New Canon SX20 IS -- Normal aberration or warranty fix?

Radu P said:

Soren47 wrote:

Currently use an SX200 with no problems whatsoever - no discernible CA at any focal lenght or f-stop (even in backlighted scenes) and good IQ.

Well, either there is a huge variation in the SX200 lenses, or you have different standards than I do. I looked at some samples of the SX200, and the CA is horribly bad, which is why I didn't get it.

Look at this sample here, all the black lines on the corners and sides are purple and green: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SX200IS/FULLRES/SX200IShRES2T.HTM

Click to expand...

Guess I got a really good sample because I've never experienced that degree of CA under any lighting conditions. And NO my standards aren't different - guess that's one of the problems of making decisions based on "one" test result and not actually using the camera in real situations. If you don't like it - take it back. The SX10IS is considerably worse in CA AND IQ. As Canon moves up the MP chain the IQ seems to decline considerably.

I considered sample variation issues as well, and I looked on flickr for some samples.

Some of them had some really terrible CA, when viewed at full size the CA was like 10 pixels on each side of a low contrast object.

But I looked again just now trying to find those samples (and didn't, too many results) and the ones I've seen are pretty nice, relatively little CA.

Maybe it was an issue with earlier models then Canon fixed it and didn't make any announcement?

back in September I addressed these issues - along with samples in this posting:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=32963595&q=Ben+Herrmann+SX20+IS&qf=m

--



“Excessive taxation will carry reason & reflection to every
man's door, and particularly in the hour of election' - Thomas Jefferson

Radu P said:

Well, from the samples here: http://www.steves-digicams.com/...ews/olympus/sp-590-uz/sample-photos-10.html

Click to expand...

Radu P said:

There is very little PF. There is a bit more at full tele, but virtually none at the wide angle, and I don't think Oly removes it in software like Panny does. I guess they just use better lenses.

Click to expand...

There is a truckload of PF on the Oly picture I linked from another review. Too bad the link got "forbidden." Several of the images in the samples of that review show substantial PF. The point is that the Oly isn't without fringing. On the other hand, if it is good enough most of the time for your tastes, great. I have taken hundreds of images with my SX20 in all levels of light and am not troubled by the level of fringing it has. So, we're both happy.

Radu P said:

Regarding looking at 100%, well, that's kind of the point in having an ultra zoom camera, to see the detail in stuff. If you look at screen dimensions, then what's the point?

Click to expand...

For me, the point of the long lens is to get optically closer to the subject to produce a nice photograph to be viewed at a normal size, not to peek at some small fraction of the image on a computer screen. To each his own on that one.

The point of a tiny but high resolution sensor is a little more complicated. Compared to a lower resolution sensor of the same dimensions, it won't give you lower pixel level noise at 100% crop. However, the higher resolution sensor will give you sharper reasonably sized prints with less apparent noise than will a similar sized sensor that is lower in resolution.

If I was only admiring pixels at 100% crop, I'd stick with my S45 which produces images with quite a low pixel level noise with its larger 4MP sensor. However, I can get a larger, sharper print from the SX20's smaller but higher resolution sensor. To me, that is a significant point.

When I look at a variety of images from more than one Internet source, I find that both the Oly and Canon appear to have moderately low PF under most conditions. I don't see that the Oly has an overall advantage. If you do, I can see why you might choose it. You might want to read more about the Oly IS before committing.

I am not planning to get my superzoom now, but even if what you say is true about comparable PF with the Canon, at least the Oly has 26x zoom, from 26mm to 676. Everything else being equal, the Oly would be better. Sure, the image is a bit soft, but the SX20 is also pretty soft (both when viewing at 100%).

Then there is the new Samsung, which seems pretty decent, it has HD video, DNG raw, 24x zoom from 26mm.. Only problem is that there are very few samples of it, so I will wait for that. And maybe wait until February or so, when there will hopefully be new cameras out there.

My issue is that the impact of the CA is lowering the perceived quality of the image without any crop at all. The detail is better -- more pixels -- but the color is muddied and the pictures are very "soft". I started the thread because the images at normal full frame just did not look right. When I zoomed in it was clear why. Specifically the first sample where the stake was brown and the background was brown dirt and there was a red "ghost" image of the stake shifted left.

I was not looking to prove one camera better than another. I was trying to find out if there was something wrong with mine and if it should be returned for service.

Abbott

Ben

I wish I had found that thread before I bought the SX20 IS. If this picture quality is common to this model and significantly below the SX10 then I have to say I am really disappointed in Canon. You don't need 2 million more pixels if it means giving up picture quality.

Arrrgh

Canon should admit they blew it and offer a fix.

Abbott

I'm glad to see I'm not alone. This makes me more POed that Best Buy called this a "quality issue" and not a "defect issue" and forced me to pay a restocking fee when I returned it. This has certainly soured me towards ever purchasing a Canon product again.

Here are the pictures that were the final straw in my decision not to keep the camera. This is just a cropped section of a much larger picture.

Flash picture taken with SX20is:



Flash picture taken with my Kodak DX6440:

Aderham,

It is not clear to me how often and under just what circumstances you get some unacceptable (to you) level of PF. I can tell you that I have taken hundreds of pictures with my SX20. I can see some PF under bright sun/high contrast situations. I don't find the level for my camera to be unacceptable. I'm not sure how that translates for you but you might contact Canon for some guidance.

Don

I think you're right... My SX20 have some CA, but I think this is normal.

What firmware versions have other owners?

(My english isn't very well!!)

CROP



(5 MPX)

Mendieta, my SX20is has Firmware Revision 1.02 rev 2.00.

Alpensee

Don

Thank you. I did contact them and the boilerplate response was a detailed instruction on how to set the camera back to factory defaults. Before sending to a service center I wanted to check with knowledgeable users of the SX20 to see if it was endemic. From the sound of it all will have some issues under high contrast but in my case it is so consistent and extensive that I think I am going to send it in.

Abbott

Please let us know how it works when you get it back.

I think you will me MUCH happier after they fix the camera. I hunted though pictures I've taken since mid-Sept with my first sx20 (firmware v1.00) and couldn't find any with PF or CA like in your first post. I've looked for examples that should show it, and couldn't anything like that either. If I can figure out how to post the examples to this site, you can judge for yourself.

So how do I paste pictures in from my hard drive?
--
Jimbooth

You put the web address of your picture in your message.

The requires that you either put the picture on your web page (if you have one), or upload it to a photo hosting site.

OK, here's a shot taken with everything auto mode. The camera chose ISO 160, 1/1250s @ f4.5.



In this one, I used P mode with custom colors with Contrast +2, Saturation Normal, and Sharpness -1. The camera chose ISO 80, 1/807s @ f4.5.



As I look more at that I shot, I think contrast +2 is a bit too much, so I'm playing with +1. The knot hanging from the piling at the port side of the transom is crisper than in the full auto shot, but otherwise contrast is unnatural.

I think Penny Lane was shot with totally auto settings also. The water color isn't as deep as I'd like, and I think it would have been better if EV had been -1/3 or so.



Anyway, I don't claim these are works of art, but just to show the CA and PF isn't nearly as bad as in the OP. It wasn't a full sun day, but it was pretty bright.

Hope this helps.
--
Jimbooth

Rats. It looks like the flicker link is just to the thumbnail. Aargh!
--
Jimbooth

OK, try this:

http://picasaweb.google.com/GayleOBooth

The full size versions should be there.
--
Jimbooth

All you have to do is display the picture on your screen, and get the address of the picture location (with Firefox, right click on the picture, then click on "Copy Image Location, with IE, right click on the picture, click on "properties", then copy the Address that appears in the properties window). Paste that address into your message, and the picture will show up, just like it did for me below: