s330 problem with sharpness

[jeff teter]

Hi

I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on landscape pictures.

anyone have any ideas. I will be shooting sports halfpipe this winter and was not sure if I got the right camera. You can mail me direct at
[email protected]

 

[Arvin Chang]

There are a lot of complaints about the s200/s300 sharpness setting, have you tried using an unsharp mask in Photoshop. The lens is the same as the s110, 300 - to the sharpness "should" be fixable with a little post processing.

If you are shooting winter halfpipe, I would get something with shutter priority (set at 1/250-1/500s). Zoom is nice, but assuming you can get a spot along the wall, you won't need it that much. Here are some photos I've taken with a Kodak DC280, Olympus 2100UZ, and SonyF707.

http://www1.photosig.com/userphotos.php?portfolioId=19092

You aren't Abe Teter's brother, are you?

--arvin

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.
anyone have any ideas. I will be shooting sports halfpipe this
winter and was not sure if I got the right camera. You can mail me
direct at
[email protected]

 

[powderhound]

I brought my S200 back after having the same exact problem. I am very happy with the razor sharp clear pics from my Nikon CP2500. I'd rather soften the picture with editing software than try to sharpen. I'll be using my camera on the slopes this winter, and the CP2500 takes much better pics while moving.

If you are shooting winter halfpipe, I would get something with
shutter priority (set at 1/250-1/500s). Zoom is nice, but assuming
you can get a spot along the wall, you won't need it that much.
Here are some photos I've taken with a Kodak DC280, Olympus 2100UZ,
and SonyF707.

http://www1.photosig.com/userphotos.php?portfolioId=19092

You aren't Abe Teter's brother, are you?

--arvin

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.
anyone have any ideas. I will be shooting sports halfpipe this
winter and was not sure if I got the right camera. You can mail me
direct at
[email protected]

 

[J.G.107046]

Lack of sharpness is a well-known problem on the s200 and the s330, and there is nothing you can do about it short of photoshop retouching. And don't think that the upcoming S230 will fix things, because it has the exact same problem.

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.
anyone have any ideas. I will be shooting sports halfpipe this
winter and was not sure if I got the right camera. You can mail me
direct at
[email protected]

 

[Arvin Chang]

While I have no doubt that the CP2500 probably has a more aggresize in-camera sharpening algorithm, I question the idea that blurring a over-sharpened image is preferrable to sharpening an under-sharpened image. That's like putting on a winter coat because the AC turn up too high.

Also... I'm a little confused by you comment about "taking photos while moving." How is it better? I guess the twist-design would make it more convenient... but I would STRONGLY discourage someone skiing/snowboarding while concentrating on a digicam LCD... that's just asking for trouble. That's what Kennedy was supposedly doing when he hit that tree.

--arvin

I brought my S200 back after having the same exact problem. I am
very happy with the razor sharp clear pics from my Nikon CP2500.
I'd rather soften the picture with editing software than try to
sharpen. I'll be using my camera on the slopes this winter, and
the CP2500 takes much better pics while moving.

 

[w3]

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.

I agree completely with what you are saying. I also have both the Kodak 280 and Canon S330.

But Kodak 280 has a 2MP 1/1.76" (or 1.8") CCD. The Canon S330 uses a smaller 2MP 1/2.7" chip.

Even the older Kodak 1.6MP DC265 takes better pictures than the 2MP Canon S330, in my opinion.

 

[Arvin Chang]

Well the DC265 was supposedly a more "prosumer" camera at the time. The DC280 was a regular size P&S, while the S330 is an ultra-compact. Comparing the photos at imaging-resource.com, I can see what you guys are talking about.

As I mentioned before, I would suggest going into the compact category of digicams (especially since they have apeture/shutter priority) and still will easily fit into one of the large pockets you ski jacket must have. The S30/S40/S45 series sounds pretty good despite the AF complaints.

--arvin

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.

I agree completely with what you are saying. I also have both the
Kodak 280 and Canon S330.

But Kodak 280 has a 2MP 1/1.76" (or 1.8") CCD. The Canon S330 uses
a smaller 2MP 1/2.7" chip.

Even the older Kodak 1.6MP DC265 takes better pictures than the 2MP
Canon S330, in my opinion.

 

[w3]

I brought my S200 back after having the same exact problem. I am
very happy with the razor sharp clear pics from my Nikon CP2500.

Now, I thought it was the 1/2.7" 2MP CCD that partially contributed to the less than perfect image quality of the Canon S330. I don't like digicams with a small CCD because of the experience.

Nikon CP2500 also uses a 1/2.7" 2MP chip. Does it really take better or sharper pictures than Canon S330? If so, it would change my opinion on 1/2.7" or smaller CCDs.

Most Professional Reviewers seem to favor Canon S330 over Nikon CP2500. And I don't even like S330's image quality.

 

[w3]

While I have no doubt that the CP2500 probably has a more aggresize
in-camera sharpening algorithm, I question the idea that blurring a
over-sharpened image is preferrable to sharpening an
under-sharpened image.

I don't think you should expect users of sub-compact carry anywhere point and shoot digicam to do any post-camera processing at all. That is self-defeating and destroys the "convenient" purpose of sub-compact digicams.

For those more artistic shoots, I can use a prosumer or bigger digicam. Size won't matter much then.

Putting prosumer features on a tiny sub-compact carry anywhere digicam and destroy the overall convenient factor (sharp images right out of the digicam is an important part of it) doesn't make any sense for consumers. It might win some points from Professional Reviewers though, unfortunately.

 

[w3]

Well the DC265 was supposedly a more "prosumer" camera at the time.
The DC280 was a regular size P&S, while the S330 is an
ultra-compact. Comparing the photos at imaging-resource.com, I can
see what you guys are talking about.

As I mentioned before, I would suggest going into the compact
category of digicams (especially since they have apeture/shutter
priority) and still will easily fit into one of the large pockets
you ski jacket must have. The S30/S40/S45 series sounds pretty good
despite the AF complaints.

Thanks for the response.

I am concerned with the AF complaints.

I am waiting to find out the quality of images the new 4MP 3X Zoom Kodak LS443 will produce and the camera's performance. I think the new Kodak is about the same size as the S30/40/45. FOR SNAP SHOOT CATEGORY (point and shoot carry anywhere digicams) , I like Kodak's approach to simplicity and convenience more than I enjoy the bells and whistles from other companies. Too bad that Kodak doesn't seem to know how to make those digicams quite as small as Canon can.

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.

I agree completely with what you are saying. I also have both the
Kodak 280 and Canon S330.

But Kodak 280 has a 2MP 1/1.76" (or 1.8") CCD. The Canon S330 uses
a smaller 2MP 1/2.7" chip.

Even the older Kodak 1.6MP DC265 takes better pictures than the 2MP
Canon S330, in my opinion.

 

[Arvin Chang]

Yes... tradeoffs in image quality and price were made to make such a small camera. One negative is the smaller CCD (for image quality, bigger CCDs tend to be better). Another is the smaller lens, that usually also leads to reduced image quality.

One thing that people continually mix up is the differences between the shaprness due to lens/ccd resolving power and the sharpness "created' by the sharpening algorthim. Many complain that the S200 is soft compared to the "razor sharpness" of the S110, when the two cameras have the same lens and the same CCD. The main difference is that the sharpening algorthim was weakened a bit (to make a more natural image I guess). Now this is annoying, especially for those looking for convenience... but in no way is the image "sharpness" lost.

A really aggressive sharpening algoritm with make an image pop a bit, but will also introduce image artifacts as well. Most people usually see the "razor sharp" pop, but don't pay attention to the image artifacts. The same can be said about color saturation, where most people like to "overdo" it a bit.

I think a good example is thinking of a high quality piece of steak. Part of the cooking process involves rubbing the steak in salt to bring out the flavor. Too much and you ruin the steak... do to little, and you don't draw out the flavor. Now obviously a mis-seasoned steak is unacceptable... but people should realize the problem is in the "cooking" and not the steak itself.

--arvin

I brought my S200 back after having the same exact problem. I am
very happy with the razor sharp clear pics from my Nikon CP2500.

Now, I thought it was the 1/2.7" 2MP CCD that partially contributed
to the less than perfect image quality of the Canon S330. I don't
like digicams with a small CCD because of the experience.

Nikon CP2500 also uses a 1/2.7" 2MP chip. Does it really take
better or sharper pictures than Canon S330? If so, it would change
my opinion on 1/2.7" or smaller CCDs.

 

[w3]

Yes... tradeoffs in image quality and price were made to make such
a small camera. One negative is the smaller CCD (for image quality,
bigger CCDs tend to be better). Another is the smaller lens, that
usually also leads to reduced image quality.

Well said.

One thing that people continually mix up is the differences between
the shaprness due to lens/ccd resolving power and the sharpness
"created' by the sharpening algorthim. Many complain that the S200
is soft compared to the "razor sharpness" of the S110, when the two
cameras have the same lens and the same CCD. The main difference is
that the sharpening algorthim was weakened a bit (to make a more
natural image I guess). Now this is annoying, especially for those
looking for convenience... but in no way is the image "sharpness"
lost.

I have tried sharpening my S330 images using PhotoShop. But I am not happy with the result either. I don't have the S100 or S110. Maybe their lens/ccd resolving power was not that good to begin with. I think we may be facing both problems here with the S330.

A really aggressive sharpening algoritm with make an image pop a
bit, but will also introduce image artifacts as well. Most people
usually see the "razor sharp" pop, but don't pay attention to the
image artifacts. The same can be said about color saturation, where
most people like to "overdo" it a bit.

I think a good example is thinking of a high quality piece of
steak. Part of the cooking process involves rubbing the steak in
salt to bring out the flavor. Too much and you ruin the steak... do
to little, and you don't draw out the flavor. Now obviously a
mis-seasoned steak is unacceptable... but people should realize the
problem is in the "cooking" and not the steak itself.

--arvin

I brought my S200 back after having the same exact problem. I am
very happy with the razor sharp clear pics from my Nikon CP2500.

Now, I thought it was the 1/2.7" 2MP CCD that partially contributed
to the less than perfect image quality of the Canon S330. I don't
like digicams with a small CCD because of the experience.

Nikon CP2500 also uses a 1/2.7" 2MP chip. Does it really take
better or sharper pictures than Canon S330? If so, it would change
my opinion on 1/2.7" or smaller CCDs.

 

[AndyHWC]

I saw a picture comparison of DC280 and S200 in a dcresource forum. I noticed the sharpness different too. I also compared the S110 and S200 with near exact setting. I can never get the S200 indoor picture as sharp as the S110's. I think the S110 has a 2.1Mp CCD and the S200 has a 2.0 Mp, another factor is the artifact introduced by jpeg alg that limit the sharpen filter ability. I am not sure about why the Dc280 is noticably sharper, perhaps it is due to the CCD size but focal length, flash, shutter speed and shaky hand (DC280 is easier to hold steadily than the tiny S200) can be factors too.

I have the coolpix 2500 and use quite often, I found it is a perfect all-around travel camera. You have 3x zoom all the way to 2 inch marco without any additional accessary. I won't say it is razor sharp, in fact I think it is on the soft side too as the S200/A40 but the overall picture quality is very impressive.

http://www.pbase.com/andyhwc

Well the DC265 was supposedly a more "prosumer" camera at the time.
The DC280 was a regular size P&S, while the S330 is an
ultra-compact. Comparing the photos at imaging-resource.com, I can
see what you guys are talking about.

As I mentioned before, I would suggest going into the compact
category of digicams (especially since they have apeture/shutter
priority) and still will easily fit into one of the large pockets
you ski jacket must have. The S30/S40/S45 series sounds pretty good
despite the AF complaints.

Thanks for the response.

I am concerned with the AF complaints.

I am waiting to find out the quality of images the new 4MP 3X Zoom
Kodak LS443 will produce and the camera's performance. I think the
new Kodak is about the same size as the S30/40/45. FOR SNAP SHOOT
CATEGORY (point and shoot carry anywhere digicams) , I like Kodak's
approach to simplicity and convenience more than I enjoy the bells
and whistles from other companies. Too bad that Kodak doesn't seem
to know how to make those digicams quite as small as Canon can.

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.

I agree completely with what you are saying. I also have both the
Kodak 280 and Canon S330.

But Kodak 280 has a 2MP 1/1.76" (or 1.8") CCD. The Canon S330 uses
a smaller 2MP 1/2.7" chip.

Even the older Kodak 1.6MP DC265 takes better pictures than the 2MP
Canon S330, in my opinion.

 

[w3]

I saw a picture comparison of DC280 and S200 in a dcresource forum.
I noticed the sharpness different too. I also compared the S110
and S200 with near exact setting. I can never get the S200 indoor
picture as sharp as the S110's. I think the S110 has a 2.1Mp CCD
and the S200 has a 2.0 Mp,

Perhaps not. I think they are the same. There could be two MP counts on the same chip. You have the total overall count of the pixels on the chip (a larger number), and the actual number of pixels that the digicam will use - effective MP (a smaller number).

another factor is the artifact
introduced by jpeg alg that limit the sharpen filter ability. I am
not sure about why the Dc280 is noticably sharper, perhaps it is
due to the CCD size but focal length, flash, shutter speed and
shaky hand (DC280 is easier to hold steadily than the tiny S200)
can be factors too.

I have the coolpix 2500 and use quite often, I found it is a
perfect all-around travel camera. You have 3x zoom all the way to
2 inch marco without any additional accessary. I won't say it is
razor sharp, in fact I think it is on the soft side too as the
S200/A40

So, again, that could be due to the size of the CCD chip used. I can't quite trust the 2MP 1/2.7" CCD. It may be misleading for reviewers to rate S330 as near the best among 2MP digicams. Not all 2MP digicams' image qualities are the same. And I don't think S330's is near the top. But I do like the design, build quality and size of S330.

There is another quesiton. Manufacturers must think that consumers are so happy with the 2MP 1/2.7" CCD digicams which are actually producing marginal quality photos, that they are now bringing us 3MP 1/2.7" CCD digicams such as Canon S230 and CP3500. What will you think their image quality will be?

but the overall picture quality is very impressive.

Well the DC265 was supposedly a more "prosumer" camera at the time.
The DC280 was a regular size P&S, while the S330 is an
ultra-compact. Comparing the photos at imaging-resource.com, I can
see what you guys are talking about.

As I mentioned before, I would suggest going into the compact
category of digicams (especially since they have apeture/shutter
priority) and still will easily fit into one of the large pockets
you ski jacket must have. The S30/S40/S45 series sounds pretty good
despite the AF complaints.

Thanks for the response.

I am concerned with the AF complaints.

I am waiting to find out the quality of images the new 4MP 3X Zoom
Kodak LS443 will produce and the camera's performance. I think the
new Kodak is about the same size as the S30/40/45. FOR SNAP SHOOT
CATEGORY (point and shoot carry anywhere digicams) , I like Kodak's
approach to simplicity and convenience more than I enjoy the bells
and whistles from other companies. Too bad that Kodak doesn't seem
to know how to make those digicams quite as small as Canon can.

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.

I agree completely with what you are saying. I also have both the
Kodak 280 and Canon S330.

But Kodak 280 has a 2MP 1/1.76" (or 1.8") CCD. The Canon S330 uses
a smaller 2MP 1/2.7" chip.

Even the older Kodak 1.6MP DC265 takes better pictures than the 2MP
Canon S330, in my opinion.

 

[w3]

Yes... tradeoffs in image quality and price were made to make such
a small camera. One negative is the smaller CCD (for image quality,
bigger CCDs tend to be better). Another is the smaller lens, that
usually also leads to reduced image quality.

Thanks for stating digicams' simple fact of life in such straightforward and easy to understand terms.

So, I think it is misleading for reviewers to rate S200/330's image quality as near the best among 2MP digicams. Not all 2MP digicams' image qualities are the same. And I don't think S200/330's is anywhere near the top. But I do like the design, build quality and particularly the size of S200/330. I carry one around as an "emergency" camera. But I wouldn't shoot with one if there is another digicam around.

If image quality is among the tradeoffs for small digicams using 2MP 1/2.7" CCDs, what do you think the new crop of 3MP digicams using 3MP 1/2.7" CCDs and seemingly the same lenses will bring?

I will wait and actually see the image quality myself first. I won't just trust reviewers and rush out to buy.

 

[Raist3d]

Yes... tradeoffs in image quality and price were made to make such
a small camera. One negative is the smaller CCD (for image quality,
bigger CCDs tend to be better). Another is the smaller lens, that
usually also leads to reduced image quality.

One thing that people continually mix up is the differences between
the shaprness due to lens/ccd resolving power and the sharpness
"created' by the sharpening algorthim. Many complain that the S200
is soft compared to the "razor sharpness" of the S110, when the two
cameras have the same lens and the same CCD. The main difference is
that the sharpening algorthim was weakened a bit (to make a more
natural image I guess). Now this is annoying, especially for those
looking for convenience... but in no way is the image "sharpness"
lost.

A really aggressive sharpening algoritm with make an image pop a
bit, but will also introduce image artifacts as well. Most people
usually see the "razor sharp" pop, but don't pay attention to the
image artifacts. The same can be said about color saturation, where
most people like to "overdo" it a bit.

Are you really sure that the S200 and S110v share the same lens and CCD? I don't recall seeing the S110v having more artifacts due to "aggresive sharpening algorithms." Also the S200 seems more sensitive to light and has wonderfull chromatic aberrations that the S110v didn't have plus a very annoying blooming on bright objects... This strongly suggests to me that neither the CCD nor the Lens are exactly the same.
(or at least one of the two is different).

Notice how the S200 is the cheaper camera of the two?

• Raist

 

[Raist3d]

Hi
I was dissipointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.
anyone have any ideas. I will be shooting sports halfpipe this
winter and was not sure if I got the right camera. You can mail me
direct at
[email protected]

Jeff, unfortunately the S330 just like the S200 seem to capture softer images than the S300/S110v previous generation that preceded them. And contrary to what some say about the sharpening algorithm I disagree that the S300/110v introduce more artifacts because of more aggresive sharpening: I have seen a lot of pictures from the S300 / s110v that are superbly detailed, razor sharp and have no "weird" jpeg artifacts or such.

Something else changed here.. CCD or Lens or both. I mark this as "Canon screwed up a good thing."

• Raist

 

[sap]

i first had the s110 (sold for a profit), then the s200 (returned because i wanted the longer lens) and now the s330. picked it up to carry everywhere (which we essentially do) and never miss an opp (which we [now] seldom do). accepting this camera for what it is and what it isn't makes the images fully acceptable to me. i have another, larger MP camera to use for "serious" stuff, but when i get "serious" the bag just keeps getting fuller and the investment larger and soon i end up not carrying the big gun because of its value and bulk. i take the s330 with me on long cycling rides, my older sons have taken it on fishing trips, my wife carries it to school functions, it's usually in my briefcase; we always have it with us. it is quick, simple, has an optical viewfinder and produces excellent images. yes there are focus issues (especially with the aiaf turned on), and we have found many of our un-sharp images were actually due to subject movement or camera shake. and finding constrasty edges helps it do a better focus job. perhaps there may be sharper images to be had from a 2MP camera, but i have yet to find any that are that much better, if as good. i have tried the olympus d series and the nikon cp775 before the canons, and none of the others were built as well. and i have yet to find a replacement for always having a camera along. and face it: for action shots, these are not the ideal class of cameras. i think canon will end up with a 3 or 4 MP model to replace this one (and i'll buy it when that comes), but for now we have had nothing but fine results with this one.
thanks for your time.

Hi
I was disappointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.
anyone have any ideas. I will be shooting sports half this
winter and was not sure if I got the right camera. You can mail me
direct at
[email protected]

 

[Arvin Chang]

Yes... tradeoffs in image quality and price were made to make such
a small camera. One negative is the smaller CCD (for image quality,
bigger CCDs tend to be better). Another is the smaller lens, that
usually also leads to reduced image quality.

Thanks for stating digicams' simple fact of life in such
straightforward and easy to understand terms.

Heh, no problem. I although I fear I can sound a bit too didactic sometimes.

If image quality is among the tradeoffs for small digicams using
2MP 1/2.7" CCDs, what do you think the new crop of 3MP digicams
using 3MP 1/2.7" CCDs and seemingly the same lenses will bring?

I think it will be a mixed bag... you get the added resolution, but more noise because you have smaller pixels. The increases pixel resolution is also mitigated by the fact that some of lens just don't have the resolving power to support the high pixel count. This worry is mentioned by Phil in the Pentax Optio 330 review:

Optio's little lens just doesn't have sufficient resolution to utilize that three megapixel sensor properly (this doesn't bode well for the Optio 430).

I will wait and actually see the image quality myself first. I
won't just trust reviewers and rush out to buy.

I agree. It is VERY important to realize that many reviewers, like Phil... try to compare the camera against it's peers only (similar size, pixel count, lens capabilties), he always modifies his comments with "in its class." The Canon S330 may be the top dog in the 2MP ultra-compact class, but that doesn't mean it's the best 2MP or the best ultra-compact (at least in terms of image quality). For instance, the Optio 430 has the complaint that "Lens / CCD combination does not perform like a 4 megapixel" however... it's resolution is still better than that of a 3MP. Some might argue that getting a underperforming camera is bad on principle... but if the price is right... I don't see why you can't simply treat a low-range 4MP as just a high range 3MP.

--arvin

 

[Arvin Chang]

Well, they have the exact same specification and imaging-resource.com review states:

"The S200 is very similar to the S110 of last year, with the same 2x zoom lens and 2 megapixel sensor"

Thank about it and it will make sense to you. Canon keeps 95% of the Canon S110 the same, upgrades the firmware a little, and renames the camera S200 so it can sell a bunch more of something that is basically the same model with a few tweaks (this is EXACTLY like cars... there is a major design once ever 3-4 years, the in between years just have minor improvements to fix complaints).

The cheaper cost should also be telling you that they have made minimal changes to the physical body of the S200. Putting in a new lens or a new CCD requires research money (large intial investment), however once you had the design... it is very easy (and relatively cheap) to produce the unit itself. The price of the R&D is amortized into the camera price - earlier models in the class line are more expensive, later models can be sold for cheaper once the intial investment is recaptured and the company starts to benefit from economies of scale.

This is kind of like making T-shirts. Lets say it cost $150 to make the silk screen design... but only $5 to have a shirt printed after that... so if you make 50 t-shirts in the first run, it costs $8 a shirt to make. Now say you change the colors and use a slightly high quality shirt (add on $1). Since you've already paid for the $150 silk screen... it now costs you only $6 per shirt in the second print run. Make sense?

So the S200 is basically a S110 with a few tweaks, and a software upgrade (which was already developed for all Canon cameras).

--arvin

Are you really sure that the S200 and S110v share the same lens and
CCD? I don't recall seeing the S110v having more artifacts due to
"aggresive sharpening algorithms." Also the S200 seems more
sensitive to light and has wonderfull chromatic aberrations that
the S110v didn't have plus a very annoying blooming on bright
objects... This strongly suggests to me that neither the CCD nor
the Lens are exactly the same.
(or at least one of the two is different).

Notice how the S200 is the cheaper camera of the two?

• Raist