Quantcast
Canon 24-105 4L, 70-200 2.8L, and Rebel T4i issues - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59

Thread: Canon 24-105 4L, 70-200 2.8L, and Rebel T4i issues

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Few questions...

    Had to replace my old gear and bought two Canon lenses off kijiji.
    24-105 4L and the 2.8L 70-200. Was contemplating the Tamron 70-200 2.8 brand new, but ended up with the used Canon. Now I'm not sure that was the wisest decision.
    A few concerns:
    1: the shots taken with the 24-105 don't "wow" me. I rented one previously and I was impressed with the results. All on the same body. EOS 650.
    2: The 70-200 won't focus on distant subjects when at the wider range (70mm) I have to zoom in for it to "lock".
    3: Some shots are tack sharp....others, the focus seems just a hair off, even though focusing locked in.
    4: seems slow to follow a subject moving towards me on AI SERVO mode.
    5: in continuous shooting mode I can only get 3 shots in the buffer (the ltitle number in uper right corner of viewfinder). 6 If I shoot RAW even though I've put in a faster SD card.

    Can I send these lenses in to Canon for checking/calibration?
    How long does that usually take?
    Is it expensive?
    Or am I just a crappy photographer.

    Frustrated with my shots.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,406
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Can you post some samples? Some of these issues might just be technique or settings related. I think you have a Rebel T4i but please correct me if I'm wrong.

    My thoughts on your concerns:

    1) The 24-105L is an average lens. It's a good "general purpose" lens but it's nothing special and I wouldn't say it has a "wow" factor. It's also is more like an F5.2 lens than F4 as far as light transmission goes which is getting pretty slow. It's a popular lens for the price, but it's nothing special. If you're being critical, the 24-105 probably isn't going to impress. It's more of a jack of all trades lens, and doesn't really excel anywhere. If the previous one you tried impressed you, it's possible you have a bad copy or calibration issues with the current one.

    2) Distant as in infinity focus? Or just further away than average? As an experiment, put the camera in live view (forcing it to use contrast-detect AF) and see if you still have issues focusing at a distance at 70mm when you rule out the PDAF system. If it only has trouble focusing when you use PDAF (phase detect AF, the normal viewfinder AF), then it might be a calibration issue assuming you have a good AF target. Remember your camera needs contrast to focus, so if you're shooting into the sun or something extremely dark or low-contrast, it won't be accurate.

    3) The AF system in the T4i is pretty average. You can't expect the accuracy and consistency of a higher-end camera body. It isn't going to nail every shot, but if it's REALLY bad, then there's something else probably going on. The other thing is that none of the Rebel line has AF micro adjustment, so if something is off with the PDAF between your lens and body, you can't fix it yourself. PDAF systems aren't perfect either, they have a small amount of variation - if you focus on the same thing 10 times, it likely won't focus *precisely* the same every time as there are just too many variables. If you're pixel peeping, you're going to see some AF variance. Again, it should be pretty good though - if your keeper rate is terrible, chances are there is something else going on.

    4) Slow to track is probably the T5i AF system, it's just not great. Subjects moving toward or away from the camera are the absolute hardest things to track, and this struggle magnified the closer the subject is to the camera. If you have a dog or something running head-on very quickly at the camera I would be surprised if you could get many keepers. That's a difficult task even with pro gear. The system also needs light and a contrasty target to focus it's best.

    5) Even with a Sandisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD card, the RAW buffer on a T4i is only 6 frames, which will go by really fast. The buffer maxes out at 3 frames if you shoot RAW + JPEG which is probably what you had it set on when you got capped at 3. If you shoot JPEG only you should be able to get around 15 frames in before it slows to a crawl. The faster card isn't going to do much for buffer depth, it will just allow the buffer to clear faster, and raise your minimum FPS very slightly if you try to keep shooting after the buffer is full.

    After some controlled testing, if you're convinced there is an AF issue with your camera body and the 70-200, you can send the camera and lens into Canon. You need to send both in if you want proper calibration. If they are under warranty you might get lucky with a free fix, otherwise I am not sure what the charge would be - you can always give them a call. Turnaround time varies a lot with the camera manufacturers. Canon has a couple locations in Calgary, not sure if they are still doing repairs out of them or not.

    You aren't a crappy photographer, from what you describe, your frustrations are most likely a mixture of technique and asking a bit too much of your gear. Also if you can post some samples of what's frustrating you it will help us diagnose them.
    Last edited by Mitsu3000gt; 01-16-2016 at 02:14 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    So basically I've got about $4,000 of "average" gear that takes shitty pictures?

    I dunno...I'm just kind of fed up with trying to spend more and more money and not get results. Feel like dumping it all and forgetting about photography.
    I expected more from a $1200 and $2,000 "L" series glass.
    My 70-200 F4L didn't have any of these problems with the T4i. But I needed something faster for hockey pictures.
    And like I said, when I rented the 24-105, I WAS wowed with the results.

    I fuckin give up.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,406
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Originally posted by C_Dave45
    So basically I've got about $4,000 of "average" gear that takes shitty pictures?

    I dunno...I'm just kind of fed up with trying to spend more and more money and not get results. Feel like dumping it all and forgetting about photography.
    I expected more from a $1200 and $2,000 "L" series glass.
    My 70-200 F4L didn't have any of these problems with the T4i. But I needed something faster for hockey pictures.
    And like I said, when I rented the 24-105, I WAS wowed with the results.

    I fuckin give up.
    No I'm not saying that, you can get stunning pictures with your gear assuming A) you have proper technique B) you don't have any issues with calibration/hardware and C) you understand the limits of your gear. Photography has tons of variables, throwing money at problems doesn't always help. Also, everything in photography is a trade off. For example with your 70-200/2.8 you got 1 extra stop of light compared to your F4 version, but you also have a bigger, heavier, lens and significantly less DOF, making it all the more important that you nail focus because less of the image will be sharp.

    If you want lots of keepers of a fast moving subject moving directly toward the camera, even the very best camera bodies struggle with that. It's pretty much the most difficult scenario for a modern AF system to deal with in photography. You are using an entry level camera body, and action photography is not one of it's strong points - there are going to be some limitations there whether you like it or not. If you're expecting great results in very difficult conditions you are probably going to be disappointed.

    The 70-200/4 L is a good lens, the 70-200/2.8L Mk1 is as good, just with F2.8. Keep in mind as well that with Canon's 1.6 cop factor you're at 320mm equivalent on the long end of that zoom, and you need to be watching your shutter speed (general rule is 1/focal length minimum, so 1/320sec shutter speed at the very least), it has to be high enough to freeze your target AND negate any shaking on your end. Your 70-200/4 is going to be more forgiving because of the extra DOF at F4, even if your focus is slightly off you probably won't notice, especially on a crop body. Try set your new lens at F4 and see if you get similar results to your previous lens with regards to focus.

    If you tried two 24-105L's on the same body, and one was great, then I would guess you either have a bad copy or calibration issues with the other one. Again, if you post some samples we can probably help more.

    Why don't you post some samples of what's frustrating you and see if your 70-200/2.8 will focus at a distance in live view at 70mm. You need to do some troubleshooting before coming to any conclusions. Buying gear more suited to the task won't hurt, but it's also not a good solution until you've exhausted all other options. If you want to see if a particular piece of gear is going to make a big difference, rent it or borrow it first.

    What are the conditions like in the hockey arenas you shoot in? Post some examples if you can and what settings you used. Maybe it's something silly that's causing you the headaches.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cowtown
    My Ride
    10' 4Runner SR5
    Posts
    6,345
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Dave what camera do you have again? EOS 650?!

    I didn't read what Mark wrote (because it's a wall of text lol) but understand that your settings like shutter speed not fast enough, for example, can make things look shitty. Also understand that there is likely nothing wrong with your glass but likely the camera body isn't up to modern standard if you're comparing to pics online.

    Post pics and be open to criticism.
    Last edited by msommers; 01-16-2016 at 05:36 PM.
    Ultracrepidarian

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by msommers
    Dave what camera do you have again? EOS 650?!

    I didn't read what Mark wrote (because it's a wall of text lol) but understand that your settings like shutter speed not fast enough, for example, can make things look shitty. Also understand that there is likely nothing wrong with your glass but likely the camera body isn't up to modern standard if you're comparing to pics online.

    Post pics and be open to criticism.
    I'm beginning to suspect the T4i is not the body I need to have. I figured I would spend money on glass before spending money on body. But I may be expecting too much.

    (Responses in blue)

    Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


    No I'm not saying that, you can get stunning pictures with your gear assuming A) you have proper technique B) you don't have any issues with calibration/hardware and C) you understand the limits of your gear. Photography has tons of variables, throwing money at problems doesn't always help. Also, everything in photography is a trade off. For example with your 70-200/2.8 you got 1 extra stop of light compared to your F4 version, but you also have a bigger, heavier, lens and significantly less DOF, making it all the more important that you nail focus because less of the image will be sharp.

    If you want lots of keepers of a fast moving subject moving directly toward the camera, even the very best camera bodies struggle with that. It's pretty much the most difficult scenario for a modern AF system to deal with in photography. You are using an entry level camera body, and action photography is not one of it's strong points - there are going to be some limitations there whether you like it or not. If you're expecting great results in very difficult conditions you are probably going to be disappointed.
    Fair enough, that makes sense. I was thinking of jumping to the 7D. I just can't afford a full-frame, professional body.


    The 70-200/4 L is a good lens, the 70-200/2.8L Mk1 is as good, just with F2.8. Keep in mind as well that with Canon's 1.6 cop factor you're at 320mm equivalent on the long end of that zoom, and you need to be watching your shutter speed (general rule is 1/focal length minimum, so 1/320sec shutter speed at the very least), it has to be high enough to freeze your target AND negate any shaking on your end.
    I'm shooting wide open at full manual with "auto-ISO" and keep shutter at 1/500 or above, close to 1/1000

    Your 70-200/4 is going to be more forgiving because of the extra DOF at F4, even if your focus is slightly off you probably won't notice, especially on a crop body. Try set your new lens at F4 and see if you get similar results to your previous lens with regards to focus.
    For inside a hockey arena I need the 2.8 otherwise I need to be at 6400 ISO or higher for proper speed

    If you tried two 24-105L's on the same body, and one was great, then I would guess you either have a bad copy or calibration issues with the other one. Again, if you post some samples we can probably help more.
    That's why I thought it might be calibration, but hard to tell when it's completely different parameters. (subject, lighting, etc) I'll keep trying

    Why don't you post some samples of what's frustrating you and see if your 70-200/2.8 will focus at a distance in live view at 70mm. You need to do some troubleshooting before coming to any conclusions. Buying gear more suited to the task won't hurt, but it's also not a good solution until you've exhausted all other options. If you want to see if a particular piece of gear is going to make a big difference, rent it or borrow it first.

    What are the conditions like in the hockey arenas you shoot in? Post some examples if you can and what settings you used. Maybe it's something silly that's causing you the headaches.


    5) Even with a Sandisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD card, the RAW buffer on a T4i is only 6 frames, which will go by really fast. The buffer maxes out at 3 frames if you shoot RAW + JPEG which is probably what you had it set on when you got capped at 3. If you shoot JPEG only you should be able to get around 15 frames in before it slows to a crawl. The faster card isn't going to do much for buffer depth, it will just allow the buffer to clear faster, and raise your minimum FPS very slightly if you try to keep shooting after the buffer is full.
    I have a Lexar Professional 150 mB/s card. I get 6 in the buffer at RAW. When I switch to JPG only (not RAW + JPG) that drops to 3. Which doesn't make sense, but that's what I get.

    Okay...the 3 photos in THIS post are ones that I'm okay with...but not "WOW". Even though I posted them in that thread, I almost feel they're not worthy of the shots I see in there. First one was with the 24-105. Other two are the 70-200. (You can see the details in the EXIF info)

    Here are shots I'm not impressed with at all:








    Last edited by C_Dave45; 01-16-2016 at 06:38 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    379
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    What AF points are you using?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Strathmore
    My Ride
    2005 Dirtymax
    Posts
    2,222
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    are you using any filters on your lenses?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by sl888
    What AF points are you using?
    I use just one center point and try to bullseye that on my subject.


    Originally posted by firebane
    are you using any filters on your lenses?
    Just a UV filter.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,406
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    The bird pictures in your link from Fish Creek are perfectly fine. Only comments I would make is that they look really saturated, maybe you have saturation turned up in-camera or something (or maybe you like that which is totally fine). The only other thing on the first picture is it's shot a F18 which was probably unnecessary - the picture turned out fine but your shutter speed was on the low side for birds and keep in mind at F18 you will start to get a negative impact on image quality due to diffraction. Above F11 or so, your pictures will actually get noticeably softer, even though depth of field increases.


    Thanks for posting samples. I can't see the EXIF data so I can't comment on that.

    Photo's 1,2, & 8 - that is literally one of the hardest situations for a camera's AF - something coming directly toward (or away) from the camera. From a distance, the black dog on white background is ideal (lots of contrast), but as the dog gets much closer and the AF point starts to be completely covered by the black dog, there is zero contrast there for the camera to focus on anymore.

    The photos are dark because your camera meter is seeing 90% white snow and trying to average the exposure, and in that scenario it is going to underexpose a lot to preserve the highlights in the snow. Every camera will do this. You can try and spot meter the dog, but that will only work if you can keep the middle AF point on the dog the whole time - if it hits the snow the exposure will go to the other extreme. Try dialing in +1.0 or +2.0 EV of positive exposure compensation next time, and it will counter the camera's desire to expose for the snow (when using evaluative metering). Just don't expect miracles with head-on action, even the high end bodies can have trouble here.

    White balance looks off too (snow looks blue), but 2 seconds of post processing would correct that. You could also take a custom WB reading using the snow and it would probably be pretty close.

    Photo 3 is a black dog against sunlit snow, basically one of the highest dynamic range shots I can think of. No camera can expose for both - If you want the black dog exposed properly, the snow is going to be completely blown out. Extremely bright situations can also screw with the AF sensor. If you want your dog exposed properly in this situation your best bet is probably to spot meter it's face, and accept that the snow is going to be completely blown out. Stuff like this is very difficult for the camera to get right by itself - ideally you would be able to process it a bit after the fact.

    Photo 4 looks really soft to me - not sure if the camera just missed focus, or if that is the 70mm AF issue you are talking about at infinity with your 70-200. Assuming that's not a heavy crop, it looks soft even at that small size. Not sure what's going on there - more tests would have to be done. It's also underexposed - shooting in all this snow overwhelms the camera's meter. For winter scenes, you almost always need to dial in positive exposure compensation unless you're going to be processing it later from RAW.

    Photos 5 & 7 look perfectly fine to me at the size I can view them at. Nothing offensive about them. 5 is a little bit underexposed from all the snow, that's about it. White balance seems good.

    Photo 6 is just an uninteresting photo. Exposure seems about right for the subjects. Hard to tell how sharp it is given the size. Zooming out a little more would help as the heads are cut off.

    Your buffer issue is quite strange. I can't imagine a scenario where you would have a smaller buffer with JPEG than RAW. The camera spec is a 15-20 JPEG buffer. You only get 3 in the buffer when the camera's set to RAW+JPEG which is why I thought for sure that's what you were doing. If you're 100% sure you're just shooting JPEG (sounds like you are) then I have no idea why it's only giving you 3 shots. That's very strange, and wouldn''t be affected by the memory card you're using.

    If you're looking at the 7D, keep in mind it's almost 7 years old now - the 7D Mk II would be the way to go, but unfortunately it's pretty spendy. You could try renting one and seeing if you feel it solves any of your AF problems.

    Sorry that was super long, hope it helps.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    379
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    How much cropping was done for those 3 bird shots? Can we see originals?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2011 Mitsubishi Lancer GT
    Posts
    375
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    The T4i isn't the best for fast action photography. You need something with better sensors and more FPS. Canon 7D, 70D or 7Dm2 are all great sports / wildlife cameras. You can probably get the 7D or 70D cheap used. I picked up a 70D after my T4i got stolen and I bring it everywhere. Only thing I don't like about it is that it won't autofocus at F8 but 7D2 isn't that big of a jump for me to upgrade into.


    Difference between the 7D2 vs 70D

    http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/...should-you-buy

    7D2 is more expensive but has more frame rates, buffer and sensors. 7D2 is the fastest crop sensor right now, but Nikon is countering with the D500 in March which seems to kill the Canon ><.

    24-105 f/4L is a pretty mediocre lens now. It needs a lot of light to be sharp.



    Same set up. T4I and 24-105F/4L but I had to use a flash. If you are sticking with a crop body. I would recommend the Canon EFS 17-55 2.8. I would use the 17-55 over the 24-105 everytime I would think of putting the 24-105 on. I also use my 50 1.4 a lot of those times as well though.

    70-200L f2.8 IS is an amazing lens though. I never had any issues with it when I had access to one.

    I have some focusing issue with my 100-400 L II f4.5-5.6. It feels like its trying to focus at the wrong end of the focus spectrum, it just keeps hunting out of focus. I have to move the focus ring to the other end but after that it focus's very fast and it's very sharp.

    Your buffer issue also

    JPEG Large/Fine: Approx. 22 Shots
    RAW: Approx. 6 Shots
    RAW+JPEG Large/Fine: 3 Shots

    Seems like it somehow thinks it's in Raw+Jpg Mode. I remember about 20+ shots in Jpg.

    If you are in the NE or around the airport I can let you try my 70D and see if there are any differences between the body or the lenses. Sometimes you need to test a 2nd body to see if it's really the lens or the body.
    Last edited by Wakalimasu; 01-17-2016 at 06:45 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    '01 B15 Sentra & '10 C11X Versa 6Sp 5Dr
    Posts
    971
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    What AF mode are you using? AI Servo?
    I also assume you're using the optical viewfinder at the back of the camera and not using liveview.
    Someday we may need to activate the halo structure off Deerfoot and destroy the North East.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Yeah I don't understand why my buffer count is so low. Specs say 22 and I'm only getting 3 in jpg.
    6 in RAW, and 2 in RAW+jpg.

    I never use liveview. Ever. And yes AI SERVO when shooting action.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,406
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Dave one thing I just thought of - try turning off any in-camera processing effects, starting with chromatic abrasion reduction (that one is usually processor heavy). If that doesn't work, turn off the following one by one and see if it helps: high ISO noise reduction, long exposure noise reduction, highlight tone priority, lens distortion correction, etc (any that apply). If you turn those off, I bet that increases your JPEG buffer. Failing that, try a reset.
    Last edited by Mitsu3000gt; 01-17-2016 at 11:30 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
    Dave one thing I just thought of - try turning off any in-camera processing effects, starting with chromatic abrasion reduction (that one is usually processor heavy). If that doesn't work, turn off the following one by one and see if it helps: high ISO noise reduction, long exposure noise reduction, highlight tone priority, lens distortion correction, etc (any that apply). If you turn those off, I bet that increases your JPEG buffer. Failing that, try a reset.
    Heyyyy...NOW we're getting somewhere.
    I had "high ISO NR" on. Turned that off and the buffer has now jumped up to 9.
    I can't seem to find any other processing effects turned on.

    Here's a question. I had put Magic Lantern onto the camera through the SD card. I've since formatted that card, so the program is no longer there. Might that have changed anything?
    (Please don't say it could have buggered something in my bios/rom?)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,406
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    I've never used magic lantern, I can't comment with any accuracy on that. From what I understand I don't think there is much risk.

    I bet there is something else turned on though, if you're only up to 9. Go to Camera Menu1 --> Lens peripheral illumination --> Chromatic Aberration Correction --> DISABLE (if it's not already).

    High ISO noise reduction is off, you said.

    Turn Multi Shot Noise Reduction off too.

    Any shots above ISO 12,800 will also result in a smaller buffer.

    If all those things are for sure off, you should be getting your 15-20 shots.
    Last edited by Mitsu3000gt; 01-17-2016 at 12:46 PM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
    I've never used magic lantern, I can't comment with any accuracy on that. From what I understand I don't think there is much risk.
    Yeah, everything I read says I should be safe on that

    I bet there is something else turned on though, if you're only up to 9. Go to Camera Menu1 --&gt; Lens peripheral illumination --&gt; Chromatic Aberration Correction --&gt; DISABLE (if it's not already).
    Those both off

    High ISO noise reduction is off, you said.

    Turn Multi Shot Noise Reduction off too.
    Don't see a menu option for that.

    Any shots above ISO 12,800 will also result in a smaller buffer.
    P, TV, Av, and M modes are maxed at 6400 ISO

    If all those things are for sure off, you should be getting your 15-20 shots.
    Okay...so I reset everything back to factory default. The little "buffer" number inside my viewfinder still says "9"...but I just started shooting and it did well over 22 shots at it's spec'd FPS. So "9" must be just the highest number displayed.

    Thank GOD I got THAT little thing sorted out. Now to work on those other issues.

    Thanks Mitsu...I wouldn't have figured that out without your suggestion.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,406
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Originally posted by C_Dave45


    Okay...so I reset everything back to factory default. The little &quot;buffer&quot; number inside my viewfinder still says &quot;9&quot;...but I just started shooting and it did well over 22 shots at it's spec'd FPS. So &quot;9&quot; must be just the highest number displayed.

    Thank GOD I got THAT little thing sorted out. Now to work on those other issues.

    Thanks Mitsu...I wouldn't have figured that out without your suggestion.
    NP, sounds like you're good to go. The "r" number is just an estimate, your actual shots will be higher, as it sounds like you figured out.

    A lot of your frustrations with the pictures you posted too were mostly settings related, which I think is good news. Challenging AF scenarios though is where your camera will hold you back. If you're willing to shoot RAW and learn Lightroom or some other piece of software for simple processing, you will likely see a huge difference as well compared to everything straight out of the camera. Not sure if you're already doing that or not.
    Last edited by Mitsu3000gt; 01-17-2016 at 01:45 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


    NP, sounds like you're good to go. The &quot;r&quot; number is just an estimate, your actual shots will be higher, as it sounds like you figured out.

    A lot of your frustrations with the pictures you posted too were mostly settings related, which I think is good news. Challenging AF scenarios though is where your camera will hold you back. If you're willing to shoot RAW and learn Lightroom or some other piece of software for simple processing, you will likely see a huge difference as well compared to everything straight out of the camera. Not sure if you're already doing that or not.
    Still learning. I realize shooting a black dog on snow is probably the hardest setting too.
    I've not completely switched over to RAW shooting. Mostly jpg and just use FastStone for editing. Free. Quick and easy. Has curves, levels, does RAW etc, etc. But I still haven't made the pro leap to full RAW shooting and a proper editing program like LR or PS.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FS: Canon Lenses 17-40/24-105/70-200

    By INITIALD in forum Cameras & Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Latest Threads: 08-07-2015, 04:09 PM
  2. FS: Canon T4i w/18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

    By spike98 in forum Cameras & Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Latest Threads: 07-30-2013, 11:35 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Latest Threads: 07-30-2013, 10:48 AM
  4. SOLD: canon rebel T4i body

    By gx12 in forum Cameras & Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 12-07-2012, 08:06 AM
  5. Fs: Canon T4i

    By Genocider in forum Cameras & Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 11-14-2012, 03:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •