Hi All;
.................I'll try ta keep this simple & sweet - I bought a PowerShot Pro1 ta get me through till the 20D gets here. I went to a Dolphins football game the other day & sat about 30 rows back from the sidelines (not bad seats) on the middle deck (2nd level) of the stadium & the Sun was shining, clear day etc. I took everything at full zoom & I tried 'full auto'& TV (shutter priority) at 400-2000 (most all shutter speed in between) - & got NO full zoom shots (110 shots total) that I would consider tact-sharp while viewing at 100% in PS7. Viewing the full zoom shots at 50-75% a lot looked ok but when bumping up to 100% - Very Depressing (as were the Dolphins). Now I have got some great shots of people around me etc, but the zoom was minimal if any. This is true of a lot of non-motion shots I take with it ... Does anyone have any experience with any 8mp P&S at full zoom doing motion (or non motion for that matter - bad also) - is this normal cause if it is well it is a sad state of this P&S technology... I mean I thought I could get maybe 1-15 sharp shots out of 100+???? Is this normal, is this the best it will get (???), or may it be a Canon Tech problem???? I have posted 3 cropped (100%) shots on Pbase ( http://www.pbase.com/jcabbot/inbox )– check it out in the ‘origional’ & full ‘exif’– maybe my error & inexperience with this P&S – I had a 10D for a year & years of film shooting (amature)….Thanks for any constructive comments ……. John <><
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Working at full zoom is not what I bought my Pro 1 for but..........
I'd share with you the feeling that they are rarely, if ever, as sharp as the shots with a wider zoom.
I was thinking it was the difficulty of the camera focussing at such a distance - but even turning it to manual focus does not help.
On the other hand full zoom on static shots does look better than full zoom on an action shot. Is it that camera movement is what we are suffering from?
Tony
London UK
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Don't forget that the PRO 1 doesn't have the advantage of having an Image Stabilised lens, which probably doesn't help matters.
I know that when I'm taking pictures of moving objects I prefer my 10D and an IS lens. I tend to use the PRO 1 for static and slow moving stuff and try to rest it on something to hold it steady if I need a slower shutter speed.
Having a heavier camera actually helps to keep the lens steadier, I admit I don't know how but it certainly seems that way.
A case for trying a monopod perhaps? Or maybe by next time you'll have your 20D.
Regards
Nigel
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Hi All;
............Tony I'm interested the purpose you use your Pro1 for, if I may ask (this may help me to kinda compartmentalize it when I get my 20D) - should I have maybe bought this with no aspirations of getting any clean action shots at all????
............Nigel maybe I'm 'camera dumb', but if I shoot at a ss of 1/1600 or 1/2000 with a ASA of 100 on a bright day (with the extent of that zoom & it being a 'L' lens) - should that be enough to stop some action without IS - I mean even people just walking???? Look at my posted pics @ 100% & check out the EXIF - there's guys just standing there that are blurred somewhat or at least VERY Very soft - is there something in the settings, ss, aperture or whatnot that I can change that I'm missing???? I thought if you shoot at a very high ss, then even camera shake will cease - am I mistaken? You really have to look at the examples/EXIF to see what I am talking about & what I am confused about....what I'm trying to ascertain is if this inherent to this camera & I have to live with it, OR is it my error - what can I change, OR, may there be a tech problem with my Pro1? ................Thanks again for the comments..... John <><
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I needed a leisure camera. My 1Ds kit, the three zooms, spare battery, a small flash and some bits, are so heavy that I had to buy a large wheel bag. I'll take it anywhere for work, but nowhere for fun.
My Pro 1 is what replaced my original G3. Very early in my G3 days I realised that the shutter lag alone made it an impossible work camera so I expected little more when I got the Pro 1.
What I wanted was a camera that was as light and portable as possible but with enough pixels so that if I was lucky enough to capture a shot that I could use in one of my magazines I would not be defeated by inadequate definition.
Early in the summer I dropped my 70-200 IS zoom and, with all the Canon techies being bundled off to Portugal for the footie and Athens for the games, it took about four months to get it mended. So I tried a few long zoom sports shots with the Pro 1.
But hardly any of them work. The bigger problem than lack of definition on the long end of the zoom is the shutter lag. Even taking pictures of people playing bowls is total hit and miss.
And the poster who mentioned the lack of IS could have more of a point than you first think. There used to be a set of calculations on the Really Right Stuff site when it was under its previous ownership. Read them and you'd rarely hand hold a camera again. It might also be linked to the problem of the smaller chip - but that bit of maths defeats me.
Why not try putting your Pro 1 on a tripod and seeing what that does to help. Maybe you have?
I love my Pro 1. When I use it as a travel camera I rarely zoom in tighter than around 70mm. I am more concerned at getting plenty of width and would willingly sacrifice anything beyond 80mm for a bit more at the wide end. Even if I could get a 20D in the UK I don't think I'd swop it for the Pro 1. I wanted a camera that was much more compact than a DSLR.
I'd have considered the other 8 megapixel cameras such as the Leica, but all of them had lousy RAW writing to card speed when compared with the Pro 1 - and I am a committed RAW shooter.
Not much help to you I am afraid as you are now committed - but those are my findings. Sorry.
EDIT. J. I have just looked at those shots you posted and they certainly look softer than I would have expected. I think there is a problem somewhere. It could be camera shake or it could be your lens.
Tony
London UK
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Personally I use G3 and I must say, that I must use 2 or 3 stops more light (or put other way, shorter shutter speed handheld), to get visually as sharp pictures (no handshake) as with an old filmshooting Canon G III. Same thing also with other small diameter CCD:s I have used.
This is natural, if you think you shake both cameras with the same amount (lets say 0,1mm). Then you make a print of similar size from both (film: 10X 24x35 mm, digital: 50x 5x7 mm, roughly count). So you have enlarged shake for film 10 times and for digital 50 times, for film-based print it is 1mm and for digi-based print 5mm in the same print size. Maybe this is too a simple mathematics, but correct it please, if I have thougth it wrong way.
So I welcome anti-shake systems for smaller CCD´s, like Panasonic new models, otherwise handholding is a pain.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I've just looked at the RRS site and they've removed the paper I was referring to. No doubt it is archived somewhere. But from memory I think you are on the right lines.
Tony
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
