Test shots disappointing

BobT · Mar 3, 2004

I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a 300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The general results were as follows:

300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.

F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not been compared with the 300D shots.

F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up the 300D pics.

300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer than on the Sony.

BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to comment?

Chris Dodkin · Mar 3, 2004

Bob,

could it be that you just were not familiar enough with the camera to get the results you expected?

Could be camera shake depending on ISO and shutter speed - do you know what you shot at?

Could be the 7 point AF not focusing where you expected it to, or failing to get focus in low light/contrast situation

Could be a bad lens, but that's very very rare

The DRebel itself produces really good clean sharp images, that even put my 1D to shame sometimes.

Here's a sample from my 300D, shot RAW, to give you an idea of the amazing sharpness and detail it can achieve

Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod

sb11x · Mar 3, 2004

i'm not an expert in this and i came from Nikon 5700, and yes i was disappointed with 300D on my first day.. everything was coming out far from "sharp" and colors was not the best. But now i had it for about a month and i LOVE it.. its much better then my Nikon (sold it).

But with this camera you just have to learn how to use it, even in automatic mode, and a little sharpening in Photoshop will not hurt

just my opinion, and like i said i'm not an expert but just don't give up on this camera this easy... its a great camera
sergei

BobT said:
I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a
300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that
I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I
didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto
with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our
local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The
general results were as follows:
300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems
much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.
F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably
might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not
been compared with the 300D shots.
F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially
noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I
brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up
the 300D pics.
300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not
even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash
shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer
than on the Sony.
BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this
VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose
that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in
post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's
sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to
comment?

BobT · Mar 3, 2004

Chris Dodkin said:
Bob,

could it be that you just were not familiar enough with the camera
to get the results you expected?

Could be camera shake depending on ISO and shutter speed - do you
know what you shot at?

Could be the 7 point AF not focusing where you expected it to, or
failing to get focus in low light/contrast situation

Could be a bad lens, but that's very very rare

The DRebel itself produces really good clean sharp images, that
even put my 1D to shame sometimes.

Here's a sample from my 300D, shot RAW, to give you an idea of the
amazing sharpness and detail it can achieve

Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod

I think I noticed that the (kit) lens was at f4.5 for all shots, at around 35mm. I did take a fw shots with flash in "M"; making the meter adjustment as necessary. The F717 seemd to just bring out those small things better; like the stems of the apples, etc.

RacerX2oo3 · Mar 3, 2004

I'm sure you're going to hear this quite a bit in this thread, so I guess I'll be the first to say it. The in-camera sharpening on your Sony is going to be much higher than the in camera sharpening on the 300D. Now this is actually a good thing as camera's like the F717 and most other Non-SLR style digital camera tend to oversharpen images. What you tend to end up with are images that can appear unnatural. Note: You can bump the sharpness settings in the 300D to get a higher level of sharpening.

The other thing that you have to keep in mind when comparing a camera like the F717 to the 300D is Depth of Field. Because of the smaller sensor sizes on consumer level digicams they tend to have very deep depth of field which makes most objects in the frame appear in focus throughout the entire frame. The 300D on the otherhand will tend to have a shallower depth of field depending on the set aperture. This may mean that while your main subject is in focus, objects behind and in front will be blurred out of focus.

The last thing to remember is that while you can use a 300D like a point and shoot, you will get the best results from it only after you have mastered the concepts of exposure, depth of field, composition and lighting. These basic principles will help you with any camera, but because DSLR's allow you much more control over your images, you will see the greatest benefit on a camera that allows you greater freedom.

BobT said:
I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a
300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that
I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I
didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto
with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our
local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The
general results were as follows:
300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems
much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.
F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably
might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not
been compared with the 300D shots.
F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially
noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I
brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up
the 300D pics.
300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not
even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash
shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer
than on the Sony.
BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this
VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose
that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in
post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's
sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to
comment?

Chris MacClellan · Mar 3, 2004

What Parameter was the Rebel set too??? Depending on the parameter the Rebel was set too you could have a real soft image. The Rebel has different parameter setting to adjust sharpness, contrast, and suturation.

