erik_p1

<p>Rebecca - I just had that problem today. Finally, it started working again after I turned it on and off several times leaving the flash up. Now it seems to work fine, so hopefully yours is ok too. It is irritating because even though the flash is up, it won't fire. Additionally, when I put a flash in the hot shoe it wouldn't work in TTL mode, but when I switched to manual it did fire. However, the camera did not recognize that it was there so all the exposure required guessing what flash power to use.<br>

Subsequently the built in flash started working again.</p>

<p>Wow. Graham, that was a wonderful answer. </p>

<p>Well, the question is pretty ridiculous. You have been told that there is more information in RAW data then jpeg and that this gives you more latitude and choices for processing. <br>

What do you not understand?<br>

What specifically could have been better in RAW? Anything/everything. These are fine pictures, unless you have a raw file to play with, you will never know how much better they could be. <br>

On the flip side, What could be better about a jpeg capture that than capturing in RAW? Nothing if you are competent in using a raw converter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Looks like you found a good solution. Excellent!</p>

<p>I find DxO flawed for the reasons Luminous Landscape indicate - no resolution and no price info. However, I played around with their spread sheet and thought it was pretty much worthless and this doesn't help much either. <br /> But then I don't really care either. Unless things really get out of whack, I am only buying Canon anyway as that is the system I have been using for 20 years, and within Canon I know what I want and what I want that I can't afford.</p>

<p>Thanks. That is great. I saw your spreadsheet several years ago. It is nice that you are still updating. Regarding other spreadsheets- it works fine in open office- but the chart legend seems to be a little funky. other than that, it works fine.<br>

Overall, a wonderful resource with the info on hood, chronology, lens notes, etc.<br>

Thanks again</p>

<p>I find the guy's site to be very very useful and informative. He has done a lot of work here and judging by his sample pics, he knows what he is doing.<br>

For all of you questioning this guy's methods, he explains that he takes 10 -12 or more shots and choses the best one. The 3 panels are the near center, what would be the edge for a 1.6x crop camera, and the edge for a ff camera. I would rather have a full chart to compare, but then I am not paying for the bandwidth.<br>

Also, make sure you figure out correctly what you are comparing because it can be confusing.<br>

If you read his actual review of the 28-135 you will note that he indicates it is sharp and a good value but also notes barrel and pincushion distortion.<br>

His review of the 24-105 L lens indicates that it is his all around favorite lens and most highly recommended.</p>

<p>He also shows vignette tests too.</p>

Yeah picture is cool. Amazing how few floating heads and other anomalies there are.

Thank you both.

 

I guess I need to explain, I am going to have it printed commercially, say shutterfly or something. I assume the same steps apply?

 

Thanks again.

It was from a 20D, shot raw, cropped slightly, processed with DPP to a tiff file at this point

I need to print a picture fairly large, and have never done so -

 

What do I need to do to make sure the picture looks it's best? Should I sharpen as I would for a smaller print?

Does the resolution of the saved file matter, if so how do I determine the optimum resolution?

 

Thanks

20D has much faster framerate and will get you "closer" due to the fov crop. If either of these are important, than you may want the 20D. Both of these factors are important in action/sports shots.

 

Otherwise the 5 will be better as described above.

 

If you are shooting raw and make manual adjustments to your shots, either will handle much better then the 350 as they have better ergonomics for these adjustments. If you are just shooting JPGs with the presets then you wont notice much difference in handling.

Shoot raw at average exposure. Copy the picture 2 times. In Canon DPP Set exposure compensation for one copy at - 2 stops, set the other copy to + 2 stops. Import into Photomatix. Create HDR. This works in Photomatix but doesn't in Photoshop.

 

It is a good too for rescuing shots in this situation.<div></div>

I have found the speed of the 20D (less lag) and FPS very helpful for sports in particular and in candid shots as well.

Here you go

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Macro-Adapter-Bellows-M42-lens-AF-Canon-EOS-20D-Rebel-3_W0QQitemZ7587452248QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

full frame ---

Here is my example 20D 75-300is at 270, f11 1/125 iso100

 

100% crop and the full frame.

I know of no alternative, but I have no problem with mine at all - except that it is rather large. I would much rather have one like the grip for the Elan 7. But my hands are a bit small.

Full image for reference

110-22 again to show<div></div>

Low Left 10-22 @ f5.6

Lower left corner at 5.6 18-55<div></div>

Original thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F1dQ&tag=

 

I tested the lenses again at a closer focus range. It appears that

the 10-22 is sharper, especially in the corners than the 18-55.

 

Could this be that the 10-22 is optimized for closer focusing?

Michael,

 

The 50 max apeture is 1.8 (that photo is at 1.8 too)

The 18-55 is 3.5-5.6. The picture is a was at 55mm at 5.6