still not happy with S602..

jochen115419 · Oct 7, 2002

Hi everyone!

I just saw this topic and thought i should also post some statements.

First of all, I have my S602 since 5 days now. I started with macro shots, they were really stunning, I was very suprised about sharpness and details at this low distance.
sample: http://www.pbase.com/image/5600230
http://www.pbase.com/image/5600726

Another picture I took at 6x zoom:
http://www.pbase.com/image/5600982
I think it shows enough detail to be happy with it.

But I also made some landscape pictures, and also some building pictures, which show the same problem with low sharpness and a overall bad image.

Some were taken at bright light (not noon, but bright). Bad image came out, see yourself:
http://www.pbase.com/image/5601425

For me, it looks like the S602 can't deliver such awesome quality for obects at a higher distance, like it can at a closer distance.

Trees are always looking crappy on the most pictures, take a closer look at the trees on the picture above!

I never printed any picture, perhaps it's not that bad when they're printed, I think it's normal that a picture can't look perfectly at a monitor, with such a high resolution.

Another landscape picture. It looks interesting to me, because the buildings below are somehow bad quality, I think I took it with AE-Lock, that's the reason the sun is quite bright.

But look at the horizont and the sky. Really good quality compared to the buldings.

I also think, it's a problem of contrast. Pictures with high contrast seam to look better, but i don't think that's a pure S602 problem.

Light is also a problem, but as I can remember, it's always a problem of digital cameras.

If I look at the trees at 400% zoom, they really look like too much compressed. I read somewhere that this is a problem of the Super CCD, because the picture has to go through a calculating process. I also wished to know, why I can't export uncompressed images at 3mpix. As soon as my accus are full tomorrow, I'll try the 6mp tiff mode, perhaps it can deliver better images downsized to 3mp.
Just to see if it works.

jochen115419 · Oct 7, 2002

upsa. forgot the last picture link. sorry

http://www.pbase.com/image/5601591

K Mcgregor · Oct 7, 2002

Thanks for all your suggestions, as with last time. I think I should maybe try putting the camera on fine quality to see if that makes things any better because I notice certainly with some of the soft photos the effect is like very heavy jpg compression. I did start out using normal sharpening as opposed to hard sharpening - and I don't think it would make a lot of sense if hard sharpening made the images softer but had I not found a problem with the sharpness in the first place I wouldn't have changed the setting. I always felt the images were too soft. They just don't have that out of the box recognisable sharpness and clarity I was expecting from such a camera. Anyway I've said all that already.

I should maybe have pointed out that the photos inside the garage and the one inside the shed were not handheld but tripod shots fairly typical of the results on that particular day. The camera seems to produce good results if the subject is close to the camera but not otherwise. Could this be a problem with the focusing? It has never taken very sharp long distance shots at all.

In addition no filter was used. The shutter speeds apart from the one in the first folder are all within a reasonable range for their being either handheld or in two cases tripod.

anyway, thanks

thelsel · Oct 7, 2002

All of the pictures I’ve taken with my 602 either look out of focus or diffused. I’ve never had a landscape shot that looks good yet. I was wondering I someone could look at these shots and tell me if this is normal. I’ve tried to take pictures in soft, normal, hard, 3MP, 6MP, fine as well as high and all seem to be diffused. I’ve cleaned the lens, used skylight and UV filters and shot without any filter at all. Some seem to better focused then others, but I’ve never achieved the fine focus I’ve seen in the sample shots on dpreview. There was a portrait there where you can see pours on the shin and threads on the subject’s clothing. Even with manual focus and large apertures I haven’t been able to come close. I’ve taken hundreds of shots in all kinds of lighting, shutter speeds and aperture settings. I’ve even used a tripod and have never achieved better then these posted below. Is there something wrong with my camera? Could someone post some samples I can compare?

Here are some examples:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft3.jpg

All my landscapes look even worse then this:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/landscape.jpg

K Mcgregor said:
A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the
quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside
from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

I took into account the points made about image size, shutter speed
and aperture but I still find myself unsatisfied with the photos it
takes. They just seem totally devoid of the sharpness I've been
used to for my much less grand fully automatic Olympus C-960. I
find myself getting bad shots much more often than I should even
when I use a shutter speed of over 1/100. Few shots with any
distance in them are sharp or properly in focus and landscapes are
utterly hopeless. But I don't really see what I could be doing
wrong. I take a picture of something quite far away on a light
enough day at a high shutter speed with a small aperture to try and
get more in the depth of field. It comes out really really soft.
Why is this? And why when I take pictures of buildings from the
outside do they tend to lose so much detail and sharpness? I've set
the sharpness to hard but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference. My friend suggests it could be to do with the jpg
sharpness but I took a few at fine quality and they seemed just as
bad. Shooting down towards a load of trees I get an abysmal
photograph really, over-exposed, soft and just nasty. The building
photos can look ok viewed at 800 x 600 but looked at any closer and
you can see the indistinct-ness.

When the light gets dim the pictures get even worse. Seems totally
unusably soft at anything less than 1/80 or something and its not
camera shake. Smaller apertures - do these cause bad softness as
well? It seems whenever I take a high aperture picture it wrecks
it. I tend to use aperture priority mode when taking a picture, and
inside manual or shutter priority. It also cannot seem to take fast
enough shutter speeds under normal light conditions. A dull day, a
normal day inside the house, artificial lighting.. etc.. impossible
without a tripod. Doesn't seem quite right but then this is maybe
common to all higher spec cameras.

On the other hand this camera has taken some well exposed (with
some fiddling) tripod shots in the dark, inside ruined buildings
etc, which are sharp and very well executed - so long as there is
no distance involved. Shooting from one end of the room to another
with a tripod seems to cause softness inevitably, most of my good
and sharp photos are focussing on subjects at a shorter distance.
It's very good with light flare though generally compared to my old
camera.

What can I do ? I try and stay above 1/50 for normal conditions
handheld sometimes 1/30 if I'm desperate for the photo, and I've
tried to stick to mid-range apertures when not taking landscapes
but it does not seem to help. I judge the quality of a photo
firstly on the sharpness, secondly on the exposure. A picture
should instantly strike you as being sharp, not muddy and
indistinct, and if the exposure isn't great that makes it worse. I
would sooner have more noise and grain in a picture and have it
sharp than have it smooth and indistinct and soft. I value
detailled sharp shots and I'm just not getting it. It seems even to
destroy easy, easy shots in a way my much inferior older camera
never did.. Easy shots wrecked seems to me an indicator of
something being wrong. Am I doing something wrong? Considering what
it does when left on auto.. I don't see how I can be..

It really is a lot better when given little light at all, a tripod,
and a 3 second exposure than it is outside in normal light
handheld. How can it screw up photos that any mid range automatic
digital can manage?

Please, any help or suggestions as to how to improve my pictures or
what could be wrong with how I'm taking them now would be much
appreciated. I have taken some decent shots with it but it just
does not seem to be reliable for general usage.. I do tend to use
variable apertures but I have not noticed a trend that would at all
help me decide what I should be choosing. Since last post I have
tried to stay with f4-6 sometimes using higher for long distance
and lower for close ups.

one or two examples, some of which may not be too helpful can be
found here

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples_2/

and the original subjects of my last post are

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples/

Timothy Dunnigan · Oct 7, 2002

Hello,

I looked at the original photo of the landscape with trees and see you received a blurring warning from the camera. It's not apparent to me why, perhaps the more knowledgable here can decipher this.

On the last picture link, it seems to me that between the apparent haze in the atmosphere (with backlighting) and the flare on the lens, this is a very good photo of the scene.

Timothy Dunnigan
http://www.pbase.com/tdunnigan/

skyphab said:
upsa. forgot the last picture link. sorry

http://www.pbase.com/image/5601591

BishopVC · Oct 7, 2002

My pointers.

In auto mode, if possible, pre-focus (i.e. press shutter release halfway down) and check for the "shaking hand" blur warning and/or shutter speed.

As a general rule, if you're concerned about camera shake (and you should be), beware when shooting at a shutter speed slower than 1/35mm camera equivalent focal length without taking special precautions. For example, at full wide on the 602 (35mm camera equivalent focal length of 35mm) shoot at 1/40 s or faster. At full zoom on the 602 (35mm camera equivalent focal length of 210mm) shoot at 1/250 s or faster. Use shutter priority if necessary. Special precautions? If handholding use special breathing techniques. Better yet, use a tripod with a cable release or the timer. The use of a cable release or the timer is imperative. The act of pushing the shutter release is enough to shake the camera and cause blurring. In fact, with single lens reflex cameras, even when using a cable release or the self timer, the flipping up of the mirror is often enough shake to cause blurring in long exposure shots. Not a concern for the s602 of course.

By the way, in order to get the 35mm camera equivalent focal length for the s602, multiply the s602 focal length by 4.5.

Use 6mp fine compression. No arguments. Some will of course argue that 3mp looks sharper to them but I imagine that it's just smaller on their monitor and therefore looks sharper. For the same reasons don't use any jpeg compression other than fine (or tiff) - it will introduce more artefacts into your photos. If the size of your memory card is an issue then get bigger a memory card. Why buy a Porsche and then handcuff it because you can't afford tires that won't explode over 90 mph?

Use soft sharpening (i.e. no in-camera sharpening) if you're willing to post-process every photo in photoshop with unsharp masking. If you don't have the time (like me), use normal sharpening. Hard sharpening appears to cause problems with foliage and the like. On the other hand I've seen some nice shots of aircraft taken with hard sharpening. Keep that in mind when you're shooting just like you keep in mind the appropriateness of any other settable parameter on your camera. Like you keep in mind that slow shutter speeds are inadequate for freezing action. Or that a wider aperature will allow you to use faster shutter speeds. Or that you'll need flash if its dark.

Finally. What you see on your monitor one foot in front of your face at 100% is not what you see printed out 4x6 or 8x10 or even larger at normal viewing distances. Even the finest flim photograph will exhibit graininess if you blow it up enough.

Happy shooting.

Regards,

Bishop

ChromeDome · Oct 7, 2002

As Promised, blur and chromatic aberation - lovely bridge huh!

http://www.pbase.com/image/5604562

BishopVC · Oct 7, 2002

Grizzly,

By examining the exif data embedded in the photos by the original poster, it becomes clear that most of the problems are caused by inexperience, not the camera. Poor choice of image resolution, poor choice of image compression, poor choice of sharpening, poor choice of shutter speed, etc.

Is the camera perfect? No camera is. But the s602 is a fine camera. Perhaps the finest w.r.t. performance/features vs price out there right now. I would not hesitate for a second to recommend it to you.

The s602 is a serious tool with a myriad of settings. Its very easy to mess up your photos by playing around with settings you don't understand.

Regards,

Bishop

GrizzlyHackle · Oct 7, 2002

Thanks for the support. I still like it very much and hope to order one shortly. If I run into problems I hope that I can "lean" on you for a little help.

Jeff

BishopVC · Oct 7, 2002

Sure thing. Lots of people willing to help on this forum.

Bishop

Jay S. · Oct 7, 2002

Hell Dog,

Well I can see why you are upset. Is there anyway you can put the images some place where we can see the EXIF information, like PBase? It is hard to say what is causing what is happening to your pictures without some info. It almost appears as though you are shooting through gauze. One of the things that had been noted by some about landscapes and the S602 was artifacting in the grass and trees, but what you are showing is much worse than that.

Jay S.

Hell Dog said:
All of the pictures I’ve taken with my 602 either look out of
focus or diffused. I’ve never had a landscape shot that
looks good yet. I was wondering I someone could look at these
shots and tell me if this is normal. I’ve tried to take
pictures in soft, normal, hard, 3MP, 6MP, fine as well as high and
all seem to be diffused. I’ve cleaned the lens, used
skylight and UV filters and shot without any filter at all. Some
seem to better focused then others, but I’ve never achieved
the fine focus I’ve seen in the sample shots on dpreview.
There was a portrait there where you can see pours on the shin and
threads on the subject’s clothing. Even with manual focus
and large apertures I haven’t been able to come close.
I’ve taken hundreds of shots in all kinds of lighting,
shutter speeds and aperture settings. I’ve even used a
tripod and have never achieved better then these posted below. Is
there something wrong with my camera? Could someone post some
samples I can compare?

Here are some examples:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft3.jpg

All my landscapes look even worse then this:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/landscape.jpg

Terry Thorn · Oct 7, 2002

Pieter Gordebeke said:
Agreed: a big zoom implies some sacrifices. However, with a little
practice, everyone should be able to get more or less the same
image quality from the same camera. I've seen spectacular results
from other 602 owners; why should you or KM be an exception? If it
isn't the photographer, it must be the camera.

Pieter

I agree. I had a 602 for a week and got much better images from it than were exhibited here. Sharpness WAS NOT a problem.

HolyCow · Oct 7, 2002

I am NO EXPERT, but looking at the example image it looks to me the bright sky in the background made this shot a waste. I always try to get the light behind me because the camera does not do a good job of aperture control when you have such a bright section in the background. even the shadow cast from the earthen roll seems to indicate the sun is ahead and behind the scene and not behind the photographer. If this is so.. no camera is going to do a miracle with such a setup.

So, I guess I am saying the key in my opinion is to get good and sufficient light from the subject and not from behind the subject. A 2600 will make good shots if you have the right light.

Mooooo

Pieter Gordebeke said:
Check out this image: http://www.pbase.com/image/5546710/original

If my pictures came out mostly like this one, I wouldn't be happy
either. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I only see this lack
of detail in some of my landscapes in difficult light (i.e. low
light or awkward angle).

Maybe K's not quite there yet as far as technique is concerned, but
perhaps there is a technical problem with the camera (autufocus?).
Our more technically advanced and experienced forum members here
might have the answer.

EJN said:

...er .. can somebody tell me ... is this where we all laugh ?

Click to expand...

ianR · Oct 7, 2002

Thanks a lot for the nice comments Timothy, and Pieter, and it's nice to hear from Richard again.

Actually it's from my 6900. I was really only demonstrating the DOF at wide apertures and it didn't occur to me that the image quality would be much different from the 602 but maybe it is.

I'm sorry if I've misled on that point. I think I'll put 6900 on my signature from now on.
regards
Ian

Timothy Dunnigan said:
I look forward to the day I revisit the area. It would be even more
spectacular early or late in the day. My wife & I were there at
mid-day and was needing to travel on.

Timothy Dunnigan
http://www.pbase.com/tdunnigan/

Richard Dunn said:

This is not just a feature of SuperCCD's though as the Nikon 5000,
olympus D40 and the Canon G2 also have to guess more whenever the
light levels drop. They produce different sorts of artefacts often
with smoothing algorithms kicking in as light levels drop.

Because of this Ian is surely right in advocating larger apertures
not only yto increase light but to increase shutter speed and
reduce shake.

By the way I love the painted desert images. What a great place,
fantastic scenery mirrored by great skies. Thanks
Richard Dunn

Timothy Dunnigan said:

I happen to like the challenge this camera presents. It's part of
what interests me in my hobbies. I'm also sympathetic (as I'm sure
you and Ian are also) to those new to the camera who are surprised
by how poor their photos appear. At the beginning of the trip where
I shot the Painted Desert photos I took shots in the Zuni Pueblo
territory. This was only a few weeks after I obtained the camera. I
was shooting on Auto WB, I had inadvertantly left manual focus on
(and was not focussing), I was trying to look through the EVF
wearing glasses with a polarizing coating (try that sometime!). The
truly amazing thing is that I obtained a few decent photos (2 or 3
out of 20 or so) from this batch!

I'm still learning to use this camera and find that experimenting,
as Ian suggested, really helps.

Timothy Dunnigan
http://www.pbase.com/tdunnigan/

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I'm glad that you both can prove the 602 can produce good quality
pictures consistently. Although I own a 6900, I did get the chance
to try out a 602 and didn't find anything wrong with it. (The AF
can be tricky at times in comparison, but you get used to it).

As always, negative opinions get a lot more attention than positive
ones. However, you can't deny that some of the results shown here
were plain poor. More than a few times I thought: "My 6900 can do
better than this". How come? Is it due to the photographer? Is it
the camera? It's likely a combination of both. You just can't
expect to go from a compact automatic film camera to a full-control
digicam and not change your technique. I'm not generalizing or
pointing the finger here, but I think this is what happens too
often.

Pieter

Timothy Dunnigan said:

Ian,

This reply answers very well, in my opinion, a number of negative
posts in the forum recently. Your photo, in particular, is
amazingly sharp and very similar in composition to a different
recent thread in which autofocus and water reflection was a concern.

It seems to me that the S602Z likes light. I was very happy with
landscape photos (and their 8x10 prints) I took in the Painted
Desert, but was thinking that the absence (to my eyes) of artifacts
and blurriness was do to the non-organic nature of the landscape.
Some of those photos were shot in bright desert light, others under
significant cloud cover, but I was happy with all.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Best Wishes,
Richard Dunn
Warwick UK
http://www.pbase.com/rmwd/galleries

Click to expand...

Frankallan · Oct 7, 2002

--
Frank

http://www.pbase.com/frankallen/galleries

C-2100UZ A-200

sg10 · Oct 7, 2002

Pieter Gordebeke said:
sg10 said:

Jared Hunter said:

In terms of actual image information, we know that 3Mp SuperCCDs
resolve approx. 4Mp's of information. That's why it makes sense to
resample down to 3Mp or 4Mp knowing that you aren't "losing" real
information. The process of downsampling also helps to eliminate
SuperCCD and jpg artifacts as well as in-camera sharpening halos.

Click to expand...

I agree that 4MP down-sampling probably doesn't hurt, and might
help a tad, though your eyeball probably does much the same given
the same physical image size.

I love my S602, but I think the SuperCCD is a small liabilty in
general. I think you get less detail out of it than a quality 3MP
CCD in 3MP mode, and possibly slightly more than 3MP-worth in 6MP
mode depending on the image itself.

Click to expand...

This is where we disagree. OK, I've only tried out cameras; that is
I haven't done any serious testing side by side. I have yet to see
better overall results from any other 3MP camera. I really believe
that considering a 602 as an average 4MP is giving it the credit it
deserves.

I have yet to see better from a 3MP camera too, but that is to be expected. I have seen much better results from a 4MP camera than the S602's 6MP output (images still linked below).

Additionally, the S602 didn't hold up well to any of the 4MP camera compared directly in its dpreview full review. Does that mean its not better than 3MP? No, but my gut feeling from digesting all of the data is that it is pretty close to 3MP in 6MP mode, with the exception of the resolution tests. But I think you have to realize those are striaght white lines on a black bacground, nothing could be easier to interpolate 100% accurately.

Pieter Gordebeke said:
Pieter Gordebeke said:

My take on it is that if your subject's lines are largely
continuous (like the resolution test screens are commonly used for
testing), then software interpolation can make the image look like
a 4MP result--whether that is real data or not is another issue.
If the subject is rich in relief and organic detail, the 6MP mode
won't be in the same leage as a good 4MP camera, it'll look every
bit the 3MP CCD it really is. But who can fault it for that?

Click to expand...

I agree, but you are describing pretty specific shooting
circumstances here ("If the subject is rich in relief and organic
detail"). In most situations your 602 should perform better than
its 3MP.

I actually agree with you that it might look better, even comparable to a 4MP camera in appearance/form. But does that mean that additional data is accurate? For example, artifically sharpeningan image can make it look better--but its not an optical result, the computer is changing pixels based on an algorithm with knows nothing of the scene itself.

My pictures linked below give some interesting insight into that, i think. The interior part of the painting has a lot of 2D continuous lines, and it definitely looks comparable in 6MP form to the true 4MP camera. But the picture frame is much more 3D and complex, and it obviously doesn't lend itself to interpolation well. That part looks like a 3MP camera even in 6MP mode--which begs the question--is the addtional data added in the interior part of the image actually seeing and adding real detail, or is it just connecting the dots based on a not-optical data?

I hope you can see my concern. Sure, if all images were very 2D and contiguous (like the resolution test images--and one has to wonder if Fuji doesn't realize that is best case for interpolation--might they have built the camera around the test?), I could fairly accurately produce a 12MP image from a 3MP sensor, but nature isn't like that most of the time.

Pieter Gordebeke said:
Pieter Gordebeke said:

Have a look at my 100% unscientific test results...

http://www.pbase.com/sg10/compare

...even given the anecdotal nature of that gallery, I think the
some of the quality differences shown exceed my capability to screw
up the tests.

Click to expand...

sg10 · Oct 7, 2002

GrizzlyHackle said:
I have been following this thread and now I am totally confused. I
currently have a FinePix 2600 and love it. I wanted to get a more
advanced camera to expand my control on pictures and had decided to
get the 602. I really like the looks, feel, ease of use and
functionality of the 602. I also really do like the price. Now
after following this thread I am beginning to wonder if I should
spend the money on this camera. I am sure there a many out there
that love the camera and some that hate it. That is the way things
do for anything electronic.

My main question is, within the price range of the 602 is there a
better camera? Would most of you buy the camera again if you had
the chance?

This is such a great question, and its the crux of the issue. The answer in my opinion is...

...very complex.

Here's my 2 cents worth, you probably couldn't even sell it for that...

Price for spec: S602 is quite expensive, given that there is essentially no memory media and no rechargables. Its priced as a 5+MP camera.

Image quality: All things considered, S602 is slightly below avg to poor in its price range, in 6MP mode. Mostly due to serious focus issues, mostly in low light, but also in bright.

Movies: No other digital camera even comes close. The S602 is, no kidding, about 10x better than the second place camera. Why? 4x the raw resolution, 2x the frame rate, plus a fudge factor because each individual frame, even in the same resolution, looks much better than its competition. Also, Fuji's pixel linking allows unmatched brightness (essentially ISO) in 640x480 mode.

Intangibles: S602 really excels. Its fast and has great burst modes. Shutter lag and autofocus speed is the best there is. Its is well built and it works well under pressure. Sony, for example, has a lot to learn form Fuji.

So do you buy it?

Who knows? It depends. Its a frustrating camera because it gets shots no other camera in its price range could capture, it makes you feel like King Kong when looking at the LCD representation of what you were able to snag. But then, on the big screen it turns in surprisingly poor overall image quality on at least half of those.

So are you disappointed at the poor half? Or are you overjoyed you were able to get the good half? I still can't figure it out myself.

ianR · Oct 7, 2002

Hi Hell Dog

I'm really sorry but I think there is something wrong with your camera. There is just too much noise in the backgroung to be normal at ISO160. Also that wide orande halo arond your T shirt, and the white band around the chair, doesn't look at all norman to me. In some of them there is a coloured tint in the sky and nothing is sharp.
I can't see that being user error and I'm afraid it just looks bad to me.
Sorry
Ian

Jay Sottolano said:
Jay S.

Hell Dog said:

All of the pictures I’ve taken with my 602 either look out of
focus or diffused. I’ve never had a landscape shot that
looks good yet. I was wondering I someone could look at these
shots and tell me if this is normal. I’ve tried to take
pictures in soft, normal, hard, 3MP, 6MP, fine as well as high and
all seem to be diffused. I’ve cleaned the lens, used
skylight and UV filters and shot without any filter at all. Some
seem to better focused then others, but I’ve never achieved
the fine focus I’ve seen in the sample shots on dpreview.
There was a portrait there where you can see pours on the shin and
threads on the subject’s clothing. Even with manual focus
and large apertures I haven’t been able to come close.
I’ve taken hundreds of shots in all kinds of lighting,
shutter speeds and aperture settings. I’ve even used a
tripod and have never achieved better then these posted below. Is
there something wrong with my camera? Could someone post some
samples I can compare?

Here are some examples:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft3.jpg

All my landscapes look even worse then this:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/landscape.jpg

Click to expand...

--
6900

ianR · Oct 7, 2002

ianR said:
Jay Sottolano said:

Jay S.

Hell Dog said:

All of the pictures I’ve taken with my 602 either look out of
focus or diffused. I’ve never had a landscape shot that
looks good yet. I was wondering I someone could look at these
shots and tell me if this is normal. I’ve tried to take
pictures in soft, normal, hard, 3MP, 6MP, fine as well as high and
all seem to be diffused. I’ve cleaned the lens, used
skylight and UV filters and shot without any filter at all. Some
seem to better focused then others, but I’ve never achieved
the fine focus I’ve seen in the sample shots on dpreview.
There was a portrait there where you can see pours on the shin and
threads on the subject’s clothing. Even with manual focus
and large apertures I haven’t been able to come close.
I’ve taken hundreds of shots in all kinds of lighting,
shutter speeds and aperture settings. I’ve even used a
tripod and have never achieved better then these posted below. Is
there something wrong with my camera? Could someone post some
samples I can compare?

Here are some examples:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/soft3.jpg

All my landscapes look even worse then this:
http://members.cox.net/thelsel/landscape.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
6900

--
6900

sg10 · Oct 7, 2002

Pieter Gordebeke said:
Greg Brammah said:

I could generally get acceptably sharp images from the 6900, with
whatever mode I chose. The modes chosen were of-course dependant
upon shooting conditions. However when you're in a rush it would be
nice to use Auto and get say 50% of your results in-focus; with
6900 this would happen, with the 602 It rarely happens and for me
is a lot less predictable.

Click to expand...

I just can't accept that the AF gets it so badly wrong that your
pictures look soft overall. Even if that is true and your camera
focuses short or long, say 10% (which seems an outrageous error
margin to me), the huge DOF should compensate for that, IMO. Or
doesn't it work that way?

I think you make an interesting point. My Sony CD400 did have an unaturally enormous DOF--a standard digital camera complaint for the serious amature+. Guess what, I find the the S602 has DOF performance that is much more comparable to a film SLR. This might very well be one source of focus-frustration as compared to other digitals. Here are some quick S602 samples of its DOF working pretty darn well, I think...

http://www.pbase.com/sg10/focus

Be sure to view at least the large-size thumbnail, the little thumbs are deceivingly clear at all focus points.

still not happy with S602..

Active member

Active member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Terry Thorn

Guest

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts