s330 problem with sharpness

[Raist3d]

Well, they have the exact same specification and
imaging-resource.com review states:

"The S200 is very similar to the S110 of last year, with the same
2x zoom lens and 2 megapixel sensor"

I wouldn't necessarily hold imaging resource as a bastion of accurate technical information.

Thank about it and it will make sense to you. Canon keeps 95% of
the Canon S110 the same, upgrades the firmware a little, and
renames the camera S200 so it can sell a bunch more of something
that is basically the same model with a few tweaks (this is EXACTLY
like cars... there is a major design once ever 3-4 years, the in
between years just have minor improvements to fix complaints).

Then why the nasty chromatic aberrations of the S200 vs the S110v, and the blooming on whites problem? If it was indeed the same lens and CCD, woudln't you think these problems wouldn't show up simply becuase the S110v doesn't have them?

The cheaper cost should also be telling you that they have made
minimal changes to the physical body of the S200. Putting in a new
lens or a new CCD requires research money (large intial
investment), however once you had the design... it is very easy
(and relatively cheap) to produce the unit itself. The price of the

You can always slap in a new sensor and lens if the form factors are the same. Of course, of lesser quality (or higher).

R&D is amortized into the camera price - earlier models in the
class line are more expensive, later models can be sold for cheaper
once the intial investment is recaptured and the company starts to
benefit from economies of scale.

I agree this is a reasonable explanation.

This is kind of like making T-shirts. Lets say it cost $150 to make
the silk screen design... but only $5 to have a shirt printed after
that... so if you make 50 t-shirts in the first run, it costs $8 a
shirt to make. Now say you change the colors and use a slightly
high quality shirt (add on $1). Since you've already paid for the
$150 silk screen... it now costs you only $6 per shirt in the
second print run. Make sense?

So the S200 is basically a S110 with a few tweaks, and a software
upgrade (which was already developed for all Canon cameras).

Except that the S110v does not have severe chromatic aberrations, blooming on whites, lack of sharpness and the focus problems of the S200 plus the macro distortion of the S200 (which has more also).

Given that, I don't buy it's using the same lens and CCD....

• Raist

--arvin

Are you really sure that the S200 and S110v share the same lens and
CCD? I don't recall seeing the S110v having more artifacts due to
"aggresive sharpening algorithms." Also the S200 seems more
sensitive to light and has wonderfull chromatic aberrations that
the S110v didn't have plus a very annoying blooming on bright
objects... This strongly suggests to me that neither the CCD nor
the Lens are exactly the same.
(or at least one of the two is different).

Notice how the S200 is the cheaper camera of the two?

• Raist

 

[Arvin Chang]

I wouldn't necessarily hold imaging resource as a bastion of
accurate technical information.

Well, who do you trust? I mean imaging-resource could get things wrong... but you are currently basing this all on a "hunch" of yours. I noticed in another post you expanded your CCD/Lens Switcharoo Theory to the S330 vs the S300. I have a quote here from Phil Askey himself.

"The IXUS 330 is fitted with the same extending 3x optical zoom lens we saw used in last years IXUS 300"

I guess you could counter by saying "What does Phil Askey know about camera?" (rhetorical question)

So this is my reasoning behind why I think the lenses and CCD between the S110/S300 and S200/330 are the same (I don't know for sure, but I think my reasoning seems logical):

1. The lenses look exactly the same and have the exact same specifications. I mean if it's looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

2. Two respectable photography sites mention it as such. True... they could both be wrong... but I don't see any evidence pointing the other way.

3. Canon didn't mention anything about a "new and improved lens or CCD!" Don't you think it's weird that a company passes up on a chance to advertise a big selling point? They could have done this even if the new lens/CCD pair was of slightly lower quality and people would just trust them and have purchased the camera.

4. Even if Canon was willing to tryy and pull a fast one by quietly replacing the lens and CCD with lower quality replacements. I don't think it would be cost effective (at least for the lens). The lenses for the Canon Elphs were custom designed by Canon... the costs must have gone into the millions... as I mentioned before, the real cost is the R&D overhead... now why would Canon spend all this extra money to "redesign the wheel" and create a duplicate lens with the exact same specifications that is cheaper to produce since the overhead will "probably" outweight the savings. Why not just simply keep on chugging out the same lenses that they already have.

Again... I'm not 100% sure, but the circumstantial evidence just seems to point that way for me.

Then why the nasty chromatic aberrations of the S200 vs the S110v,
and the blooming on whites problem? If it was indeed the same lens
and CCD, woudln't you think these problems wouldn't show up simply
becuase the S110v doesn't have them?

This is the first time that I've heard of this. Again, I notice that the S330 (according to Phil at least), does not have excessive CA or blooming problems. Was this your personal experience?

Except that the S110v does not have severe chromatic aberrations,
blooming on whites, lack of sharpness and the focus problems of the
S200 plus the macro distortion of the S200 (which has more also).

Given that, I don't buy it's using the same lens and CCD....

I've already commented on the CA/blooming issue... the lack of sharpness and focus problems (which were the two problems that I've heard of before) can easily be explained because BOTH are dependent on firmware.

Sharpness, as mentioned before, is basically the aggressiveness of the sharpening algorithm in the system. It is very possible that Canon made the mistake of using an overly conservative sharpening algorithm, which left the image really soft. The focusing problem again could be a bad new algorithm (notice how Canon is pushing the DIGICs and and iSAPS, both of which are firmware-type upgrades)

Macro distortion??? this is also (like the CA/Blomming) the first time I've heard anyone mention this. From what I thought you can't even get real macro with IXUS since it can't get less than 4 inches for full frame coverage. The distortion is probably barrel distortion that occurs are full wide (even the S110 had that).

Alright... I think this post is already long enough. I admit that I don't have "irrefutable evidence" for my case... just some circumstantial facts and what I think is sound logic (by invoking Okkam's razor).

I'd be interested in learning more about the CA/Blooming and Macro Distortion problems you mentioned... anyone else experience similar problems when going from S110v to S200?

--arvin

 

[Raist3d]

Well, who do you trust?

Canon and my own observations.

I mean imaging-resource could get things
wrong... but you are currently basing this all on a "hunch" of
yours

The image quality differences I note between both cameras is not a hunch, it's experience and fact.

[stuff del]

So this is my reasoning behind why I think the lenses and CCD
between the S110/S300 and S200/330 are the same (I don't know for
sure, but I think my reasoning seems logical):

1. The lenses look exactly the same and have the exact same
specifications. I mean if it's looks like a duck, quacks like a
duck...

The lens can look the same, and (for the S110 and S200) have the same focusing range, but they certainly do not seem to be taking the same pictures. The s200 has easily noticeable chromatic aberrations on "everyday" type shots, this was not the case of the S110v. The lens could be built of diffferent material and density, etc. There are other parameters other than focusing range and physical size.

Now, am I 100% sure that without a question, it is not due to some changes in the firmware and algorithms? No. But I would be more inclined to think the lens are at fault (and/or CCD), why would Canon not be able to handle it otherwise if they were exactly the same?

2. Two respectable photography sites mention it as such. True...
they could both be wrong... but I don't see any evidence pointing
the other way.

I see it very clearly: it's the kind of pictures both camera take. The quality is not the same. This is not out of a theory here, I have had both the S110v and the S200 (which I currently have). On some pictures the S200 does indeed take better colors, but it is prone to CA's and blooming (more prone than the S110v that is)

3. Canon didn't mention anything about a "new and improved lens or
CCD!" Don't you think it's weird that a company passes up on a
chance to advertise a big selling point? They could have done this
even if the new lens/CCD pair was of slightly lower quality and
people would just trust them and have purchased the camera.

Actually Canon did with the lens of the S330. It's actually in their brochure. Now, whether Canon did this or not it's another story.

Look here:

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/brochure/s330_bro.pdf

"Quality Counts

2.0 megapixel resolution and newly modified optics infuse your images with all the dimensional..."

It's right there, on Canon's brochure.

4. Even if Canon was willing to tryy and pull a fast one by quietly
replacing the lens and CCD with lower quality replacements. I don't
think it would be cost effective (at least for the lens). The
lenses for the Canon Elphs were custom designed by Canon... the
costs must have gone into the millions...

[stuff del]

Becuase maybe the extra R&D involved in addition with the new cost savings still made for a financially attractive decision? You don't know if the R&D really was more expensive or not - only Canon really knows.

Again... I'm not 100% sure, but the circumstantial evidence just
seems to point that way for me.

We certainly can agree to disagree.

[to be continued]

 

[Raist3d]

[part 2]

Then why the nasty chromatic aberrations of the S200 vs the S110v,
and the blooming on whites problem? If it was indeed the same lens
and CCD, woudln't you think these problems wouldn't show up simply
becuase the S110v doesn't have them?

This is the first time that I've heard of this.

There was a big discussion when the S200 and S330 came about. Check even Phil's on pictures, for the S330 and check out the picture with the bridges in the middle. Those are really nasty CA's.

that the S330 (according to Phil at least), does not have excessive
CA or blooming problems. Was this your personal experience?

YES. I have used the S300 and the picture quality is clearly different from the S330 that Phil took with his. Phil does mention in a little fashion this issue, but go ahead and compare the tree pictures of the S110v/S300 vs the S330 on his own reviews and see for yourself. The difference is pretty clear to me.

I've already commented on the CA/blooming issue... the lack of
sharpness and focus problems (which were the two problems that I've
heard of before) can easily be explained because BOTH are dependent
on firmware.

Well, Ca's IS an issue Phil approved or not. Over the s110v and S300 that is. The sharpness and focus could very well be firmware but also the CCD would potentially influence that too (and lens actually).

Sharpness, as mentioned before, is basically the aggressiveness of
the sharpening algorithm in the system. It is very possible that
Canon made the mistake of using an overly conservative sharpening
algorithm, which left the image really soft. The focusing problem
again could be a bad new algorithm (notice how Canon is pushing the
DIGICs and and iSAPS, both of which are firmware-type upgrades)

This is not correct, DIGIC is not a firmware upgrade, but a new integrated circuit that Canon designed. iSAPS would be firmware, but not DIGIC.

You can verify what I just said here:

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/PSS230/PSS230_101-e.html#DSP

Macro distortion??? this is also (like the CA/Blomming) the first
time I've heard anyone mention this. From what I thought you can't
even get real macro with IXUS since it can't get less than 4 inches
for full frame coverage. The distortion is probably barrel
distortion that occurs are full wide (even the S110 had that).

I didn't say the S110 didn't have it, and when I talk macro I mean the S110/S200's "macro" which as you point out is not really all that close.

Alright... I think this post is already long enough. I admit that I
don't have "irrefutable evidence" for my case... just some
circumstantial facts and what I think is sound logic (by invoking
Okkam's razor).

The razor cuts both ways ;-)

I'd be interested in learning more about the CA/Blooming and Macro
Distortion problems you mentioned... anyone else experience similar
problems when going from S110v to S200?

The macro problem is not that big of a diff between S110-> S200 (they are really really close). But the blooming and chromatic aberrations is really a big difference (particularly the CA's). Even photographing a simple cereal box with some black letters and a toy dog in front that was white, the S200 gave me a purple fring where the black letters from the background touched the white of the toy dog.

This never happened to me with the S110v.

• Raist

PS: Do you own the S110v? the S200? Which camera(s) you own? Because I had the S110v for a while, then sold it to get the S200 (which I still have) and I was in for a nice dissapointment on some shots.

I am talking from experience here. Why on Earth would I complain about the S200 when I praised Canon for the S110v, then I sell my S110v and pay even more cash to upgrade to the S200... it's not just because.

Cognitive dissonance theory would dictate that I would be saying the S200 is the best upgrade ever...

--arvin

 

[AndyHWC]

w3

I saw a picture comparison of DC280 and S200 in a dcresource forum.
I noticed the sharpness different too. I also compared the S110
and S200 with near exact setting. I can never get the S200 indoor
picture as sharp as the S110's. I think the S110 has a 2.1Mp CCD
and the S200 has a 2.0 Mp,

Perhaps not. I think they are the same. There could be two MP
counts on the same chip. You have the total overall count of the
pixels on the chip (a larger number), and the actual number of
pixels that the digicam will use - effective MP (a smaller number).

Or perhaps yes. They can use the same effective pixel but the point is "they don't use the same CCD and len". Maybe the S200 CCD is not as good as the S110.

I still kind of skeptical about the relationship of CCD size and sharpness. A larger CCD maybe has a cleaner picture but I think most sharpness problems are due to the settings and shaking. I checked the EXIF of the DC3400 and S200 samples yesterday (it is in a Imaging Resource S200 forum), the ISO speed data is not available but apparently the DC3400 uses f/3.2 vs S200 f/10. That alone will have a huge impact sharpness.

http://www.photo-forums.com/[email protected]@.ee8be63/5

There is another quesiton. Manufacturers must think that consumers
are so happy with the 2MP 1/2.7" CCD digicams which are actually
producing marginal quality photos, that they are now bringing us
3MP 1/2.7" CCD digicams such as Canon S230 and CP3500. What will
you think their image quality will be?

I think all newer DC improve somewhat, either in price or performance. You don't expect to have the best CCD and len in a sub-$300 camera that can also fit into your pocket handily, aren't you? There must be a trade off among quality, portability and price. Go get the bulky cp4500 or Olympus 4000 if you want a bigger CCD. There are still many new 3Mp out there using 1/2" part, it's not like the manufacturers ceased production of DC with 1/2" CCD.

 

[Arvin Chang]

Actually Canon did with the lens of the S330. It's actually in
their brochure. Now, whether Canon did this or not it's another
story.

Look here:

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/brochure/s330_bro.pdf

2.0 megapixel resolution and newly modified optics infuse your
images with all the dimensional..."

Hmmm... didn't see this. However, I'm goign to say that this an ambiguous phrase that can be interpreted in different ways depending on your viewpoint. Obviously I can see what you think this means a new lens. For me, the wording is rather "soft"... the phrase "newly modified optics" sounds like they barely tweaked the lens... because if they had a new lens, they would have used stronger wording using "brand new" instead of the more technical "newly modified." However, I would allow that even this small modification to the len system could have caused some problems.

Becuase maybe the extra R&D involved in addition with the new cost
savings still made for a financially attractive decision? You don't
know if the R&D really was more expensive or not - only Canon
really knows.

I don't know, but I'm basing this on my experience. R&D always costs a lot, especially if you consider that you would need to redesign the entire manufacturing process for the lens (all the machines need to be recalibrated and such). Now you could counter that maybe if they only made small changes in the design of the lens, such that it's more of a 1.0 to 1.1 type change instead of a 1.0 to 2.0 change... but then I would say that's it's the same lens and I doubt those small changes would save much money.

--arvin

 

[Arvin Chang]

Raist3d wrote:
[trying to keep the argument threads concise and easy to follow - failing]

There was a big discussion when the S200 and S330 came about.

Ok, I believe you. I searched, but there were just too many threads.

Well, Ca's IS an issue Phil approved or not. Over the s110v and
S300 that is. The sharpness and focus could very well be firmware
but also the CCD would potentially influence that too (and lens
actually).

I agree, but I was/am going on the assumption that the lens and the CCD were not changed.

This is not correct, DIGIC is not a firmware upgrade, but a new
integrated circuit that Canon designed. iSAPS would be firmware,
but not DIGIC.

I was wondering if you were going to point this out (It occured to me while writing the post, but I didn't bother correcting myself) True, DIGIC is an intergrated circuit... but I contend that the circuit is simply accelerating the software that has been hardwired into the chip (I knowing grouping DIGICS and iSAPS in a sloppy way). That is to say that in my opinion, I don't really think the DIGICS chip does anything "new," just like the co-processor on a graphic board, it simply does it faster, not better. I suppose there could be a increase in the bus pipeline that might make it faster, or maybe the increased processing power allows for more computationally intensive algorithms... but is doesn't sound like it to me as an engineer.

Alright... I think this post is already long enough. I admit that I
don't have "irrefutable evidence" for my case... just some
circumstantial facts and what I think is sound logic (by invoking
Okkam's razor).

The razor cuts both ways ;-)

Yes it does... So basically, the razor contends that "when all things are equal, take the simpler conclusion." Some people have misinterpreted this to mean that the simpler solution to a question is ALWAYS right... no it simply means when you have two possible explanations to a problem, it usually makes sense to take the one that is simpler.

So basically... my explanation to all this hubbub is that Canon made tweaks the lens setting, image processing algorthm, and sharpening algorithm that yielded images that fell short of what people were expecting in the upgrade. Because expectations were so high... there was a resulting backlash and embittered people began to see all the flaws that they had previously "overlooked."

It's kind of like breaking up with someone... while you're with them. You love everything about them, even their foibles... but if you separate under acrimonious circumstances... then you suddenly hate the very same things you used to adore/tolerate.

I just find this explanation more plausible than the idea that Canon tried to save a buck by replacing the lens and CCD with nearly identical, but cheaper components . I just have trouble believing Canon would be that stupid (its not unheard of though).

PS: Do you own the S110v? the S200? Which camera(s) you own?
Because I had the S110v for a while, then sold it to get the S200
(which I still have) and I was in for a nice dissapointment on some
shots.

I've owned a Kodak DC280, Olympus 2100UZ, and a Sony F707. I've been looking for a while to get a smaller counterpart to my "big zoom" cameras. As a second digicam is quite of luxury (kind of like a second/third car)... I've held off until I see something that is really worth it (still waivering over the IXUS series)

I've used my friend's S110v to take photos of them learning how to snowboard (I was technically their instructor too). In particular, I used the video mode to show them what they were doing wrong. Anyway... I took a bunch of photos with the S110v and as you mentioned, I didn't notice much CA/blooming, even with brightly backlit subjects.

I am talking from experience here. Why on Earth would I complain
about the S200 when I praised Canon for the S110v, then I sell my
S110v and pay even more cash to upgrade to the S200... it's not
just because.
Cognitive dissonance theory would dictate that I would be saying
the S200 is the best upgrade ever...

Oh! Social Psychology! True... cognitive dissonance theory would dictate that you would "ignore" flaws in the camera because to acknowledge such flaws would be admit that you made a mistake (and thereby revealing the gap between one's ideal self-image and actual self-image). To avoid this, people tend to be positively biased in their post decision reviews to rationalize their decision (Aside: I believe that a LOT of people suffer from this problem - in all forums).

However, there are other explanations (mind is a slippery slope... you can fall down many paths) which do not have to be mutually exclsive. The first is if the person's self-esteem is high enough such that they are willing to accept responsibily for the action. Another is if the person is able to avoid taking full blame by redirecting to another party (I didn't make a bad decision, I was tricked into it with faulty information). The third is that if the negatives results of the decision are so bad that not even the post-decision bias can cover up for it, then there is sort of a backlash... where the mind swings completely the other way (e.g. my bitter ex analogy). Now based on my opinion... I think you would be doing one of the first two (using my assumption that you are excessive in the severity of the flaws) and I was contend that a lot of the upset people are probably working with a a combination of the of the above effects.

However... these are all (especially the OT portions). I enjoy a good debate.deductions based on a set of assumptions... if the assumptions are wrong... than the deductions that follow are wrong too. I don't presume to have any particular special insight or special evidence to prove my case. I'm just explaning the reasoning behind my opinion.

I apologize again for the length of the post

 

[Raist3d]

Actually Canon did with the lens of the S330. It's actually in
their brochure. Now, whether Canon did this or not it's another
story.

Look here:

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/brochure/s330_bro.pdf

2.0 megapixel resolution and newly modified optics infuse your
images with all the dimensional..."

Hmmm... didn't see this. However, I'm goign to say that this an
ambiguous phrase that can be interpreted in different ways
depending on your viewpoint. Obviously I can see what you think
this means a new lens. For me, the wording is rather "soft"... the
phrase "newly modified optics" sounds like they barely tweaked the
lens... because if they had a new lens, they would have used
stronger wording using "brand new" instead of the more technical
"newly modified." However, I would allow that even this small
modification to the len system could have caused some problems.

Allright, let's say it's not super brand new lens from the ground up. SOMETHING changed (according to Canon anyway). Maybe one of the many lens? What exactly is "optics" referring to? It has to be something.

Quite frankly, I think they did only just because the S300, imho, did the better job.

Becuase maybe the extra R&D involved in addition with the new cost
savings still made for a financially attractive decision? You don't
know if the R&D really was more expensive or not - only Canon
really knows.

I don't know, but I'm basing this on my experience. R&D always
costs a lot, especially if you consider that you would need to
redesign the entire manufacturing process for the lens (all the
machines need to be recalibrated and such). Now you could counter
that maybe if they only made small changes in the design of the
lens, such that it's more of a 1.0 to 1.1 type change instead of a
1.0 to 2.0 change... but then I would say that's it's the same lens
and I doubt those small changes would save much money.

I frankly can't see how the drop in quality, adding wonderfull CA's can be explained on a firmware issue alone. More so when Canon does mention they played with the optics.

• Raist

--arvin

 

[Raist3d]

I agree, but I was/am going on the assumption that the lens and the
CCD were not changed.

And I am certainly questioning that assumption

This is not correct, DIGIC is not a firmware upgrade, but a new
integrated circuit that Canon designed. iSAPS would be firmware,
but not DIGIC.

I was wondering if you were going to point this out

It's my duty.. how can I let this go uncontested ;-) I agree the DIGICS may not be doing something truly new, I am just correcting the statement that DIGICS is not firmware.

I suppose there could be a increase in the bus pipeline
that might make it faster, or maybe the increased processing power
allows for more computationally intensive algorithms... but is
doesn't sound like it to me as an engineer.

If you ask me, from what I read from all the Canon Hoopla, I think they are usig a couple more algorithms (using the iSAP data) that would have made the previous model increase shutter lag. So I see we are both technically oriented (I am a software engineer but with a computer engineering background - although the computer engineering part in me is near dead ;-) ).

Alright... I think this post is already long enough. I admit that I
don't have "irrefutable evidence" for my case... just some
circumstantial facts and what I think is sound logic (by invoking
Okkam's razor).

The razor cuts both ways ;-)

[stuff del]

Because expectations were so
high... there was a resulting backlash and embittered people began
to see all the flaws that they had previously "overlooked."

What I am debating here is that I don't think Canon screwing up the firmware alone woul dhave allowed for those chormatic aberrations I see on my S200. And that's the thing- the only expectation I had was the S200 would be undoubtly better than the S110v. When Canon did not have these issues on the S110v, it makes you wonder why on Earth they allowed it to happen on the S200.

It's kind of like breaking up with someone... while you're with
them. You love everything about them, even their foibles... but if
you separate under acrimonious circumstances... then you suddenly
hate the very same things you used to adore/tolerate.

I frankly don't think the analogy applies. It's not that I am tolerating something that I was there, or that it was osmething I was overlooking: Canon simply screwed up. Plain and simple. The S110v didn't have these problems, the S200 has them. The S300 didn't have them, the S330 has them. There's no overlooking nor tolerance, nor missing old stuff. It's the new quality problems in the picture that people are talking about.

I just find this explanation more plausible than the idea that
Canon tried to save a buck by replacing the lens and CCD with
nearly identical, but cheaper components . I just have trouble
believing Canon would be that stupid (its not unheard of though).

Maybe they are! Let me ask you this: The S200 clearly has more chromatic aberrations, blooming, softness than the S110v. Softness is debatable whether it was better or not (some people probably would like it softer), but what about the blooming and CA's? How else can it be explained?

PS: Do you own the S110v? the S200? Which camera(s) you own?
Because I had the S110v for a while, then sold it to get the S200
(which I still have) and I was in for a nice dissapointment on some
shots.

[stuff del]

I've used my friend's S110v to take photos of them learning how to
snowboard (I was technically their instructor too). In particular,
I used the video mode to show them what they were doing wrong.
Anyway... I took a bunch of photos with the S110v and as you
mentioned, I didn't notice much CA/blooming, even with brightly
backlit subjects.

Oh, there we go! You have not used the S200! You should! And check out the pics and compare with the S110v, then come back and let me know YOU WILL notice quite an increase in CA/and blooming, particularly with brightly backlit subjects You can even see this from Phil's/Steve's Digicams/Imagin Resources tests. This is why I trust myself more on this than them (not to mention the fact that i have owned both cameras and played with them extensively).

[social psych stuff del]

I certainly take responsability for my actions - I didn't wait for a review or pictures samples of the S200 before upgrading (and selling my S110v) becuase I trusted Canon could not make a worst product. WRONG! (me)

My main point is that it's really hard to explain these new defects on firmware alone, else Canon would have fixed it already. Something else must have changed and that suspiciously points to the CCD/Lens.

• Raist

 

[Arvin Chang]

Heh, this discussion is coming to close... so I'm going to try and tie things up.

I agree, but I was/am going on the assumption that the lens and the
CCD were not changed.

And I am certainly questioning that assumption

Yea... I will allow for the fact that the lens might have been tweaked somehow, and that tweak was a "bad tweak." If that is true, then all my logic beyond that point would be "moot."

If you ask me, from what I read from all the Canon Hoopla, I think
they are usig a couple more algorithms (using the iSAP data) that

Hmm... see I figured that they replaced part of the old algorithmic computation for exposure/focus with a pre-computed "cheat-sheet" lookup table (iSAPs). This would shorten processing time and if the original algorithm was bad (didn't return a good numbers based on limited inputs)... then it probably would be no worse/better than the algorithmic method.

What I am debating here is that I don't think Canon screwing up the
firmware alone woul dhave allowed for those chormatic aberrations I
see on my S200. And that's the thing- the only expectation I had
was the S200 would be undoubtly better than the S110v. When Canon
did not have these issues on the S110v, it makes you wonder why on
Earth they allowed it to happen on the S200.

Hmm... I'm not fully convinced, but I'm not as skeptical as I was before. I've only seen a few dozen or so sample photos. Either way, I'm not going to be getting the 200/330 series. Let's wait and see for the S230/3xx.

I'm convinced that you are not just a bitter Canon-phile.

--arvin

 

[Arvin Chang]

Allright, let's say it's not super brand new lens from the ground

up. SOMETHING changed (according to Canon anyway). Maybe one of> the many lens? What exactly is "optics" referring to? It has to
be something.

Perhaps... maybe they downgraded the coating their use on their lens elements or something.

I don't know, but I'm basing this on my experience. R&D always
costs a lot, especially if you consider that you would need to
redesign the entire manufacturing process for the lens (all the
machines need to be recalibrated and such). Now you could counter
that maybe if they only made small changes in the design of the
lens, such that it's more of a 1.0 to 1.1 type change instead of a
1.0 to 2.0 change... but then I would say that's it's the same lens
and I doubt those small changes would save much money.

I frankly can't see how the drop in quality, adding wonderfull CA's
can be explained on a firmware issue alone. More so when Canon
does mention they played with the optics.

Makes sense.

 

[Raist3d]

I'm convinced that you are not just a bitter Canon-phile.

How could I be? I love the S110v

• Raist

--arvin

 

[J.G.107046]

The sharpness issues on Canon S330 is not due to the fact that it is "only" 2 MP, since other 2 MP cameras, such as Fujis or Kodaks, produce sharper images. Rather, it is due to Canon's image processing algorithms which tend to not value image sharpness. They have not fixed this problem with the new 3 MP S230.

However, you are right; for such a small camera as the S200 I suppose it is a price one has to pay. Still, I would hope that other manufacturers would join the race and produce a camera as small as the S200/S330 yet generates sharper images.

Hi
I was disappointed with the s330 , I had a old kodak 280 digital
and the pictures from it seem much sharper. I notice it most on
landscape pictures.
anyone have any ideas. I will be shooting sports half this
winter and was not sure if I got the right camera. You can mail me
direct at
[email protected]

 

[John]

I've been watching this line of camera for a while, and am somewhat close(r) to buying one. However, after seeing posts of poor focusing on the S330 (and the fact it's 2Mp), I've been in a waiting pattern. I've been looking for an objective review of this camera (or better yet, get my hands on one) as I REALLY like it's combination of size and color fidelity!

Have you actually used this camera (Photokina, reviewer, etc) or seen a review of the S230 to say that Canon has not fixed the focusing problem? If you've taken pictures, could you post an example of poor focusing? If there's a review, could you post the URL? To date, I've only read of people who casually tried this thing at Photokina, but no reviews yet... Actually, I've read reviews of the S330 / S200, but not mention focusing problems or picture softness AFAIK.

I have noticed that Canon has apparently tried to address focusing by increasing the number of "focusing zones" from three to nine, plus whatever other possible hardware (DIGIC) firmware changes they've made. That does not mean the focusing problem as such is fixed, but at least it's addressed. Has Canon dealt with this problem after all???? What was this problem due to? That's what I'm waiting to find out!

Thanks in advance
John

Rather, it is due to Canon's image
processing algorithms which tend to not value image sharpness. They
have not fixed this problem with the new 3 MP S230.

 

[Darren V]

w3, very well put!!! I don't agree w/ Canon's soft pics philosophy on their compact cameras at all. At least they should allow for a harder sharpening for those who want it...something like a - +3 like the Contax TVS.

I don't think you should expect users of sub-compact carry anywhere
point and shoot digicam to do any post-camera processing at all.
That is self-defeating and destroys the "convenient" purpose of
sub-compact digicams.

any sense for consumers. It might win some points from
Professional Reviewers though, unfortunately.

--

• da V

 

[Darren V]

I don't think Canon will ever create a sub-compact successor w/sharper images. Canon doesn't see these soft pics as a problem but rather as an asset. It's their philosophy to try to maintain as much detail as possible and to minimize the chance of introducing artifacts.

As w3 stated earlier in this discussion thread, most of the intended market users for these sub-compacts just don't want to mess around w/post-processing. Point, shoot and view is really all that they want.

But Canon apparently doesn't see it this way. Even for these sub-compacts, their intended market seems to be the advanced amateur and even pros, which again as w3 noted, includes the reviewers. This explains why their cameras generally receive such high ratings.

This is also why I initially refer to the reviews for a brief overview but would wait until the actual users post their "real-world" experience with the cameras before purchasing.

The sharpness issues on Canon S330 is not due to the fact that it
is "only" 2 MP, since other 2 MP cameras, such as Fujis or Kodaks,
produce sharper images. Rather, it is due to Canon's image
processing algorithms which tend to not value image sharpness. They
have not fixed this problem with the new 3 MP S230.

--

• da V

 

[w3]

I've been watching this line of camera for a while, and am somewhat
close(r) to buying one. However, after seeing posts of poor
focusing on the S330 (and the fact it's 2Mp), I've been in a
waiting pattern. I've been looking for an objective review of this
camera (or better yet, get my hands on one) as I REALLY like it's
combination of size and color fidelity!

Color fidelity? Not if you are taking photos indoor under artificial light with Auto WB using S330. The Auto WB would do a poor job and usually result in pictures with a yellow cast. Wonder if S230 does any better with Auto WB. A sub-compact go anywhere convenient digicam should perform well with its AUTO SETTINGS and produce good looking images right out of the camera, without having to rely on users wasting time on pre-shot camera adjustments or post-camera processing.

Have you actually used this camera (Photokina, reviewer, etc) or
seen a review of the S230 to say that Canon has not fixed the
focusing problem? If you've taken pictures, could you post an
example of poor focusing? If there's a review, could you post the
URL? To date, I've only read of people who casually tried this
thing at Photokina, but no reviews yet... Actually, I've read
reviews of the S330 / S200, but not mention focusing problems or
picture softness AFAIK.

I have noticed that Canon has apparently tried to address focusing
by increasing the number of "focusing zones" from three to nine,
plus whatever other possible hardware (DIGIC) firmware changes
they've made. That does not mean the focusing problem as such is
fixed, but at least it's addressed. Has Canon dealt with this
problem after all???? What was this problem due to? That's what
I'm waiting to find out!

Thanks in advance
John

Rather, it is due to Canon's image
processing algorithms which tend to not value image sharpness. They
have not fixed this problem with the new 3 MP S230.

 

[w3]

I don't think Canon will ever create a sub-compact successor
w/sharper images. Canon doesn't see these soft pics as a problem
but rather as an asset. It's their philosophy to try to maintain
as much detail as possible and to minimize the chance of
introducing artifacts.

As w3 stated earlier in this discussion thread, most of the
intended market users for these sub-compacts just don't want to
mess around w/post-processing. Point, shoot and view is really all
that they want.

You summarized it better than I could myself.

But Canon apparently doesn't see it this way. Even for these
sub-compacts, their intended market seems to be the advanced
amateur and even pros, which again as w3 noted, includes the
reviewers. This explains why their cameras generally receive such
high ratings.

And as long as Canon keeps getting high marks from professional reviewers, and that consumers (amateurs but actual users) are afraid to voice opinions different from the pros, why should Canon change anything?

This is also why I initially refer to the reviews for a brief
overview but would wait until the actual users post their
"real-world" experience with the cameras before purchasing.

Good idea. And please don't forget to check out how S230's Auto WB performs under artificial lights indoor.

The sharpness issues on Canon S330 is not due to the fact that it
is "only" 2 MP, since other 2 MP cameras, such as Fujis or Kodaks,
produce sharper images. Rather, it is due to Canon's image
processing algorithms which tend to not value image sharpness. They
have not fixed this problem with the new 3 MP S230.

--

• da V

 

[Raist3d]

What I don't understand is why Canon screwed up what was WORKING FINE with their S110v and S300... I guess I'll never know...

Maybe that lower price also has something to do with it.

• Raist

 

[John]

Well, you have a point there. I was personally looking at mostly natural lighting / outdoor shots myself, so I should point that out. Don't know how well the Auto WB will do in indoor lighting.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 700 (yeah, it's an old beast), and I personally find myself taking indoor shots with custom WB as the Auto WB generally did not work too well with tungsten or flourescent (sp?) lighting. I only put up with the "white card" WB calibration as I'm from the old school photo class where I used a Nikon FM with gray card for exposure a lot. Didn't use indoor flash much either as the Nikon Coolpix 700 flash left much to be desired (although any flash on this size camera will usually be weak).

If you're at a gathering and you decide to whip out a digicam, you probably don't have time to screw around with custom WB. That is probably why I don't take too many indoor pics with P&S digicams. One would think in this day and age, someone would come up with a decent Auto WB algorithm and do away with manual calibration...

I will say, though, is if absolute color fidelity is important, custom WB is a godsend, IMHO, as opposed to the old days, where even using tungsten film for indoor lighting with incandescents (sp?) was hit or miss, due to variability in lighting color temperature. Flourescents? That was real hit or miss with regular film. Some print films did OK, but you can't beat custom WB with digicams IMHO.

I've been watching this line of camera for a while, and am somewhat
close(r) to buying one. However, after seeing posts of poor
focusing on the S330 (and the fact it's 2Mp), I've been in a
waiting pattern. I've been looking for an objective review of this
camera (or better yet, get my hands on one) as I REALLY like it's
combination of size and color fidelity!

Color fidelity? Not if you are taking photos indoor under
artificial light with Auto WB using S330. The Auto WB would do a
poor job and usually result in pictures with a yellow cast. Wonder
if S230 does any better with Auto WB. A sub-compact go anywhere
convenient digicam should perform well with its AUTO SETTINGS and
produce good looking images right out of the camera, without having
to rely on users wasting time on pre-shot camera adjustments or
post-camera processing.