S95 testing - clear, sharp, quality photos?

guys,

I am testing my S95 now (as I have loose lcd and few days left to return it - what I am not sure i will) and I am wondering where are all that great photos I see in all reviews and samples and galleries from this little devil. no matter what i try i am getting tragical pictures comparing to almost everything i've seen on web as samples. are those sample pics taken by pros, using all experience, creative aproach? do they take them raw and develope in their high end software using all their knowledge? or are these pictures real world, some automatic, some using manual controls? no matter i try (and i have full manual control camera for many years so i am not p&s shooter only), i get very unconvinient ones. once i take them they are great on lcd (understanding it looks different on small high res quality display) but once i look on them on pc monitor i am really disapointed. unsharp, soft, brutal grainy on higher iso, unnatural colors..

is there any possibility something other than can play role other than hands behind the camera? or the expectations were too high and it cant do miracles (but many samples are saying it does)?

you should post example pics and then other can help.

We have no idea what you're doing wrong without seeing the photos. If you post a few examples here, we can probably help.

I was in the same position as you many years ago when I got my G2. I posted pics that disappointed me and received a lot of great feedback about my expectations, why the pics were disappointing and what to do differently.

(Also learned that the G2 [like many Canons] LOVES to focus on background foliage instead of the intended subjects)

Post your shots and we'll help you out

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Most of the really sharp, crisp images you see on line will probably have been edited in some way.

--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davebass5/
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

Videos @ http://www.vimeo.com/user464364/videos

ok, i added some assorted tryouts.

These photographs look correct ... if boring. Try the "Vivid" color mode - p. 85 of the manual.

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/4/0300003994/02/PSS95_CUG_EN_02.pdf

If that isn't enough, shoot RAW and see what DPP will do for you.

Obviously return the camera with the loose screen, but its not as if anyone else makes a better camera of this size. The s95 is capable of sharp photos.

matador88 said:

ok, i added some assorted tryouts.

Click to expand...

This looks like a very sharp photo to me. The others are not as sharp - they are also shot at iso's higher than iso80 for various reasons.

For example, one of them is 6 mm, ISO 320, 1/1000 sec, f3.5...iso80 would definitely better.

You can also increase in-camera sharpening if you're shooting jpg.

Keep in mind, though, that the pictures people post are almost never just random pictures they took. They're almost always the best pictures they took, sometimes with additional editing, sharpening, etc done on them.

I have the s95. I know the image quality crushes the prior cameras I have had at that sensor size. I had a G9 and also have a panasonic zs7 now. Both clearly cannot shoot as good of an image. The G9 just barely loses out. I think the excitement comes from the massive improvement in the high iso images over prior sensor designs. Shoot some ISO 1600 stuff and compare that with any older camera at the same ISO and its a night and day difference. You also have to keep in mind that for people that shoot for a living, small improvements can sound like earthshaking news, when the average person will not see any difference or not know what to look for.

You also need to learn the tricks like - ALWAYS shoot RAW if you want a decent photo. Then, learn all the tricks to post processing a pic, because they all need a lot of post processing. Also, you may want to underexpose by 1 stop to avoid burning out the highlights. This is not a comment on your pics. Your pics are pretty much s95 pics, yup, thats pretty much it. If you always use full auto, there is only so much you can get. The exposure is a huge deal. These little cameras have barely any aperture range, so that almost doesnt matter. Focus, well, probably nobody is even using the focus on these little cameras. But exposure is critical. The s95 tends to overexpose a little. I usually use auto with EV set to -2/3 or -1 stop, then it will vary pic by pic with the light. But, its a great camera.

A couple of notes:

• For the G & S Series (and maybe other compacts from Canon), the camera ISOs are 25% higher than the EXIF ISO's. Therefore, ISO 64 is ISO 80 on the dial, ISO 320 is ISO 400 on the dial. (This is also true of my G9). I have no idea why Canon does this.
• Once you figure out what processing style you like in DPP, you can roughly simulate it in the in-camera settings. In general, I recommend people shoot RAW until they REALLY know what they're doing. There is much more room for error in RAW.

Have to agree with shorthand, I have had th S95 for about a month and I am really learning all the time. I am shooting RAW and JPEG Fine at the same time but I am finding most of the time I end up using the RAW file converted to JPEG after editing in DPP. I usually end up deleting the original camera JPEG later. I am new to all this but I seem to be able to edit a little in DPP to give me photos I am happy with. I usually end up adjusting Brightness, Sharpness and sometimes the White Balance as well as the lens tune up stuff. See these two examples, b is the RAW file just converted to JPEG, a has had the sharpness and brightmess tweaked a touch.

steve ohlhaber said:

I think the excitement comes from the massive improvement in the high iso images over prior sensor designs. Shoot some ISO 1600 stuff and compare that with any older camera at the same ISO and its a night and day difference.

You also need to learn the tricks like - ALWAYS shoot RAW if you want a decent photo. Also, you may want to underexpose by 1 stop to avoid burning out the highlights. If you always use full auto, there is only so much you can get.

Click to expand...

Thats right. my old camera has anything other than iso100 unusable. now i am complaining that here is worse than expected grain on iso800. youre right

i will shoot in raw, no problem, but my expectations based on all the fuzz was that my wife will be able to make PERFECT shots (with me on them :> ) with one click (full auto) and its obviously not true.

i almost immediately found out its overexposing. good to hear its true (not happy with it). i am not satisfied with colors and white balance at all either..

one boring (10000x asked but legit now for me) question: what do you think wouldnt be lx4 more suitable for me?

My quick thoughts:

• The S95 is generally described as having unusually good auto white balance - but no camera can match the human brain in this area.
• You can only expect so much from a small-sensor camera. The S95 is buzzworthy compared to other compact cameras, but it like any other cam has limits. It won't ever compare to a Rebel with a 50mm f/1.8 on it for low-light work. Honestly, a big sensor and a fast (f/2.8 or better) lens are still generally needed for foolproof indoor photos without flash.
• One trick that I like in DPP or another RAW processor (I use DxO) is to keep the Chroma noise reduction relatively high but reduce the Luma noise reduction to a pretty minimal level. The picture does retain a grainy or gritty look, but also lets the human brain (a much better pattern recognition system in the first place) fill in the gaps without the visually-distracting chroma noise that these sensors produce. I don't think this adjustment is possible in-camera.
• No the LX-4 is not a demonstrably better camera than the S95. If you can get the LX-4 to work for you, then you can almost certainly get the S95 to work for you.

From a marriage perspective - I will sometimes hand my wife a camera (usually a T1i) set to RAW mode and fix any issues in her photos later. While processing the wife's RAW files does allow me to save some shots that she would have otherwise missed, I would warn you about trying to use the information you get to improve her shooting style. (If shutter speed is an issue, then you can suggest that she to put it in "Sports Mode" next time.)

The other approach is to give her full control over her own photo workflow in the hope that she will use the feedback from that process to improve her photography or as an incentive to learn what the other buttons do. Picasa actually makes decent use of RAW files (though I think that the distortion in the S95's lens may be an issue for Picasa).

matador88 said:

one boring (10000x asked but legit now for me) question: what do you think wouldnt be lx4 more suitable for me?

Click to expand...

You mean an lx5?

From what I've heard the colors might be even worse...though it's hard to tell, this is the canon forum so people who don't like the lx5's colors end up here...

Shorthand said:

My quick thoughts:

• The S95 is generally described as having unusually good auto white balance - but no camera can match the human brain in this area.

Click to expand...

I...don't entirely agree with that, I'm not terribly fond of all the colors my s95 produces. Though to be fair there are plenty of complaints with other models.

Shorthand said:

• You can only expect so much from a small-sensor camera. The S95 is buzzworthy compared to other compact cameras, but it like any other cam has limits. It won't ever compare to a Rebel with a 50mm f/1.8 on it for low-light work. Honestly, a big sensor and a fast (f/2.8 or better) lens are still generally needed for foolproof indoor photos without flash.

Click to expand...

Yeah...

Shorthand said:

• One trick that I like in DPP or another RAW processor (I use DxO) is to keep the Chroma noise reduction relatively high but reduce the Luma noise reduction to a pretty minimal level. The picture does retain a grainy or gritty look, but also lets the human brain (a much better pattern recognition system in the first place) fill in the gaps without the visually-distracting chroma noise that these sensors produce. I don't think this adjustment is possible in-camera.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Shorthand said:

• No the LX-4 is not a demonstrably better camera than the S95. If you can get the LX-4 to work for you, then you can almost certainly get the S95 to work for you.

Click to expand...

lol, being that no camera named the lx4 exists, I agree that if you can get the lx-4 to work for you the s95 would definitely do as good a job, haha...

Some people have said the colors from the sd4000 (now replaced with the 500hs) are more natural by default than the s95's colors, and the auto mode is better to.

PaulRivers said:

I...don't entirely agree with that, I'm not terribly fond of all the colors my s95 produces. Though to be fair there are plenty of complaints with other models.

Click to expand...

Have you created a profile for your camera?

--
gollywop

-----------

Not a perfect camera, but very good. (I've shown these before, sorry)









Both shot in RAW, then a quick and nasty JPEG conversion in PhotoMechanic with that programme's default unadjustable sharpening added. The kookaburra had some fill flash added, to help balance the bright daylight behind him, and the dragline was shot at -1EV to balance the bright sky, but neither photo has had anything done to it in the way of PP.

--
Rob.

Free advice, freely given. If you don't like it, I'll refund you twice the amount you paid me.

gollywop said:

PaulRivers said:

I...don't entirely agree with that, I'm not terribly fond of all the colors my s95 produces. Though to be fair there are plenty of complaints with other models.

Click to expand...

Have you created a profile for your camera?

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

matador88,

You're really doing fine, but you're going to have to learn to deal with the images produced by that (or any) camera. The s95 is perfectly capable of taking sharp, color-accurate shots, but it doesn't happen automatically. As several posters have already indicated, most of the strong shots posted here have undergone some (often significant) PP. Your blue garage door, for example, while a rather prosaic composition, can be made into something somewhat serviceable.

Here it is with a bit of lens correction (for distortion and perspective), a bit of added umph, and some mild deconvolution sharpening



This was all done in ACR, and, yes, if you're going to do PP, you're going to have to get some decent software. If Photoshop is too expensive, Lightroom is excellent and a bit less so. Even PSE has some reasonable facility.
--
gollywop

-----------