How do I tell if its the camera or me?
Discussion
A while ago I bought a second-hand 7D and have a Sigma Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM lens.
I am aware of the low light graining issues with the camera and appreciate that the lens isn't the last word in quality. However, I just don't seem to be able to get the kind of sharp images that I feel I should with this kit. Most pictures seem soft or slightly out of focus.
I am new to this kind of kit but have read up and applied settings suggested on other forums. I'm mainly taking pictures of the kids doing sport and them when out and about. I'd like to do a bit of landscape at some point but haven't got that far yet.
So what I'm asking is. Is there a way to tell if the camera/lens is just not up to my expectations, too old or worn, or if I am doing something wrong.
Thanks
I am aware of the low light graining issues with the camera and appreciate that the lens isn't the last word in quality. However, I just don't seem to be able to get the kind of sharp images that I feel I should with this kit. Most pictures seem soft or slightly out of focus.
I am new to this kind of kit but have read up and applied settings suggested on other forums. I'm mainly taking pictures of the kids doing sport and them when out and about. I'd like to do a bit of landscape at some point but haven't got that far yet.
So what I'm asking is. Is there a way to tell if the camera/lens is just not up to my expectations, too old or worn, or if I am doing something wrong.
Thanks
As above - really need to see an example but in advance of that, try setting up some controlled test shots. Use a tripod and take a few photos of something at various focal lengths, settings and light levels.
Or you can use some target test cards such as these: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/latest...
Or you can use some target test cards such as these: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/latest...
Also you can set up a test shoot. Mount the camera on a tripod to eliminate the possibility of introducing blur through movement. I usually use a newspaper or similar on a table at an angle to the camera. Setting the autofocus to focus somewhere in the middle of the page, you can then tell if the entire image is soft, or if the camera is focussing in front or back of your selected focus point.
"How do I tell if its the camera or me?"
By testing and showing examples.
Plenty of reasons an image can be soft. Lens, focus, technique.
We cant guess.
The 7D is a very competent camera and its sensor (any sensor) isnt 'soft' , the lens you have isnt great though but with good technique it should be usable.
By testing and showing examples.
Plenty of reasons an image can be soft. Lens, focus, technique.
We cant guess.
The 7D is a very competent camera and its sensor (any sensor) isnt 'soft' , the lens you have isnt great though but with good technique it should be usable.
z06tim said:
May also be the quality of the screen you are viewing on. I'm sure you've checked that though?
Screens should be fine. 4k (ish) in the laptop and Dell ultrasharp on the desktop.Here is a link to some photos I took on Saturday rather than me uploading them here. You can see the exif then.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60725640@N02/with/37...
Thanks
On first viewing, I'd say there's nothing much wrong with them considering the lens you're using.
You could sharpen them more in PS or whatever, but if you're at ISO 1000 it's going to give you more grain:
See if you can get your hands on a decent prime lens and do some tests against your Sigma. That's going to be where you can make the biggest improvement in image quality IMO.
You could sharpen them more in PS or whatever, but if you're at ISO 1000 it's going to give you more grain:
See if you can get your hands on a decent prime lens and do some tests against your Sigma. That's going to be where you can make the biggest improvement in image quality IMO.
Apart from some slightly off exposures that would be easy to fix they look fine to me. I saw one that was a bit smeared towards the edges but that's the lens. Do you shoot RAW or JPG and do you do any post-processing?
I'd add that the monitor is better than the lens... whilst you want the monitor to be a 'monitor', ie ultimate arbiter of quality by which all else is judged, that means it will also show up deficiencies in rest of the chain.
I'd add that the monitor is better than the lens... whilst you want the monitor to be a 'monitor', ie ultimate arbiter of quality by which all else is judged, that means it will also show up deficiencies in rest of the chain.
So having had a look at them, I can fairly confidently state that is the lens.
Let us look at this one as an example.
https://flic.kr/p/Cxuy3W
You are at F10, 28mm and ISO 400. 1/250th second
So that eliminates focus issues ( at F10 28mm pretty much everything will be in focus )
ISO 400 is low enough so that it is not sensor grain
1/250 at 28mm is high enough that unless you are having serious issues with hand shake it should be fine.
The picture suffers from all the hallmarks of a soft lens, with low contrast and lots of CA. I can get very similar results opening my 1970's Nikon primes up to f1.4 where they take very similar shots.
F10 is not high enough to cause any serious diffraction but is enough so that any half decent lens ought to perform properly, the fact the image looks like it does at f10 tells you how bad the lens is, I dread to think how it looks wide open.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60725640@N02/2398522...
Look at - the purple fringing on the goalposts. The white lettering on the shirts should be sharp, its not its a blur. Look at the eyes, they ought to be sharp and contrasty, and they are not, they are brown and washed out. Look the hair, it should be crisp and its not.
Let us look at this one as an example.
https://flic.kr/p/Cxuy3W
You are at F10, 28mm and ISO 400. 1/250th second
So that eliminates focus issues ( at F10 28mm pretty much everything will be in focus )
ISO 400 is low enough so that it is not sensor grain
1/250 at 28mm is high enough that unless you are having serious issues with hand shake it should be fine.
