henry_minsky1

All the 300D's rattle. I think it might be the orientation sensor.

It's worth getting something better than the kit lens. The camera can do much better than that lens.

 

The new Sigma 18-55/2.8 has gotten good reviews. I have the Sigma 18-125 which I think is great and a lot better than the canon kit lens.

 

They are both cheaper than the 17-40. In particular, if you're doing indoor shooting, the Sigma will be a lot faster and thus allow better natural light shots. The 17-40 also blocks the internal flash of the camera a little, casting a shadow, so an external flash would be desirable for indoor wide angle shots.

I've seen sample images taken with the 17-85 that have some of the same characteristics that I disliked abou the 18-55; a sort of plasticy look at edges, noticable purple at places like edges of roofs against the sky.

 

I am very happy now with the Sigma 18-125 for wide angle, I think it way better than the 18-55, and comes close optically with the 28-135 IS, except it doesn't have IS of course.

IN response to the comment above, FEC is super convenient with the hack, you can assign it to the "Jump" button.

Do a Google search for "russian firmware rebel", download the new firmware to a flash card, and reflash your camera with it. You'll get flash exposure compensation, ISO 3200, mirror lockup, and numerous other goodies.

 

I used it for a long time, worked perfectly, until I sold my DRebel.

Right, I understand that you might be giving up the absolute best packing, (though maybe not, if you make the pixels different sizes, like the new Fuji sensor does, which also give you potentially greater dynamic range). What I am getting at is that the objectionable moire is caused by the extremely regular nature of the sensor array. I am not arguing that you can get higher frequency response, I am saying that a randomized pattern might give you a more pleasing and psycho-perceptively sharper smoothing effect than a simple blur like the antialiasing filters now have.

 

Even grainy film does not get such glaring moire effects as these digital sensors seem to be susceptible to. That is probably due to randomized grain size and randomized placement, to break up edges and long regular runs which cause the most glaring artifacts, while individal texture detail at the pixel level could still be preserved better.

 

The human visual system is fantastic at picking out edges, or perceived edges, since it is so important for object recognition, so it seems like a sensor system which tries to break up long regular patterns will tend to prevent this particular kind of artifact better, while still allowing the pixel detail to be very sharp on average.

Sorry for the flare up of temper in that last message. But honestly sometimes I cannot believe the responses to postings here.

 

Look, the 20D has 8 MP in the same area as the 10D has 6 MP, clearly the spatial filtering has to be different. It's like reverse-engineering is some sort of crime to some people here, and asking questions or suggesting improvements to existing technical limitations is considered flaming. I don't get it. It's like talking to the pod people.

I wasn't spreading a pointless rumor, I was asking a technical question about whether a pseudo-random layout of sensor cells would help prevent optical moire effects. It seems to me it would. Perhaps it seems to you that it would not? Or perhaps you do not have enough mathemtical or engineering background to even understand the issue? If for some reason you are not able to be able to contribute a technical argument as to the merits or drawbacks of that approach then why don't you shut up?

I've heard some speculation that the antialiasing filters on the 20D

are weaker than the 10D's. I don't know if this is true or not, but I

was thinking, isn't there some way they can make the pixel layout not

so regular in order to defeat aliasing as well? The interpolation to

get the correct intensities can still be done in software, using a

table of the random offsets that are built into the sensor.

 

 

If they make the pixels in the sensor randomly offset from each other,

to decrease moire in the case of repeatedly spaced image features

wouldn't that be more like film grain?

 

I guess that would lead to slightly lower resolution as they would not

pack quite as well on the sensor surface, but it seems like it would

eliminate the severe moire effects when imaging a regular pattern

which has spatial frequency similar to the sensor spatial frequency.

It might also make for a more pleasing image, closer to what people

are used to from film grain. I find that the output of the digital

sensor sometimes looks too smooth, and that gives it slightly smeared

look, whereas the random layout of film gain seems to give things

sharper edges, paradoxically.

If you want to have a wide range of focal lengths, I've been happy with the Sigma 18-125 lens. It is quite sharp and has good contrast and color. Unless you really need 200mm and longer? I find I need the wide end more than the telephoto these days for what I do.

I've got the Sigma 18-125 lens for my digital SLR, and I like it a lot.

 

But I have found that I am using wide angle a lot these days, and I am

wondering if there is significant improvement to be had in the image

quality by moving to the Tamron 17-35 or the Canon 17-40. If the

Tamron is close to the Canon performance, I would prefer the extra

speed of course.

 

Does anyone have any pointers to any side-by-side comparisons of the

Sigma 18-125 at wide angle with either the Tamron or the Canon?

I have a Pentax Super ME camera and I noticed that little flakes of

foam from around the mirror seal seem to be getting into the camera.

What is the best way to get this fixed? I'm not sure I want to try to

disassemble and replace the seals myself. Is there anyone recommended

who does this kind of operation for a reasonable price?

If you install the Russian modified firmware for the 300D, you get a nice mirror lockup feature. When enabled, you press the shutter button and the mirror locks up and there is a two second delay, and then the shutter fires.

I do not recommend the 18-55 kit lens, at least not the one that came with the DRebel. It was disappointing because it had visible blur and aberration of objects which were further than about six feet from the lens. It made nice portraits if you were up close, and had an almost macro capability for really close shots. But for landscapes, outdoors, etc, it was not a happy experience.

 

I have a 50mm/1.8 which I use as my benchmark for what I could expect from a lens in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color saturation.

 

I've found that I am happier with the Sigma 18-125 for wide angle than I ever was with the 18-55. It is sharper, has better color and contrast, and has the 55-125 range that the kit lens did not.

 

It also has a nicer feel for zoom and a better focus grip (not FTM). I don't mind it's autofocus, although it's a little jarring compared to the USM on my 28-135 IS.

Looks like a piece of dust.

 

I have gotten the cleaning procedure down to where it takes me less than a minute. I have a supply of "Pec pads", and Eclipse cleaning fluid, and a rubber spatula that I cut down to the width of the sensor.

 

I just take a pad, wrap it around the spatula, tape it with scotch tape wrapped around the pad, put two drops of fluid on the end of the pad, and swab it across the sensor twice.

 

It usually works the first time to get rid of all big spots.

It's not the sensitivity that's the issue, it's more the fact that sensitivity is so high that the noise becomes comparable and then dominant to the signal level. So if you can reduce the noise, it's more important than increasing sensitivity at that point.

They have these cheap thermoelectric coolers now, used for everything from refrigerators to CPU coolers. I wonder if a digital camera with the sensor cooled would have significantly less noise? I imagine you could get pretty cold without destroying things too much from thermal expansion mismatch. It would take extra battery power, but I wonder if you could get ISO 3200 to look like ISO 100 or something.

Y'know it occurred to me that that first photo that is posted above is really great because it shows both an interior and and an exterior in the same photo. It's like having two photos in one. That's one of the techniques I think I'll put on my list of "how to make a photo that is interesting in forty years".

 

I'm not suggesting that taking photos for posterity is the only goal, just that it seems like there are steps that can be taken such that the photo both captures what you want today, and will contain information which is of more interest to others later. And "others" includes ourselves, because we are different people 40 years later, and will be looking for things in the pictures that we don't think of today.

 

The comment above about capturing the ephemeral rather than the constant really hits the nail on the head. What's most valuable is the stuff that is gone and won't come back. If the childhood house has been torn down, then a photo of it in the background is that much more powerful. Or if the streetcar has been torn down, then a picture of you riding it, with the clothes and hairstyles of your fellow riders, makes it very evocative.

It's funny you should mention the car. I have some pictures I took a little while ago where I was thinking "this would be a great picture except it has the car sitting there as the background". Now I can see it's something that will make the image more personal and special later.

That's a good example of a photo that contains a lot of "metadata", or self-describing information. It's got a person in it who is probably the main subject, but it has all kinds of details which place it in time and space. The cmodel of car outside, the furniture style, clothing, the metal alarm strips around the window, the style of woodwork, etc.

 

I wonder if there is a way to train yourself to take pictures that have this kind of self-descriptive or self-identifying information in them. It would be something I want to create for people who view it a long time from now.

 

 

I am wondering what other users here think would make a photograph that has that kind of anchor in a time and place?

I recently found some photos from 40 years ago, of my house when I

was a baby. I was annoyed that my parents had only taken pictures of

the kids filling the frame, when I would have liked to see the rooms

of the house, the cars outside, the stores down the street, etc.

 

When you take a photo today, what do you think people will want to

see in it forty years from now, that is different than what you

think you want to capture now?

If you want to find no people you can get up at 5 AM, and there will few people on the streets. Businesses open rather late by USA standards (10 AM) in many cases so mornings are a good time to get some space.

 

There are also some O-bon holidays when Tokyo is much less crowded than usual, as people travel to their hometowns (sort of like Thanksgiving).

 

There are lots of "out of the way" places in Tokyo; the crowds tend to stay in the crowded places (Shibuya, Shinjuku, etc), leaving streets just a few blocks away very empty.

 

 

The key for me is serendipity, you just wander around or take a new route or walk between subway stops instead of taking the train, and you always run into unique and interesting places.

I had the 18-55 and found it to be very good for a very limited range of pictures; it does portraits of people and things who are up to six feet away very well, but stuff that is further away seems to look kind of soft and has visible aberrations.

 

I sold it and got the Sigma 18-125, which give me wide angle plus it has better contrast and sharpness I found.

The mirror lockup fires the shutter after a two second delay using the Russian firmware hack on the 300D. That kind of removes all the advantage of the DSLR low shutter lag. So I would find it annoying to keep it on all the time. If you've got the camera on a tripod, and you're framing a shot carefully, that's obviously more in line with what MLU is all about, and the delay won't bother you.

 

As someone pointed out, switching to multi-shot mode overrides this, so that's not a bad way to go, you can switch into it with one button push, it's that just you may get two shots fired now and then if you hold the button down.

It only takes me two minutes to clean my sensor. I wrap and scotch tape a pec-pad around a silcone rubber kitchen spatula that I have cut down to exactly the right width. I drop three drops of lens cleaner on it and wipe twice. I don't find it nerve-wracking at all anymore. And as my technique has improved, I find I usually get a perfectly clean sensor with just two swabs of the pad.