Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2005
Canon a95 not sharp enough?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Alan - 18 Apr 2005 11:52 GMT I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that the Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main problem I am having is that the pictures aren't sharp enough, or at least they are not as sharp as I think they should be - even the "in focus" ones
:) Am I spoiled by looking at shots from 8+ MP cameras on the web and in magazines? Am I expecting too much, or is it common to need to do enhancement on the desktop? The shots do compare very favorably to some 2MP shots I tried with a cheapo camera in that I can zoom in on them much further (the only way I know to compare detail and sharpness), and of course the overall size is much larger (shooting max size). The detail seems to be there (at least by comparison). I tried shooting in superfine vs fine (at ISO 50), but I really don't see a difference. I've tried many modes and settings in different conditions, and nothing is as sharp as I would like. Also true for macro shots. So, again, am I expecting too much, or is fixing it on the desktop the common scenario? Thanks.
lefty - 19 Apr 2005 00:28 GMT >I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that the >Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Also true for macro shots. So, again, am I expecting too much, or is fixing >it on the desktop the common scenario? Thanks. Something to keep in mind.. is that the higher you go in pixels..and shooting with any zoom, the more likely you are to see minute camera shake. Try without any magnification or using a tripod..
Alan - 19 Apr 2005 03:42 GMT > >I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that the > >Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > shooting with any zoom, the more likely you are to see minute camera > shake. Try without any magnification or using a tripod.. Tried that. Turns out I think it's my monitor. See my responses to chrlz.
chrlz@go.com - 19 Apr 2005 01:02 GMT At 'actual pixel' viewing, even a very good digital image will look slightly soft. If the camera is doing a lot of in-camera sharpening, you will see the contrast halos around edges. You need to zoom back by about 25% at least, and then make a judgement.
On that camera, at full-res in superfine mode, you should be able to lightly sharpen the image, and then print to about 10" x 8" and get a very sharp print. Assuming the image is sharp (ie not out of focus or blurred by camera shake) of course!
If you can do that, it's more likely to be technique problems than your camera. From what I have read, the A95 produces very good images for a 5Mp camera. If you can't, then the camera may actually be faulty, but that is a long shot.
Alan - 19 Apr 2005 03:41 GMT Responses in line...
> At 'actual pixel' viewing, even a very good digital image will look > slightly soft. If the camera is doing a lot of in-camera sharpening, > you will see the contrast halos around edges. You need to zoom back by > about 25% at least, and then make a judgement. Thanks. Excellent information.
> On that camera, at full-res in superfine mode, you should be able to > lightly sharpen the image, and then print to about 10" x 8" and get a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 5Mp camera. If you can't, then the camera may actually be faulty, but > that is a long shot. It's looking like my monitor is the culprit. I checked out the shots on my monitor at work (far better than the one I have at home, which is a MAG 981FS- work is a high-end Nokia), and they looked much better. I also tried different monitor resolutions on each, and there were definite differences. I printed one out at Kinko's ($5.00, but convieniently located in my office building), and it came out extremely sharp-and that was without me touching it at all. My only complaint was that there were a few digital artifacts in an overexposed area of the shot- kind of like speckling, but not quite. Is that normal in an overexposed area? At least I know the softness isn't the camera, but now I need a new monitor!
Thanks again.
chrlz@go.com - 19 Apr 2005 06:44 GMT >My only complaint was that there were a few >digital artifacts in an overexposed area of the shot- >kind of like speckling, but not quite. Hmm. Were these TIFs or JPGs? If they were TIF files, then it's more likely a printing issue, but I would be surprised if that was an issue on a proper lab printing machine. On cheap four-colour printers you will see speckles of ink where the printer has had to `dither` it's inks to get the pale color required. Better printers (and photolab printers) should not suffer from this. More likely if they are JPG's, it may be jpeg artefacts. These are often in the form of `squares` that look they don't quite match up properly. Were these images shot at superfine? You may have just spotted the difference!
Or it could be some form of posterisation, but that doesn't usually look 'speckle-y'.
Can you scan that area maybe and post it on a webpage?
Alan - 19 Apr 2005 11:46 GMT > >My only complaint was that there were a few > >digital artifacts in an overexposed area of the shot- [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Can you scan that area maybe and post it on a webpage? I don't know how good a printer it was, as it was a self-service contraption at Kinko's. It takes any media (and scan) and prints a photo. Overall, it looked like a lab photo, and it was a Kodak machine, so I suspect it was a good printer. The files are jpegs, and this one was at fine, not superfine, so perhaps that was it. The artifacts do have a squareish shape, but it's not a firm square. It could be posterization. I don't have a scanner, but I posted the entire shot at http://63.246.145.60/img.php?loc=loc246&image=65e_princess_striped.jpg The section in question is on the top of her head near her left ear (the brighter areas). Sorry about the site where it is posted. This was my first time, and I didn't know about the ads that are there.
chrlz@go.com - 19 Apr 2005 14:42 GMT Hmm. I can't see *any* artefacts in that file - looks nice and clean. If that was the file you printed, it would appear that the print process added some artefacts - I would take it back to them and ask what's going on. Perhaps their system resaves the file temporarily at a lesser resolution and using a lower jpeg quality - if it does, it sucks, and I would go elsewhere!
I see what you mean about the adlinks - whoops! But it's ok, I use Firefox and good PC protection, so I tend to bravely go anywhere without worrying too much...
chris sharrow - 03 May 2005 01:12 GMT 5/2/05 1930 alan and all i have a canon a80 which is very simular in all except it probably has more features and i use it to send pics over the internet. i use it in auto and several other modes at its lowest setting cause most people cant accept the higher pixels, and on the computer it is all enhanced. i have dropped it several times and it still takes excellent pics. i have had it since july and it was the highest rated digital camera and probably still is. i am continously experimenting with it and have asked people for there comments...i even develop fotos from it with my hp 2175 all in one printer....i do glossy, draft and normal....i have taken pics with it in total darkness and bright sunlight....in low light situations it is ok, (use software to enhance it)if it is back of a auditorium and very good if the subject is 30-40 ft away. direct sunlight a no no....i use the hp software that came with the printer and it is much better and easier to use than the Dell and Canon....i've got the camera set up for everything and every stage i want to take pics at.....i basically leave it alone but still take chances with the settings.....i use the canon 32mb compact flash, the sandisk 256 mb compact flash, the sandisk ultra II 256 mb..(depending on the setting 1500 pics on a compact flash)....i have taken nearly 3000 pics with it since july and rarely leave home without it.....a few have turned up in local magazines. i have done everything from tee shirts to large 8x11 glossy photos with it at its lowest settings.....i have spent a lot of time with the camera, adjusted it, read the instruction book over and over where i know it quite well...i have taken pics from bar harbor to hawaii to vermont, dog parks, boating, ice fishing, rising sun etc.....the only real complaint is multiple picture taken is too slow when taking shots at a running animal, but because of it i got my greatest shot....a running sheltie.....my niece and maybe a few others say my work is like art...some of it is anyways, but some of it is luck...... wishing u all the best......and yes, my a 80 takes nearly as good as a slr...i know...i have breakfast every week with a guy who has one, and with the a80 can view the pics afterwards and if the restaurant or hotel has an internet connection send them out....my last group of fotos were of a bishop ordination recently....downloaded 24 pics to some people.....one person with a slow internet connection took 2 hrs to download and he couldn't break the connection hope this helps...it really created another hobby for me... crusty old feller and a salty dog at that
> I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that the > Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Also true for macro shots. So, again, am I expecting too much, or is fixing > it on the desktop the common scenario? Thanks.
|
|
|