s602 sharp picture

[ChrisC]

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

 

[krazyolycamguydennis d]

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

hmm well i don't own the s602 yet workin on it though,my olys produce tack sharp pics at around f5.0 or 5.6 the s602 seems to have better DOF at 2.8 (blured background)than either uzis try the higher f numbers and they should be realy sharp,the s602 i have used indoors at best buy seems to take sharp pics at higher f numbers iso 200 no flash my only complaint is with the 602 that reds are over saturated,a quick fix in ps6.Anyway lookin forward to getting this cam.
--

dual uzis c700/c2100 and a p.o.s. aiptek vga pen cam..and a brio D230

 

[John Glover]

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

Chris,

The most common cause I've seen from unsharp pictures with the 602 is shooting with too slow a shutter speed. Digital cameras are more prone to camera shake than film cameras, due to the inherently smaller size of the Ccd when compared against 35mm film. Thus, you need to keep an eye on your shutter speed. The camera shake warning (the hand icon in your display) is helpful, but I still think it comes on a bit too late in some instances. The best rule of thumb I've seen for reducing unsharp images due to camera shake is to use a shutter sped of 1/2X(focal length), whenre the focal length of the lens is its 35mm equivalent. For the wide end of the 602 (35mm FL), this equates to a minimum shutter speed of about 1/60th to 1/80 of a second, while at the telephoto end (210mm), the 602 needs a shutter speed of about 1/400th of a second.

Another thing to check is whether you have the camera set to soft sharpening. Images shot using the soft mode need some unsharp mask in an image editor to look their best.

--
John

Fuji 6900Z, Fuji2600Z,
Pentax PZ-1p, Pentax ZX-M, Pentax MX, Oly Stylus
http://www.pbase.com/jglover

 

[DomT]

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

Chris,

Number one: Tell grandpa to wear safety glasses.

Number two: My shots with the all auto - no shutter or aperture control - Fuji2800Z were initially often (90%) blurred too. Especially on full zoom and little light. But after reading a few discussions here about the problem, I followed a few tips. I make a conscious decision to take each shot. Making sure I am standing steadily, arms braced, breathe out etc. and I now find the fuzzies are down to about 10%, remarkable. I've bought a monopod too & never had a dud when using that. Check a few threads for all the steadying ideas.

MX1700 + borrowed 2800Z

 

[Frank H.]

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

I've looked at your galery and there are mostly decent pics there re. sharpness. Could you post one or two that you find are not?

--
Cheers,
Frank

 

[KC63881]

The pics generally look good. In some cases, e.g. http://www.pbase.com/image/4729708 , you might have tried to take the pic too close.

was wondering whether it could be your monitor that's not sharp ;p

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

 

[ChrisC]

Thanks Everyone,

I didn't mean to imply that most of my shots were not sharp, just many. And for those I was wondering why.

Good point about the higher shutter speed required for digicams. The smaller ccd size theory makes sense to me.

I probably have terrible technique when it comes to steady shooting. My philosophy seems to be take as many as possible when I should probably take more time on each shot.

Maybe I was too close on this picture, somewhere between macro and normal shooting. I really like it anyways.
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729708

I'll look for some examples of the soft pictures and post them ...

Thanks again.

was wondering whether it could be your monitor that's not sharp ;p

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

 

[ChrisC]

Here is a sample of what I perceive to be soft. I think it's very good, just not razor sharp like I would like.

I think I can answer this myself though, shutter speed of 1/49 is not enough (with my steadiness anyway).

http://www.pbase.com/image/4739146

was wondering whether it could be your monitor that's not sharp ;p

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

 

[RJNedimyer]

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

I looked at this photo at full size and yes I agree is very sharp.

Why?

1. color and brightness are well seperated giving good contrast.

2. main subject is in good focus 3. background is acutally "in the background" and far enough away to be out of focus (bushes) and very out of focus trees
4. Part ofd reason is you used f.2.8 and not f8 [less depth of field]
5.exposure is "right on" the further off exact exposure the less the sharpness

6. your exposure is fast enough to eliminate subject movement [excepth the chopper's roter which is great] and since you used appropriate shutter releasing technique the shutter speed is fast enough to eliminate any of your movement

7. nothing distracts from the main subject [sometimes a photo appears unsharp due to distracting elements]

I will now read others comments.

Oh BTW Great Keepsake Photo!!! I like it!
--
Ray
RJNedimyer

 

[Claudio Ferreira]

Here is a sample of what I perceive to be soft. I think it's very
good, just not razor sharp like I would like.

I think I can answer this myself though, shutter speed of 1/49 is
not enough (with my steadiness anyway).

http://www.pbase.com/image/4739146

Chris,

This picture was shot at 37.5mm (170mm in 35 equivalent) so following the 1/2x rule you would have to use use 1/320 (since there´s no 1/340).

I think your picture is slightly overexposed so it could have been a 1/60 or 1/80 at ISO 200. Considering 1/80 would have been acceptable at ISO 200 you could get 1/160 at ISO 400 wich is not ideal but is 1/focal distance That would probably have given you a more sharp image. I consider the ISO 400 on S602 very useful but I get the best results at 200 or 160.

You could also have tried using the fill flash and at ISO 200 you probably would be able to use 1/320 on that shot.

Trying to help and learn at the same time =)
Regards,

--
Claudio Ferreira
mail: [email protected]
pics: http://www.pbase.com/claudio_fln/root
ICQ: 14145545

 

[ChrisC]

Thanks Claudio,

I have never tried fill flash, that does sound like a good idea. I've been turned off of flash from so many bad indoor flash pictures that I pretty much never consider using it. That's the wrong attitude. I should get an external flash with a bounce cover for indoors and use fill flash outdoors.

I think it all boils down to me just pointing and shooting when a little thought would improve the pics.

The major point I've gotten from this thread is get the shutter speed up.

Here is a sample of what I perceive to be soft. I think it's very
good, just not razor sharp like I would like.

I think I can answer this myself though, shutter speed of 1/49 is
not enough (with my steadiness anyway).

http://www.pbase.com/image/4739146

Chris,

This picture was shot at 37.5mm (170mm in 35 equivalent) so
following the 1/2x rule you would have to use use 1/320 (since
there´s no 1/340).

I think your picture is slightly overexposed so it could have been
a 1/60 or 1/80 at ISO 200. Considering 1/80 would have been
acceptable at ISO 200 you could get 1/160 at ISO 400 wich is not
ideal but is 1/focal distance That would probably have given you a
more sharp image. I consider the ISO 400 on S602 very useful but I
get the best results at 200 or 160.

You could also have tried using the fill flash and at ISO 200 you
probably would be able to use 1/320 on that shot.

Trying to help and learn at the same time =)
Regards,

--
Claudio Ferreira
mail: [email protected]
pics: http://www.pbase.com/claudio_fln/root
ICQ: 14145545

 

[Robin Mannering]

Hi Claudio,

Can you tell me how you calculated the focal distance of 37.5mm to be 170mm in 35 equivalent? I'd like to be able to calculate the 1 / (2 * focal distance) to obtain a good shutter speed. Also, is there a way of determining the focal length before taking the picture?

I have great difficulty getting landscape shots sharp using the 602. Does anyone else have problems with this.

Robin

Here is a sample of what I perceive to be soft. I think it's very
good, just not razor sharp like I would like.

I think I can answer this myself though, shutter speed of 1/49 is
not enough (with my steadiness anyway).

http://www.pbase.com/image/4739146

Chris,

This picture was shot at 37.5mm (170mm in 35 equivalent) so
following the 1/2x rule you would have to use use 1/320 (since
there´s no 1/340).

I think your picture is slightly overexposed so it could have been
a 1/60 or 1/80 at ISO 200. Considering 1/80 would have been
acceptable at ISO 200 you could get 1/160 at ISO 400 wich is not
ideal but is 1/focal distance That would probably have given you a
more sharp image. I consider the ISO 400 on S602 very useful but I
get the best results at 200 or 160.

You could also have tried using the fill flash and at ISO 200 you
probably would be able to use 1/320 on that shot.

Trying to help and learn at the same time =)
Regards,

--
Claudio Ferreira
mail: [email protected]
pics: http://www.pbase.com/claudio_fln/root
ICQ: 14145545

 

[RJNedimyer]

Can you tell me how you calculated the focal distance of 37.5mm to
be 170mm in 35 equivalent? I'd like to be able to calculate the 1
/ (2 * focal distance) to obtain a good shutter speed. Also, is
there a way of determining the focal length before taking the
picture?

I have great difficulty getting landscape shots sharp using the
602. Does anyone else have problems with this.

Robin

Here is a sample of what I perceive to be soft. I think it's very
good, just not razor sharp like I would like.

I think I can answer this myself though, shutter speed of 1/49 is
not enough (with my steadiness anyway).

http://www.pbase.com/image/4739146

Chris,

This picture was shot at 37.5mm (170mm in 35 equivalent) so
following the 1/2x rule you would have to use use 1/320 (since
there´s no 1/340).

I think your picture is slightly overexposed so it could have been
a 1/60 or 1/80 at ISO 200. Considering 1/80 would have been
acceptable at ISO 200 you could get 1/160 at ISO 400 wich is not
ideal but is 1/focal distance That would probably have given you a
more sharp image. I consider the ISO 400 on S602 very useful but I
get the best results at 200 or 160.

You could also have tried using the fill flash and at ISO 200 you
probably would be able to use 1/320 on that shot.

Trying to help and learn at the same time =)
Regards,

--
Claudio Ferreira
mail: [email protected]
pics: http://www.pbase.com/claudio_fln/root
ICQ: 14145545

1. The rule is the inverse of the focal lenght in 35mm equivalent [at full optical the 602 and 4900/6900 is at about 46.8mm and we are told that it equals the coverage of a 210mm lens on a 35mm camera so divide 210 by 46.8 = a factor of 4.487].

2 So if we take the inverse if 210 which is 1/210 our shutter speed should be at least 1/210 second (1/200 second is close enough)/

3. if our focal lenght is 30 mm then we could take the factor we figured out in #1 of 4.487 times the 30mm and it would give us 134.61mm equivalent in 35mm for a shutter speed faster than it's inverse or 1.134.61 second Or we can round that factor to 5 and 5 times 30mm = 150 and its inverse is 1/150th second or faster.

4. the 1/2 the inverse is is not a bad idea for beginers but it does make anything but rather bright daylight very difficult.

5. The inverse rule will work for starters but if you have Parkinsons Dx or shake, shoot faster. If you can learn good techniques, control your breathing and depress sthe shutter slowly and are shooting something not moving you can try longer shutter speeds and still get excellent results if you practice.

If you need ideas on how to practice let me know.
--
Ray
RJNedimyer

 

[Robin Mannering]

Thanks Ray,

Some very useful info there. But I still can't estimate before taking the shot what the focal distance is when using my 602z, in order that I can choose a good shutter spead following your guidlines below. I tried all sorts of things with the camera last night to get this but couldn't find it anywhere. Do you just have to guess it from the position of the zoom indicator bar? How do you do it?

Also, can you give me your tips for taking landscape shots, late evening to sunset. Mine appear to be very out of focus. What kind of settings would you have for a wide sunset shot for example.

Many thanks for your help.

Robin.

--
Claudio Ferreira
mail: [email protected]
pics: http://www.pbase.com/claudio_fln/root
ICQ: 14145545

1. The rule is the inverse of the focal lenght in 35mm equivalent
[at full optical the 602 and 4900/6900 is at about 46.8mm and we
are told that it equals the coverage of a 210mm lens on a 35mm
camera so divide 210 by 46.8 = a factor of 4.487].

2 So if we take the inverse if 210 which is 1/210 our shutter
speed should be at least 1/210 second (1/200 second is close
enough)/

3. if our focal lenght is 30 mm then we could take the factor we
figured out in #1 of 4.487 times the 30mm and it would give us
134.61mm equivalent in 35mm for a shutter speed faster than it's
inverse or 1.134.61 second Or we can round that factor to 5 and 5
times 30mm = 150 and its inverse is 1/150th second or faster.

4. the 1/2 the inverse is is not a bad idea for beginers but it
does make anything but rather bright daylight very difficult.

5. The inverse rule will work for starters but if you have
Parkinsons Dx or shake, shoot faster. If you can learn good
techniques, control your breathing and depress sthe shutter slowly
and are shooting something not moving you can try longer shutter
speeds and still get excellent results if you practice.

If you need ideas on how to practice let me know.
--
Ray
RJNedimyer

 

[ga-ga]

Chris,

I'm glad I stubled across your thread again, I had noticed the previous post suggesting "disney is worth it" was not sharp and maybe you were too close ..... and I meant to reply - but I lost the thread......

I don't think this pic has a problem with either lack of focus or camera shake.....in fact it does demonstrate one of the 602's strengths - good flesh tones.....

depending on subject in relation to background one pic can be apparently sharp and another not so.......

your "grand papa flying" and "disney is worth it" are a good demonstration of this. In "grand papa flying" you have achieved startling apparent sharpness because the main subject grandpops head stands out from the background in two or three ways
1. contrast - white hair against realy dark trees
2. focus - sharp subject agains blurred background
3. content - detail in subject against nothing distracting in the background

conversly in "disney is worth it"

1. contrast - subject and background are similar lighness/darkness/colour
2. focus - both subject and background are equally sharp
3. content - there is much detail in the background to distract the eye.

