richard_lyman

Two points which may or may not be valid. A: I don't believe the Tamron has IS as the Canon's do. Not sure on that but it's pretty useful. B: Due to this lens popularity it can be difficult to find and may have to back ordered. I was going to buy this lens a few months ago and couldn't find it anywhere with out having to wait weeks for it. I ended it up getting a Canon 17-55 EFS 2.8. I don't regret it now, but it was pricey!

Thanks again everyone for all the input, it's a lot to digest. Sorry for the long wait I had to work all day and then was doing some research and testing. I tried boosting the sharpness in the menu which got a little improvement, and tested on a newspaper as suggested. It's not that bad from say 30-55mm but gets soft towards the edges when pulled out around 18-24mm. F/8 seems the best stop.Tried my 70-300mm IS USM and it is sharper. Tried the Olympus lens and it seems sharper to me. Where I really notice it the most is in landscapes trying to include foreground and having it all sharp front to back.

 

I think over all the Canon system is better, as suggested I hit a bit of a learning curve as far as highlight clipping goes. It's probably good in the sense it will make me a better photographer. If I need a better lens so be it, I've invested this much so far and after reading all the advice I think I'll stick with it. Originally I was going to sell the Oly to defer the cost, but maybe I'll keep it and have a backup if one needs service or something. I'll start saving for an L-series!

Sorry about the run on paragraphs, I can't seem to disable them! I swear I'm using the enter/ return key.

Tried the plaint text-HTML box to no avail. I

appreciate everyones input. Just for the record, I do shoot in RAW and use Photoshop

elements 6.0 for PP, I just seem to have to do a lot more of it. I don't think it's a faulty lens, it's not out

of focus soft, it's just not as sharp (to my eyes) as the Oly's 14-45mm.

I usually shoot in Av or M. Haven't found much use for the other modes. As far as picture style either Vivid or

Monochrome. I haven't messed with the in-camera contrast or sharpness as I usually do that in PP, good idea

though. I check the histograms and have them set to come up on the display. I can usually manage the clipping

eventually, the GND filter really helps, but it's a hell of a lot of fussing around that I never used to have to

do. I swear this camera is very sensitive to highlights. I have gotten good results, it just takes forever, and

I'm used to getting it close without a lot of messing around in menus.

I'm not saying the E-500 is perfect either, the view finder is tiny, the AF hunts around and sometimes can't

lock at all in low light and the manual focus is terrible on the 14-45mm kit. The noise is also pretty bad at

higher ISO and long exposures. So you win some you lose some. Perhaps I had unrealistic expectations because it

said Canon. I can manage the clipping, I'll try the suggestions and look into a better lens. Thanks for your

input everyone.<div></div>

I recently upgraded from an Olympus E-500 to a Rebel XSi. I think I made a big mistake. Under almost every

condition I shoot under the E-500 seems to take sharper pictures and get better exposures. I mostly shoot really

wide landscapes and want edge to edge sharpness with a lot Depth of field. I mistakenly thought the Canon's 12mp

vs. the Oly's 8 mp's. would make a big difference. I am talking about the kit lenses with both cameras. The E-500

is a 14-45mm and the Canon the 18-55mm IS. The 18-55 just doesn't seem as sharp at any f-stop or focal length,

especially at infinity and around the edges where it is noticeably soft. Yes the IS is on, yes I use a tripod

when shutter speed is below 1/60 Yes I turn IS off when it's on a tripod. I

could chalk it up to a cheap lens, but

the 14-55 is an even cheaper lens! Furthermore the Canon seems to blow out highlights very easily and really

struggles with high contrast exposures. If the sky is in the scene it's washed out and the foreground is very

underexposed or vise-versa. I've tried all the metering modes, AE lock, bracketing different combos of f-stop and

shutter speed and finally resorted to a GND filter which seemed to help the problem. I realize this is an issue

with any DSLR, but Olympus seemed to handle it way better. Furthermore I find the preset modes absolutely

useless, you can't alter any parameters! Luckily I don't use them much anyway. Not to mention the Olympus seems

better constructed has an easier to use menu with a lot more options. Photography is just a hobby for me but a

very passionate one that I invest a lot of time and money into. When doing research I thought the Canon's larger

sensor, extra megapixels, live view capability, larger LCD and larger selection of higher quality lenses would be

a better choice for me to grow into as I improve and grow as a photographer. I had some extra money and I wanted

to spend on a better camera having had the Olympus for a few years. I was always drooling over the Canons and

Nikons at the camera store and figured it might not be the wisest investment but at least I'll have a camera to

grow into that has an extensive line of accessories and third party support. So now I'm having serious doubts.

extra features not withstanding, as far as I can tell the E-500 takes just as good images and is easier to use.

Do I sell the XSi, and get an E-520? Is it just the 18-55mm or do I invest another $1000 bucks on a high end

lens? Do I upgrade even further and get a 40D? If I did that then I'd probably still need a better lens than the

18-55. I'm probably all wet but seemingly one has to spend $2300 on Canon products to get the same image quality

as $900 of Olympus products. I really want to believe my Canon is better, but my eyes tell me it's not, please

convince me why I should stay with Canon!

I don't have any photos that would serve as a reliable test as they are all different f-stops and focal

lengths. All this is just a general observation from reviewing hundreds of photos, taken with both cameras.

Hopefully I'm just imagining this.

I live where it's green and would love to come out there! Big sky, sweeping panoramas. It's almost impossible to find some natural area not spoiled by a house in the middle of it or unwanted people in the scene. When I get stuck creatively I go macro. Not insects or animals but look for patterns in plants, rocks, erosion etc. What about cactus? Old rusted machinery, many things can be interesting up close enough. You could also try doing figures, portraits or even self-portraits.

Camden Hills State Park, about 20-30 min. North of Rockport. Go up Rt.1 until you see the sign and you can drive up Mt. Battie. Climb the tower, set up tripod and you have sweeping panoramic views of Penobscott Bay. It faces East so early morning shots are into the sun, but there are stunning views in all directions. Also, Megunticook lake off of Rt. 52 (left after downtown Camden) is incredibly beautiful. For a sunset shot climb Maiden's Cliff. Trail head parking is a few miles down 52. Climb some steep terrain for about 45 min. (1mile). Faces West overlooking the lake which is dotted with islands and surrounded by mountains. One of the best views in the entire state!

Hi Steve,

I'm new too, and certainly no professional, but my critique would be that the image is over exposed and out of focus. If some more foreground were visible(or background) or if the pilings didn't touch the edge it would make the composition more interesting.

Thanks everyone,

Funny I was relatively happy with my equipment until I came here and viewed some of the work in the galleries. I just have never come close to getting that kind of edge to edge sharpness, clarity, or color saturation. For example a photo by Ronald Capasso entitled "Life is Good". If I was there standing next to him with my stuff and took a hundred pictures with all different exposures I don't think I could get even remotely close to that. He mentions a lot of pp which got me thinking. When I was in art school that was kind of frowned upon as "cheating", but that was a long time ago, I was a painting major, and times have changed.

I primarily do landscapes and macro, a lot of b&w but not exclusively. I got into photography as a way to inform paintings but it turned into a passion in it's own right. I learned on a 35mm and all the automated functions on my DSLR have made me lazy. I'm going to work on manual for awhile and refresh my basic skills. What I don't like about my equipment is things like telephone lines or the tips of tree branches tend to get jagged and blocky. There is a noticeable amount of lens distortion and flare, and all kinds of problems in low light, mostly with noise and inability to lock focus with AF.

Here is one I like but I'm not sure whats wrong with it. Not sure about the composition or exposure. Maybe I'll put one up to be critiqued as this isn't the forum for that.

Hi everyone,

I'm a newbie looking for some guidance. I've been taking photos for years with

SLR's but have no formal education or training in photography.I do have a degree

in fine art which helps compositionally but doesn't help with technical aspects.

I taught myself by reading books and have improved a lot, but I want to get

better. After looking at the work on the gallery here I was blown away!

I have an Olympus E-500 with kit lenses, and no PS just Olympus Master that

came with the camera. At first I thought I need a new camera or better lenses,

but after reading here I determined that I probably need to learn to use the

camera I have better. Is it possible to take professional level photos with this

equipment? It seems that most of work I see here that is so inspiring and

incredible to me is done out of camera. I believe I have a decent grasp of the

basics of exposure and composition, but is photoshop necessary to achieve the

level of work here? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks...

Richard