Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Discuss cameras, settings, composition, or anything related to photography - cactus or other subjects.
User avatar
C And D
Posts: 1954
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:51 am
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Contact:

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by C And D »

Well I did some experiments
set the camera to raw mode
and using ACDSee pro 7

But like every other Photoshop program
I can't find the downsize file tab so I can upload it to the web
You can't put a photo that is 6.4 MB on Cactiguide!
'That's the only reason I used Microsoft Picture Manager in the first place, It will downsize files.

So maybe someone can tell me how to do it....
and then I can upload my experimental photos

Microsoft Picture Manager wouldn't upload the photos in raw mode
It didn't recognize them as photos, so I couldn't work on them using that program.
http://www.CandDplants.com

Craig and Denise Fry
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by SnowFella »

Think you can download codex packs for picure manager that will allow you to open RAW files.
Quick search gives this result that ought to work with your 2Ti
http://www.microsoft.com/en-au/download ... x?id=26829

And here's a link to the ACDSee pro 7's user manual.
http://help.acdsystems.com/en/acdsee-pr ... _pro_7.pdf
Output size is handled in several places by the looks of things.
If it works anything like Lightroom does what you are looking for is an "export" button in the develop module. In lightroom all I do is right click the image after editing it and selecting export from the menu.
DaveW
Posts: 7071
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by DaveW »

I use Photoshop Elements and always resize in pixels as that is what most web sites ask for and adjust file size in "Save for Web" so no doubt Photoshop works the same?

You can even resize using Windows Paint that comes with every copy of Windows:-

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/wind ... sing-paint" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For Adobe Elements (Photoshop is similar):-

http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elemen ... izing.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I use this method using Save For Web to reduce the file size to that needed in Elements, as detailed below:-

http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/s ... post479873" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also you should sharpen an image as the last process after resizing and before Saving for Web and converting to a JPEG. My starting settings for sharpening in "Unsharp Mask" are 80% - 2 - 5 and I modify them from there if needed.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... pening.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember you don't need to post pictures at a set aspect ratio, you can crop creatively to remove all unnecessary elements or blank space as long as the images dimensions when posted does not exceed the Web sites limits on height and width. Don't crop too close though or the image will look "squashed into a box".
GeneS
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: California Central Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by GeneS »

Now that you have a lot to think about, here is something you should try since I know you have the equipment (laptop, tripod, camera) to easily put it together. It has been an immense help to me and can be a powerful learning tool as well.

1) Load your laptop up with Canon's DPP and EOS Utility software apps - they came on the disc with your camera or can be downloaded from Canon support.

2) Grab the USB cord that also came with your camera and hook up your laptop and camera. It's very simple and there is lots of online help from Canon and others.

3) Now you can do camera control in tethered mode. And review results on the larger laptop screen. Let the captures download directly to DPP where you can view, zoom, scroll the preview and look at the histogram. Much better then you what you see on the small camera screen. You can also activate LiveView to the laptop _ If your camera supports it. As soon as you hook it up, you will find lots of ways it can be used.

4) EXPERIMENT !!

The ability to do camera control from the laptop and see instant feedback on focus, DOF, histogram, etc is really handy. You can easily setup scenarios and experiment with setting combos to visually see the result. Do this with your various camera, lens, setting combos and you will soon develop a good understanding of what to try or change to achieve a given result.

Just my additional 2c worth ... Gene
For you Nikonians, the same type of tools are also available.
User avatar
leland
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:55 pm
Location: North central Nicaragua
Contact:

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by leland »

IMG_6617r_1.jpg
IMG_6617r_1.jpg (118.15 KiB) Viewed 5793 times
This post prompted me to do a little experimenting. I have an older 10mp EOS body and recently a friend gave me his kit lens, an EF 28-90mm. I tested it out on a weekend family trip and out in the yard and concluded it was a great little lens for walking around outdoors. For casual use I can carry this and leave the 50mm and 55-250mm IS at home. If it gets lost or damaged I`m only out a fair market value of usd 50 or so.

So today I took it out in the yard and found something in flower and took several dozen pix. All were in open shade at 90mm and most taken with a small tripod. Focus was on the 2 flowers bottom center. My results?

1) The pictures I finally selected as the best were very near the camera`s auto setting results.
2) 200 iso shots came out fuzzy and this got much worse as it went towards f32. The 400s and 800s were much better, with the 800s being a little dark. This could be touched up on the computer.
3) Photos shot with shutterspeeds in the 1/50 to 1/100 came out best.
4) The most noticable difference with the handheld shots is that they triggered the built-in flash. The pictures had that ``he used a flash`` look.
5) I think I could improve by using a heavier tripod, improving the natural light, and using the manual focus.

My general conclusion, and no real surprize, is that this lens is not a good substitute for a macro lens, not withstanding its value as a casual walk around lens. I can`t fault the camera. Even with the wrong lens, better methods such as a higher iso made a big difference. I think light reflectors would help a lot , too.
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by SnowFella »

Weird. Higher ISO should really mean more noise and less clean an image. Looking at your settings, 1/60sec, F8 and ISO400 I'm wondering if what you are seeing isn't camera shake at low shutter speeds due to the light (and I suspect not rock solid) tripod.
Did a similar test using an older (20+ years old but known for it's sharpness) lens and my findings was that ISO100 was by far the cleanest (did ISO100, 400, 800 and 1600) but shutter speed was slow!
Aperture vise I tested F4.5, F14 and F29. F4.5 was sharp but depth of field was to shallow, F14 equally sharp and enough DOF, F29 looked rubbish all over.
DaveW
Posts: 7071
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by DaveW »

Higher ISO's, as SnowFella says, probably meant higher shutter speeds and less visible camera shake. Theoretically the best image quality should always be at the camera's base ISO. In the case of my Nikon D200 that is ISO 100, but on many occasions unless using a tripod that may mean too low a shutter speed for hand holding, which is why the manufacturers triggered your flash to come on. Also remember anti shake settings on modern lenses or cameras does not give the same number of stops hand holding advantage close up as at infinity, but makers always quote the infinity numbers since like extra megapixels it sells photo equipment.

The old rule of thumb for hand holding used to be no slower than the focal length of the lens. That means a 100mm lens hand hold at no slower than 1/100th of a second shutter speed. A 200mm lens no slower than 1/200th second and a 300mm no slower than 1/300th of a second. However in no case slower than 1/60th of a second using this rule since it breaks down with wide angle lenses. You certainly can't hand hold an 8mm fisheye lens at 1/8th of a second!

Kit lenses can vary. They are sometimes made for the camera manufacturers by independents as a cheap entry way into the camera system and just badged with the camera makers name, unlike the dearer lenses the camera manufacturers usually make themselves. Obviously an independent manufacturer specialising in entry level lenses can often produce them for less than the camera manufacturer can, therefore camera manufacturers have sometimes contracted out some of their kit lenses in the past and just had them badged with their name. Some were outstanding and some not so good, therefore read the lens reviews since you don't need to buy a detachable lens camera with a kit lens if you don't want it, you can buy it body only and the lens you want separately.

One of the reasons macro lenses are usually good is they are not built down to a price as are many starter or kit lenses, however for normal use you will probably not be able to tell the difference on a computer screen. Most kit lenses are pretty good these days anyway unlike the past.

http://digital-photography-school.com/w ... you-think/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/06/0 ... lya-reddy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://gearpatrol.com/2013/06/12/5-best ... it-lenses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by SnowFella »

Here's my quick shots from the other day, mind you not the full images but 100% crops to check for fine details.
All shots taken in quick succession and processed the same in Adobe Lightroom 5, pardon the size of the files in advance.

1/40sec, f/4.5, ISO100
Image

1/4sec, f/14, ISO100
Image

0.8sec, f/29, ISO100
Image

1/40sec, f/14, ISO800
Image

1/250sec, f/14, ISO6400
Image

Full image using the f/14, ISO100 version, downscaled to 1024*683 and 273Kb
Image
DaveW
Posts: 7071
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by DaveW »

Full frame cameras will make no real difference to image quality if posting online. You need to be making very large prints to see any difference between your present camera and a full frame one. Neither do you need excessive megapixels, an 8 megapixel cameras image online will look just as good as a 24 megapixel one since the computer screen cannot show the difference.

If you are not getting equally sharp results to SnowFella's with APS-C sensored DSLR's it is either your camera or technique that is at fault. Therefore first test your camera to see it is working correctly regarding focus as detailed in some of my early links. Once you establish it is not the camera then you can work on the techniques needed for macro photography, which need to be more precise than for general photography. It's not "rocket science" however, just taking extra care with focusing due to limited depth of field and with more attention paid to keeping the camera steady than "happy snapping" at normal distances.

When using the smallest apertures on your lens remember the markings on the lens are only Relative Apertures in that they are only correct at infinity. As you focus closer to the subject and the magnification increases the Effective Aperture gets smaller since the lens is effectively further from the image sensor. In the past the whole lens moved bodily forward when focusing closer, but it is now usually done by moving elements inside the lens.

In normal photography the change in Effective Aperture to the Relative Aperture marked on the lens can be ignored, but in macro work it changes very quickly, therefore though your lens (and camera) may say the aperture set is f32 you may be working at an Effective Aperture of f64 therefore seeing significant diffraction effects.

As far as I know only Nikon DSLR's actually show the Effective Aperture you are working at, Canon's and others just repeat the Relative Aperture marked on the lens. My macro lens minimum aperture is f32 but my Nikon will often show when that is set the aperture I am working at is f64, and the camera is right regarding the Effective f-stop at that magnification not the lens.

A quote from the link below:-

"In fact, the only reason "effective" is even used is because many cameras still show the uncompensated f-stop setting (as it would appear at low magnification). In all other respects though, the f-stop really has changed."

See LENS EXTENSION & EFFECTIVE F-STOP:-

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... lenses.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by SnowFella »

Probably flooding you here with inputs but just one more thing to keep in mind is how your depth of field works. In the above examples I really used it wrongly as I manually focused on the center flower when I really could of focused slightly behind and still could of had it in focus using the best settings.

Say you shoot your 60mm lens 2 foot away from your subject and use F16. Generally with those settings you will be looking at approximately 2.2 something inches worth of "clear" depth of field, however 2/3rds of that is behind your focal point while 1/3 is infront. So in my example of focusing on the nearest point wastes quite a bit of valuable DOF.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
DaveW
Posts: 7071
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by DaveW »

You may find these useful depending on how heavily you want to get into the subject of Depth of Field. And note it is always termed Depth of Field for the amount in focus around the subject to the camera, never Depth of Focus as sometimes misstated since Depth of Focus is the correct term used for the distance from the rear of the lens to the camera sensor to bring the image to a focus on it and so set by the camera manufacturer.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototip ... plane.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.savazzi.net/photography/macrodof.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whilst it is true for photography at normal distances that depth of field may be 1/3rd in front and 2/3rds behind, the ratio alters as you get closer and at 1:1 or life size on the sensor it is approximately equal front and back of the point focused on. From the link below:-

"There is a persistent misconception among photographers that the rear DOF equals twice the front DOF. Although the rear DOF is never smaller than the front DOF, this statement is silly and misleading. From Fig. 1 it appears that there is exactly one object distance v for which this is true (e.g. v=5 m at a 30-µm COC) and an infinite number of scenarios for which it is not true. In the macro regime the DOF distribution (front:rear) is 1:1 and a landscape captured at hyperfocus has a distribution of 1:∞. So where does the holy 1:2 fit in?"

http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GeneS
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: California Central Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by GeneS »

In ACDSee 7, locate your image in view, develop as needed, save the developed image, change to "View" screen. Select image, Select File | Export from the top menus.

Follow the dialog box for file format, size, destination location, etc.

For web, I usually use JPG, 1500 x 1000 for 3x2 ratio images.

CG software will take care of it from there when you upload. If you wish to show a full size/res image, post it to a photo share site of your choice (there are lots) then just post the link.

Cheers ... Gene
User avatar
C And D
Posts: 1954
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:51 am
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Contact:

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by C And D »

Here are my experimental pics

I had to use Microsoft Picture manager to compress them to smaller file size, since I still couldn't figure out how to do it on ACDSee 7
I will have to reread the new above comments

The ACDSee 7 is so slow, it is a little irksome to work with.
IMG_5271a.jpg
IMG_5271a.jpg (82.33 KiB) Viewed 5752 times
IMG_5267.jpg
IMG_5267.jpg (103.49 KiB) Viewed 5752 times
IMG_5276.jpg
IMG_5276.jpg (77.67 KiB) Viewed 5752 times
IMG_5281.jpg
IMG_5281.jpg (46.17 KiB) Viewed 5752 times
This one was in perfect focus when I was working on it, what happened?
IMG_5286.jpg
IMG_5286.jpg (45.95 KiB) Viewed 5752 times
This one does look good!
IMG_5294.jpg
IMG_5294.jpg (71.74 KiB) Viewed 5752 times
http://www.CandDplants.com

Craig and Denise Fry
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by SnowFella »

I'd say .jpg compression happened. Those images, aswell as the previous ones, are compressed to within an inch of their lives! Guess somewhere along the line there's a quality or compression setting that's just about set to maximum compression/low image quality.

Here's a quick and dirty comparison between the same image, first uncompressed and second compressed way to much.
Uncompressed, 600*400 and 389Kb in size
Image

Compressed like crazy, 600*400 and 45.2Kb
Image
DaveW
Posts: 7071
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: Do I need to buy a Full Frame Camera?

Post by DaveW »

Maybe sharpening your images a bit more in post processing would help?
cd.jpg
cd.jpg (101.67 KiB) Viewed 5742 times
Unlike film digital images are deliberately softened in camera to avoid moiré patterning and then re-sharpened again either in camera or in post processing.

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/ti ... oes-it-do/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Post Reply