Canon 1000D thread IV!
- Thread starter netjackalsg
- Start date
- Status
Can we get a little more info about this? Are you showing the 500D off? What time?
nope.. cos it's an lx3 ( can't popup without my permission.. ) :bsmilie:
but anyway in such cases, i think a PnS would work better. since everything is in focus ( and dun need to sacrifice shutter speed by stopping down, still can use f2.0 on lx3 and get everything sharp ), i can just PP by blurring out the background. what do u guys think? :think:
okay, that was a good explanation. thanks! and thanks again for the effort to even type it on that puny gadget.. haha.
another thing about apertures - why do ppl sometimes use smaller apertures when it doesn't seem to have any 'better' effect? in fact, for primes like the popular 50mm f1.8, sharpness tends to degrade from f8.0 onwards..
eh.. searched the canon forum for that title but no relevant results
so the sunglasses problem is hopeless for a DSLR?
You might be wrong there my friend. How do you define sharpness?
Prime lenses will almost, always, produce sharper images than zoom lenses.
This is due to the simpler lens construction, not having to counter the degrading effects of zooming.
Besides sharpness, better colour output, better CA and distortion control.
And anyway, all lenses if stopped down to a smaller aperture, should be able to get everything in focus.
You might be facing a problem with hand/camera shake, not sharpness.
Experiment with flash or more external light sources to light the subject up to enable you to use faster shutter speed.
And get a tripod.
err..sharpness as in really sharpness. i think i did post up this article before but forgot the link. it shows the experiment done at different apertures on the prime. sharpest @ f4-f5.8 and sharpness declines from f8 -f16 and so on.. and it's not a comparison between primes and zooms. i'm just talking about the 50mm f1.8.
it's definitely not handshake. i think anybody would be sane enough to put a 5" exposure on a tripod right? lol.
it's definitely not handshake. i think anybody would be sane enough to put a 5" exposure on a tripod right? lol.
Last edited:
When your aperture approaches a pinhole (ie smaller) diffraction blur will start to kick in. That is why pinhole cameras don't take the sharpest images even though technically you can't get an aperture any smaller. Typically if you read reviews, there are ranges of focal length and aperture settings that are sweet spots for different lenses in terms of sharpness
You are also assuming that anybody that is using apertures smaller than f/16 on a 50/1.8 is doing that to get a sharper image. That is not always the case. The few times I used apertures higher than f16 it is pretty much for the reason that i wanted a longer exposure and the subject would have been too bright etc ..
still thinking about the sunglass 'problem' you cited .. trying to get all the info in my head. how far away are you from the sunglass?
Your images are suffering from DOF fall-off.
You're focusing on the point nearest to you.
If you want reasonable sharpness throughout, set your focus point at least 1/3 of the way into the full DOF you require.
And with regards to what kelvin said, if you're close to the subject, you'll get a shallow DOF anyway. Especially if you focus on the point nearest to you.
You're focusing on the point nearest to you.
If you want reasonable sharpness throughout, set your focus point at least 1/3 of the way into the full DOF you require.
And with regards to what kelvin said, if you're close to the subject, you'll get a shallow DOF anyway. Especially if you focus on the point nearest to you.
hi bro emotic,
what do you mean by setting focus point 1/3 into full DOF? i tried using MF to adjust also, and found that i can only do 1 out of the 3 possible :
1. focus on near end
2. focus on far end
3. focus in middle that balances sharpness throughout
is it possible to focus full sharp throughout instead?
i'm using the 50mm ( if u've viewed the exif ) as u can see. so i can't really shift the camera / subject about freely. anything further will expose other background ( in this case i just want a white background, i used an a1 art card to achieve this ). if possible also no cropping because i need the full dimensions to do large prints.
netjackalsg : not really sure, maybe about 70mm away from the sunglasses? will using the kit lens instead be better? i don't wana sacrifice the IQ/sharpness if possible too.
what do you mean by setting focus point 1/3 into full DOF? i tried using MF to adjust also, and found that i can only do 1 out of the 3 possible :
1. focus on near end
2. focus on far end
3. focus in middle that balances sharpness throughout
is it possible to focus full sharp throughout instead?
