 Anthony S. Henderson |
First role w/Canon T2, very disappointed Canon T2 camera Sigma 28-50mm lense Very disappointed with my first role from my new Canon T2 35mm. Using Kodak High def. 400 speed; the color, sharpness, and clarity was terrible for an SLR (to say the least). I was using it in automatic and action mode to shoot the first role around the yard. Even close-ups were bad. And that is where I thought the camera would shine. I get 200% better pictures with my Oly 770UZ 4mp digital camera. Do you think I may have gotten a bad role of film, the High def. film doesn't work well the the T2, or could I have a defunct camera?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Really need some sample pics uploaded for a good diagnosis. The Rebel T2 should have exposed well and is generally a pretty good SLR. There is little that could go wrong with it that would result in low color saturation and clarity. Poor technique (eg. camera movement when press the shutter, stabbing at the shutter instead of half-press for AF then full press to take shot, etc.), poor lens (Sigma 28-80 is a very cheap model) or a lousy UV filter on the lens would be my "usual suspects." Kodak High Def. 400 is my favorite general purpose film, and has a long shelf life. More likely than a bad roll is poor processing from where ever you had it developed/printed.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Anthony S. Henderson |
Opps, wrong lens. It has a Quantaray 28-90mm lens. Not sure if that is a good or bad lens? I'm a beginner, but I previously had a Pentax ME that shot amazingly clear, detailed pictures. I sold it to get the Rebel so my wife could shoot pictures as well (automatic everything). I expected the Rebel to give as good or better pictures. Was I wrong to expect that? I know I'm going to get shot down for Wal-mart 1-hour developing, but I live in a small, rural city and we have no other means of developers. No Wolf camera, etc. within 50 miles. My luck with Wal-mart and developing pics from the Pentax was great.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
What lens(es) did you use with the Pentax ME? Moving from one camera body to another will not in itself change the quality of the pictures (sharpness, saturation, etc.). But the lenses will make a big difference. I'm guessing you had a 50 f/1.8 lens on the Pentax. Those are very simple, but also very sharp with good color redition and a nice big aperture for use in low light. A typical "kit" zoom like the Quantaray 28-90 f/3.5-5.6 (prob. Sigma made) is very convenient to use and usually good enough for 4x6 prints. But a zoom lens has many more elements and compromises. It will not be quite as sharp or distortion-free; it'll be more prone to flare from bright light sources; it's smaller maximum aperture means longer shutter speeds in low light which can contribute blur from camera shake or subject movement, and give darker backgrounds in flash pictures. Another thing that might be contributing to the pics from the Oly 770UZ looking better is that the digicam gives very deep depth of field. In general shooting, everything from near to far looks to be in focus or close to it. That's a property of the very short focal length lens used on digicams. While it is "equivalent" to 38mm - 380mm on a 35mm film camera, its actual focal length range is only 6.3mm - 63mm. To get the same depth of field from your 28-90 lens on the film camera, you'd need to be shooting at f/16 or f/22. So maybe your prints from the Rebel T2 aren't blurry because of a poor lens, but simply have a shallower area that appears in focus.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Anthony S. Henderson |
Yes, I was using the 50mm Pentax lense that came with the camera. I also sold it with the camera. It wouldn't work with the Canon T2. The 770UZ digi can be set up to shoot shallow depth of feilds as well. I love that camera. My issue is that the pictures coming from the T2 are inferior to ANY SLR that I've seen. I have a Point and shoot Canon "Sure shot" OWL-PF that takes much clearer, sharper, and more colorful pictures than the T2 - so far? I have another role ready to be developed. I have my fingers crossed that this role turns out better than the first role. I took most of the shots in manual modes this time. It'll be up for sale if this role looks as bad as the last role. We'll see ....
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
Your camera would not cause faulty saturation. If your photos are not in focus it may appear that the color is off. Dont use any filters on your lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie D. Moon |
When I shot film I always used Fujifilm ISO 400(almost always 400). I tried Kodak Hi-Def 400 once and I hated it. I preferred Fujifilm much better. There was much more grain with the Kodak film. Don't know if this is your problem or not. Just throwing in my 2 cents. My film camera is a Rebel Ti.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Anthony S. Henderson |
Saturation is a better description I guess. Overall Color is weak and focus if off. I've the second role in using focus in manual. The pictures were no better than the first role. I've taken the filter off and will try one last role of film - my last role of High def. Last chance for the T2 as I am not the least bit happy with it. I bought the T2 after reading many, many reveiws across the net. I was expecting MUCH more from this camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
I cant stress this enough,"Your camera is not the cause of poor color quality!" Try different film and compare. You just may not like the high def film. Theres no reason in the world why your camera would give you poor color saturation unless the photos where not in perfect focus or your camera is not sealed tight and your letting too much light into the body. This would cause all your photos to be of poor quality. I sugest trying new film and seeing if this helps.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
I reread your last post and noticed that you stated your pictures were not in focus. If you own a light meter take a few readings of your subect with it and then use your cameras meter and compare. Your meters calibration my be off.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
One last thing I forgot to mention. Make sure that the place developing your photos is doing an acurate job. Many times this will be the problem with poor photo quality. Sometimes they under or over expose the film and this is no fault of yours. In this case demand that they redo the photos.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Anthony S. Henderson |
I'm a novice and do not own any other equipment such as a light meter. I hear you about the developing, but I'm using the same photo lab that I've always used and usually get back beautiful pictures from the Pentax ME and the Canon Owl-pf. I Love the High def in the Canon (owl-pf), especially at night. Much better color and definition than regular film. I'm going to try a couple more roles through the T2. One last role of High def, and one regular role of Kodak 400. After that, I'm done with the T2. No need to waste any more $ on film and developing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
"A bad role of film"? Maybe a better director is needed.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Anthony S. Henderson |
... ??? The T2 has "auto-director". :-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nathan Meador |
I got a T2 as well, about a year and a half ago. I've tried kodak hi-def 400 and 200, and most standard film. My results with the hi-def 400 was always a little too dark, and colors didn't seem correct...somewhat like you are describing. I was using the stock canon 28-90mm lens. I would suggest you try one roll of standard kodak or fuji 200. I mainly use kodak now...and I've changed to the canon 50mm f1.8 lens...which is now my primary lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Les Kasen |
I think the lens is not that good. Most low level lenses like the ones that come with most of these cameras as a low level kit lens are not that good.Even the 28-90 canon kit lens that came with my T2 is pretty hard to get quality pics. Bought the basic 75- 300 usm canon zoom and found that to be pretty poor too. The more expensive lenses that canon and other companies put out are much better for crisp quality pics. Just like the saying goes, you basically get what you pay for. Try putting a "L" series Canon lens on that camera and you will see a huge difference. You will also see a huge difference in the thickness of your wallet too.The point is, the lens makes the biggest difference in this situation. I used to use Walmart years ago and had good results and then with the same photo equipment my results changed and I stopped going there. Either there tecs or their equipment or the company they sent the film out to didn't watch the calibration on their printing machines or something that had to do with walmart changed. The last possibility, there is something wrong with your equipment. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||