mabey you didn't read what i said... "so these first shots will be CRAP"

the second is not out of focus... just not the fucus you wanted it to be, the first... blame that on a hand not as steady as a tripod... and not knowing what buttuns do what; also low light levels requiring longer exposure time.

i'll be the first to say it, but AF sucks balls... conversely, it is the best working one ive yet seen
so put up or shut up :fist:

did you shrink down the size of the images? your new cam is amazing, blows my new rebel the hell out of the water

please try a shot like this
I made it smaller, and lowered the quality to "6" in PS
www.nocureknown.com/edit1.jpg

that looks great toronto! i'll go try it now :)
EDIT: ISO 1600, 400, and 100 ... with focal length 38mm, 33mm, and 34mm all saved at a quality of '6' in PS
http://img98.echo.cx/img98/5895/iso16001qe.th.jpg http://img98.echo.cx/img98/1705/iso4003oh.th.jpg http://img98.echo.cx/img98/6849/iso1003ql.th.jpg

WOW, even at ISO 1600 there isn't much grain! If you have time, just out of curiosity, can you please take two pics outside, one at ISO 1600 and the other at 100? Thanks in advance

your wish is my command :P this is one of the things that drew me into buying the 20D
(this is my back yard) 8)
first ISO 100, second ISO 1600 to fit on imageshack, i saved the files at a ps quality of 5
http://img208.echo.cx/img208/9595/is...oors6ld.th.jpg http://img208.echo.cx/img208/3513/is...oors7yp.th.jpg

First of all, what a peacefull backyard :D

And second, indeed grain is really low compared to my Pro 1 wich I have blocked at ISO 50 (wich is 100 in reality).

But it seems the 20D at 100 ISO is a bit slow (do you remember the shutter speed?)

Hey, I just wanted to say these AFs are hard to learn to use properly. I occasionaly use 1D Mk 2 and i havent got a clue about all the AF options our regular photographers use, so results are more or less poor ...
1st thing you need to learn is AF lock ... Then you can have the subject anywhere in the frame and still sharp ...

yes, that is the important part. and i agree, mine @ 100 felt slow compared to my sony.. which at 800 was extreamly grainy... i had that docked @100

the first
ISO 100
3/10"
F 8.0

the second one
iso 1600
1/80"
F 8.0

hell indeed to have a 1/80 (for me, anything under 1/60 is too slow without a tripod), you need to use ISO 1600 :shock:

bizarre that F was always at 8.0, maybe it was set there manually? beucase for sure at ISO 100 usually in auto mode the camera should lower that value to speed up the shutter a bit

i put it @8.0 for a better comparison

I guessed so ;)

Ah yes, I think I forgot to put my usual blabber in this topic: buy a polarizer filter asap if you plan to shoot car pics :) (*cough* and a tripd *cough*) :D

edit - ok just noticed in another topic that you already have the filter :D

You bought an D-SLR and didn't already know this !?!?!

BTW, since this topic was brought back up, I have a question.

Were you latest pics like the one in your signature taken with the 20D? if so, did you do some editing to the pics? The colors, contrast and saturations are VERY weird and not really top stuff like such camera should do. So I was just wondering if it is done afterward while editing the pics or if it's a problem with the settings

i have to admit several things... one, im always in manuel mode. i do this for a few reasons.
1. it helps give me a better idea of what settings work in what light conditions... helps me learn.
2. its easier most of the time in ideal light conditions once i find what works.

there are a few drawbacks, however.
1. when light condidions are changing (e.g. nearer to sunset/clouds) and if i dont happen to think about it, then the picture ends up too dark, or too bright...
2. then perhaps the white balance is off (sometimes im not changing settings since i stop thinking about it) (this itself will give strange colors to the images

when the image is too dark, and/or white balance is off, then when editing some of the images, it may be bright enough... but finding the balance thats close enough to what i saw in person isnt easy
----the 355 spider i shot is a prime example of this. the morning light was bright, but the gas station he was parked at was much darker... so i ended up with very low values of color. i put it in PS, and brightning this up alone didnt work, as the red looked wrong, so i ajudsted the color curve of the reds to bring out the Corsa Rosa... which looked good for the car itself, but not so much for its surrounding environment.

the opposite happened later at Concorso, towared the end, it took some shots of a DB2 in the shade, and left the settings active... just as some of the show stopping Ferrari 250's, 275, Dino, Porsche 550 RS... etc. were leaving down the road, there was serious overexposure. the result is that most of the cars themselves turned out somewhat satisfactory, but the baground is beyond repair.

the image in my sig was just a quick job that wasnt even close to right in PS, but i didnt care so much, as the larger image i posted looked much better; the only editing i did was make the image a little greener in the background, and IMO, helped it look less 'dry' without sacrificing the color of the cars much.

other images, i suppose you could say i didnt care quite so much about the background, opposed to making the car's color looking better. so you are really, quite right about the saturations/colors being wierd in some of the pictures.

really, it either is too warm, or too cold. for the most part, i think the greens arent too strong.

really, im still an amature... but getting better :)

Thanks for the explanations, but isn't it a bit risky to learn while taking "important" pics and risk to mess up? :D wouldn't it be better to do the testing before a meeting or such and go there with the needed setting in mind? :D