I have taken the libety of borrowing you pic "disney is worth it" to illustrate this "apparent sharpness" I hope you don't mind - I'll delete them soon anyway or straight away if you say so.......I'd be grateful for your coinsent to leave them there for a bit in case anyone is interested.

I have tried to demonstrate how the relationship to the background effects "apparent sharpness" - don't get me wrong I'm not advocating post processing to achieve this - just trying to show what effects it.
I'd be interested to here your response and if this makes sense to you ...
please take a look at this.....

http://www.pbase.com/johngregson/effects

the processing is rough and ready just to demonstrate (I hope) the point.

regards greg

I didn't mean to imply that most of my shots were not sharp, just
many. And for those I was wondering why.

Good point about the higher shutter speed required for digicams.
The smaller ccd size theory makes sense to me.

I probably have terrible technique when it comes to steady
shooting. My philosophy seems to be take as many as possible when I
should probably take more time on each shot.

Maybe I was too close on this picture, somewhere between macro and
normal shooting. I really like it anyways.
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729708

I'll look for some examples of the soft pictures and post them ...

Thanks again.

was wondering whether it could be your monitor that's not sharp ;p

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

 

[ChrisC]

Hi Greg,

Feel free to use the images.

I also thought the "disney is worth it" image was soft somehow but your examples (particularly 4729708a.jpg) demonstrate just how the eye can be fooled by it's surroundings. I think another factor is that my son's eyes are in a shadow, giving them a 'less sharp' feel and when we look at the picture we are naturally drawn to the eyes. The hat, lower face and shirt are fine.

I just bought the TL-FX9 and a monopod, so I no excuses for poor pictures from now on!

Chris

conversly in "disney is worth it"

1. contrast - subject and background are similar
lighness/darkness/colour
2. focus - both subject and background are equally sharp
3. content - there is much detail in the background to distract the
eye.

I have taken the libety of borrowing you pic "disney is worth it"
to illustrate this "apparent sharpness" I hope you don't mind -
I'll delete them soon anyway or straight away if you say
so.......I'd be grateful for your coinsent to leave them there for
a bit in case anyone is interested.
I have tried to demonstrate how the relationship to the background
effects "apparent sharpness" - don't get me wrong I'm not
advocating post processing to achieve this - just trying to show
what effects it.
I'd be interested to here your response and if this makes sense to
you ...
please take a look at this.....

http://www.pbase.com/johngregson/effects

the processing is rough and ready just to demonstrate (I hope) the
point.

regards greg

I didn't mean to imply that most of my shots were not sharp, just
many. And for those I was wondering why.

Good point about the higher shutter speed required for digicams.
The smaller ccd size theory makes sense to me.

I probably have terrible technique when it comes to steady
shooting. My philosophy seems to be take as many as possible when I
should probably take more time on each shot.

Maybe I was too close on this picture, somewhere between macro and
normal shooting. I really like it anyways.
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729708

I'll look for some examples of the soft pictures and post them ...

Thanks again.

was wondering whether it could be your monitor that's not sharp ;p

I find that many of my pictures don't seem very sharp so I want to
blame the camera but then it produces this (at f2.8 no less).

untouched, straight from the camera
http://www.pbase.com/image/4729707

so I guess I'm doing something wrong on the others pics!

 

[ga-ga]

Hi Greg,

Feel free to use the images.

I also thought the "disney is worth it" image was soft somehow but
your examples (particularly 4729708a.jpg) demonstrate just how the
eye can be fooled by it's surroundings. I think another factor is
that my son's eyes are in a shadow, giving them a 'less sharp' feel
and when we look at the picture we are naturally drawn to the eyes.
The hat, lower face and shirt are fine.

I just bought the TL-FX9 and a monopod, so I no excuses for poor
pictures from now on!

Chris

Chris,

I don't think you need to make excuses for poor pictures - I think this pic is just great!....... we're discussing the technicalities but don't let that detract from what you've got - if you try to better that pic - even with all the technical knowledge in the world - you might still be trying when he's taking his kids to Disney!....

going back to the technics.......

I think the focus is on the right eye (his left) that seems pinsharp - but interestingly that is not in the focus area - see pic (I've added a new image to my collection). Do you remember if you locked focus (half click) and re-framed.....??
incidently from the exif data I see
focal length 13.9 (eqiv about 62mm)
and your shutter speed was 1/60th

my usual rule of thumb for 35mm was 1/focal length ...... so in my book that would have been ok - (for 35mm)

but I also note from the exif data that you had a blur warning on that shot...! ie the camera firmware is working to tighter standards that 1/FL
adding weight to the 1/2xFL school of thought

take heart - the camera warned that camera shake was possible and you did well to hold it!

regards greg

 

[ChrisC]

I'm sure I did lock the focus and then re-frame, I do that nearly all the time.

I don't mean to beat myself up about the pictures, I do love them, especialy that one! I'm just trying to figure what I can do to take better pictures and hopefully it will become instinctive later on.

Chris

Chris,
I don't think you need to make excuses for poor pictures - I think
this pic is just great!....... we're discussing the technicalities
but don't let that detract from what you've got - if you try to
better that pic - even with all the technical knowledge in the
world - you might still be trying when he's taking his kids to
Disney!....

going back to the technics.......
I think the focus is on the right eye (his left) that seems
pinsharp - but interestingly that is not in the focus area - see
pic (I've added a new image to my collection). Do you remember if
you locked focus (half click) and re-framed.....??
incidently from the exif data I see
focal length 13.9 (eqiv about 62mm)
and your shutter speed was 1/60th
my usual rule of thumb for 35mm was 1/focal length ...... so in my
book that would have been ok - (for 35mm)
but I also note from the exif data that you had a blur warning on
that shot...! ie the camera firmware is working to tighter
standards that 1/FL
adding weight to the 1/2xFL school of thought

take heart - the camera warned that camera shake was possible and
you did well to hold it!

regards greg

 

[MikeBee]

Hey Guys!

Just thought I'd say that this is the sort of thread there should be more of, a freindly exchange with a good bit of technical learning in the process!

How refreshing !

MikeBee

I don't mean to beat myself up about the pictures, I do love them,
especialy that one! I'm just trying to figure what I can do to take
better pictures and hopefully it will become instinctive later on.

Chris

Chris,
I don't think you need to make excuses for poor pictures - I think
this pic is just great!....... we're discussing the technicalities
but don't let that detract from what you've got - if you try to
better that pic - even with all the technical knowledge in the
world - you might still be trying when he's taking his kids to
Disney!....

going back to the technics.......
I think the focus is on the right eye (his left) that seems
pinsharp - but interestingly that is not in the focus area - see
pic (I've added a new image to my collection). Do you remember if
you locked focus (half click) and re-framed.....??
incidently from the exif data I see
focal length 13.9 (eqiv about 62mm)
and your shutter speed was 1/60th
my usual rule of thumb for 35mm was 1/focal length ...... so in my
book that would have been ok - (for 35mm)
but I also note from the exif data that you had a blur warning on
that shot...! ie the camera firmware is working to tighter
standards that 1/FL
adding weight to the 1/2xFL school of thought

take heart - the camera warned that camera shake was possible and
you did well to hold it!

regards greg

--
http://www.pbase.com/mikebee

 

[Robin Mannering]

Hi Greg
I've asked this a little lower down in this thread but it may have got lost.

I was asking if you can determine the focal length before taking the shot. With all the recent talk I've seen of 1/2 x focal distance, I was trying to be sure of the settings before taking a shot.

Hi Greg,

Feel free to use the images.

I also thought the "disney is worth it" image was soft somehow but
your examples (particularly 4729708a.jpg) demonstrate just how the
eye can be fooled by it's surroundings. I think another factor is
that my son's eyes are in a shadow, giving them a 'less sharp' feel
and when we look at the picture we are naturally drawn to the eyes.
The hat, lower face and shirt are fine.

I just bought the TL-FX9 and a monopod, so I no excuses for poor
pictures from now on!

Chris

Chris,
I don't think you need to make excuses for poor pictures - I think
this pic is just great!....... we're discussing the technicalities
but don't let that detract from what you've got - if you try to
better that pic - even with all the technical knowledge in the
world - you might still be trying when he's taking his kids to
Disney!....

going back to the technics.......
I think the focus is on the right eye (his left) that seems
pinsharp - but interestingly that is not in the focus area - see
pic (I've added a new image to my collection). Do you remember if
you locked focus (half click) and re-framed.....??
incidently from the exif data I see
focal length 13.9 (eqiv about 62mm)
and your shutter speed was 1/60th
my usual rule of thumb for 35mm was 1/focal length ...... so in my
book that would have been ok - (for 35mm)
but I also note from the exif data that you had a blur warning on
that shot...! ie the camera firmware is working to tighter
standards that 1/FL
adding weight to the 1/2xFL school of thought

take heart - the camera warned that camera shake was possible and
you did well to hold it!

regards greg