| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2005 04:30:08 AM · #1 |
Just upgraded from my Fuji Fine Pix 2800 Zoom which I really liked for shooting around and only 2mp. I'm having a very hard time with the sharpness diference between it and my new Rebel XT. I know about the whole post processing issue, but the pictures just seem to come out sooo much crisper even after I've processed the XT images. I'm thinking of taking my camera to Canon and seeing if they can at least check it out to see if it's ok. From looking at other people's images who have the 300, d70 or XT it seems that the DSLR images are just softer than the point and shoot. Am I wrong? Do I just have to get used to seeing the images in a diferent light? Are the images just naturally softer and I have to change my way of thinking with this new camera?
One more thing. I shot pictures today at my Mother-in-laws 60th birthday party and printed the pictures out right there on my HP photo printer for the guests to take home. They came out FANTASTIC. The skin tones were amazing, the images were sharp, I had only one that came out blurry from bad focus out of about 60 pictures. So, is there a diference when viewing the images on the screen verses printing them? Also, are these cameras more suited for portraits than landscapes?
Just really concerned about that CRISPNESS that my point and shoot has vs. the XT.
Thoughts?
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 04:32:03. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 05:11:25 AM · #2 |
Hi Rick - moving from a p&s with in camera processing to a dslr is a big learning curve. Although I used 35mm slr's when I bought my 300d I had the same reaction as you. You will need to play with the in-camera settings on the 350d and just keep shooting until you are happy with it. I took me a couple of months to be really happy with what was coming out of my 300d. I set up different settings in the paramaters until I was happy with the results. I would also suggest you purchase the 50mm f1.8 - its cheap and a much better lens than the kit lens.
Mike
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 05:18:41.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 05:14:33 AM · #3 |
Raw data on the sensors is by nature very "soft". Your point and shoot camera has software built in to sharpen this input to an "acceptable" level. You're used to seeing out-of-the-camera images that are sharp and contrasty. Unfortunately, once it's IN the image it's almost impossible to remove.
Prosumer cameras like my Nikon have several levels of options for both sharpness and contrast; I set them all as low as possible, because I can always do these software adjustments in PS and do them more precisely than the camera can.
dSLRs alaso have these adjustments. So do higher-end point-n-shoot cams. So, very possibly, does your printer; some of them do anyway. Most of the market in printers and pint-n-shoot cams is geared towards giving amateurs crisp, contrasty, saturated pictures.
When you made the move to dSLR you essentially stepped up a level in commitment, and should be operating on the assumption that you now have complete control over this aspect of your photography and should learn how to quickly and efficiently "finish" images in the computer.
You can always go into your camera menus and up the settings on sharpness, contrast and saturation if you want quick prints for certain images you are mass producing.
Depending on how your monitor sisplays, it it true that the print may very well look sharper (or contrastier, which some mistake for the same thing) than the same image displayed on the monitor. If so, you need to adjust your monitor.
This is a terribly superficial gloss over a complex topic, but it's basically ow things stand.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 05:15:12.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 05:28:24 AM · #4 |
I agree with Mike, when I moved from my p&s to the 10d I really had to play catch up to really understand and learn more about photography...thats why the market is so big for p&s cameras, you literally don't really need to think about taking pictures. Using dslrs is much much more involved, while manual mode on p&s cams may widen your photographic possibilities, DSLRs blow those possibilities out of the water. Most problems I've encountered generally revolve around the shutter speed/focal length reciprocal factor and aperature issues (2.8 or less) creating such a shallow depth of field that exacting focus is hard to achieve. Whatever lens you have, try shooting aperatures between 5.6 and 8. Also, use as fast of a shutter speed as you can muster, with the XT you should easily be able to sacrifice your ISO and use up to around 800, at least, without worrying too much about noise.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:36:20 AM · #5 |
I too thought I had issues going from Point and Shoot to dSLR until I found this Explaination from Canon on the Comparison of P&S and dSLRS.
Wished I knew where I found it because there was a pretty good read along with this chart.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 05:58:52 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
Wished I knew where I found it because there was a pretty good read along with this chart. |
The pdf can be found here:
//www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf
The chart you presented is on page 26 and I agree, the text that goes along with it is pretty good information and gives some solid insights about the softness issue as well as other issues found in DSLRs. Thanks.
btw...the file is a little on large if you're on dialup like myself its a bit over 1 meg
edit: clarification
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 18:00:05.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:04:42 PM · #7 |
It does seem counterproductive that digital cameras generally have a soft image output. You would think that with 8 megapixels to play with the anti-aliasing filters could be eliminated. In fact, I believe they could be dispensed with, but many consumers would have a fit the first time they saw stair stepping on diagonal lines in the images. But, my antique Kodak/Nikon DCS460 does not have an AA filter and aliasing is not a problem except when displayed on a computer video monitor. When printed the pics look terrific. The aliasing is caused by the uniform rows of sensor pixels interacting with image lines at an angle to those neat rows. Fuji partially eliminated the problem by placing their sensor pixels on a hexagonal pattern. My new Nikon 8800 has an AA filter and the image is decidedly soft compared to the much older DCS460, yet the 8800 does have better resolution and the difference is quite noticeable, especially in landscape photos. Even so, I still prefer the crispness of the old DCS460 images.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 10:14:48 PM · #8 |
as pictures say a 1000 words, I'd love to see some examples/screen shots at 200% if you have the time and get the chance. The AA filters really is an interesting concept and I'm not sure if I'm sold on it as a necessity on so many cameras.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 10:52:53 PM · #9 |
When I moved from the G5 to the 20D I was also a bit surprised to see how soft the images looked. As that Canon document recommends, USM will fix it (unless your shot is just plain out of focus).
One thing I've been doing recently is shooting RAW+JPEG, and setting the in-camera processing parameters to Parameter 1. Parameter 1 bumps up the contrast, saturation, and sharpness compared to the default parameter 2.
I find that maybe 4 shots out of 5 this gives me decent looking JPEGs right out of the camera, so I can show them off to people right away without any extra work. For the ones where I don't like the what the in-camera processing did, I can go back and monkey with the RAW file to my heart's content.
This does take a lot of CF space, though.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 11:01:29 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
as pictures say a 1000 words, I'd love to see some examples/screen shots at 200% if you have the time and get the chance. The AA filters really is an interesting concept and I'm not sure if I'm sold on it as a necessity on so many cameras. |
Moire patterns would be a significant problem without the anti-aliasing filters. I don't believe it would just be an issue on-screen either as the problem would be in the image itself and so would just as easily show in prints to a certain degree. It's a side effect of ccd and cmos sensors. I think the sensors that show the most promise in eliminating moire patterns is the foveon sensors. It's just too bad that they haven't intoduced true 6mp and up sensors.
T |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 08:23:23 PM · #11 |
there's a lot more to aa filters than just removing moire - they have a dramatic effect on colour response and image contrast. The manufacturers have decided what their priorities are, and i agree with them: sharpness over a few pixels can be regained easily in postprocessing, but moire is not as easily removed, and unpredictable colour effects in even the most mundane subjects are a far more serious problem than a little softness.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 08:48:24 PM · #12 |
I agree that AA filters do more than just reduce moire. Canon's filter in the 350D is a multilayer filter. The Sigma's Foveon sensor does seem to perform extremely well but does exhibit considerable aliasing on some subjects and lacks an AA filter; look at the sample images on Steve's Digicams to see the effect.
My understanding is that a low pass filter alone reduces aliasing and moire by introducing out of focus dots in the optical path just prior to the sensor, effectively acting as a diffraction and diffusing element. Makes sense, but I am sure there are variations of the technique. The images from high density sensors do sharpen very well in post processing.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 07:58:40 AM EDT.