Mac

BobT · Mar 3, 2004

Chris MacClellan said:
What Parameter was the Rebel set too??? Depending on the parameter
the Rebel was set too you could have a real soft image. The Rebel
has different parameter setting to adjust sharpness, contrast, and
suturation.

Mac

Parameter? What do you mean by this? I did not have access to the instruction book when sampling the camera. Just borrowed it and set it to the "green box" setting(assuming this was Auto everything), and also did some flash shooting on Manual.

Chris MacClellan · Mar 3, 2004

E-mail me a untouched picture and I'll let you know

Chris

BobT said:
Chris MacClellan said:

What Parameter was the Rebel set too??? Depending on the parameter
the Rebel was set too you could have a real soft image. The Rebel
has different parameter setting to adjust sharpness, contrast, and
suturation.

Mac

Click to expand...

Parameter? What do you mean by this? I did not have access to the
instruction book when sampling the camera. Just borrowed it and
set it to the "green box" setting(assuming this was Auto
everything), and also did some flash shooting on Manual.

Sandman · Mar 3, 2004

BobT,

This is not a trait of the Rebel, but of ALL DSLR's! There is an anti-aliasing filter that dramatically softens the images. The sharpness must be restored in some manner, either by using the in-camera settings or in post-processing. Most of us who hang out on a photography forum are more avid amateurs and prefer the control offered by post-processing rather than increasing the settings in the camera. Understand that the in-camera adjustments are irreversible! But this is YOUR call. If you are not inclined to do post-processing AND don't need the control of adjusting this yourself, you do have the choice. And this goes not just for sharpness, but also contrast, color saturation, and color tone: all adjustable from -2 to +2! There are two preset parameters and two that you can customize yourself.

Bob, since you are interested in the Rebel, consider reading through Phil's Review of the Rebel on this site. Not only is the review very informative, but it is also a great learning tool to see what all the camera can do.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

Best wishes,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

Sandman · Mar 3, 2004

RacerX2oo3 said:
The other thing that you have to keep in mind when comparing a
camera like the F717 to the 300D is Depth of Field. Because of the
smaller sensor sizes on consumer level digicams they tend to have
very deep depth of field which makes most objects in the frame
appear in focus throughout the entire frame. The 300D on the
otherhand will tend to have a shallower depth of field depending on
the set aperture. This may mean that while your main subject is in
focus, objects behind and in front will be blurred out of focus.

The last thing to remember is that while you can use a 300D like a
point and shoot, you will get the best results from it only after
you have mastered the concepts of exposure, depth of field,
composition and lighting. These basic principles will help you
with any camera, but because DSLR's allow you much more control
over your images, you will see the greatest benefit on a camera
that allows you greater freedom.

BobT said:

I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a
300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that
I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I
didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto
with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our
local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The
general results were as follows:
300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems
much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.
F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably
might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not
been compared with the 300D shots.
F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially
noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I
brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up
the 300D pics.
300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not
even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash
shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer
than on the Sony.
BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this
VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose
that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in
post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's
sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to
comment?

Click to expand...

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

Peter Aczel · Mar 3, 2004

I loved both. The F-717 has a much strongerbuilt in in-camera-image-process. Therefore the shot is sharper but has tons of artifacts and noise. Folks using 300D or other DSLR can increase sharpnes during a simple postprocess - if they want to. But there are many cases when they don't want to do it because they don't want to increase noise and artifacts. This is upon their taste. But with F-717 you cannot avoid noise and aetifacts. I invite you to my site: there are a lot of F-717 and a lot of 300D shots there. You will guess which were taken with F-717, which with 300D. Look at the noise only.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://w3.enternet.hu/paczel

nubui · Mar 3, 2004

the kit lens is known to have it's "sweet spot" around f8 - shooting wide open with it will give you some lack of sharpness. that's true for quite some cheap lenses. having that said, shooting around f8 with the kit lens has given me some amazing sharp images.

to get the last bit of ZING out of the 300D pics, you might still want to look into some level of post processing. f717 does a lot more in-camera sharpening than the 300D which is not a fault of the canon, but by design, as it leaves you the option to do more (and better) post processing

BobT said:
Chris Dodkin said:

Bob,

could it be that you just were not familiar enough with the camera
to get the results you expected?

Could be camera shake depending on ISO and shutter speed - do you
know what you shot at?

Could be the 7 point AF not focusing where you expected it to, or
failing to get focus in low light/contrast situation

Could be a bad lens, but that's very very rare

The DRebel itself produces really good clean sharp images, that
even put my 1D to shame sometimes.

Here's a sample from my 300D, shot RAW, to give you an idea of the
amazing sharpness and detail it can achieve

Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod

Click to expand...

I think I noticed that the (kit) lens was at f4.5 for all shots, at
around 35mm. I did take a fw shots with flash in "M"; making the
meter adjustment as necessary. The F717 seemd to just bring out
those small things better; like the stems of the apples, etc.

--

My Photography: http://nubui.com/gallery/newcam

New 300D users, please read the 300D FAQ first! Chances are that your questions have already been answered: http://www.marius.org/cgi-bin/fom?file=68

PaulyOly · Mar 3, 2004

BobT said:
I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a
300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that
I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I
didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto
with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our
local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The
general results were as follows:
300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems
much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.
F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably
might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not
been compared with the 300D shots.
F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially
noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I
brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up
the 300D pics.
300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not
even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash
shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer
than on the Sony.
BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this
VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose
that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in
post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's
sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to
comment?

As was allready said the sony oversharpens as do most digital cameras, most slr's even with sharpening turned up don't sharpen the image much, if you don't want to post process your picture then don't get a DSLR, you'd never see someone hook up their digital rebel to a printer and print from the camera, those that buy dslr's want the best image possible which means you have to do some of the work.
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root

Stan · Mar 3, 2004

Nearly ALL digital cameras (DSLR or not) use a "blur" or antialias filter in front of the sensor.

I think what the person is experiencing is likely in-camera processing related. As pointed out, the P&S boxes try to provide a ready-to-go image tuned to the desires of the target market. DSLRs provide images that preserve the highest quality and subsequent processing options and flexibility. Which means that if you want a punchy out-of-the-camera photo, you'll need to crank up the Drebels settings, or at least use parameter 1. Parameter 1 is tuned for direct printing. If desired, you can change the settings up or down using the custom options.

Below is a Parameter 1/2 comparo.

Stan

Fender182522 · Mar 3, 2004

PaulyOly wrote:
you'd never see someone hook up their digital

PaulyOly said:
rebel to a printer and print from the camera,

Actually, I print straight from the camera to my portable CP-200 printer all the time. When I do, I shoot in Parameter 1, and they turn out pretty darn good for when I need instant photos.

--
~~mike~~

Tony SD · Mar 3, 2004

BobT said:
I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a
300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that
I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I
didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto
with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our
local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The
general results were as follows:
300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems
much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.
F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably
might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not
been compared with the 300D shots.
F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially
noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I
brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up
the 300D pics.
300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not
even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash
shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer
than on the Sony.
BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this
VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose
that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in
post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's
sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to
comment?

Straight out of the camera the shots do look a little soft - IMO you HAVE to use sharpening in PS Elements 2 or something similar. You'll be amazed then at how sharp your pictures can appear.

This is a 100% crop using the kit lens:

I use PaintShopPro where the 'enhance photo' works magic!
TonySD

johnd1 · Mar 3, 2004

............f4.5 definitely isn't gonna do it with the kit lens.

As far as I'm concerned the only value in the kit lens is the wide angle and decent range it allows at the $100.00 price.

Basically it's a fair starter lens (at best) for getting into the world of dslr but you will soon want something better.

If I was to do it again and was on a budget I'd get the Drebel body only, pay $169.00 for a cheap Tokina 19-35 then look for a used 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM for around $150.00 . For a bit more than $300.00 it makes for a good setup at rock bottom cost.
Just my opinion,
John

BobT said:
I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a
300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that
I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I
didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto
with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our
local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The
general results were as follows:
300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems
much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.
F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably
might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not
been compared with the 300D shots.
F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially
noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I
brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up
the 300D pics.
300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not
even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash
shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer
than on the Sony.
BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this
VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose
that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in
post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's
sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to
comment?

Kevin Bowley · Mar 3, 2004

I must chime in here.... with all the 8 MP cams coming out, I have yet to see ANY "prosumer" range any cam that can put the 717 to shame. I truly believe that the 717 is the benchmark in the 5 MP "prosumer" line....and than some. The 717's stunning lens..senser...14 bit processor combo is still the envy of all manufactureres. It will be a classic as the G3 will be.

Is the 300D capable of a better shot.....thats up to you and your lenses....it is certainly much cleaner at high ISO's.

Here are a couple of untouched 717 snaps...nothing fancy, but you get the idea of its resolving capacity

It really was...and still is the benchmark in the "prosumer" range

Kevin

Chris MacClellan · Mar 3, 2004

John I don't know if your kit lens is a bad copy or what but the general opinion is the kit lens is an excellent lens exspecially for the money. Granted stopped down to around F8 will produce the best results but wide open the lens is definetly no slouch and I think is better than the cheap $150 lenses you listed.

Mac

johnd1 said:
BobT said:

I had pretty much decided to make the big move towards getting a
300D, based largely on many comments read here. So I thought that
I would take some test pictures with it, AND with my F717. I
didn't have much time, but took shots by both cameras on full auto
with and without flash. My test setting was all indoor at our
local Wal-Mart; since so very many colors were available. The
general results were as follows:
300D-generally bighter pics w and w/t on-camera flash(which seems
much stronger than on the F717).
300D-colors were more vibrant, but at the expense of sharpness.
F717-colors were good, but seemed a bit darker over-all. I probably
might not have noticed the slighter darkness had those shots not
been compared with the 300D shots.
F717-most shots were noticably sharper which was especially
noticable on a written signs and object's texture. Though I
brought home 4X6 prints, I would have wasted my money to blow up
the 300D pics.
300D-no doubt faster and more responsive mechanically. Lag was not
even noticable to me. More noticable on the F717(espec. with flash
shots). I had a Panasonic FZ10 where the lag was even much longer
than on the Sony.
BUT--sharpness is my main "thing", and the 300D fell short in this
VERY important area. Is this expected from this camera? I suppose
that maybe(though I don't know how) this could be spruced up in
post processing, but I sure expected more with this camera's
sharpness"right out of the chute".
Anyway, now I'm not so sure about making that "big move". Care to
comment?

Click to expand...

livin4ridin · Mar 3, 2004

Hi Everyone,

I have to say I was questioning my Rebel to. I love the quick shutter and read speed but alot of my photos were coming in a little unsharp especially when I was trying to shoot my dogs ( I know thats a difficult task anyway). Can anyone give me some advice on how to better my shots indoors of my two Cocker Spaniels? I use a Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom XR F3.5-6.3 IF Macro lens and occassionally my kit lens. I have the Speedlight EX420 lens that I use on occassion also. Would I benefit from buying a Image Stabilizer lens? I hate using a tripod indoors.

I appreciate any advice..I knowI have a lot of learning to do but I know there are alot of knowledgable people on this site that I would appreciate advice from to help me improve my skills with this great camera...
Thanks,
Kim

Kevin Bowley said:
I must chime in here.... with all the 8 MP cams coming out, I have
yet to see ANY "prosumer" range any cam that can put the 717 to
shame. I truly believe that the 717 is the benchmark in the 5 MP
"prosumer" line....and than some. The 717's stunning
lens..senser...14 bit processor combo is still the envy of all
manufactureres. It will be a classic as the G3 will be.
Is the 300D capable of a better shot.....thats up to you and your
lenses....it is certainly much cleaner at high ISO's.
Here are a couple of untouched 717 snaps...nothing fancy, but you
get the idea of its resolving capacity

It really was...and still is the benchmark in the "prosumer" range

Kevin

Test shots disappointing

Forum Pro

Chris Dodkin

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts