Canon EOS 10D samples - DPChallenge Forums

04/06/2003 07:16:27 PM · #1

I went out and shot some photos using the Canon 10D. The only thing I did with these images was using Breezebrowser to convert them to HTML and upload it to the site (it did sharpen the images a bit as a result).

All photos are taken using the 50 mm F1.8 II lens which costs only $70, very sharp indeed.

Tony's 10D Samples

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/06/2003 07:20:23 PM · #2

Forgot to add: since my tripod is at a friends' house, some of these are taken at ISO 400-800.

Originally posted by paganini:

sher

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/07/2003 03:17:32 AM · #3

great pics, Tony...and congrats on the 10D! can't wait to see more images!

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/07/2003 09:45:21 AM · #4

Zilker garden's looks good.

Did you mean to underexpose all the shots by 2/3rds ? Most of them look a bit drab as a result, or were you doing that so that you can adjust it later ? I'm just curious how well the 10D does straight from the camera, the D60 underexposes quite often by about 1/3rd which works out well to keep highlight detail without any real adjustment.

I see a lot of people complaining about that 'feature' but I'm personally glad it goes that way. I guess some people think D-SLRs should be point and shoots.

Message edited by author 2003-04-07 09:46:45.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

04/07/2003 09:55:44 AM · #5

i, personally, need to keep my exposure comp -0.5 to -1.0, because the 10D will blow highlights really easily in automatic modes.

Seems that the evaluative metering algorithm in a contrasty scene will expose for the shadows, thereby blowing out the highlights. I'm getting around this by reigning it in with exposure comp.

Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR

04/07/2003 09:59:02 AM · #6

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

i, personally, need to keep my exposure comp -0.5 to -1.0, because the 10D will blow highlights really easily in automatic modes.

Maybe the responded to all the D60 underexposure complaints and took it too far :) The post shot exposure compensation in Breezebrowser can reclaim a whole lot of detail from shadow regions so I'd rather have it underexpose ever time, helps with the saturation a bit too as long as it doesn't go too far.

Yomi

Nikon D850

04/07/2003 10:39:51 AM · #7

Originally posted by paganini:

All photos are taken using the 50 mm F1.8 II lens which costs only $70, very sharp indeed.

Tony's 10D Samples

where did you find an F1.8 lens for $70? What kind is it? The photo's look great and I would love an F1.8 lens.

04/07/2003 10:47:53 AM · #8

Originally posted by Jubei Kibagami:

Originally posted by paganini:

All photos are taken using the 50 mm F1.8 II lens which costs only $70, very sharp indeed.

Tony's 10D Samples

where did you find an F1.8 lens for $70? What kind is it? The photo's look great and I would love an F1.8 lens.

It is a plastic body, cheapo prime EF mount lens for the Canon system. Very sharp for what it costs. There is also a slightly better f1.4 for about $200. The Nikkor mount equivalent is a f2.8 for about $150 or a f1.4 for about $250 looking at bhphoto.

04/07/2003 11:14:00 AM · #9

Originally posted by Gordon:

Message edited by author 2003-04-07 11:20:31.

04/07/2003 11:23:16 AM · #10

Canon's F1.8 50mm II. Cheapest one around, about $70 from B&H. Plastic body, not as reliable as the F1.4 for $200, but for the price you can't beat it. Focus is a bit slow compare to the 70-200mm F4 L lens that i have, well, basically most lenses are slow compared to that, but it's workable.

The funny thing about a $70 lens is that you tend not to want to protect it much -- do i want to spend $40 on a UV filter to protect it? No. (I mean an expensive UV filter, as cheap ones will degrade image quality and on the 1.8 it's VERY sharp already)

Originally posted by Jubei Kibagami:

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/07/2003 11:27:28 AM · #11

If you're interested in lens sharpness, here's a good site:

//www.photodo.com

they compare a bunch of them.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

04/07/2003 11:27:37 AM · #12

lol. i said all this to you in the other thread but you argued with me ;)

Originally posted by paganini:

I think 10D tends to blow out highlights, that's why I underexpose it a bit to adjust later, but obviously these came from the embedded JPEGS of the RAW files directly.

Do you read DPreview forums at all? I think Canon 10D's is attracting a lot of consumer digicam users and everyone complains how "soft" the images is, because 10D by default is not as aggressive in processing the images as digicams such as F707 (G2 tend to be softer too, but not as soft as 10D images).

I'll take some more shots later without underexposing.

Originally posted by Gordon:
Zilker garden's looks good.

Did you mean to underexpose all the shots by 2/3rds ? Most of them look a bit drab as a result, or were you doing that so that you can adjust it later ? I'm just curious how well the 10D does straight from the camera, the D60 underexposes quite often by about 1/3rd which works out well to keep highlight detail without any real adjustment.

I see a lot of people complaining about that 'feature' but I'm personally glad it goes that way. I guess some people think D-SLRs should be point and shoots.

04/07/2003 11:31:11 AM · #13

Originally posted by paganini:

Do you read DPreview forums at all? I think Canon 10D's is attracting a lot of consumer digicam users and everyone complains how "soft" the images is, because 10D by default is not as aggressive in processing the images as digicams such as F707 (G2 tend to be softer too, but not as soft as 10D images).

I basically gave up reading the dpreview forums because it was such a painful process to sort through the posts to find the comments from people that had a clue. There was so much misinformation it was horrible.

04/07/2003 11:32:48 AM · #14

Originally posted by paganini:

The funny thing about a $70 lens is that you tend not to want to protect it much -- do i want to spend $40 on a UV filter to protect it? No. (I mean an expensive UV filter, as cheap ones will degrade image quality and on the 1.8 it's VERY sharp already)

Yup, scratch it and buy a new one. I half wonder if I wouldn't have rather got the f1.4 instead, but the 50 is really sharp as is.

04/07/2003 11:34:45 AM · #15

Your pictures are a bit on the underexposed side on my screen but not too bad. Looks like you are getting some good shots with your new camera. Hopefully my 10D will arrive some time this week and I will be able have some pictures to show from it.

The 50mm f/1.8 II is a really great value. Another good prime to check out is the 35mm f/2. You can get one for under $200 and it is every bit as sharp as the 50mm f/1.8 but it is closer to a normal lens on the 10D.

Greg

04/07/2003 11:37:45 AM · #16

That's ok. I am thinking about the 17-40mm L lens, but not sure about whether i'd just get primes or a zoom lens (wide angle zooms tend not to be that great).

Originally posted by dadas115:

04/07/2003 11:41:04 AM · #17

Originally posted by paganini:

That's ok. I am thinking about the 17-40mm L lens, but not sure about whether i'd just get primes or a zoom lens (wide angle zooms tend not to be that great).

It's funny - we seem to be making the same lens choices :) Have you seen a price for the 17-40 L ? BHphoto didn't seem to have them available yet.

So far I've got a 50/f1.8, 70-200 f4 L, and a 24-85 f4.5/5.6. Wanting to get something on the wide end and also probably the 100mm macro. Have the 1.4x teleconverter which works extremely well with the 70-200 too.

04/07/2003 11:42:11 AM · #18

Gordon, I donâ��t think you are missing very much by having the f/1.8 instead of the f/1.4. The f/1.4 is my least favorite of the Canon 50mm primes (I own every EF 50mm except for the 50mm f/1.8 mk I). The 1.4 is a little faster lens and the AF is slightly better on my 1D but not that much faster. It has a 8(?) diaphragm blades instead of the f/1.8â��s 5 (this should translate to better bokeh though I havenâ��t really noticed it in my photos). The build quality feels a lot better on the f/1.4 but I have read reports of it not being terribly reliable either. I would save the extra money you might put into the f/1.4 and put into something with a different focal length.

Just my 2c about the f/1.4

Greg

04/07/2003 11:46:50 AM · #19

heheh, looks like we both avoided paying $1600 for a 70-200mm F2.8 IS lens :-)

Is the 24-85 any good? The ratings are average on the sites i have looked at.

Having a hard time deciding whether to get the wide angle zoom, or to get the 20mm lens and the 35 mm lens.

It's amazing how fast you feel "broke" after the DSLR... i can just see myself spending all the savings on lenses. A woman in our office in Israel have a 1200 mm L lens from Canon, not sure if they still sell it, but that must have cost a car.....

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by paganini:
That's ok. I am thinking about the 17-40mm L lens, but not sure about whether i'd just get primes or a zoom lens (wide angle zooms tend not to be that great).

It's funny - we seem to be making the same lens choices :) Have you seen a price for the 17-40 L ? BHphoto didn't seem to have them available yet.

So far I've got a 50/f1.8, 70-200 f4 L, and a 24-85 f4.5/5.6. Wanting to get something on the wide end and also probably the 100mm macro. Have the 1.4x teleconverter which works extremely well with the 70-200 too.

04/07/2003 12:00:32 PM · #20

Originally posted by paganini:

Yeah, the 70-200mm f2.8L was just a little bit too much for me and I've been really happy with the F4L's quality.

The 24-85 is pretty good/ average. It's what I use as a travel lens, gives good results that are acceptably sharp and isn't overly heavy or heavy on the batteries (unlike the IS lenses) The extra 4mm on the wide end compared to the 28-135 is what swung it for me, again mainly for travel. There are certainly sharper lenses but it was the right trade-off for what I wanted at the time.

I am thinking that the 16-40mm L would be a good compliment with the 70-200mm L and cover pretty much everything with just two lens options as well, if I could just find out how much that wide angle is going to be/ when it will be available.

The majority of the shots in these galleries were shot with the 24-85mm. I'm thinking that after taking over 10,000 shots with my D60 that I should get around to buying a macro lens. I'm edging towards the 100mm macro as I've heard good things about it. About to splurge on a wide-angle as well. The Sigma 15-30 is interesting, as is the new Canon if it ever becomes available. I hear you about the cost of the 1200mm lenses - never mind the lens cost, you have to outlay another grand or so for the tripod and head just to use that sort of glass. Just glad I got my yearly bonus last week to go and blow on lenses :)

Message edited by author 2003-04-07 12:06:17.

04/07/2003 12:00:45 PM · #21

If the 17-40 is even close to the quality of the 16-35 it should be a great wide-angle lens for a 10D user. I really love the results I have been getting from the 16-35. The 100mm macro is another super lens for the money. I have gotten some wonderful results with it. From reading the various forums on the net the 100mm macro appears to be the most popular Canon macro lens. I have read that the 24-85 is a good lens but I have never actually used one myself.

Greg

04/07/2003 12:41:10 PM · #22

Originally posted by Gordon:

[quote=paganini]heheh, looks like we both avoided paying $1600 for a 70-200mm F2.8 IS lens :-)

The majority of the shots in these galleries were shot with the 24-85mm. I'm thinking that after taking over 10,000 shots with my D60 that I should get around to buying a macro lens. I'm edging towards the 100mm macro as I've heard good things about it. About to splurge on a wide-angle as well. The Sigma 15-30 is interesting, as is the new Canon if it ever becomes available. I hear you about the cost of the 1200mm lenses - never mind the lens cost, you have to outlay another grand or so for the tripod and head just to use that sort of glass. Just glad I got my yearly bonus last week to go and blow on lenses :)

Yeah :-) Those are nice shots and probably will work for travelling. If the 17-40mm L gives decent results i might buy it, but I can probably live with 24-85 mm lens as a "generic" lens, and a 20 mm wide angle for scenic shots, and the 50 mm and 70-200mm will complement for the shots taht I want to be done "right".

the one thing i noticed the most when moving up from the G2 besides the very shallow DOF is that man, the 50 mm lens has literally no distortions... the G2 has horrible barrel distortions at the wide angle and still has some around the middle of the range.

04/07/2003 12:44:11 PM · #23

You'll probably find the autofocus on the 10D not as good as 1D. And you'll miss the crop factor when you get a 10D.

Originally posted by dadas115:

04/07/2003 01:03:15 PM · #24

The extra crop factor and the lighter weight are the main reasons I decided to buy the 10D. Carrying around 2 1D's with lenses mounted would get pretty heavy. I have read a lot of good things about the 10D so far so my expectations are high. From looking at Fred Miranda's site this morning I started to get the impression that some of the 1D users on there might like the 10D better than their 1D's. I have a little trouble swallowing that but I sure do hope it is the case becasue the 1D is one wonderful camera.

Greg