The picture suffers from all the hallmarks of a soft lens, with low contrast and lots of CA. I can get very similar results opening my 1970's Nikon primes up to f1.4 where they take very similar shots.
F10 is not high enough to cause any serious diffraction but is enough so that any half decent lens ought to perform properly, the fact the image looks like it does at f10 tells you how bad the lens is, I dread to think how it looks wide open.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60725640@N02/2398522...
Look at - the purple fringing on the goalposts. The white lettering on the shirts should be sharp, its not its a blur. Look at the eyes, they ought to be sharp and contrasty, and they are not, they are brown and washed out. Look the hair, it should be crisp and its not.
If you read reviews of that Sigma you'll see that anything taken over 100mm and under f7 is not going to stand up to scrutiny, particularly at the edges.
If I were you I'd look around for a s/h Canon 200mm or 300mm telephoto and maybe a 24-135mm to cover the lower end and ditch the Sigma.
If I were you I'd look around for a s/h Canon 200mm or 300mm telephoto and maybe a 24-135mm to cover the lower end and ditch the Sigma.
Have to say that having looked at the photos, and given what you are taking the photos for, what you have are perfectly acceptable.
I agree totally with the critical observations made by others here but investment in kit really boils down to what you want from photography. If you're getting paid by the parents of others (or the teams) for the photos you take, then you may well want explore the options suggested. If not, I would just spend as much time with the camera and lens combo you have before you start splashing the cash.
I agree totally with the critical observations made by others here but investment in kit really boils down to what you want from photography. If you're getting paid by the parents of others (or the teams) for the photos you take, then you may well want explore the options suggested. If not, I would just spend as much time with the camera and lens combo you have before you start splashing the cash.
I do agree,for snapshots the results are perfectly acceptable, but I think the issue is that you are getting results that could be matched/beaten by a compact camera, when you should be getting really nice photos that are viewable on a big 4k screen without issue.
Here is a random ( horrible ) shot from a Nikon j4 at 28mm and 1/250th with the kit 10-30mm lens, I think its a lot sharper and has way less CA
DSC_7070 by Piston Heads, on Flickr
Here is a random ( horrible ) shot from a Nikon j4 at 28mm and 1/250th with the kit 10-30mm lens, I think its a lot sharper and has way less CA
DSC_7070 by Piston Heads, on FlickrThanks everyone for taking the time to look at the pictures.
I do shoot in RAW and JPG. I need to find some time to get to learn Lightroom. But I would like to use PP to enhance images rather than be correcting faults.
I'm not taking the photos to sell. I just share them with the other parents. I've wanted to get into photography for a while an this was my way in if that makes sense. They are acceptable for sharing as candid photos and the other parents thought they were great. But I wasn't too happy with them and would like the pictures to be better than what I can take with my 10 year old Lumix Bridge or my phone.
Ideally, I would like one lens to cover a decent focal range so as not to need to change lenses or carry 2 when out and about. But I realise that is going to be both expensive and a compromise. I have been looking at getting a Canon 70 - 200 L lens, but I convinced myself I needed the mk2 f2.8 with IS and funds just won't run to that just yet with a trip to Disneyland in 3 weeks. I did consider the mk1 70 - 200 f4 without IS which can be had for £350ish and sell it on at a later date without losing too much on it.
I still need to get to grips properly with the AF system but I'm getting there slowly. I deliberately got a camera without too many auto features to make me learn to use it. And it is certainly doing that
I do shoot in RAW and JPG. I need to find some time to get to learn Lightroom. But I would like to use PP to enhance images rather than be correcting faults.
I'm not taking the photos to sell. I just share them with the other parents. I've wanted to get into photography for a while an this was my way in if that makes sense. They are acceptable for sharing as candid photos and the other parents thought they were great. But I wasn't too happy with them and would like the pictures to be better than what I can take with my 10 year old Lumix Bridge or my phone.
Ideally, I would like one lens to cover a decent focal range so as not to need to change lenses or carry 2 when out and about. But I realise that is going to be both expensive and a compromise. I have been looking at getting a Canon 70 - 200 L lens, but I convinced myself I needed the mk2 f2.8 with IS and funds just won't run to that just yet with a trip to Disneyland in 3 weeks. I did consider the mk1 70 - 200 f4 without IS which can be had for £350ish and sell it on at a later date without losing too much on it.
I still need to get to grips properly with the AF system but I'm getting there slowly. I deliberately got a camera without too many auto features to make me learn to use it. And it is certainly doing that
OK, but if you shoot in RAW it's inevitable you will have to correct some elements such as distortion and sharpness, because the image coming direct from the sensor needs some processing before you even start on the 'enhancements'.
Once you've got basic settings for your camera, though, you can automate most of those initial corrections and batch process them before you do anything else. You're only trying to do what the camera does when it does it's internal processing when creating a .jpg.
Just don't look at an unprocessed RAW image and think it's bound to be better than a .jpg out of the camera. It probably won't be.
Once you've got basic settings for your camera, though, you can automate most of those initial corrections and batch process them before you do anything else. You're only trying to do what the camera does when it does it's internal processing when creating a .jpg.
Just don't look at an unprocessed RAW image and think it's bound to be better than a .jpg out of the camera. It probably won't be.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff