Blur and usnsharp photos.

Started Jan 5, 2015 | User reviews
Hulken New Member • Posts: 1
Blur and usnsharp photos.

I just bought the SX700HS, I am definitive not happy With the quality of theese photos, not Sharp and litle details, and when Zoom in to 100% size on pc then the pic is just blur, not shrap edges at all.. very dissepointed, gonna sell it and look for other brand, Canon has really lost it, or is it only my camera which is like this?

It just look like an oilpainting. My Samsung mobile take better pic then this for sure.

Canon PowerShot SX700 HS
16 megapixels • 3 screen • 25 – 750 mm (30×)
Announced: Feb 12, 2014
Hulken's score
2.0
Average community score
3.2
canuck dave
canuck dave Veteran Member • Posts: 3,189
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.
4

Hulken wrote:

I just bought the SX700HS, I am definitive not happy With the quality of theese photos, not Sharp and litle details, and when Zoom in to 100% size on pc then the pic is just blur, not shrap edges at all.. very dissepointed, gonna sell it and look for other brand, Canon has really lost it, or is it only my camera which is like this?

It just look like an oilpainting. My Samsung mobile take better pic then this for sure.

Is this a comprehensive 'review', or just your complaints?

Here's one review that suggests this is a good camera, so perhaps user error may be at issue?

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX700_HS/verdict.shtml

MarioV Veteran Member • Posts: 6,993
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

Did you shoot in Auto?  Sometimes the camera's auto focus can latch on to an area of more contrast - not necessarily the subject.

The Nikon equivalent has a slightly sharper lens but not sure about its performance in other areas. I preferred the SX700 because of its 1080p60 video.

You may be expecting too much from an inexpensive pocket superzoom camera. None of the brands offer stellar performance in this format.

 MarioV's gear list:MarioV's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Canon G3 X Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D5200 Canon EOS M100 +4 more
Brandon23 New Member • Posts: 16
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

Be patient. Camera not like your cell phone. You dont have press shooting button long enough to take the right focus. It looks like you just press it in 1 or 2 sec. Phone auto does it but camera doesnt. It explains how you can creating a picture with blur in the background. Canon is one of the best brand. Perhaps, you are not with the major of people  

filibuster
filibuster Veteran Member • Posts: 4,292
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.
4

“I just bought the SX700HS.”

Hulken, although you are entitled to an opinion, with your first posting you really should give us some information about your photographic expertise before you tell the folk on this forum that “Canon has really lost it.”

-- hide signature --

Quote hhgttg: Life is wasted on the living.
filibuster (Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, UK)
http://picasaweb.google.com/scenic.filibuster

4everAnoob Regular Member • Posts: 299
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.
4

I don't even have the camera, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
The picture you posted looks fine. The processing is "relaxed", the exact opposite of Sony's image processing, which means it looks natural but maybe a little soft. This means you can add a little sharpening later if you need it. Samsung also uses aggressive sharpening to make the image look better then it really is - until you zoom in to 100% that is.

 4everAnoob's gear list:4everAnoob's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX5 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Sony a5100
brianj Forum Pro • Posts: 14,657
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.
1

Looks great to me, based on your example image I would buy this camera in an instant if I needed that much zoom.

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
damian5000 Senior Member • Posts: 1,948
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.
3

Have fun buying other brands, zooming in to 100% and being disappointed by those too.

 damian5000's gear list:damian5000's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X
sbansban Contributing Member • Posts: 699
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

The main subject looks just fine to me at 100%. The "watercolor" you are referring to must be the distant foliage - but that's due to atmospheric haze. I don't know of any camera that could help with that.

 sbansban's gear list:sbansban's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Ricoh GR Panasonic FZ1000 +23 more
ludwik123 Senior Member • Posts: 1,417
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

Three weeks and only one post critical of one camera and brand.
Are you a troll? A devils advocate? Or a regular poster under a new name.

I have pixel peeped at your bike and background. Yes it is not pin sharp. And yes there is a watercolour effect in the background. And yes a samsung smartphone could beat it for quality in a direct head to head, while standing in the same place and shooting with the same angle of view.

The SX700 is a 30X optical zoom lens that fits in your pocket.
The image is a medium telephoto shot. The bike is in focus. The background is not due to limited DOF.
I can see no problem with the bike there is plenty of detail, i can even see writing on the rubber tyre. If you took a samsung smartphone shot from the position where you were standing, the bike would be tiny and blurry when you zoomed in on it.
The watercolour effect in the background, as said previously is atmospheric haze and slightly out of focus since focus is on the bike.
Other small sensor superzooms give similar or worse results.

 ludwik123's gear list:ludwik123's gear list
Olympus C-765 UZ Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Fujifilm FinePix F80EXR Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus SZ-16 iHS +7 more
B1ackhat Senior Member • Posts: 1,980
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

The sample image looks just fine to me and more than acceptable for a camera with a sensor of this size. The color is great and as someone else said, the sharpness can be adjusted in-camera or in post. It has always been Canon's approach to leave the sharpening largely untouched by default. I also think it looks just fine at 100% for a camera in this class, though I have to wonder why you are viewing the images at 100% anyway. Are you planning to print at that size and if so, why did you get a cam with such a small sensor when other options are available for those who want larger prints?

-- hide signature --

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~ Immanual Kant

racollins Contributing Member • Posts: 600
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

The OP's photo looks really nice actually, but to be honest, I had a very similar reaction to the first shots from my SX700 as he did (although I did not think my iPhone could do any better). When I enlarged the first few shots I took, I was not happy with the soft edges and the lack of detail in the images, even at low ISOs. Also, there seemed to be evidence of NR smearing at ISO 200. I got ready to sell mine too, however I kept reading reviews that praised the camera for its image quality, so I thought I'd keep working with it. I've learned that I have to be very mindful of the settings as I zoom in on subjects and the speed decreases; as far as shooting PowerShots goes, I've gotten used to using my G16 which has a fast f/1.8-2.8 lens and such is not the case with the SX700's lens. The more mindful I am of the settings the better my pics are turning out, so now I'm looking forward to using the camera in a variety of settings. All this to say, I don't think the OP is a troll, maybe a bit harsh in his choice of words, but I can relate to his initial thoughts about the camera. Fortunately, I'm changing my mind as I'm seeing the strengths the camera possesses while learning to understand its limitations, and am starting to really like it quite a bit.

Andy

 racollins's gear list:racollins's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ludwik123 Senior Member • Posts: 1,417
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

racollins wrote:

The OP's photo looks really nice actually, but to be honest, I had a very similar reaction to the first shots from my SX700 as he did (although I did not think my iPhone could do any better). When I enlarged the first few shots I took, I was not happy with the soft edges and the lack of detail in the images, even at low ISOs. Also, there seemed to be evidence of NR smearing at ISO 200. I got ready to sell mine too, however I kept reading reviews that praised the camera for its image quality, so I thought I'd keep working with it. I've learned that I have to be very mindful of the settings as I zoom in on subjects and the speed decreases; as far as shooting PowerShots goes, I've gotten used to using my G16 which has a fast f/1.8-2.8 lens and such is not the case with the SX700's lens. The more mindful I am of the settings the better my pics are turning out, so now I'm looking forward to using the camera in a variety of settings. All this to say, I don't think the OP is a troll, maybe a bit harsh in his choice of words, but I can relate to his initial thoughts about the camera. Fortunately, I'm changing my mind as I'm seeing the strengths the camera possesses while learning to understand its limitations, and am starting to really like it quite a bit.

Andy

I've looked at the sample image again.  It is fine.

the camera is focusing on the bike and a quick calculation shows the image was shot at about 210mm with the subject quite near.   This leads to a limited DOF.  With the background out of focus.  Standing closer with a wide angle smartphone would probably had the whole image sharp and in focus.

 ludwik123's gear list:ludwik123's gear list
Olympus C-765 UZ Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Fujifilm FinePix F80EXR Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus SZ-16 iHS +7 more
nikonson Regular Member • Posts: 367
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

IMO. motorbike should also be in video to show what it is about, speed. I've seen jets frozen in photos that gave me no excitement. Jet in video is totally excting. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfdR0G5gc_s

Blur shot sometimes works for what it means.

ludwik123 Senior Member • Posts: 1,417
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

nikonson wrote:

IMO. motorbike should also be in video to show what it is about, speed. I've seen jets frozen in photos that gave me no excitement. Jet in video is totally excting. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfdR0G5gc_s

Blur shot sometimes works for what it means.

That is part of the wider discussion whether video has made still photography obsolete.   I believe both are valid depending on the subject.

you are right about video being better for fast moving situations.

for stationery subjects still photography is ok.

 ludwik123's gear list:ludwik123's gear list
Olympus C-765 UZ Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Fujifilm FinePix F80EXR Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus SZ-16 iHS +7 more
SLOjoe
SLOjoe Regular Member • Posts: 424
Late to thread. Picture tweaked just a bit

Just increase in contrast, color saturation and cropped. Took about a minute.

Nothing wrong with the camera at all.

-- hide signature --

"Can you imagine 4,000 years passing, and you're not even a memory?
Think about it, friends. It's not just a possibility. It is a certainty." - Jean Shepherd - 1975

stevenic Senior Member • Posts: 1,459
Re: Late to thread. Picture tweaked just a bit

SLOjoe wrote:

Just increase in contrast, color saturation and cropped. Took about a minute.

Nothing wrong with the camera at all.

Now that looks good, a bit of PP can do wonders. By doing that the image looks a bit sharper and the colors are more vibrant. What software did you use?

Cheers

Steve.

DUTCH van Atlanta Senior Member • Posts: 1,704
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

sbansban wrote:

The main subject looks just fine to me at 100%. The "watercolor" you are referring to must be the distant foliage - but that's due to atmospheric haze. I don't know of any camera that could help with that.

Agreed, although there are some PP steps with the Unsharp Mask that will often minimize that haze.

 DUTCH van Atlanta's gear list:DUTCH van Atlanta's gear list
Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VI Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra +1 more
sbansban Contributing Member • Posts: 699
Re: Blur and usnsharp photos.

DUTCH van Atlanta wrote:

sbansban wrote:

The main subject looks just fine to me at 100%. The "watercolor" you are referring to must be the distant foliage - but that's due to atmospheric haze. I don't know of any camera that could help with that.

Agreed, although there are some PP steps with the Unsharp Mask that will often minimize that haze.

Of course ...

There is also a dedicated tool to help with atmospheric haze reduction (ClearView in DXO Optics Pro 10):

https://photographylife.com/dxo-clearview-anti-haze-adjustment-first-impressions#more-99842

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/10/29/dxo-labs-adds-dehazing-tool-optics-pro-10-films-filmpack-5/

 sbansban's gear list:sbansban's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Ricoh GR Panasonic FZ1000 +23 more
SLOjoe
SLOjoe Regular Member • Posts: 424
Re: Late to thread. Picture tweaked just a bit
-- hide signature --

That was Irfanview. Easy, quick. Looks like I forgot to crop the image.

Still just a bit of saturation and contrast adjustment made the difference.

Its oversharpened but at the small size its not going to matter to most.

cheers and beers,

Joe

"Can you imagine 4,000 years passing, and you're not even a memory?
Think about it, friends. It's not just a possibility. It is a certainty." - Jean Shepherd - 1975

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads