Sharpness - Doesn't Add Up

I dont think its a lense issue.... i think its just the way the thing runs on auto mode.
--
http://jeefsland.smugmug.com

The kit lens is not very sharp to start with and is known for being worst at 50mm, so you've set things up in essentially the worst possible way for your 300D in terms of sharpness.

However, the sharpness isn't really the most salient issue in this comparison; it's flash exposure, which is really a separate issue from primary ones raised in this thread. It is a known issue with E-TTL I cameras that it can be somewhat tricky to get the flash exposure right. This seems to be fixed with E-TTL II.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

djones said:

I blame the kit lens. It's too slow for indoor shots.
Can you perform this test outside in natural light? Seriously, etc etc

Click to expand...

NO!
This is Mark's entire point.
You buy a P&S Camera - you don't have to buy additional lenses for it.

You buy a MORE EXPENSIVE "BETTER" DSLR, and you get shittier pics, out of the box.

His question is, "if auto mode is supposed to look like a P&S camera, WHY DOESN'T IT??"

I can understand his frusteration, even if I can't understand why he wouldn't bother just moving the dial out of auto mode, because auto mode does in fact suck. Hands down. Any lens. All the time!
-A

--

MarkSD said:

We ended up with another dSLR and are thrilled. I won't mention the name because then it turns into a religous brand debate.

Click to expand...

So this is a troll!

You probably bought a nikon D70/D70s.

Geez, I hope that was a joke. I'm trying very hard not to turn this into a brand debate. I'm speaking to very specific models, the 20D and XT, and to a very specific issue. Canon has made many awesome digital cameras.

It wasn't a D70

-- Mark

sysadam said:

sysadam wrote:
His question is, "if auto mode is supposed to look like a P&S
camera, WHY DOESN'T IT??"

Click to expand...

Who ever said it was? The only people I see claiming this are the ones complaining because it is not. It is supposed to be auto mode on a DSLR, not a magic 'transform the camera into a P&S' button.

sysadam said:

I can understand his frusteration, even if I can't understand why
he wouldn't bother just moving the dial out of auto mode, because
auto mode does in fact suck. Hands down. Any lens. All the time!
-A

Click to expand...

I disagree with that. Most of my shots are P mode (albeit with program shift mostly), which uses the same exposure and focus algorithms as green box (except for auto flash). SOMETIMES it does suck, but then you should know how the camera works, and when NOT to trust auto.

--
Come and look at my ego site (I mean website)
http://www.outnumbered.ca

sysadam said:

NO!
This is Mark's entire point.
You buy a P&S Camera - you don't have to buy additional lenses for it.
You buy a MORE EXPENSIVE "BETTER" DSLR, and you get shittier pics,
out of the box.

Click to expand...

No, and yes.

No, he's blaming it on the camera when the lens is clearly a major flaw in that shot. There are plenty of 300/350D "kits" you can purchase online or from local shops that sell it with a different lens. Even if the kit lens was a quality lens at 50mm, which it's not, it can't make up for the 50% extra light your Coolpix had with the larger aperture.

Yes, in the sense that a person using the "better" equipment is not going to get better results without RTFM.

Look at the DSLR crop, and read the 3.4 OZ (96g) on the bottle. Looks sharp. Compare it to the P&S shot - oh no! You can't, because it's blown out.

In-camera sharpening and processing, and higher contrast may look better to the beginner, but DO have a cost.
--
Come and look at my ego site (I mean website)
http://www.outnumbered.ca

Before you type NO next time click the guy's profile. If his user name is new and his bashing away then his really not new, he's a TROLL.

MarkSD is clearly a Troll and the stonger position you take in any defense or counter point increases the Troll's effectiveness. The whole point is to make actuall new comers uneasy about buying the product this forum supports. We use to call it spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertanity, and Doubt) and it can be very effective.

The MarkSD user name was created for this thread alone. The best reply is just to call him a Troll and be silent.
--
Phil

350D - Full equipment list in profile, taste in neon below.

No joke, Trolls create new users names and start bashing products with back handed questions write from the get go.

That would be you, without a doubt!
--
Phil

350D - Full equipment list in profile, taste in neon below.

What sharpness problem? I am not aware of any sharpness problems with 350D, 20D or 300D.

If you set your camera parameters to +1 for sharpness, contrast and saturation and put a good lens in front of it, JPEG pictures coming out of it will blow away anything any digicam is able to produce. No postprocessing required.

Shooting RAW and postprocessing is sometimes needed to get to those "blow your socks off, absolutely stunning, incredible images" that get published, paid for and admired.

That, of course, only IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Which is NOT the case, if I may be blunt, about 90% of the time.

Why can't 350D in full auto (green square) mode produce consistently sharp photos as most of the digicams do? Because it has a sensor that is 5-10 times bigger than the sensors in those cameras, and consequently it has a DOF that is 5-10 times smaller with comparable settings. It takes A LOT more skill to get things that you want sharp with a DSLR than with a digicam. But once you do, the results cannot even be compared.

So the "green square" mode on 350D leaves it up to the camera to figure out what the user wants. Since it takes a lot more skill to get a good picture, which a lot of "newbies" aren't really up to, it's no surprise that the camera isn't really up to it either. It will use all 7 (or 9) focus points, it will focus on the closest one, it will use something like F5.6 and ISO 400, and you will complain about blurry photos.

Complaining about the supposed "softness" of the DSLR's is ridiculous. They are a lot sharper (with a good lens) than any of the digicams out there. I know that EVERY SINGLE TIME I get an unsatisfactory picture out of my 350D (and 300D before it), it is 100% my fault. My camera and lenses are far, FAR more capable than I am.

This is like jumping into Michael Schumaher's Formula 1 Ferrari and complaining that you can't drive it. Your little Honda can take you around the block and to the grocery store perfectly well, so why can' this 10 million dollar car do the same? Even better, take your Honda to a race track and you'll be perfectly puttering around at (what you think are) breakneck speeds, but sit in the F1 Ferrari and you'll crash at the fist corner, if you ever even manage to get the car going.

The answer is, of course, very simple. The F1 Ferrari is perfectly capable of going at unimaginable speeds. But you are not Michael Schumaher.

Actually Phil, I've been a reader of dpreview for years. I've found the information invaluable but haven't been in the market for a new camera for quite a while. This is my first dpreview account.

When I started doing research, I found many posts regarding sharpness questions in this forum and the 20D forum. I tried to summarize the many explanations, which, BTW, vary widely with much disagreement on the cause. And as I said, some simply don't make sense -- to me.

I apologize if my first post comes out negative. I'll try to post some glowing reviews for my old S410 . Thanks for the warm welcome.

-- Mark

...in the words of Henri Cartier-Bresson, considered by many the greatest photographer of the 20th century.

-James

If we give you the bennifit of the doubt and you actualy did own a 20D at one time.. , you come here with your mind already made up that Canon's DSLRs are no good... you comment about how bad they are, etc... all on your first post. Not to mention this is the 300/350D forum yet you say you had purchased a 20D and returned it, etc...

Sounds like a troll to me, perticularly given your mind is made up, and no matter how many valid reasons you might be given, you just don't care other then to get people all riled up.

I get pleanty of sharp clear images from my 300D without post processing... So I don't agree with your assesment that it's not possible anyway.

MarkSD said:

Actually Phil, I've been a reader of dpreview for years. I've
found the information invaluable but haven't been in the market for
a new camera for quite a while. This is my first dpreview account.

When I started doing research, I found many posts regarding
sharpness questions in this forum and the 20D forum. I tried to
summarize the many explanations, which, BTW, vary widely with much
disagreement on the cause. And as I said, some simply don't make
sense -- to me.

I apologize if my first post comes out negative. I'll try to post
some glowing reviews for my old S410 . Thanks for the warm
welcome.

-- Mark

Click to expand...

YellowBullet said:

The answer is, of course, very simple. The F1 Ferrari is perfectly
capable of going at unimaginable speeds. But you are not Michael
Schumaher.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that made me utter a funny noise aloud. I think you hit the nail right on the head! Thanks for the titter. ;-)

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.

Hi Mark. Perhaps you just under estimated how sensitive people are about these so called 'issues' that aren't really issues at all.

I can see what your trying to say and despite the competitive pricing the 20D or 350D are not P&S cameras. They're designed for people who want a high degree of creative control. Postprocessing (like the darkroom) is part of the process of producing great looking images - and its very satisfying seeing a photo come to life with some effective tweaking. If you've bought a DSLR, and you want to make decent images, then this is something that you will have to accept. Canon knows this and thats why they provide the raw material that gives the best creative results.

As far as trolling is concerned, there are certain things that some people just won't let lie (sharpening, size, build, lcd brightness, grip, blah blah blah etc etc), and so they post in this forum - its incitement and its played over and over.

Wasn't a D70 you say? Intriguing

I'm not sure where the idea that a SLR is a Ferrari came about. SLRs have been marketed, sold, and successfully used by vacation photographers for 30+ years. I've owned two. Easily over half of the people on my street have old film SLRs.

If we were talking about the EOS-1Ds Mark II, I would agree with the comparision.

Ferrari doesn't sell millions of cars and certainly not at WalMart. Ferrari ads don't appear in Newsweek.

So again my point is that for the actual market where this camera is sold, as an entry point DSLR, I would expect a sharpening setting that produces the "wow" (even if technically not correct) to be available.

-- Mark

You shouldn't stereotype Costco and Walmart people. I shoot in RAW and know how to process and sometimes blow my images up. I print lots of 4x6s, but half the time I only do a little sharpening and it looks great, even 8x10. I go to Costco for the quality prints and low prices.
--
Race cars, not dogs
http://www.suzyandscott.com

MarkSD said:

I’ve been reading the defenses of the Canon Rebel XT and 20D lack
of sharpness and they simply don’t make sense. I’m a huge Canon
fan, but I think they are capable of making real winners and some
mediocre models. The G2 was a legend, but follow-ons lagged. The
S400/410 have a large fan base, but the S500 was panned. The
EOS-1D Mark II was a hit.

Here’s the defenses that I don’t think stand up:

1. Post Processing Required – This doesn’t make sense from
several standpoints. I’m amazed how many people treat this as a
mark of a “real” photographer.

Click to expand...

yes, it does make sense for me because I abslutely DON'T want the camera to sharpen the photo for me. I want more control. Professional photographers usualy also want more control and don't want to be stuck with a camera tha process everything.

you can however bump the in-camera sharpening and get the ugly "point and shoot" look.

MarkSD said:

First, if a point and shoot can take a sharp image without post
processing, then there should be a setting on the Rebel XT and 20D
that would achieve at this – setting the sharpness to +2 doesn’t
accomplish this.

Click to expand...

that only goes to show the extend of the in-camera sharpening, causing noise and sharpening halow that you find in point and shoot. but my camera, 300d and 20d are as shapr as the previous point and shoot I got, just a lot better quality and much less noise. The XT that I have evaluated also was very sharp. The secont XT that I got was very soft..awfuly soft. so maybe you just got one that is bad?

MarkSD said:

Second, there is a large base of film SLR users migrating to DSLR
that would rightly expect equally sharp images without post
processing. Soft images can always be obtained with filters (or
software). The default should be as detailed and sharp as possible.

Click to expand...

no kidding?

MarkSD said:

If Canon made the assumption that most pictures will require post
processing, then they’ve missed their market. Geez, the Rebel XT
is sold at WalMart and Costco! People often buy SLR often for lens
options and full control of aperature/priority, not to make a
career out of sitting with Adobe every evening.

Click to expand...

judging by the popularity of XT, I think it's you who is missing something here. CAnon knows exactly what to do

MarkSD said:

2. Inexpensive Lens – If a point and shoot can achieve sharp
images with a small lens, at half the total camera cost, it begs
the question why Canon would ship a DSLR lens of even less quality.
Having tried other lens on the 20D, it can help but not fix the
problem.

Click to expand...

a point and shoot cannot give you decent images for subjects that require a long telephoto range..they cannot give you noise free image at higher ISO, heck not even at ISO 100 sometimes.

They cannot let you control the DOF so you can isolate your subject better..been there done that..no thanks.

MarkSD said:

3. User Skill Problem – I’ve seen some users who haven’t focused
correctly or misunderstood depth of focus, but this only explains a
few of the non-sharp examples. Many of the examples of sharp
images have been heavily post processed or were taken in raw mode.
Again, this shouldn’t be required.

Click to expand...

it's not.

Also, consider that millions of

MarkSD said:

users of film SLRs typically shot in program mode and simply
pressed the shutter and received incredible sharp pictures.

Click to expand...

oki maybe it's about time they learn a little bit about photography and what is an aperture?

MarkSD said:

4. User Perception Wrong (It is Sharp) - The audience of most
pictures is non-photographers, not people reciting camera
specifications. The “Emeror’s New Clothes” comes to mind when I
see comments that soft images are actually better for all shots or
that the images really are sharp, the user is not interpreting them
correctly. In light of the number of complaints regarding lack of
sharpness, this is not an imaginary issue. Granted, soft images is
a very valid style but sharp should be the default in-camera
processing.

Click to expand...

this can be explained by the fact that there are more than 100,000 XT produced and sold each month...there are bound to be some defective. I got one and returned it. the first one that I evaluated was awesome and sharp.

MarkSD said:

My best guess? Either they have manufacturing consistency problems
or rushed the models to market without proper fine tuning.

Click to expand...

guess again.

MarkSD said:

-- Mark

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

photoguynorth said:

Give the average driver a Ferrari, and they will not be able to
drive it as fast as their old Buick. You have to shift gears
yourself (gasp!), the suspension sucks (harsh ride compared to the
Buick), and it's a bear to park. I guess they rush their cars to
market too.

Click to expand...

I fall asleep in an automatic car..so boring But now the ferrari have semi-automatic gear shifting..not the same anymore. they are getting more and more luxurious and cut down the work needed to drive them..shame.

photoguynorth said:

My point is that P&S cameras are optimised for their market, and so
are DSLRs. Don't run one down because it's not the other - if you
want an easy camera to take snaps and print at Wal-Mart, then DSLRs
are not for you.

Click to expand...

rightly said. DSLR are definitly not for everyone.

photoguynorth said:

--
Come and look at my ego site (I mean website)
http://www.outnumbered.ca

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.