i'm using the 50mm ( if u've viewed the exif ) as u can see. so i can't really shift the camera / subject about freely. anything further will expose other background ( in this case i just want a white background, i used an a1 art card to achieve this ). if possible also no cropping because i need the full dimensions to do large prints.
netjackalsg : not really sure, maybe about 70mm away from the sunglasses? will using the kit lens instead be better? i don't wana sacrifice the IQ/sharpness if possible too.
hi bro emotic,
what do you mean by setting focus point 1/3 into full DOF? i tried using MF to adjust also, and found that i can only do 1 out of the 3 possible :
1. focus on near end
2. focus on far end
3. focus in middle that balances sharpness throughout
is it possible to focus full sharp throughout instead?
i'm using the 50mm ( if u've viewed the exif ) as u can see. so i can't really shift the camera / subject about freely. anything further will expose other background ( in this case i just want a white background, i used an a1 art card to achieve this ). if possible also no cropping because i need the full dimensions to do large prints.
If you want overall sharpness, stick with the 3rd option.
DOF falloff is unavoidable. Unless you're farther away from your subject.
Added to that, light diffraction caused by small aperture.
You might also want to try a macro lens.
I've used macro lens for studio product photography and the images have always been very sharp, though I have to be quite a distance from the subject.
netjackalsg : not really sure, maybe about 70mm away from the sunglasses? will using the kit lens instead be better? i don't wana sacrifice the IQ/sharpness if possible too.
Give it a try. The kit lens is very sharp when stopped down to f8 and beyond.
what do you mean by setting focus point 1/3 into full DOF? i tried using MF to adjust also, and found that i can only do 1 out of the 3 possible :
1. focus on near end
2. focus on far end
3. focus in middle that balances sharpness throughout
is it possible to focus full sharp throughout instead?
i'm using the 50mm ( if u've viewed the exif ) as u can see. so i can't really shift the camera / subject about freely. anything further will expose other background ( in this case i just want a white background, i used an a1 art card to achieve this ). if possible also no cropping because i need the full dimensions to do large prints.
If you want overall sharpness, stick with the 3rd option.
DOF falloff is unavoidable. Unless you're farther away from your subject.
Added to that, light diffraction caused by small aperture.
You might also want to try a macro lens.
I've used macro lens for studio product photography and the images have always been very sharp, though I have to be quite a distance from the subject.
netjackalsg : not really sure, maybe about 70mm away from the sunglasses? will using the kit lens instead be better? i don't wana sacrifice the IQ/sharpness if possible too.
Give it a try. The kit lens is very sharp when stopped down to f8 and beyond.
if i'm using the 3rd option, the blurriness is unbearable. i'd rather be using a PnS in this case.
for the light diffraction problem, should i just stick to f8 to f11 max for best results?
what macro lens are u using? i'm actually looking for one also, but preferably also able to take portraits also. seems there's no such thing. 35 / f2 is the best bet for close ups right?
thanks for the reply!
for the light diffraction problem, should i just stick to f8 to f11 max for best results?
what macro lens are u using? i'm actually looking for one also, but preferably also able to take portraits also. seems there's no such thing. 35 / f2 is the best bet for close ups right?
thanks for the reply!
I do studio product photography for work.
Using a Nikon system, AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8lens.
Have shot staff portraits with this too. Uber sharp.
But its not about the system, its about how you make yours work.
Yes, the 35mm is a close-up lens. But what makes you think it'll be better than the 50mm you already have?
If ultra end-to-end sharpness is what you're after, then I seriously believe you need a dedicated macro lens.
Rent 1st, and see if it works for you.
I'll be glad to offer my assistance if you need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Thanks to my photography gurus at my workplace, I was reminded that DOF is a function of 3 factors not 2. Focal length, aperture AND subject distance. The smaller the subject distance is (regardless of the lens used) the smaller the DOF is going to be. That is why macro shots taken with macro lenses are usually very finicky to handle since you are so close that the DOF is razor thin. We have discussed focal length and aperture to a certain extent in how it affects your shot .. but we forgot that the subject distance plays a part. Just to experiment .. if you move back a little more and take the shot, you should have a much deeper DOF. Another related point although probably not that significant is you mentioned 70mm distance to your subject. I took a look at the ruler and put it aginst myy head and i realised it was slightly less distance from the front of my eyes to my ears. So
Camera <==70mm==> front of specs <==100mm==> back of specs
From my days using my PnS I noticed that one way to make sure I get bokeh (OOF) is to make sure the distance between the subject and the background was like a lot more than the distance my camera was to the subject. So if your situation is like that of the 'diagram' above it will be difficult to make the end of specs not in bokeh.I understand that you want the ENTIRE 10 megapixel for large print but just to illustrate the point that the subject distance does play a part. Out of curiosity how large is the print that you want to print out anyway?
In addition, there is another factor that comes into play in your example between PnS and DSLR which is sensor size. The wikipedia article mentioned above has a section DOF vs format size.
So the reason that you don't have a problem with a PnS is because the PnS has a teeny tiny sensor in terms of size. Like the quote above, this can be good or bad depending on the situation. Ironically, I used to always have problems on my PnS in that I wanted the nice bokeh shot but it was really difficult. A lot of things have to happen perfectly before I can even get bokeh. I had to zoom in all the way. I had to make sure the background was really far from the subject (well further than I was to the subject). So I was really excited to do bokeh shots when I got my 1000D. especially with the 50/1.8. Like what you discovered it was almost difficult NOT to get bokeh
I know you are pretty set on some things but law of physics are such that some things are immovable. So keeping that in mind .. I will recommend a couple of things to try and get your shot even though some recoommendations you have already mentioned that you would rather not do .. just to be complete lah
1. stop down the aperture a little
2. use a smaller focal length lens (ie wider angle lens)
3. increase the distance to your subject (at the very least more than the length of the glasses)
4. cut the size of the sensor on your 1000D (hehe okay .. i am just joking here .. PLEASE DONT DO THIS!
)Hope this help .. sorry for the long-winded post.
the macro lens may not be able to do what he wants. he managed to get the whole glasses in frame so any closer and he will have parts of the glasses out of frame which is not what he wants i am guessing.
If TS uses a macro lens, he'll just have to move further away for the subject to completely fill the frame. Anyway, he did mention that he did not wish to do any cropping if possible.
haha .. technically I am the TS of this thread but I know what you mean
his subject matter is way larger than the sensor on even a full frame camera let alone the 1000D. so he does not need a 1:1 to fill the frame. i agree that if he moves back with a longer focal length lens (narrower field of view) he would be able to fill the frame with the subject and still have the DOF since the subject distance is longer. however, he does not need a dedicated macro lens to do that. if the 'TS' was shooting a small grain of rice and would like the entire grain of rice in focus and in frame .. then there is something to be said about using a macro lens for it
haha .. technically I am the TS of this thread but I know what you mean
his subject matter is way larger than the sensor on even a full frame camera let alone the 1000D. so he does not need a 1:1 to fill the frame. i agree that if he moves back with a longer focal length lens (narrower field of view) he would be able to fill the frame with the subject and still have the DOF since the subject distance is longer. however, he does not need a dedicated macro lens to do that. if the 'TS' was shooting a small grain of rice and would like the entire grain of rice in focus and in frame .. then there is something to be said about using a macro lens for it
Haha very true!
i use the tamron 90mm f/2.8 as my macro lens. there are difference in views of macro lenses suitability for potraits. this is cos typically macro lens are pretty sharp and many feel that potraits lenses shouldnt be sharp. I do use that for head shots especially when the range fits. nice bokeh and close up of the subject.
what do you mean by close up in your question. like tight head shots? if it is tight head shots then it sounds like you are better off with a medium focal distance kinda lens like 50-85 (or 90 lah like my tamron). so you dont have to get right up in the subject's face to take the shot. Kinda depends on what you expecting your working distance to be.
- Status
Similar threads
