of
    > detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
    >
    > Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
    > total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
    >
    > After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
    > convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
    > 2/3rds the sensor count.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Hans Kruse, Nov 30, 2003
    #5
  6. George Preddy

    MikeWhy Guest

    'jaggies' is now on the list of bad words.

    Do a fella favor. Please tag the subject lines with [preddy] so I can ignore
    this nonsense more efficiently.
    MikeWhy, Nov 30, 2003
    #6
  7. George Preddy

    Guest Guest

    Congratulations - you too can spot a poor photograph. Though for some
    reason, only when the poor ones come from a non Sigma.



    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bqcklc$em0$...
    > After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

    worst
    > nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
    > hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
    > definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
    > shot down)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

    shadows)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
    > no avail)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
    > "digital noise" patten?)
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

    really
    > bad CA)
    >
    > I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

    can't
    > see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

    sharp
    > CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
    >
    > And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack

    of
    > detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
    >
    > Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
    > total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
    >
    > After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
    > convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
    > 2/3rds the sensor count.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Guest, Dec 1, 2003
    #7
  8. George Preddy

    Giorgis Guest

    OK OK ... I propose a final and definative test.

    We put a whole bunch of cropped digital photos.
    George Preddy and he alone will tell us which have the best colour
    rendition.

    Then we reviel the exif info proving if they are from a Sigma or another
    camera.


    Your thaughts

    How about a double blind, how about we wend the original photos to
    George in a password protected file so he cannot claim we doctored the exif
    after he chose all the sigma photos.

    George



    "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote in message
    news:jgDyb.8740$...
    > Congratulations - you too can spot a poor photograph. Though for some
    > reason, only when the poor ones come from a non Sigma.
    >
    >
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bqcklc$em0$...
    > > After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

    > worst
    > > nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is

    no
    > > hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
    > > definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this

    great
    > > shot down)
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

    > shadows)
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but

    to
    > > no avail)
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that

    hip
    > > "digital noise" patten?)
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

    > really
    > > bad CA)
    > >
    > > I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

    > can't
    > > see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

    > sharp
    > > CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
    > >
    > > And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the

    lack
    > of
    > > detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
    > >
    > > Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack

    of
    > > total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
    > >
    > > After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
    > > convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
    > > 2/3rds the sensor count.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Giorgis, Dec 1, 2003
    #8
  9. "Giorgis" <> wrote in message
    news:3fcb0241$0$20488$...
    > OK OK ... I propose a final and definative test.
    >
    > We put a whole bunch of cropped digital photos.
    > George Preddy and he alone will tell us which have the best colour
    > rendition.
    >
    > Then we reviel the exif info proving if they are from a Sigma or another
    > camera.
    >
    >
    > Your thaughts


    I think you're dreaming, there is no way our resident Bayer DSLR owners
    would ever, under any circumstances agree to a fair resolution or sharpness
    test, they won't even post a full sized image--I had to hunt for an hour on
    pbase just to find those.

    Nice idea, but you are making the erroneous assumption that they don't
    really understand that the 10.3MP SD9 blows 6MP DSLRs out of the water and
    off the beach. They know it full well, they just don't like it.
    George Preddy, Dec 1, 2003
    #9
  10. George Preddy

    Guest Guest

    > Nice idea, but you are making the erroneous assumption that they don't
    > really understand that the 10.3MP SD9 blows 6MP DSLRs out of the water and
    > off the beach. They know it full well, they just don't like it.
    >


    On the contrary. The 3.4MP SD9 blows monkeys. We can't help it if you are
    colour blind as well as edge-obsessed.
    Guest, Dec 1, 2003
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Giorgis Guest

    Listen GP ... all you want is attention. It is a simple test of a piece
    of equipment. You are not in a relationship. No matter what the merits of a
    camera, there is no reason for it to dominate ones attention. In any event,
    I recon a simple test, to your specs that others agree is acceptable should
    settle this. There is one problem though. we need to find people that have
    SD9s ... don't tell me SD9 camera users don't have faith. As few of them as
    there may be.

