Myer

I forgot to answer your other questions.

I was there in early August.

My current camera is a Canon DSLR. The model is T2i and is now two years old. The models get upgraded about once a year. My previous camera was the same model (xt) but about 4 years old at the time it was retired.

The upgrades from one to the next aren't usually worth upgrading but 4 generations definitely made a difference.

I have an excellent travel lens. Canon 15-85. Costs as much as the camera but is 20% wider than what most people carry and has reasonable length. It's also sharp throughout the range.

Many people believe that when they go on a trip they need a longer lens. The exact opposite is true. When you come back and review your photos you usually find they just don't look like what you saw. That's because they're not wide enough. Especially for landscapes.

The only time you really need long is for wildlife. For that I have a lens (Canon 55-250) that's only marginally long enough. Not really long enough for distant animals.

If you look at my photos of the Yellowstone and Banff trips, the photos of the bears were taken with the 15-85 and not the 55-250. Except the mother and cubs I was way too close to them. I was about 75 yards away from the mother.

I was in Banff last year with my wife so I figured I wouldn't be out looking for wildlife. MISTAKE!!! I won't do that again.

In a few weeks I'm going to Glacier National Park with my daughter. For sure I'll have both lenses. However, I'm not really used to changing lenses on the go. I'm going to do some practicing over the next week.

jill_h

<It's also sharp throughout the range.>

This sounds like the issue i'm having. Even though I use autofocus, my pics always seem a bit fuzzy, or "soft" never sharp/crisp. I don't know how much is operator error or camera error!

I have the Nikon d50 and Sigma lenses (both 15-85 and 55-250). I tend to use the 55-250 mostly.

Myer

I'm sure you have a "crop" camera too. Mine is as well.

I think that's a 6 megapixel camera. Quite old but that doesn't make it get worse. It just means that you can't really crop images much.

In general the cost of a lens determines a lot unrelated to the actual specs of the lenses. Most lenses are sharp but where they are sharp is the issue.

For instance you may have a lens whose aperture (lens opening) goes from f3.5 (wide open) to f22 (closed down). It may not be sharp until you start getting to f6.3 or f7 or f8.

Then you have shutter speed. If you're using your camera in an automatic mode you have little control about the settings.

So if the shutter speed is too slow then you have another issue. I used to use 1/125 sec on my old film camera. However, the crop cameras (those SLR digitals with a smaller sensor such as your camera and mine) magnify the issue more.
Also, I'm not as steady as I used to be. When on a trip I try to keep my shutter speed faster than 1/250 and in bright conditions keep it at 1/320 sec or faster.

So your issue could be caused by too slow shutter speed and/or the lens aperture being in a weak area of the lens.

For simplicity, you want to use as fast a shutter speed as possible and have the lens closed down at least several stops (settings). This is all ignoring special effects, etc.

Of course, this is not possible under dim lighting conditions. So now you have to compromise.

One of the main reasons I upgraded from my older Canon xt to the T2i is the high ISO performance. My old camera went up to ISO1600 but was very noisy there. My newer camera goes up to ISO6400 and it's pretty clean at ISO3200.

That means if the conditions are dim, instead of using a shutter speed that's too slow and get a fuzzy image, I'll up the ISO (sensitivty) to compensate and get my shot. If I have to I'll "push" the camera to ISO12800 and use noise reduction software later.

I'd rather a sharp but noisy image (I can apply noise reduction later) than a clean but fuzzy one.

I don't know where you are in photography but if you let me know if you understand all this stuff we can continue. Otherwise we're wasting our time.

I used to have a Sigma 17-80. Before I bought it I read all the reviews about how great it was. Then when I bought it everything anywhere close to wide open was VERY VERY soft.

Also, I always questioned how it focused. I was just not pleased with it. So when I upgraded my camera I also went with the newer Canon 15-85.

Myer

I meant to write one more thing.

If you have a DSLR camera (and you do) it's expected you don't treat it like a point and shoot. That means it's expected you will do some post-processing.

Some sharpening is expected. You can either use Photoshop (or other) or the software that came with the camera.

jill_h

Yep, been having to do that in IPhoto.

do you shoot in RAW?

Myer

No, I don't shoot in RAW but have considered it.

= = = =
As I mentioned, photos that are not sharp can be caused by anything from equipment to user issues.

Also, other things I didn't mention. You photos could be sharp but with the lens wide open the depth of field would be shallow.

And then there's just bad focusing by you camera. Have you tried using manual focus to see if it's better. It's possible autofocus just isn't working properly.

You've got to eliminate each of the things I mentioned and then decide how to resolve the remaining. It may be that your lenses just aren't sharp. Or. . . .

jill_h

I'll check out manual focus and see if that changes anything. Thanks for your input Myer.

Jill

Myer

You shouldn't have to use manual focus but if manual focus results in sharp images then there's something wrong between your camera and the lens.

You have to try and record the other settings as a very fast shutter speed and closed down lens will mask other problems.

ozgirl

Bookmarking - GTNP tomorrow! Thank you ��