450d soft photos, Problem Solved!! (a newbies tale)

R

Ringgeneral

Messages
51
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
So my wife purchased a Canon 450d for me for Xmas this past year. As time has gone by I've found myself less and less happy with my results.

I'm a realist, I know there are many factors.... My getting better and finding myself outgrowing the beginner lenses, Possible problem with the camera, or maybe I'm just **** poor at taking photos.

After alot of research, i've seen many people complaining about AF issues with this body. I wasn't looking forward to sending my equipment in and complaining only to find out I am just a bad photographer....lol

Well, I did the next best thing. I visited my semi-local camera shop. Explained my issue. The staff was very helpful.

To make a long story short. My lens filters were utter crap.

As a newbie, I wanted to keep a lens filter on my lenses for added protection.

I purchased Lens filters straight away, and didn't buy the cheapest I could find. I try to do things as best as I can on an amateur budget.

Needless to say I was shocked by the following.

with.jpg

With the filter

without.jpg

without


I'm posting this for no other reason than I would have NEVER thought to look at the filter as the problem. And if this someday helps out someone. Cool.

I get much help from this board, and appreciate it.
 
Wow that is a huge differance. I never thought a filter could do this that bad. Thanks for the post!
 
The sole reason I refuse to use filters!

Why buy a lens worth hundreds of pounds, with the lens being that price due to the top quality glass inside of it, only to ruin it all by putting a £20 piece of glass over the end!

I just keep lens hoods on and make sure it's all covered under house insurance :p
 
i remember when i first got the 400d, every time i looked through the view finder i could not get a clear view of anything, although the camera was focusing just fine and the preview was just fine..... after ages of serching someone suggested i twiddled the wee thingy next to the view finder and bingo... crystal clear... these wee tips and advise really do help us new to the game....
 
Yep. all filter.

I purchased new filters while there after testing, and honestly, it took a few tries to find results I was happy with.

I didn't purchase the offending filter from this shop, however they had a few brands in stock and after some test shots, there is a big difference in quality, and you could see a huge difference with the different brands.
 
Odd indeed.

Never had a problem with the Hoya Pro digital ones I've got on mine.
 
I am really shocked at the difference, I'm not surprised you were getting completely fed up. Glad you got it sorted out, hope you can start to enjoy your camera now (y)
 
Yep, a staggering difference..

If you do use filters, best get a quality one like Hoya Digital Pro, B+W. Can't remember the others, but obviously the better filter glass you put in front of the lens the less degradation you'll get..
 
Whilst I would not disagree with your conclusions, the examples are extreme and I would say, not to do with the filter at all.

I know they are very popular and if that was the result, they would never sell any.

The only time a reasonable UV filter would reveal itself would be under extreme lighting conditions. As a rule, they would be very hard to spot.

Graham
 
blue max said:
Whilst I would not disagree with your conclusions, the examples are extreme and I would say, not to do with the filter at all.

I know they are very popular and if that was the result, they would never sell any.

The only time a reasonable UV filter would reveal itself would be under extreme lighting conditions. As a rule, they would be very hard to spot.

Graham
Click to expand...

Graham,

I appreciate your input. and as I said I'm a newbie by this boards standards.


What I can tell you 100%

The first photo was shot with the filter. ( by myself after the discovery)

The second by myself without the filter.

I have since been a shooting fool. ( for the past few hours) and suddenly, I seem to be able to shoot a much better (detailed) photo.


I shot with multiple filters at the shop today. ranging from 20 dollars to 44 dollars. other than the 44 dollar filter , there was noticeable degradation ( for me, on my camera, with my lenses when I shot) .

Again, I could very well be the only person in the world to have this issue. But it is an issue that is solved for me, and I was sharing my experience.
 
markta said:
Yep, a staggering difference..

If you do use filters, best get a quality one like Hoya Digital Pro, B+W. Can't remember the others, but obviously the better filter glass you put in front of the lens the less degradation you'll get..
Click to expand...


lesson learned.
 
foodpoison said:
Why buy a lens worth hundreds of pounds, with the lens being that price due to the top quality glass inside of it, only to ruin it all by putting a £20 piece of glass over the end!
Click to expand...
Firstly, a decent filter will cost significantly more than £20.

Secondly, it's one piece of glass whereas the lens itself will consist of a great number of elements. Who's to say the filter isn't of higher optical quality than any single element within the lens itself?

Personally I think it depends what sort of photography you're doing. Whilst many activities will be perfectly safe without a filter attached, you wouldn't find me pointing my L glass in the direction of a speeding rally car without something to protect it from flying debris.
 
I did have filters on the end of my lenses, but after getting some odd effects under peculiar lighting conditions removed them. However, I carry them in the bag, just in case of grim conditions like Vertigo1's rallying and use them then.
 
I too have experienced this - with good quality filters too.

Sometimes I think it could be down to incompatibility - after all, all models of lenses have different internal makeup (different amounts of elements, shapes and glass types) - to add a filter on and expect it to work may be a step too far.

For me, lens hoods are the way forward - and cheaper to boot!

Cheers
James
 
Thinknig about it, I am sure that the filter on my bridge camera stops the autofocus on macro mode, it focusses on the filter.
 
i dont use them either, cant really see the point since the front element on most lenses is replacable because of situations like this.

i understand there is need for them, like vertigos example of rallying. but general stuff unnecesary
 
foodpoison said:
The sole reason I refuse to use filters!

Why buy a lens worth hundreds of pounds, with the lens being that price due to the top quality glass inside of it, only to ruin it all by putting a £20 piece of glass over the end!

I just keep lens hoods on and make sure it's all covered under house insurance :p
Click to expand...

Same as me here The only filter I use is a polererizing one
 
what was the filter in the orginal post out of interest?

re filters - ive got a hoya pro UV(0) on the front of the sigma 70-200 and cant say ive noticed image degredation. surely if theyre that bad and if the sigmas are as bad as some of you make out then the images would be utter tripe..

i take my lenses to motorsport events inc rallys so id rather get grit on the filter than the front element personally. and dont want to bump my insurance premium up just for the sake of it.
 
1st pic looks out of focus with camera shake.

a decent filter does not cost much and really does not affect the IQ of the lens. most big teles just have a plain glass outer element, a few of canon's L lenses are not totally sealed without a filter.

Use a cheap non coated filter and you'll loose IQ noticable in lack of contrast and increase flare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top