    Giorgis



    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bqf78l$8in$...
    >
    > "Giorgis" <> wrote in message
    > news:3fcb0241$0$20488$...
    > > OK OK ... I propose a final and definative test.
    > >
    > > We put a whole bunch of cropped digital photos.
    > > George Preddy and he alone will tell us which have the best colour
    > > rendition.
    > >
    > > Then we reviel the exif info proving if they are from a Sigma or another
    > > camera.
    > >
    > >
    > > Your thaughts

    >
    > I think you're dreaming, there is no way our resident Bayer DSLR owners
    > would ever, under any circumstances agree to a fair resolution or

    sharpness
    > test, they won't even post a full sized image--I had to hunt for an hour

    on
    > pbase just to find those.
    >
    > Nice idea, but you are making the erroneous assumption that they don't
    > really understand that the 10.3MP SD9 blows 6MP DSLRs out of the water and
    > off the beach. They know it full well, they just don't like it.
    >
    >
    Giorgis, Dec 1, 2003
    #11
  12. "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote in message
    news:Z4Gyb.10531$...
    > > Nice idea, but you are making the erroneous assumption that they don't
    > > really understand that the 10.3MP SD9 blows 6MP DSLRs out of the water

    and
    > > off the beach. They know it full well, they just don't like it.
    > >

    >
    > On the contrary. The 3.4MP SD9 blows monkeys. We can't help it if you are
    > colour blind as well as edge-obsessed.


    Then where's your resolution test shot? All talk, no pics...
    George Preddy, Dec 1, 2003
    #12
  13. "Giorgis" <> wrote in message
    news:3fcb31e2$0$13498$...
    > Listen GP ... all you want is attention.


    All I want is, a full color picture of this chart from some other DSLRs, in
    accordance with the parameters outlined here...

    http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/resolution_chart

    It will never happen.

    Do I mind? No.

    In this case, the lack of a picture says more than a picture ever could.
    George Preddy, Dec 1, 2003
    #13
  14. George Preddy

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <bqfas8$ckf$>, "George Preddy"
    <> writes:

    >Do I mind? No.


    Liar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    If you didnt mind, than you would NOT keep resposting all the crap, and
    lies that you comtinue to do here !!!

    If you didnt care, you wouldnt have presisted in this for soo long.


















    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Dec 1, 2003
    #14
  15. "Azzz1588" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <bqfas8$ckf$>, "George Preddy"
    > <> writes:
    >
    > >Do I mind? No.

    >
    > Liar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    I love that you can't post a Bayer image for fear of comparison to Foveon.
    George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
    #15
  16. "Hans Kruse" <> wrote in message
    news:3fca3ab9$0$154$...
    > Also I'm not sure what you try to prove. I would agree that the examples

    you
    > found were not the best quality, maybe the lenses were poor quality.
    > See this one from my 10D and a Sigma 15-30mm EX DG lens. Although this

    lens
    > has some weaknesses and do produce blurry imnages at certain focal lengths
    > and aperture, like close to 30mm and each end of the aperture range, I

    find
    > it a quite excellent lens. So look at this one here i original format.
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/23755970/large


    Pretty shot. Kind of a lot of jaggies for a no-jaggie thread, though.

    > If you browse through my galery
    > from Yosemite and Mono Lake you will find a mix of quite sharp pictures

    and
    > some that are not completely sharp. Some actually taken at 30mm with the
    > Sigma lens.


    I see some really nice shots, but the only sharp ones have been downsized.
    Can you post some of those in original size?
    George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
    #16
  17. "jriegle" <> wrote in message
    news:7xqyb.132575$...
    > Nice shots! If your comparing cameras to one another, your comparison is
    > flawed. The "original" sized shots are much larger with the 10D, around
    > 3,000 pixels on the long axis. The SD9 shots are only 2268 pixels. The
    > images should be sized the same for a better representation. The cameras
    > really need to be side by side shooting at the same subject for the best
    > comparison.


    That's a good point, though on sensor count alone the 10D still wouldn't
    stand much of a chance, 3.43M pixels is still more than twice the amount of
    full color data it captures. And to concede it can't support 6M
    interpolated output is really to admit there is no optical benefit to having
    only 6M sensors vice 10M.

    > The Tiger Woods shot seems to have some side to side motion blur. The

    shots
    > you call blurry were shot at f/22. Shooting at such small apertures will
    > cause an optical phenomenon called diffraction to be prominent and blur

    the
    > image.


    It's the way high noise level at ISO 400 that I find really shocking. Those
    pants are on fire. The 10D is a very noisey camera, even the posted
    dpreview sample shots are really noisey, as they declare the camera
    completely noise free. This really noisey shot is ISO 400 effective (ISO
    800 pulled 1 EV on camera)...
    http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos10d_samples1/originals/030329-1548-
    22.jpg

    Certainly not pro quality, looks like a prosumer Bayer. Really blurry too,
    at close range.

    ISO 800 is totally out of the question...
    http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos10d_samples1/originals/CRW_8385_RJ.
    JPG

    ISO 400 is too noisey in low light...
    http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos10d_samples1/originals/030316-1520-
    37.jpg

    Very blurry too. Though it would probably downsize nicely to a proper
    1.58MP--de-interpolated--if there is such a word.

    > You comment on the 10D's dynamic range, yet you show us a SD9 image with
    > blown out whites (see the shot ending in 204). Also, the SD9 or its user

    was
    > afraid to show the blacks correctly in most of the images. Everything is
    > murky grey. In any case, the dynamic range of digital is like that of

    slide
    > film. It is easy to blow out highlights or lose detail in dark areas if

    one
    > is not careful.


    Yeah, that one was way overexposed, pulled back a lot. Definitely a RAW
    save.
    George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
    #17
  18. George Preddy

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <bqh080$jq8$>, "George Preddy"
    <> writes:

    >I love that you can't post a Bayer image for fear of comparison to Foveon.




    You are still a moron who forgets what he reads the moment he reads it.

    I have a C 4040Z asshole, not a DSLR !!!

    You want a full C 4040Z image, than let me know.


    BTW... You didnt address the question, if you dont care, than why keep
    posting ????

    Is it obiviously that you DO care, if only for ego reasons ????



    Reason I'm in on this thread, is I WANT a DSLR, and was looking
    at what is out there. YOU have now made my decision easy.

    For a "starter" DSLR, I'm thinking of a Nikon 100, or the Cannon
    either Rebel, or (gulp) a 10D

    But you, and you alone have cnvinced me that the sd9 and sd 10
    are far from ready for prime time.
    I could almost live with the jaggies, but the incredibly screwed up
    color rendition is too much for me !!!!!!!!

    I have you to thank for helping me make a decision here.






















    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Dec 2, 2003
    #18
  19. George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
    #19
  20. George Preddy

    Hans Kruse Guest

    Thanks and I uploaded a full quality jpeg image of the same picture (around
    5MB). I don't see jaggies, but I do some less than perfect sharpness at 1:1
    pixel to screnn pixel. I'm not sure if this is just slight blurring as it
    was not taken on a tripod and probably not at the sharpest focal length and
    aperture.
    I have just purchased and got a Sigma 50mm macro lens which should be one of
    the sharpest lenses around. When I get some good light I will test using
    this lens. It's so dark around here so can hardly take pictures at the
    moment.
    The full resolution pictures take up quite a lot of space and that is why I
    don't generally upload the full version. But if there is a specific picture
    then I can upload than one.
    --Hans

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bqi7ui$fdo$...
    >
    > "Hans Kruse" <> wrote in message
    > news:3fca3ab9$0$154$...
    > > Also I'm not sure what you try to prove. I would agree that the examples

    > you
    > > found were not the best quality, maybe the lenses were poor quality.
    > > See this one from my 10D and a Sigma 15-30mm EX DG lens. Although this

    > lens
    > > has some weaknesses and do produce blurry imnages at certain focal

    lengths
    > > and aperture, like close to 30mm and each end of the aperture range, I

    > find
    > > it a quite excellent lens. So look at this one here i original format.
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/23755970/large

    >
    > Pretty shot. Kind of a lot of jaggies for a no-jaggie thread, though.
    >
    > > If you browse through my galery
    > > from Yosemite and Mono Lake you will find a mix of quite sharp pictures

    > and
    > > some that are not completely sharp. Some actually taken at 30mm with the
    > > Sigma lens.

    >
    > I see some really nice shots, but the only sharp ones have been downsized.
    > Can you post some of those in original size?
    >
    >
    Hans Kruse, Dec 2, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul H.

    Re: G3 jaggies

    Paul H., Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    409
    Paul H.
    Jul 28, 2003
  2. Allegro

    Re: G3 jaggies

    Allegro, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    394
    Allegro
    Jul 28, 2003
  3. K2

    Few noteworthy jaggies here, either

    K2, Dec 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,099
    George Preddy
    Dec 11, 2003
  4. Petey

    Jaggies

    Petey, Feb 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    923
    Bart van der Wolf
    Feb 22, 2004
  5. certsnsearches

    G6 jaggies

    certsnsearches, Dec 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    329
    Dave Martindale
    Dec 12, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page