Are there any tricks you guys use to achieve sharper images? Maybe my eyes are getting worse but I frequently come across with blurred images.

Any advice will be welcome.

Dear Bogac,

to get sharp images, mainly 3 things to consider: camera, lens, focus.
Check that the camera is in order as well as the lens and then focus correctly.

Showing one of your blurred photos along with the settings you used would help a great deal in assisting with your question.

Kind regards,

Thierry

I always test settings on static subjects first. If the subject is not moving and my photos are still blurry I know it was my fault. Well, it's always my fault but it's easier to narrow things down like that.

I did a lot of research on this. Even if your camera is in perfect focus there are at least 10 possible motions that could still blur your images. Five of those are with the camera: un-commanded (up, down, left, right) jerking motions, and panning speed. The other five have to do with the aircraft: it can get closer or farther, changing your focus point, it can move up or down, and then there's turbulence. Even at the fastest continuous shooting settings a string of shots will show differences in sharpness from one image to the next. It is not easy and takes practice. Long lenses make everything worse, especially when dealing with turbulence and windy days. It's best to get as close as possible and use shorter lenses. Here's what I've learned:

- Shoot at high shutter speeds - I aim for at least 1/1250s
- With zoom lenses never zoom in or out after locking focus. If you zoom you must refocus.
- If using lenses longer than 200mm FL use a tripod or monopod. That helps a lot with getting rid of the un-commanded camera motions.
- If it is a windy day and/or there is turbulence I use a shorter lens and get closer.
- Try to get the biggest image possible in the viewfinder. This will really show you your panning errors.
- When panning, I will half press the shutter and when I see the focus lock I will slow down the panning to almost none and shoot a string. Too fast of a panning motion will blur the images. I then resume panning, and repeat the whole process. I can repeat this three or four times on a single aircraft.

I get much better results now. Take your time, slow down the process, use shorter lenses and get close!

Quoting JASPC (Reply 3): - Shoot at high shutter speeds - I aim for at least 1/1250s

Almost anything should be sharp at that speed

Quoting JASPC (Reply 3): - When panning, I will half press the shutter and when I see the focus lock I will slow down the panning to almost none and shoot a string. Too fast of a panning motion will blur the images. I then resume panning, and repeat the whole process. I can repeat this three or four times on a single aircraft.

This seems a curious technique but if it works for you then great..

Quoting JASPC (Reply 3): Take your time, slow down the process, use shorter lenses and get close!

This I do agree with!

Quoting JASPC (Reply 3): - When panning, I will half press the shutter and when I see the focus lock I will slow down the panning to almost none and shoot a string. Too fast of a panning motion will blur the images. I then resume panning, and repeat the whole process. I can repeat this three or four times on a single aircraft.

That will work at high shutter speeds (your 1/1250 ought to be fine), but I can think of at least two major reasons why I would not do this:

1. As your shutter speed gets lower, the airplane WILL be blurry. I woulnd't do this at a longer shutter speed than, say, 1/800. Instead of possibly getting blurry photos by panning with the airplane, you're guaranteeing blurry photos by not panning.

2. It'll be near impossible to fill the frame with the airplane, if that's your goal. You'll have to leave space for the airplane to "move into" when you stop panning.

As an example for #1, say you have an airplane moving across the frame, and it's traveling at 250 feet/second (170 mph / 148 kts). At a shutter speed of 1/1250, the airplane moves 0.2 feet during the exposure. Probably not too noticeable. But as you get down to 1/500, the airplane moves 0.5 feet during the exposure. You may start to see some softness and blur.

If it works for you, cool, but you're totally removing the majority of shutter speeds from your arsenal.

Quoting JASPC (Reply 3): Five of those are with the camera: un-commanded (up, down, left, right) jerking motions, and panning speed.

Don't forget camera rotation. Basically, I'd say the camera has 8 degrees of freedom - the usual 6 (translation and rotation), and then zooming and focus. The airplane has the normal 6 degrees of freedom....and I might add a 7th, to account for the differing relative movement of different parts of the aircraft across the frame (why you might have a sharp nose but blurry tail in a slow-shutter-speed panning shot).

Quoting JASPC (Reply 3): Long lenses make everything worse, especially when dealing with turbulence and windy days.

The one thing they actually help with is that 7th airplane degree of freedom. With a narrower angle-of-view, you get less relative movement of different parts of the airplane. But that comes at the cost of more visible lens shake, etc.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5): That will work at high shutter speeds (your 1/1250 ought to be fine), but I can think of at least two major reasons why I would not do this: 1. As your shutter speed gets lower, the airplane WILL be blurry. I woulnd't do this at a longer shutter speed than, say, 1/800. Instead of possibly getting blurry photos by panning with the airplane, you're guaranteeing blurry photos by not panning. 2. It'll be near impossible to fill the frame with the airplane, if that's your goal. You'll have to leave space for the airplane to "move into" when you stop panning. As an example for #1, say you have an airplane moving across the frame, and it's traveling at 250 feet/second (170 mph / 148 kts). At a shutter speed of 1/1250, the airplane moves 0.2 feet during the exposure. Probably not too noticeable. But as you get down to 1/500, the airplane moves 0.5 feet during the exposure. You may start to see some softness and blur. If it works for you, cool, but you're totally removing the majority of shutter speeds from your arsenal.

Good points but overly complex. What I was trying to do is to get someone on the right track for a higher percentage of sharp shots. If you shoot at 1/1250s, and eliminate the other factors I mentioned you will get sharp shots, not all of them, but a lot more shots will be sharp.

1. I'm not talking about stopping panning. If you consciously try to stop it the camera will still be moving when you shoot, albeit at a slower pace, which will eliminate blurs from over panning, and that is a big one, at least for me. You see, a fraction of an inch in camera movement is lots of feet at the focus of a long lens. As your shutter speed gets slower, the airplane will be blurrier regardless of how good you are. That said, I can get sharp shots at short FLs at ~1/300s, but the percentages go down.

2) Having shot birds at very long FLs for many years, and very small ones at that, it's all in the practice and the percentages. The more you practice the more the percentages go up. I am now shooting aircraft taxiing at night at shutter speeds of 1-second or less while panning with good results in 1 out of 20 shots or so.

You are right though, for slowing down the panning anything less than 1/800 will not work. I meant this to be a primer to get someone started and eliminate the natural instinct to accelerate the panning while the camera is shooting. At 1/1250s you can freeze most everything that flies without the camera even moving. The thing that you might not have factored in is that most all camera viewfinders do not show you 100% of the frame, and some show you quite a bit less. I've shot with some cameras where I have filled the frame, only to find out later that I could have pushed that zoom an additional 20%. The bigger the airplane in the frame the less pixels you throw away when you reduce the image for publishing on A.net.

3) Camera rotation is not much of a factor if you use a tripod or monopod as I mentioned. Professional sports shooters use monopods all the time.

4) As for the 7th airplane degree of freedom, long lenses will always make shooting on the move much more difficult. I can’t remember any of my shots on the move being blurry with a 15mm lens  .

Best,

JASPC

[Edited 2015-04-01 17:29:15]

BTW, what would be the best focus mode for sharper pics?

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 7): BTW, what would be the best focus mode for sharper pics?

I find that 'in focus' mode is best.   

I shoot Nikon and for moving planes I always use Continuous mode. As long as I keep the shutter button half-depressed, the camera will keep the subject in focus until I fire the shutter. Note - I've changed the Nikon default so that even in Continuous mode, the shutter will not release unless the subject is in focus (focus priority rather than release priority).

For static subjects, I always use Single mode. Once focus is achieved, it's locked until the shutter is fired or the button released. This allows me to select the focus point and then re-frame the shot if required while maintaining the original focus. This can be helpful when shooting static displays at air shows or museums.

Sorry, I don't know the equivalent Canon terms.   

Quoting scbriml (Reply 8): Note - I've changed the Nikon default so that even in Continuous mode, the shutter will not release unless the subject is in focus (focus priority rather than release priority).

This is a very important part of using Continuous Focus (AI Servo for Canon shooters) and it never gets emphasised enough. If you have the option to tune how your continuous focus works, which most modern cameras do, then you really must go for focus priority.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 8): Sorry, I don't know the equivalent Canon terms.

Allow me. Full time Canon shooter who actually started digital shooting with a borrowed Nikon DSLR.

Nikon : Canon

Single mode (AF-S) = One Shot
Continuous Focus (AF-C) = AI Servo
Automatic (AF-A) = AI Focus

The last mode (Auto/AI Focus) is a hybrid of continuous and single focusing and is basically shit. Don't use it, ever.

Cheers
Angad

Quoting JASPC (Reply 3): Shoot at high shutter speeds - I aim for at least 1/1250s

Wow - If you can, but not really an option in Northern Europe climatic conditions however.

Quoting dstc47 (Reply 10): Quoting JASPC (Reply 3):Shoot at high shutter speeds - I aim for at least 1/1250s Wow - If you can, but not really an option in Northern Europe climatic conditions however.

My personal experience is that you don't need anything like that speed.

Most of my photography time is spent on football and a 640th/sec is enough to freeze human movement. For shooting an object like an airliner, which has no visible moving parts and is on a predictable trajectory, you can get away with much less. Particularly if you use VR or whatever the Canon equivalent is called.

If you have enough light to shoot at really fast speeds you might be better using the "spare" to increase DOF or reduce ISO.

Quoting snddim01 (Reply 11): If you have enough light to shoot at really fast speeds you might be better using the "spare" to increase DOF or reduce ISO.

Agreed. I will usually stick between 1/400 and 1/1000 (faster for longer lenses, because they're usually more difficult to handle) and then prioritise low ISO and smaller apertures in that order.

Cheers
Angad

Quoting dstc47 (Reply 10): Wow - If you can, but not really an option in Northern Europe climatic conditions however.

I can understand that in cloudy conditions this might not work at the camera's lowest ISO. I can get 1/1250s an hour after sunrise at ISO 100 on sunny days. But, even my older Nikon cameras have very little noise at ISO 400. That's more than enough to get over 1/1000s on "bright" overcast days with a wide open lens (F5 or below). I've also found that with my long lenses more depth of field has no effect on sharpness. DOF is very shallow anyway with long lenses (>200mm).

Best,

JASPC

Quoting angad84 (Reply 9): The last mode (Auto/AI Focus) is a hybrid of continuous and single focusing and is basically shit. Don't use it, ever.

I think that depends on the camera. I make it a point to try all my cameras in different modes and see what works better. I have two new Nikon cameras I'm using now. One gets better percentages using Continuous, the other while using Auto. Why? I have no clue.....

Quoting JASPC (Reply 6): Good points but overly complex.

Not at all. I deal with all that stuff almost every time I shoot, because I do a lot of sunset and low light shooting.

Quoting JASPC (Reply 6): I'm not talking about stopping panning.

Fair enough - that's what it sounded like to me.

Quoting JASPC (Reply 6): which will eliminate blurs from over panning, and that is a big one, at least for me.

Ah. Not so much for me.

Quoting JASPC (Reply 6): the natural instinct to accelerate the panning while the camera is shooting.

Interesting - I have never had that instinct. I believe my natural instinct is that my panning involuntarily slows down while I'm clicking the shutter.

Quoting JASPC (Reply 6): The thing that you might not have factored in is that most all camera viewfinders do not show you 100% of the frame, and some show you quite a bit less.

Most modern cameras show at least around 95%. Not much left around the edges.

Quoting JASPC (Reply 6): 4) As for the 7th airplane degree of freedom, long lenses will always make shooting on the move much more difficult. I can’t remember any of my shots on the move being blurry with a 15mm lens

What I was saying is that the relative motion between different parts of the airplane is more visible at shorter focal lengths. I'm pretty sure that's true, but the math is way beyond what I have any desire to work out.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 12): Agreed. I will usually stick between 1/400 and 1/1000 (faster for longer lenses, because they're usually more difficult to handle) and then prioritise low ISO and smaller apertures in that order.

Ditto, except I'm rarely shooting faster than 1/640, and very often shooting much slower than 1/400.

Last time I was out shooting (this past Sunday), I started at 1/640, F6.3, ISO125; and ended at 1/25, F5.6, ISO12800. That's a typical session for me.  

Thanks a lot for all your comments and feedback people.

Seems my problem was the speed. I think I am still under the false impression that I am still young and my hands still don't shake. I was using my slower speeds. In 30 days time I'll be attending an OTAN exercise and will have the chance to spot at a much closer location than usual and I plan to use much faster speeds.

In general: go for the shutter speed and do not worry about ISO.
My proven typical settings (all Nikon gear):
first DX body + 70-200VR2: AFC, auto iso up to 1600, min shutter speed 1/1000
second DX body + 300/4+1.4TC: AFC, auto iso up to 1600, min shutter speed 1/2000
Propeller aircraft/heli: shutter speed 1/250, auto iso up to 1600, AFC
On full frame body go up to ISO6400 . Any longer shutter speed will dramatically reduce my hit-rate of achieving sharp images. Of course the propeller craft setting is a different story but the result is a nice blur if I get it right.

Bogac,
The 9 photos you have in database are good.
1. In my opinion sharp images are related to hands and experience and a lot of photos in database proven that.
You may have blurry photo even at 1/1000 even at 50 or 70mm if your hands or body shakes/moves.
Sunny days not asking to bump up ISO. Keep it low as much as possible. Shutter speed will be high enough to freeze the action.
2. Post processing is the other half once you made a sharp photo. Well balanced post processing will lead you to make good-sharp photo.

Keep spotting!

Thanks for the feedback, redstone and yerbol.

Quoting redstone0878 (Reply 17): In general: go for the shutter speed and do not worry about ISO.

Only if you shoot for yourself and don't intend to upload here. Otherwise the noise may become an issue.

By the way, redstone0878, congratulations on your first shot in the DB.

Well, nowadays photographers has minimum 12 and more likely 24-36 Mp to start with, so even applying heavy noise reduction, after down-sizing to only 1-2Mp, the sharpness will "come back" easy and still meets a.net requirements. However if your image is blurred in overall (I do not mean sharp subject and motion blur for the background here ) it is near impossible to fix.

I meant, suggesting the following order: 1- filter noise, crop, adjust other parameters etc.., 2-down-size, 3-apply final sharpening lightly (if required at all)

Quoting redstone0878 (Reply 21): Well, nowadays photographers has minimum 12 and more likely 24-36 Mp to start with, so even applying heavy noise reduction, after down-sizing to only 1-2Mp, the sharpness will "come back" easy and still meets a.net requirements.

You might be surprised....there's a reason there aren't that many high-ISO images on here.

Even moderate amounts of noise reduction are pretty easily visible in a downsized edit.

Quoting redstone0878 (Reply 17): In general: go for the shutter speed and do not worry about ISO. My proven typical settings (all Nikon gear): first DX body + 70-200VR2: AFC, auto iso up to 1600, min shutter speed 1/1000 second DX body + 300/4+1.4TC: AFC, auto iso up to 1600, min shutter speed 1/2000 Propeller aircraft/heli: shutter speed 1/250, auto iso up to 1600, AFC On full frame body go up to ISO6400 . Any longer shutter speed will dramatically reduce my hit-rate of achieving sharp images. Of course the propeller craft setting is a different story but the result is a nice blur if I get it right.

This is all true!

Quoting Bogac (Reply 19): Only if you shoot for yourself and don't intend to upload here. Otherwise the noise may become an issue.

This is not true unless you are shooting with old cameras. My Nikon D750 has the same noise at ISO 3200 as my old D300 at ISO 400. And it is very manageable to boot.

Shutter speed always wins on moving objects - period.

Best,

JASPC

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 23): You might be surprised....there's a reason there aren't that many high-ISO images on here. Even moderate amounts of noise reduction are pretty easily visible in a downsized edit.

On the contrary, the more the image is reduced, the less noise, or noise reduction for that matter, is visible. The best strategy if we are reducing images is to not use a lot of noise reduction because the noise is lost in the reduction but the sharpness is not.

An example, this image (and it is not ready for prime time yet) was shot at ISO 3500 before sunrise, and it was a lot darker to the eye than what it looks like here. Can you see any noise?:



Newer cameras handle higher ISO settings so much better than even a two year old camera.

Best,

JASPC

Quoting jaspc (Reply 25): On the contrary, the more the image is reduced, the less noise, or noise reduction for that matter, is visible.

I didn't say otherwise. I said moderate amounts of noise reduction are visible in a downsized edit (maybe I should have said "are often visible").

Quoting jaspc (Reply 25): An example, this image (and it is not ready for prime time yet) was shot at ISO 3500 before sunrise, and it was a lot darker to the eye than what it looks like here. Can you see any noise?:

Well, since you asked, yes, I can see some noise. Not much, though.

Quoting jaspc (Reply 25): Newer cameras handle higher ISO settings so much better than even a two year old camera.

OK. Not everyone has the newest equipment.

By the way, my camera was introduced in 2008, and I'm able to get high-ISO images accepted. But that doesn't change what I said above.

Also, it depends on what you're comfortable with, shutter-speed-wise. If I can get a decent hit rate at 1/50, why would I bother shooting at 1/800 as the light disappears, in which case I might be shooting at ISO1600 instead of ISO100?

Background blur is another consideration. It's something I have fun doing, and gotta get down below 1/100 before it shows up to any decent degree.

Quoting jaspc (Reply 24): This is not true unless you are shooting with old cameras. My Nikon D750 has the same noise at ISO 3200 as my old D300 at ISO 400

First of all, not everyone can afford to upgrade their bodies every couple of years.

Second, not everyone can afford top of the range, and even middle of the range DSLR's.

Third, not everyone can afford a body with a full frame sensor.

A lot of people here shoot with budget DSLR's. A friend of mine shoots with a Canon 600D, and his shots have a lot of noise even at ISO 100. My old Canon 7D shows so much noise in the sky at ISO 100, that it is visible even after the image is reduced to 1024x683.

All in all, the point you are making is valid, but only when applied to the latest, middle- and top of the range, full frame DSLR's.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 26): Background blur is another consideration.

Good point. When the background is just a blue sky, then shutter speed doesn't matter, but it really does when you want to pull off a panning shot like this:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Vik S

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 27): A lot of people here shoot with budget DSLR's. A friend of mine shoots with a Canon 600D, and his shots have a lot of noise even at ISO 100. My old Canon 7D shows so much noise in the sky at ISO 100, that it is visible even after the image is reduced to 1024x683.

Could that be something wrong with the shooting or post processing technique or maybe just the expectations are unrealistically high? Noise , sharpness and other stuff should be looked and judged at 100% native resolution on the screen, not zoomed in or out.

Quoting redstone0878 (Reply 29): Could that be something wrong with the shooting or post processing technique

I am talking about properly exposed, sunny weather, no post-processing, looked at native resolution, at ISO100 - in Canon 7D for some reason bright-blue sky shows a lot of noise. My old 40D had hardly any noise at ISO100, but it was only 10MP with the same sensor size.

My new 7D mark II performs a lot better noise-wise. And granted, when I borrowed a full-frame Canon 5D mark III, it had hardly any noise at all.

As for expectations and post-processing techniques - mostly just minimal post-processing required to get photos accepted here. That routine I've got down more or less, with over 3,800 images accepted here and acceptance ratio averaging 80% most of the time.

Printed publications, such as magazines or calendars, are a lot less picky than Airliners.net, by the way  

[Edited 2015-04-20 20:27:21]

First time I hear this, the Canon DX bodies were the benckmark for noise- free, super-clean images compared to Nikons even at higher ISO's.

Quoting redstone0878 (Reply 31): First time I hear this, the Canon DX bodies were the benckmark for noise- free, super-clean images compared to Nikons even at higher ISO's.

First time? Is that right  ? So that's why people have been bitching and complaining on every photography forum about Canon sensor quality versus, say, Sony?

By the way, I wasn't having a go at Canon in favour of Nikon. I suspect, that situation there is similar; the noise is inevitable when too many pixels are packed into a small sensor. I simply have no experience with Nikon cameras, so I've never even mentioned them in my post.

[Edited 2015-04-21 01:02:58]

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 30): My old 40D had hardly any noise at ISO100, but it was only 10MP with the same sensor size.

Which is at least a partial indication that newer cameras aren't necessarily always the answer.

My 50D was marginally noisier than my 1000D, but it had other features that were more important to me.

Quoting redstone0878 (Reply 31): First time I hear this, the Canon DX bodies were the benckmark for noise- free, super-clean images compared to Nikons even at higher ISO's.

Interesting. I've always heard the exact opposite. And the 7D1 has been a magnet for complaints about low-ISO noise.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 33): Interesting. I've always heard the exact opposite. And the 7D1 has been a magnet for complaints about low-ISO noise.

Yes and yes. I'm editing shots from Aero India 2015, where I had the 50D and 7D2, and I still find the 50D has a small (tiny) edge over the 7D2 in blue/grey sky grain at ISO 100-200. That reverses between IS 200 and 400, but they still remain about roughly matched. Beyond ISO 400 the 7D2 absolutely craps on the 50D, producing great stuff up 1600, usable shots up to about 3200, and mostly junk after that.

The thing with the newer cameras is that in a pinch they will produce very usable shots at higher ISOs, whereas the older cameras simply cannot keep up. OTOH, if you're doing much of your shooting at lower ISOs, there is literally no real reason to upgrade, unless you want better burst rates and AF performance — here again, the 7D2 was ridiculously good, fast, and incredibly accurate even at default settings.

Cheers
Angad

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 33): Which is at least a partial indication that newer cameras aren't necessarily always the answer.

Agree, 40D was a very good camera. One of the reasons to upgrade was that it was lacking the lens microadjustment feature - how important it is, I had a chance to find out; another - although its low ISO picture quality was great, tha high ISO by todays standards was shocking.

By the way, does everyone hier use the lens microadjustment feature? Could be another way to achieve sharper images.

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 36): By the way, does everyone hier use the lens microadjustment feature?

Yep. That was one reason for upgrading from the 1000D to the 50D a few years ago, and also one reason I went with the 50D over the 60D.

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 36): By the way, does everyone hier use the lens microadjustment feature? Could be another way to achieve sharper images.

Yes. Time consuming but definitely worth it, especially for closer subjects.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 37): and also one reason I went with the 50D over the 60D.

Did the 60D not have micro-adjustments? That's so typically Canon (ie: pants-on-head retarded)

Cheers
Angad

Quoting angad84 (Reply 38): Yes. Time consuming but definitely worth it, especially for closer subjects.

I was amazed what difference microadjustment can make. In my case it was at the far end of zoom.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 38): Did the 60D not have micro-adjustments?

No it didn't. I was considering it for a backup body, and that's the reason I decided against it.

[Edited 2015-04-22 03:58:11]

Quoting angad84 (Reply 38): Did the 60D not have micro-adjustments? That's so typically Canon (ie: pants-on-head retarded)

Doesn't make a whole lotta sense, does it?

Quoting angad84 (Reply 38): Did the 60D not have micro-adjustments? That's so typically Canon (ie: pants-on-head retarded)

Hmm - actually "micro adjustment" is a relatively recent innovation ... I think the 1Diii was the first Canon to offer this - so somehow we managed without it before hand! But any Canon service centre would have calibrated your camera & lenses for you before hand if there was an issue. I used to get mine done through my camera store (a pro Canon centre), and was never charged.

Cheers,

Colin

Quoting ckw (Reply 41): so somehow we managed without it before hand

That wasn't my point. I was pointing out the moronic (ie: typically Canon) act of removing functionality from a newer product in a model line (in this case, the xxD line).

Ideally, when replacing a camera in your lineup, you should only be adding/improving things. Somehow the fine folks at Canon haven't managed to wrap their heads around this.

Cheers
Angad

Image sharpness is depend on many things. First you need to know what is the main reason behind lack of sharpness that should be: Poor Focus, Subject Movement, Camera Shake, and Noise.
Now you've to consider on these things to get brilliant sharpness in your images, that is:
1. Holding your Camera well
2. Shutter speed should fast
3. Aperture should be match with shutter speed
4. ISO should be low to keep pin sharp images
5. Focus
6. Good lenses
7. Clean equipment
Keep in mind these things during photography for getting better sharpness.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 42): act of removing functionality from a newer product in a model line

Strictly speaking, 60D in not exactly a direct 50D replacement. It is a lower class camera.

[Edited 2015-04-23 03:41:48]

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 44): Strictly speaking, 60D in not exactly a direct 50D replacement. It is a lower class camera.

Because Canon is weird/stupid. In the numbering sequence, it should have been the direct successor. Instead, we got this weird lateral/backward move.

Cheers
Angad

Quoting angad84 (Reply 45): Because Canon is weird/stupid.

Weird - maybe. Stupid - I doubt it. They downgrades the line, the cameras become less value, but with the price not a whole lot lower. If you want a 50D replacement - you buy a more expensive 7D. For them it is a win-win situation. Smart marketing move - I guess they did their math before they made it.

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 46): If you want a 50D replacement - you buy a more expensive 7D

So I can get more noise at lower ISOs?  

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 44): Strictly speaking, 60D in not exactly a direct 50D replacement. It is a lower class camera.

Depends on what you're looking for. With the addition of video, an articulating LCD display, 3 more megapixels, larger base ISO range, and even the switch to SD cards, it may well be a successor to the 50D for a large percentage of people. Even the lighter plastic body may be a draw.

Lens micro-adjustment, while important to me, is probably something the majority of users never touch.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 45): Because Canon is weird/stupid. In the numbering sequence, it should have been the direct successor.

  

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 47): So I can get more noise at lower ISOs?

Well, they did stuff up there, didn't they  ?

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 47): Lens micro-adjustment, while important to me, is probably something the majority of users never touch.

You may be right, but for me it was a deciding factor, so they lost a customer.

And it is still a lower class camera.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 47): Lens micro-adjustment, while important to me, is probably something the majority of users never touch.

For those who have never touched lens microadjustment in their cameras - it is really worth a try.

First time I've ever used it was with my old Canon 100-400L lens. The improvement was noticeable albeit slight, the long end still fairly soft. Maybe I didn't have a very good copy, although before I had bought it, I used to rent one, and it wasn't much better between 300-400.

Then I sold it and recently bought the new Canon 100-400L mark 2. I took it for a couple of shoots at the closest airfield straight out of the box. It was marginally better then the old one even as it was. And then I noticed that in some static shots that I took at 400, objects immediately behind the aircraft appeared slightly sharper than the aircraft. I realised that the lens could do with some adjustment.

Must admit, I did it the crude way. The beauty of it is that if you stuff up you can always return the settings back to zero. So I just put a newspaper on the wall and shot it at 45 degrees. I focused with the central focusing point on one of the columns and noticed that the one next to it was slightly sharper. So I played with the adjustment settings. The 7D mark 2 has separate adjustments for the wide and tele ends, while the old 7D only had the one across the range. I ended up adjusting the tele end by three units and the wide angle by two (they go up to 20). Didn't expect a huge improvement but when I took it to a local GA airshow, I was totally blown away by the sharpness of the images. The new version of 100-400 simply walks all over the old one. The sharpness at 400 is incredible.

So, if you have the microadjustment feature on your camera and have never used it, you should definitely give it a go. It is totally worth it. You may be very pleasantly surprised with the results.

[Edited 2015-04-25 18:12:15]