first set of photos not very sharp

[askleme]

Hi all!
I just received my 10D and shot a few pics, and noticed that the pictures were not all that sharp, my wife said how come there all so fuzzy?(is that bad or what) I am using a Canon 28-80 3.5/5.6 lens. any one else had similar issues, if so let me know if you have any pointers. I am still plowing through the manual so hopefully with a lot of experimentation and reading, things will clear up.

[Marley]

I had the same problem with the same exact setup.

After purchasing a new camera I thought I could put my girlfriends old lens on and have perfect pictures.

not the case.

Bottom line is the camera is only as good as the lens.

and that lens sucks.

sorry.

if your on a budget start with a Canon 50mm 1.8 ($69.95)

if not on a budget there a plenty of great Canon lenses to purchase.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class

[jimsloy]

I've got the same issue.

Anyone care to rate this lens:

Canon 28-105 USM f/3.5-4.5

Will IS lenses take care of the soft/fuzzy issues? Which one?

I would like a zoom lens similar to the one I've got, but without the ****ty focus! Even on a tripod, the pictures still look fuzzy.

Thanks!

[askleme]

Thanks for the info, however i'm curious would you mind letting me know what lens your presently using, and are satisfied with it.

[SoCal69]

I have not had problems with sharpness with my 10D.

Here are some recent fly shots taken with a Tamron AF70-300. These were taken handheld at 300mm using the macro setting... they came out not too bad considering the circumstances.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534589

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534587

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534588

I know it's not a Canon lens, but it suits my needs.

[AndyDe]

jimsloy wrote:
I've got the same issue.

Anyone care to rate this lens:

Canon 28-105 USM f/3.5-4.5

Thanks!


I've had mine for some years & it's always performed well both on an eos5, 500n & now on my 10D. I have found that the image from the 10D is a lot softer than my G2, I've put this down to less image manipulation by the 10D & the far greater DOF that the reduced focal length of the G2 gives. The softness is only really apparent when the image is enlarged in photoshop & is easily rectified.

[jimsloy]

HHmmm...I currently use the 28-135 USM and I always get soft focus. When I sharpen, I still don't get a good clear focused pic.

Would IS help me at all?

[D60DIETER]

Let me guess! The more you go for wide angle the softer your pics get??

Older lenses have the problem that the rear lenses produce not a righly directed light (rectangular to the sensor). So if light is entering the sensor surface under an angle of 15-25 degrees, it produces unsharp pics.

New lenses, especially the ones who are "D" (sigma Digital) or "L" (Canon) glass are constructed for the special needs of digital sensors.

[jimsloy]

So far, most of my pics have been at the wider angle. I will try a few zoomers and see - but so far - yes, most, if not all, or poor focus!

Thanks!

[AndyDe]

D60Dieter wrote:

New lenses, especially the ones who are "D" (sigma Digital) or "L" (Canon) glass are constructed for the special needs of digital sensors.



Hmm, I can feel another spending spree coming on :-)

[Lazyg]

askleme wrote:
Hi all!
I just received my 10D and shot a few pics, and noticed that the pictures were not all that sharp, my wife said how come there all so fuzzy?(is that bad or what) I am using a Canon 28-80 3.5/5.6 lens. any one else had similar issues, if so let me know if you have any pointers. I am still plowing through the manual so hopefully with a lot of experimentation and reading, things will clear up.




I'm still fairly green with all this but I can tell you that the process of taking good pictures and producing good results with these camera's (D-SLR's) a far more complex then most of your point and shoot digitals. Do not mistake "complex" for difficult. They are not hard to operate as long as you have a good bit of knowlegde and working experience with both the camera and your software, believe me.

I (hobbiest) usually shoot with film and monday afternoon I expanded to digital (D30) after weeks of reading and reading. Everything from software to hardware and this forum (what a godsend)!! Now that I've spent the last two days (and nights) playing with this thing I feel fairly comfortable with producing good results most of the time (not including composition, that's an entirely different story). :D

Now as far as your "not very sharp" images it is almost impossible to help without more info (I know, this has been said a thousand times). It could have been caused by focus, camera shake, DOF, lense, file conversion or manipulation software... ect. There are two things that could really help to resolve your problem:

One being, post an image with all of the EXIF data (shutter speed, aperature, focus, camera settings...) and/or your process of taking the pictures, downloading them into your computer, and editing or printing them.

The second one would be to just read, read, read.


Please don't take this as an attack of any sort. Believe me, I am not a jerk, I've asked more then my share of questions. I'm just trying to offer a solution.


Kind Regards

[Marley]

these are what I'm currently using.

because of aperture speed I stuck with all prime lenses.

Canon 15mm 2.8 Fisheye
Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.8

I was completely new to SLR and purchased these under advise of others and reading reviews.

The advice was correct.

Your lens choice should depend on what you plan on shooting though.

[Yavor75]

JimSloy-
The 28-135 IS is totally capable of taking great sharp pix.
Although not an "L" lens, it's numbers are actually better at F8 than some "L" zooms. The IS only helps sharpness if you are under 1/60 th sec.
At it's extremes, it is slightly less sharp.

Want sharp pix?

Shoot at 400ASA or 800ASA setting
Shoot at F4 - F-11
Shoot between 50mm and 100mm
Buy and use Fred Miranda's Custom Sharpen Pro for 10D

My primes are just slightly sharper and flatter.

And remember, content, lighting and composition are more important than grain (noise) and resolution.

Have fun-
Bob

[jimsloy]

OK thanks. Will try that.

Also, what about the parameter settings? Should I shoot w/ customer SHARPENESS at full throttle, or stick w/ Standard sRGB and do it in PSHOP?

[Longwatcher]

My experience over the past year results in the following that works for me.

Always shoot in RAW
Convert to TIF if you don't have ACR fixed in PS 7.01
Do any corrections in PS
Save to Jpeg only as the last step.

This will result in the overall best quality pictures the largets percentage of the time.

Exceptions are if you need to provide pictures to someone immeadiately without photo enhancement time, in which case either use a batch processing tool or shoot in jpeg with in-camera enhancements.

Just my experience.

[yogad]

I was wondering the same thing. I got my canon 10D, took it out for a trip and came back with some soft pix.

If I have a lot of light, and am very careful, I can get a sharp pic -- what I would expect.

So, my question is, why were the ones from my trip soft? Was it camera shake, ISO (800 -1600 at times), or just because I suck?

I will post an example with the exif data. I will also experiment a little more to try and see if I can get any sharp pix at all under similar conditions.

In the meantime, does a higher ISO produce what appear to be soft edges? I know it makes more noise, but I am not clear on the sharpness issue.

YogaD

[Yavor75]

Don't fret you guys....you will land up with super-sharp shots...you just have more to learn first. The idea that the 10D produces soft pix is the fact that it is not a consumer camera. I have a DSC-f707 SOny that produces hyper- sharpened picutres right out of the camera. I used to like that. Now I see that the damaging artifacts from the excess sharpening in-camera - it looks terrible...and you can't un-do it. Sharpening is an art, and if you are not an artist, go buy Fred Miranda's CS Pro action for 10D. It does the job excellently. Remember that lots of shooting requires softer pictures. Take a portrait of a woman and if you sharpen it up, she will hate it.
The resolution is in the shot, use your PC to sharpen it as much as you need...and no more. Don't want to buy the FM action? Use Photoshop Unsharpening Mask at .3 radius and 100-300 amount.
I just used the 10D in the studio for the first time..and it is Magnificent. Oh, there is no gain in resolution using Raw mode, but the color saturation looks deeper.

Bob

[daveh]

yogad wrote:
I will also experiment

Agreed - experiment. For example, many people really can't hand-hold as slow as they think they can. If you developed your old rule of thumb based on looking at 4x6" prints, you're going to have to make an adjustment now that you're looking at things on-screen at effectively about 20x30" inch sizes. That's just one thing that could be going wrong.

[kbhagat]

You can crank the sharpening up on the 10D. That's what I did and it helped. I also sharpen it as needed in PS 7.0. I'm convinced that the "L" lens are sharper than most non Canon lenses. I've invested in the 100-400 "L" and the 24-70L. And for the best results the f1.4 50mm prime is really the best for picture quality.

Lens quality is as important as the camera itself.

I'm selling my Tamaron 28 to 200 f4 lens. Had it only for 25 days. I'm can't take pictures with it after using the Cannon Lenses.

