No �Wow!�

Due to poor planning on my part, my 40D and 24-105 f/4 L lens arrived just a day

before my vacation in Europe. I charged the battery, packed my bags, and read

the instruction manual on the plane ride over. Since the camera and lens have

such good reputations, I expected �Wow!� when I viewed the images after

returning. But there was no �wow.� The images seem only slightly better than the

images from my point & shoot, and many aren�t as good. I shot large jpegs and a

variety of settings.

 

I suspect the problem is

 

a) the photographer,

 

b) the equipment, or

 

c) all of the above.

 

My vote is on a), but would you mind taking a look at this image

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=603115

 

and telling me if it looks like it should?

 

This image isn�t from my vacation. It�s just a RAW image in Standard picture

style and all I did was send it to Photoshop from DPP, re-sample to 1500 x 1000

pixels, convert to 8-bit and save as a jpeg for uploading. Does it look like it

should?

 

Many thanks,

"Wow" factor depends upon the photographer, not the camera.

Looking at its levels shows that it is underexposed.

 

Tweaking levels improves things somewhat, and adding a touch of saturation and sharpening

does a bit more. In truth, though, it's not an inspiring scene.

 

RAW shots let you do a lot of work on manipulating the image very easily - it would be good

for you to get hold of a book on RAW to find out how to optimise shots at taking time in order

to make the most of them later.<div></div>

Dave,

 

A.

 

There are a few issues with the example you posted.

 

First, the exposure looks off, which probably had something to do with all that darkness is the foreground trees, but is also probably mostly just my eyes taking issue to the time of day. Try experimenting with all the metering modes to see which works best with which type of scene. What camera settings were used to make this photo, and please list all you can?

 

Second, the time of day you made the exposure isn't ideal for most types of photography.

 

Third, I assume this was just a demo, but if it wasn't, the composition could use some work.

 

Keep in mind that the shift from P&S to dSLR is a significant one in terms of the learning curve. I seriously recommend some good books on photography, because P&S cameras don't really encourage proper phtoographic technique, especially when it comes to exposure and aperture control. The WOW is your responsibility.

There is no "wow" factor in a lens. Lenses are pretty much just things with objective

qualities and features.

Ignore that darkness in the trees comment, I've twisted myself backwards.

Actually I think the lens did a decent job. The image seems sharp. You just need to know how to process your images better.<div></div>

In optimum conditions (e.g., landscapes in bright sunlight) digicams and high-end gear often produce pretty much "perfect" results. Virtually any camera does -- even old box cameras. It's when the light/conditions are not perfect that the cameras distinguish each other. Professional camera bodies and the very best lenses vastly extend the potential shooting range. E.g., reasonable low light is no big deal for a fast lens and a dSLR with good ergonomics, but a digicam will possibly produce only disappointing pictures -- no matter what skill you have. Or while a small compact may take one or two decent sports pictures, for consistently excellent results a high-speed pro camera with L glass is needed.

 

But it remains a fact that most amateur photographers are unable to fully realize the possible capability of their cameras -- be it due to lack of skill, counter-intuitive ergonomics or laziness. An excellent point-and-shoot (i.e., Canon's A and G series) may be the better and more economic alternative for those photographers -- these cameras are very, very good with many sophisticated features.

"Wow" factor depends upon the photographer, not the camera."

 

Pretty much true for 90% of an image -- e.g., the Wow Photog knows how best to utilize light, and in this totally digital world, how to post process in Photoshop to achieve some "wows".

 

The 24-105 4L is not a "wow" lens. It's a slow, kit, catch-all, long throw zoom lens. There are so many better lenses optically speaking in that range.

 

And re-read what Ken M. wrote.

My guess is unrealistic expectations are the cause of the problem.

 

In good light when you can use low ISO settings, a good P&S will produce a very nice image. Some of them have excellent lenses.

One more take at yours, edited in an old copy of PS CS2:

 

1. Levels corrected 2. Unsharp mask with large radius at 30% strength

 

3. Shadows/highlight "corrections" and, 4. a slight BLUE saturation increase.<div></div>

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the comments.

 

This was just a "walk out the front door and take a picture" exercise to test the camera. I didn't worry about composition, lighting or metering and I didn't do any levels, curves or sharpening in Photoshop.

 

And it served it's purpose.

 

I didn't get any "You got a bad lens" or "Your camera is defective" comments, which indicates you think the camera did what it was supposed to do under these circumstances. Now I just have to add the "Wow!" myself. I think I still have some around here from my old film days.

 

Thanks again!

Dave

Every time I've purchased a new camera - and this goes back a long time - the quality of my images went down for a while. I believe the the reason for that is that I'm concentrating more on the new equipment than I am on the image itself. Once the newness wears off, my images improve again.

There's no wow factor because of more than just exposure and post processing. The

composition is not very good, The snow cap is stuck in the center of the photo, there's

a tree right in the middle of the snow cap, the foreground trees are not very interesting.

It's a snapshot at best. It's what the camera was told to see and it captured it rather

acurately. Any PS camera good, bad or indifferent could have taken this shot and it

would have looked the same. This happens so often when people think it's the camera.

So they go out and buy a suggested PRO camera, spend a lot of money for the PRO

and are dissapointed. Maybe he needs a full frame camera to get the WOW factor.

Dave,

 

Can you post an example of a photo from your vacation that you aren't satisfied with? It would help a lot in assessing if your problems are just post-processing relating, or technique related, because demo shots only make sure the camera is working right.

The 40d did not give much different IQ than 20d, or if comparing std size prints, if fact pretty much as my pentax did early `70`s, if it did make me go Wow, I`d wonder what I did wrong for decades. P S cams are boasted to hell with saturation and sharpness and so lil DR. Now you have the chance to creat your own great images with time and patiece. Don`t expect too much tho at first.

 

have fun :)

It is quite possible to produce "wow" photographs with the 24-105 lens, though using

this lens - or any other lens - will not have much to do with any perceived "wow" quality

in the final photograph.

I relate to Phil Winter, each model takes time to adjust to, I did find the 40d dissapointing straight out of the box compared to my original D30 20d and others in between, once adjusting the picture styles to suit me, it was fine. You don`t hop in and drive a new car till you adjust the seat and steering wheel to suit your driving style, 40d the same

 

enjoy it

For landscape and travel photography lighting is very important (and far more important than the camera). The light in this picture is very flat and all the tweaking of exposure and photoshop post processing will never make it a truly "wow" kind of shot.

 

Ken's comments on the 24-105 f4 L strike me as nonsense.

I think the shot looks fine. It has a good tonal range and no artifacts (fringing, etc). This is the sort of file you want as a starting point for post-processing. It's easy to increase contrast and brightness to make the image punchier.

Geoff, what part of this is nonsense: The 24-105 4L is not a "wow" lens. It's a slow, kit, catch-all, long throw zoom lens. There are so many better lenses optically speaking in that range.

 

Are you saying it's the best lens in that range? Are you saying it's a fast lens? Are you saying a more than 4:1 zoom has not many inherent trade-offs in its design and optical rendering? It's a kit lens for the 5D more or less. I'd be interested in why you think I am full of it.

Users of the 24-105 f4L (and I am one) report that it is one of the best zooms they have used.

 

Sure it is exactly 1 stop slower than Canon's f2.8 zooms. That may matter to some, but it is hardly a deal breaker for many. How often does anyone shoot a landscape at f2.8?

 

Are you saying that the 24-105 L doesn't produces images comparable to other Canon L zooms? Are you saying that because it is bundled as a kit with the 5D that it must be like Canon's other kit lenses such as the 18-55 zoom? Are you saying that 4:1 zoom has vastly more inherent tradeoffs in design and optical rendering than a faster 3:1 zoom such as the 24-70?

 

Are you saying that users of the 24-105 f4 L report that their photos have much more wow factor when they switch to the "so many better lenses optically speaking"? If so which are they?

This is an interesting discussion and I'm learning a lot.

 

Perhaps I should explain what I meant by "wow." I was speaking more technically than artistically. It was more of a "Wow, that's a fast computer" than "Wow, that's a beautiful website you created." I guess I expected to be more impressed with the quality of the lens and camera sensor than I was. Does that make sense?

So what are some better lenses in this range? Every lens is a trade off in one way or

another.

The 24-105 is not much of a WOW lens at 24 or 105, judging from photozone. It is a 3.5 star lens for optics. The Tamron 17-50 is great for the crop bodies.