beautox

<p>It's all very well suggesting manual focus, but it's an EF 50 f/1.8...not very good for manual focus. The problem is not that the autofocus is not accurate, but that it's locking onto the wrong thing. The posters who have suggested using the center point are all correct imho. It would also be a good idea to stop down, if possible, to about f/4 to 5.6, to give a bit more depth of field, so the whole face is in focus</p>

<p>You can't possibly take a worthwhile photograph unless you use a Leica. With film.</p>

<p>Dan is right. Buying a new lens will not help you get better shots. Most, if not all of your shots are already taken at max sensible ISO (3200) at the min shutter speed you can get away with, and almost none are critically sharp (due to not holding the camera still enough). <br>

Getting a longer lens will just let you make blurrier pics, until you can learn to make sharp pics with your current lens - it takes lots of practice to take good shots with a 300mm lens (on a crop body like the t2i). So keep practising.</p>

<p>I had one of these, and it was sharp. Then the IS failed and it went off to Canon to have it fixed. When I got it back it was never the same. Compared to a 50/1.8 it was horrible. So I sold it. Perhaps it's ended up with you? (I doubt it - I live in new zealand)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"yes, the mirror does go up in order for the camera to be in Liveview mode but when you realease the shutter whilst in Liveview mode the mirror closes first to enable the shutter to release. This extra "clunk" is avoided when the mirror lock is enabled."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I think you might mean "the shutter closes" not "the mirror closes" - the mirror goes up and down - it does not close.<br /> However, this depends on what camera you have. Newer cameras like the 7D, etc have electronic first curtain, so when in live view and you take a picture, the shutter does NOT close first - it uses the electronic first curtain to start the exposure, and the shutter closes to finish the exposure.<br /> Older cameras do close the shutter first. So check how your camera works..</p>

<p>The OP said that they thought the autofocus on the 550D was clunky. I think that the problem is the lenses not the camera. I agree with the poster who warned against manual focus - you will find you just get frustrated trying to take shots of birds with a manual focus lens, and get lots and lots of blurry shots.</p>

<p>Firstly, it's not two extra F stops - two stops wider than 1.8 is 0.9. It's actually one and a bit stops. (Two stops means twice (or half!) the value. One stop is root-2 or 1.414)<br>

But consider this : how much does a lens that's one-and-a-bit stops faster than the f/1.2 - that means an f/0.8. So, they don't make these. Do you think it's because there's no demand? Or some other reason?</p>

<p>Thanks. Interesting. So from that, it's wrong to call full frame "35mm" - it should be 69mm !!</p>

<p>I'm curious as to why this (and the Nikon 1) sensor is called 1-inch. It's not 1 inch long, wide or diagonally. So why??</p>

<p>A beginning photographer with a 5DmkII and a 70-200 f/2.8. Wow. Like learning to drive in a Porsche.</p>

<p>I usually find that image quality is mostly determined by how good a photographer you are.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a half dozen mk3s could be responsible for 24k images easily</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What you think that there are 6 people out there each uploading 4000 images per day?</p>

<p>I have a Sigma 150mm macro and it's amazingly sharp and has great colors and bokeh.</p>

<p>I know these are not from the 300D but from the 350D and 20D (8 mpix vs 6 mpix). But it does show how good the results can be from the older cameras<br>

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/flora-italy_trebbia_valley.htm<br>

(Not my pics btw)</p>

<p>I had both lenses (IS version of the 18-55). I was dismayed by the slight difference between the two, compared to the much larger improvement I saw when I upgraded my other kit lens, a 55-250 to a 70-200 f/4L<br>

I found the most obvious difference between the 17-55 and the 18-55 was in chromatic aberation towards especially towards the sides of the frame. I think a lot of the reported color difference is due to the difference in CA.<br>

Also the sharpness difference varies with focal length. At the longer length the 17 is sharper. In the middle and shorter lengths they are almost the same.<br>

But also I found that the cheaper lens seemed to nail focus more often. When testing I found the 17 would be slightly OOF even though it beeped (eg with camera on tripod).<br>

And bear in mind that the IS unit on the 17-55 is notoriously unreliable. Mine failed and cost me a fortune (us$350) to fix, but this is because I live in New Zealand and it seems that Canon NZ are profiteers..<br>

One other point. The el-cheapo 50mm f/1.8 is much sharper than either of these zooms, so much so that it makes them look broken.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Bob, the Canon factory service center charges about a hundred bucks to fix the IS problem. If you took it anyplace else, you got ripped off. Lot's of places will charge a ton extra just to bubble wrap it and send it off to Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I DID send it to Canon directly. But I live in New Zealand and I guess that Canon NZ charge a lot more. The bill said it was half for the parts, half for labor. It was quite quick though, only took a few days.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had this lens for two years and the IS failed recently. It cost about half of the current value of the lens to get fixed, something I was not impressed by. Since then I have heard many stories of this happening to this lens, so clearly there is a design fault. I am selling mine as I don't want this happening again.<br>

Also I am not so very impressed with the IQ. You have to pixel peep to tell the difference between this lens and the 18-55mm IS kit lens.<br>

Also the kit lens seems to nail focus more often than the 2.8.<br>

When I upgraded my kit 55-250 to a 70-200 I was blown away by the improvement in not only sharpness, but color and contrast. But when I upgraded the 18-55 to the 17-55 I was pushed to tell the difference on some shots.<br>

Not a good buy imho. Just my two cents..ymmv</p>

 

<p>Note that with rechargable Lithium batteries, letting them discharge completely will shorten their lifespans. Best to charge after each use (they don't suffer memory effect) rather than run them right down, as was recommended with NiCds.</p>

<p>Wow you can really see how much better the color rendition is on those teast charts!</p>

<p>I find it interesting that in their p&s cams, Canon still choose to use lens based IS rather than sensor based IS, where in that case they could use either.<br>

Roger: yes a low end kit lens is indeed, a low end kit lens. What were you expecting? Four stops is four stops regardless of where you are starting. And I would have thought that it's actually more useful on a small aperture lens where you don't have the option to open up the lens. I think Canon have made the right choice with this lens (18-55IS), ie save on the build quality. Would you rather have a superbly built lens with crap glass and no IS? (Yes I know you'd rather have a more expensive lens, but pretend that's not an option)</p>

 

<p>It seems odd to think that you could grow out of a body like the Xsi in 6 months but be fine with the kit lens.<br>

I got a 450D and I outgrew the kit lenses, so I got better glass (10-22, 17-55, 70-200). Any money you spend on camera bodies will depreciate so that it 2 years time the body will be worth a fraction of what it is now. Of course it will still work as well.<br>

On the other hand, money you spend on good lenses will not vanish.<br>

Better to spend your money on good lenses and buy a 60D or 70D in few years when the XSi is getting old hat. Just my 0.02</p>

<p>Maybe the best solution is to move the image stablization out of the camera/lens completely and put it in the tripod?</p>

<p>It's normal in Thailand to use cash. I lived there for several years so I've seen this sort of thing a lot</p>

<p>People who have more money invested in their camera than in their lenses are like people who have more invested in their stereo than in their music. Ideally you should have most of your money invested in lenses.</p>

<p>imho</p>

<p>awa - as well as</p>