what am I doing wrong?

tsaraleksi · Dec 27, 2008

Cameras have a hard time focusing on such a small object in the finder-- particularly with an older lens that may be a bit dodgy accuracy wise.

feRRari4756 · Dec 27, 2008

yeah my lens is older. from 1988.

its stilll a very good canon EF though.

should i use manual focus? but even on manual focus i dont think ill be able to really get it that clear with manual anyway..

McQueen278 · Dec 28, 2008

It's really not that great of a lens. I got one in a lot of camera stuff I bought off craigslist and it wasn't very good at all. A nice prime or an L series from1988 will likely give good results, but a consumer zoom of that age is almost always crap. I'd look into a 70-300mm. You can find them new for $150 and it will AF better.

imp25rs · Dec 28, 2008

Dagwood56 said:
I'm not new to photography, but I am relatively new to digital, for the past year I have a used a canon P&S and gotten some remarkable photos. I was pleased that most could be zoomed in even larger in photoshopp and cropped for a nice crisp clear closeup.

So ---I finallly get the camera I've dreamed of for the past two years - Sony A100 and I go out to shoot some birds and scenic shots using a 70-210mm Minolta lens from my old film camera I got what I thought were nice clsoe shots. I'm shooting in JPEG fine which according to the manual is still recording at 10.2mp and I put the photos on the computer. In photoshop I zoom in on a bird expecting exceptional results and it looks like it was shot with a 5mp or less camera! I had the camera shake button on - I'm working in program mode with a ISO of 200, avearge shutter speed 125 -250 and the picture looks clear untill I zoom in using photo shop....why? I'm reallly getting frustrated!

I had the same problem when I switched to digital a few months ago. I have a Minolta Maxxum 7 that I have used for years and got great photos with using a Tamron28-200 f3.8-5.6 lens. I also have an 8MP Canon point and shoot that does great photos. Like you mentioned you can crop the photos and still end up with a good print. A few months ago I decided that digital SLRs were finally good enough to make the switch. Since I already had everything for the Minolta I decided to go with a Sony A700. The next day I went and took some photos (using RAW) of my kids riding their bikes and got some good, but not spectacular photos. Like you stated above, when you zoom in to 100% they were not very crisp. So like you I was a little frustrated after spending the money for a DSLR and getting better results with a $150 point and shoot. A few days later I setup the tripod and placed an object a few feet away. I took several photos using different focal lengths and aperature settings. When I got back to the computer all the photos looked pretty good until I started zooming in. Some focal lengths provided crisp photos and others were not as good. After this I went out and got a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens since I didn't have any macro lenses. The quality of the photos greatly improved with the new lens.

The only thing I can figure out is that when shooting film, you probably don't see the images blown up past 8x10. At which point if something is just slightly out of focus or the image is not absolutely perfect, you will probably not notice. With the DSLR, when you zoom in to 100% on the image you are looking at something that is far larger than an 8x10 so you are going to see every imperfection with it.

The short version of this story is make sure you have a good lens to begin with. I have heard that the Sony G-Series lenses are simply the old Minolta lenses rebadged as Sony's so they should be pretty good.

Hope this helps.

Dao · Dec 28, 2008

feRRari4756 said:
yeah my lens is older. from 1988.

its stilll a very good canon EF though.

should i use manual focus? but even on manual focus i dont think ill be able to really get it that clear with manual anyway..

I used to have this EF lens and it is not too bad

I took this picture with it and my old XTi
210mm F/5.6 1/320 ISO400

I will stay away from using F/4 when you are at 210mm.

feRRari4756 · Dec 28, 2008

McQueen278 said:
It's really not that great of a lens. I got one in a lot of camera stuff I bought off craigslist and it wasn't very good at all. A nice prime or an L series from1988 will likely give good results, but a consumer zoom of that age is almost always crap. I'd look into a 70-300mm. You can find them new for $150 and it will AF better.

Oh thanks for telling me this. i thought it was really good (i am new). Thatt may be my problem of soft images--the lens.

I looked around ebay and the cheapest i could find a canon 70-300 mm was 500.

Could you (or anyone else) gve me some links?

THANKS

gsgary · Dec 28, 2008

Jurence said:
Lower ISO
Make shutter speed faster for more clarity
Make aperture smaller (more light to balance the above two)

A smaller aperture will let less light in, don't you mean smaller number

McQueen278 · Dec 28, 2008

Sorry, I miss typed on my ipod. I meant to say 75-300mm. Here is a link

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens Review

This still isn't a stellar lens by anyone standards, but having shot wit both it will be much better than the 70-210mm. Ideally, you'd want the 70-200mm f/4L, but that lens runs $560 when the Canon rebate is available.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review

feRRari4756 · Dec 28, 2008

Thank you very much!

Is there any lens in between that go for like 250 new? (in that series)

And what are the benefits that the 569$ lens has over the 150$ lens?

McQueen278 · Dec 28, 2008

Read the review, it will become clear. The 70-200mm f/4 is one of the sharpest zoom lenses around. None of the lenses in that range between the cheapo and the 70-200mm f/4 are worth the extra money in my opinion.

feRRari4756 · Dec 28, 2008

McQueen278 said:
Read the review, it will become clear. The 70-200mm f/4 is one of the sharpest zoom lenses around. None of the lenses in that range between the cheapo and the 70-200mm f/4 are worth the extra money in my opinion.

Hmm, after reading the reviews, the 2nd one really sounds like the better deal and a wonderful lens!

I think I will just save up and buy one used if i can find one or new if i cant.

Thanks for all your help.

SO I THINK THIS PROBLEM IS SOLVED. It is probably my lens that is not allowing me to get sharp images right?

feRRari4756 · Dec 28, 2008

BTW, here is the infinite zoom test.

1) Shutter speed: 1/250, APerture 11, Zoom: 70 mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richieepiscopo/3143609053/

2) Shutter Speed: 1/200, Aperture 4, Zoom 70 mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richieepiscopo/3144435096/

3) Shutter Speed: 1/2000, Aperture 4, Zoom 210 mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richieepiscopo/3144435176/

4) Shutter Speed: 1/250, Aperture 11, Zoom 210 mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richieepiscopo/3144435148/

Dao · Dec 28, 2008

feRRari4756 said:
Hmm, after reading the reviews, the 2nd one really sounds like the better deal and a wonderful lens!

I think I will just save up and buy one used if i can find one or new if i cant.

Thanks for all your help.

SO I THINK THIS PROBLEM IS SOLVED. It is probably my lens that is not allowing me to get sharp images right?

Yes for the 70-200 F/4L being one of the sharpest lens in that range. I do not own the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, but I doubt it is going to be better than the EF 70-210mm F/4 Macro.

Search for EF 70-210mm F/4 in flickr.com and you can find some nice images taken with that lens. And the flickr group Flickr: Canon EF 70-210mm F/4.0 Macro

Again, if possible, when you take a photo with the focal length of 210mm, try to shoot it with F5.6 - F/8, not F/4. Also, for wildlife type of shorts (not zoo), 200mm range may not be long enough (from what I read from members in this forum)

Dagwood56 · Dec 28, 2008

Can't recall who posted what a t this point but to answer EARLY: I started the original post.

To address another question about the Minolta 70-210 lens - I have the later one 5.6. I intend to bag that for a while and work with my 35- 70 zoom and see if I get better results.

And its nice to know misery loves comapny so to speak and that I am not the only one with a Sony camera having this problem.

I have made several adjustments to settings based on info I got in a second post about this problem "why did I buy this camera" and I'm hoping when I go out on Tuesday that I will get some better results. I'm also questioning Sony's DRO and wondering if i should turn it off - perhaps it works like the "automatic adjusments" that they do at stores when putting film onto a CD. The book says DRO doesn't work [or doesn't do much in camera processing if you shoot in raw] So perhaps shutting thsi feature off willl also solve some of my problems - I shoot in jpg because I only have one 2GB card and I can take 150 shots in just a couple hours on a good day...which I haven;t had recently. If al this doesn;t work - then I am REALLY going to be frustrated and will probably sell the DSLr and go back to my canon 8mp P&S!

Dao · Dec 28, 2008

I believe once you have few example photos post here, some of the experience users here should be able to share some tips. Although I am into photography for less than one year, and have not use a Sony/Minolta DSLR before but I strongly believe your camera should be capable to capture beautiful photos.