Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Chip NoVaMac said:
I will say that the 28-70 Tamron is a great performer! Love mine on my XT.

Chip, do you have any shots you took with the Tamron 28-70 I could see?

I've seen a few arounnd the web, but none have been that great.
 
Lacero said:
Where are the photos? I've only counted 2 worthy to be in this thread.

For a Picture Gallery thread, this thread suX0rz! Of course, the Lima pic alone is worth the price of admission.

Need more pics!

I just needed something to show off that Adriana photo....sadly everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of 'classy a**' with cameras....you lazy bastards you. I have found some other interesting pictures while looking for lady/camera pics, but they aren't allowed to be posted me thinks :p
 
efoto said:
I just needed something to show off that Adriana photo....sadly everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of 'classy a**' with cameras....you lazy bastards you.

I could have but it would probably gotten me banned, or offended the Str8's here....
:D
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
I could have but it would probably gotten me banned, or offended the Str8's here....
:D

I was going to write "everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of hot chicks with cameras" but instead I wrote "everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of 'classy a**' with cameras" because I didn't want to offend the 'bent's here.... ;)

bents = gay if you couldn't figure that out....it was a loose connection I'll admit :rolleyes:
 
Mike Teezie said:
Chip, do you have any shots you took with the Tamron 28-70 I could see?

I've seen a few arounnd the web, but none have been that great.


I have this lens for my 20D and absolutely love it - I find I end up using it for more shots than any of my other lenses :D

D
 
Mr. Anderson said:
I have this lens for my 20D and absolutely love it - I find I end up using it for more shots than any of my other lenses :D

D

I am more of a wide angle shooter, but this lens has found a home for me. It appears that if I stay with the 1.6x factor from Canon, my three lenses to carry with with me mostly will be the Tokina 12-24, the Tamron 28-70, and the Canon 70-300DO IS (on my short list):D
 
This is a little OT, but I'm hijacking my own thread....so whatever.

This is a 100% crop from a photo taken earlier today and a family event inside a church.

Stuff:
Canon 20D
24-70 f/2.8L

Shot at:
38 mm
f/2.8
1/80
ISO 800

Take a look at the noise, what do you guys think? Is it normal? high/low? This is zero PP, just opened in PSCS2 and then cropped and exported to a jpeg at 12 to attempt to maintain quality. Thanks, just trying to get a feeling for what to expect from my new stuff.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • _MG_0237.jpg
    _MG_0237.jpg
    177.9 KB · Views: 300
Another, shot a little different. I never really experimented or pushed my D70 like I have my 20D early today (low-light, indoor stuff) so I'm not even sure what the noise on it looks like....but this seems pretty noisy. Is this what is to be expected, am I overreacting about this noise? (100% crop as the other example)

Shot at:
70 mm
f/2.8
1/640
ISO 1600

Maybe with that shutter I could have been able to drop to ISO 800 and lower my shutter a bit, but I didn't so whatever....I'm still learning a lot. Just curious to see what you all think of this.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • _MG_0306.jpg
    _MG_0306.jpg
    175.6 KB · Views: 307
In the end we have pixel peeping going on. The issue is more of how these look in print. I you want smoothness, then use NeatImage or Noise Image to give you the most from these images....
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
In the end we have pixel peeping going on. The issue is more of how these look in print. I you want smoothness, then use NeatImage or Noise Image to give you the most from these images....

I realize I can reduce the noise if I wanted to....I was more curious to know if these seemed like reasonable noise levels given the shooting parameters. Like I said, I haven't 'pushed' a camera like this before so this is the most noise I have seen before. I have looked at some other images I took at ISO 100/200 and those a pretty much spotless.

I just want to know if these seem normal. They are the native 3504x2336 (8.2MP) so I know that if they are squished into a 4x6 or 5x7 they will probably look fine. I don't really have a feel for this type of stuff much though, just looking for opinions I suppose.
 
You're going to be a little soft at 2.8, so maybe take the same shot at 4.0 and 8 and see the difference (other than depth of field) and get more light so you have a faster shutter speed.

Chip - I have the Tokina 12-28 too and love it :D

D
 
efoto said:
I realize I can reduce the noise if I wanted to....I was more curious to know if these seemed like reasonable noise levels given the shooting parameters. Like I said, I haven't 'pushed' a camera like this before so this is the most noise I have seen before. I have looked at some other images I took at ISO 100/200 and those a pretty much spotless.

I just want to know if these seem normal. They are the native 3504x2336 (8.2MP) so I know that if they are squished into a 4x6 or 5x7 they will probably look fine. I don't really have a feel for this type of stuff much though, just looking for opinions I suppose.

800 and 1600 ISO...:eek:
 
iGary said:
800 and 1600 ISO...:eek:

I realize they're not going to be spotless, not by any means. I was wondering if this is normal amounts of noise given those shooting parameters. I haven't shot such high ISO before....I just want to know if this looks as you would expect given the settings.

I think they look alright, the ISO 1600 obviously looking worse but still usable at smaller print sizes.
 
efoto said:
I realize they're not going to be spotless, not by any means. I was wondering if this is normal amounts of noise given those shooting parameters. I haven't shot such high ISO before....I just want to know if this looks as you would expect given the settings.

I think they look alright, the ISO 1600 obviously looking worse but still usable at smaller print sizes.


No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800
 
Garcia said:
No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800

I was going to say, that looks pretty dang clean efoto.

A few nights back I snapped a few frames inside my comuter rooom at night with just a desk lamp on at ISO 800 & 1600, and got a little bit more noise than that.

But the room was considerably darker, and I was using the kit lens at f/3.5.

Shots look good to me!
 
Mike Teezie said:
Garcia said:
No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800
I was going to say, that looks pretty dang clean efoto.

A few nights back I snapped a few frames inside my comuter rooom at night with just a desk lamp on at ISO 800 & 1600, and got a little bit more noise than that.

But the room was considerably darker, and I was using the kit lens at f/3.5.

Shots look good to me!

Okay, sweet. Like I said, I simply haven't pushed a camera like that before at such high ISO so I wasn't sure what to expect. I looked at a few trial shots from some reviews, but those can be hard to trust sometimes because of the setups. Thanks for the comments, makes me feel a bit better ;)
 
Garcia said:
No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800

Agreed...that looks pretty damned good for 800 ISO.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.