[SV650]

I am disappointed with the softness of the images also. I'm using the same Canon lenses I used on my Elan IIe. Tried the RAW bit. No notable improvement. Photoshop's shapening tools help, but that's not the point. I think Canon needs a firmware update.

[daveh]

SV650 wrote:
Tried the RAW bit. No notable improvement.

RAW should reduce the sharpness.

[buddyboy]

"You can crank the sharpening up on the 10D"


How can you crank up the sharpening on 10D?

[sochigetto]

Got the 28-105 USM II - shot some pictures at the Diamondbacks game yesterday at the 105mm asa 1600. The pictures look very good. I can read the names of the players that aren't running.

andy.

[hmhm]

Softness can be the result of:
- crappy lenses. If in doubt, invest in a $70 50/1.8, shoot at f/4 or higher
- camera shake. For a 50mm lens, avoid shutter speeds slower than 1/125, i.e. 1/(2*focal length). Depending on how shaky your hands are, you may need 1/250, or 1/(4*focal length) . Don't just say "I'm using ASA800", you can use high ASA and still get slow shutter speeds if it's very dark. Concentrate on holding the camera perfectly still, slowly squeeze the shutter without moving anything but your fingertip, don't jab at it, take your time.
- poor focusing. Select the center focus point alone (not all at once, which lets the camera decide which to use). Use "1 shot" focus instead of AI.
- insufficient USM applied. Learn how to use unsharp-mask in photoshop. This isn't "besides the point", it isn't "cheating", it's a part of the process. You may be able to avoid this by cranking up the sharpening settings in the camera.
- unreasonable expectations. Don't look for super sharpness when viewing the image at "actual pixels" on-screen in photoshop (which would be like an extremely enormous print), nothing looks sharp at this level of enlargement. Make an 8x10 or 11x13 print and evaluate that.

If all your shots are soft, try to take 1 good picture by mounting a good lens (e.g. 50/1.8 ), using a tripod, going outside on a sunny day, setting mirror lockup and "timer", using aperture priority mode and a narrow aperture (e.g. f/11) for wide depth of field, and taking a picture of something big, like a house (easier on depth of field, as well). Load the image into photoshop and experiment with USM until you have an image that looks reasonably sharp when printed.

If you can achieve 1 sharp picture, then you know that you and your gear are capable of it, and you can focus on which of the elements that you nailed down in that 1 good shot are lacking in your usual soft shots.
-harry

[EvanTass]

kbhagat wrote:
You can crank the sharpening up on the 10D. That's what I did and it helped. I also sharpen it as needed in PS 7.0. I'm convinced that the "L" lens are sharper than most non Canon lenses. I've invested in the 100-400 "L" and the 24-70L. And for the best results the f1.4 50mm prime is really the best for picture quality.

Lens quality is as important as the camera itself.

I'm selling my Tamaron 28 to 200 f4 lens. Had it only for 25 days. I'm can't take pictures with it after using the Cannon Lenses.



I agree, the 50 1.4 is an amazing lens. I own the 85 1.8 the 135 2L, and the 17-40 4L, and the 50 1.4, and the later is my favorite. To be able to shoot 100 iso at 1/100s indoors with nothing but daylight through a window is wonderful. Wide open (at 1.4) the narrow dof creates beautiful pics; some say this lens is soft wide open, and it is compared to when its stopped down, but the pictures still posses a quality that I wish I could describe. Touched up in Photoshop, and they make me weepy.

Btw, all of the lenses that I mentioned above are superb, I suppose it depends on what you like to shoot. Personally, I shoot mostly portrait (my six month old son, and the family that hovers around him) and the 50 1.4 is a perfect lens for this considering the 1.6x mult factor. The large aperture frees you from lighting concerns, and its size makes it very convenient.

[askleme]

Thanks for all the info, I actually went out and tested a 50 mm 1.8 fixed lens and got some great pics, its amazing what a 70.00 dollar lens can do. I am going to purchase one and use it until i have become more familiar with the camera. there's a lot to absorb so i'm not going to rush it. once again thank for the post and help, i'm glad i found this sight..

[JB in Indy]

This year was my first year using digital (Canon D60) for racing coverage. At first I was getting images that were soft and not what I expected. I then asked another photographer that had been shooting digital since last year. He said that he at first had the same problem and finally figured out that he was shooting like he was still using film. When shooting digital vs film your image does not seem to be written as fast as film would. I found that when I shot after that I would stay with the car a little longer and images came out fine. Typically I shoot at 400 ISO 1/1000 @ 8.0

[PaulB]

JB in Indy writes, "When shooting digital vs film your image does not seem to be written as fast as film would. I found that when I shot after that I would stay with the car a little longer and images came out fine."

So after that 1/1000th/sec that the shutter has been open and you stop panning the image continues to affect the sensor?
Through the mirror - now down, and the shutter blinds - now closed?

I didn't realise that the digital sensors were THAT sensitive!

I think that what was at fault was your panning technique.
However it seems that you are getting it right now.

I can't but think that you misunderstood the other photographers advice.

[hotmetal]

Reading all this talk of soft picture, and people blaming their lenses.

Ever noticed how these lenses produce perfectly sharp shots on film?

I have tried out a 10D using 28/135IS, 75/300IS and 50mm 1.8 standard lenes, compared with film shots the result are rubbis.

My advice, for what its worth, if you want photos over 10x8 wait for more pixels.

ALan

[AndyDe]

Thought my shots were out of focus when viewed on the monitor....then realised it was my varifocal glasses, its impossible to view the whole screen in focus . Now got to get some "easy reader" specs just for the pc.
;-)

[JB in Indy]

PaulB, good point but, it did seem to make a difference by following the car just a little longer. With film I would pan until I fired the frame and then stop, or at least not following thur much. When I did it with digital it seemed that the pic was soft. Panning on thru, the correct way to shoot fast objects BTW, seemed to make a world of difference. Try it and see if it does or is it just me.

LOL Maybe I did just misunderstand him tho. Your arguement makes way too much sense for me to argue with too.

[PaulB]

JB
Don't worry,I'm still learning how to photograph motorsport and I've been doing it for magazines and clients for thirty + years!

On panning though - try some slow shutter speeds (1/60th./sec) with a longish 135mm+ lens and get the car dead side-on. It's not easy but can give some lovely blurred backgrounds if they are otherwise too messy.
I sometimes do this with a 300mm/2.8 - digital is wonderful for getting rid of those that didn't work - the hit rate is not brilliant.
All the best.

[JB in Indy]

Paul I have done the 1/60th but at the speeds the cars are going by me they are just a wee bit soft. Have you tried a speed filter? Great effects check this pic at http://www.jeffgordon.com/tracks/indy/2001/race1/010805indy_photo_album.html

The second pic is mine.

What kind of motorsports do you shoot? Ever done motorcycles road racing? Good action there.

[PaulB]

JB,
We seem to be taking over this topic as our own private space!

I do all sorts of motorsport - mostly cars.
I've done from F1 down (must add I'm in the UK) to club sprints and hillclimbs.
Funnily enough though the first motorsport event I did with the 10D was a motorcycle meeting - road racing as you put it - and the results were all I could have hoped for a first effort with new equipment.
Yes, I do have and have used a speed filter but for my sort of style the images were, lets say, interesting but not to the taste of most of my market. Maybe I shoud try it out on the 10D.....

Should we start our own topic on motorsport photography somewhere?

All the best, keep in touch.

[linmajon]

hotmetal wrote:
Reading all this talk of soft picture, and people blaming their lenses.

Ever noticed how these lenses produce perfectly sharp shots on film?

I have tried out a 10D using 28/135IS, 75/300IS and 50mm 1.8 standard lenes, compared with film shots the result are rubbis.


For sharp pictures with a 10D at least TWO requirements must be fullfilled. Read and learn:

1 - Use a GOOD lens. There are some good and some bad lenses out there. Try to use the right ones...

2- LEARN THE EQUIPMENT!!! This includes the camera with all settings, knobs and buttons as well as the computer software.
If you cannot use this tools to 100% you have absolutely no right to blame the CAMERA...

[Tom W]

linmajon wrote:
hotmetal wrote:
Reading all this talk of soft picture, and people blaming their lenses.

Ever noticed how these lenses produce perfectly sharp shots on film?

I have tried out a 10D using 28/135IS, 75/300IS and 50mm 1.8 standard lenes, compared with film shots the result are rubbis.


For sharp pictures with a 10D at least TWO requirements must be fullfilled. Read and learn:

1 - Use a GOOD lens. There are some good and some bad lenses out there. Try to use the right ones...

2- LEARN THE EQUIPMENT!!! This includes the camera with all settings, knobs and buttons as well as the computer software.
If you cannot use this tools to 100% you have absolutely no right to blame the CAMERA...



Actually, Hotmetal did use good lenses; the 50 mm 1.8 lens is very good, and both zooms are decent as well. They all take good pictures. Granted, they are not "L" glass, but they are not "kit" glass either. One of the features of having an EOS-type digital camera is compatibility with present lenses.

I think that one thing that may be hurting the digital in this case is the smaller sensor - it isn't a full-sized 36X24 mm sensor. As such, it isn't using the entire lens. Any small abberation in the glass that would be less noticeable on a full-sized medium such as film (or the 1Ds) is amplified by 1.4 or 1.6:1 depending on sensor size. While this may not be a big deal at 5X7 inch prints, it might be slightly visible on 8X10's.

Another point, and I beleive its already been mentioned here, is to make sure that we are comparing apples to apples - compare prints to prints. Putting a full-sized image on the computer screen with its 80 or so ppi isn't going to give a good comparison to a print. Watch that development process as well - I know that my older 4-color HP inkjet isn't going to print nearly as sharp or colorful as what I can get at the overnight film processing center.

[daveh]

Tom W wrote:
Actually, Hotmetal did use good lenses; the 50 mm 1.8 lens is very good, and both zooms are decent as well. ...

I think that one thing that may be hurting the digital in this case is the smaller sensor - it isn't a full-sized 36X24 mm sensor.

Maybe but as long as our entire description of the problem is that the "result are rubbis" I don't think we'll ever be able to determine what - if any - problem hotmetal saw.

[Tom W]

daveh wrote:
Tom W wrote:
Actually, Hotmetal did use good lenses; the 50 mm 1.8 lens is very good, and both zooms are decent as well. ...

I think that one thing that may be hurting the digital in this case is the smaller sensor - it isn't a full-sized 36X24 mm sensor.

Maybe but as long as our entire description of the problem is that the "result are rubbis" I don't think we'll ever be able to determine what - if any - problem hotmetal saw.


Understood! Perhaps a better description of the problem was in order. Still, it seems like an indication that Hotmetal wasn't satisfied with the performance of the 10D. :)

I primarily meant to defend good lenses (and they do bring good results on film, in my experience). Also, the response to Hotmetal's verbally inprecise post was rather condescending. I wouldn't expect anybody to have to become 100% knowledgeable about their camera before they can reach a conclusion as to whether it is working correctly or not. In full auto mode, the 10D, like my Elan II is essentially a very good point and shoot.

[daveh]

Tom W wrote:
In full auto mode, the 10D, like my Elan II is essentially a very good point and shoot.

And it has a terrific advantage over the 10D. Many of the people who use it as a P&S will evaluate its sharpness based on looking at a 3x5" print. On the other hand, almost everyone who buys a digicam of any size ends up looking at 1:1 pixel sizes or even larger - ie: every snapshot they take is being evaluated as a virtual 20" x 30" print. (And even rules of thumb such as DOF and handholding speeds change when the print size goes up.)

Over in the small point a shoot forum a few days ago, someone was complaining about his compact digicam and was using tiny portions of images blown up to the point where each pixel was about 3mm on the screen. This happens all the time. It's just so much easier with digital images.

[Tom W]

daveh wrote:
Tom W wrote:
In full auto mode, the 10D, like my Elan II is essentially a very good point and shoot.

And it has a terrific advantage over the 10D. Many of the people who use it as a P&S will evaluate its sharpness based on looking at a 3x5" print. On the other hand, almost everyone who buys a digicam of any size ends up looking at 1:1 pixel sizes or even larger - ie: every snapshot they take is being evaluated as a virtual 20" x 30" print. (And even rules of thumb such as DOF and handholding speeds change when the print size goes up.)

Over in the small point a shoot forum a few days ago, someone was complaining about his compact digicam and was using tiny portions of images blown up to the point where each pixel was about 3mm on the screen. This happens all the time. It's just so much easier with digital images.


That is true, and I kind-of eluded to it previously when I mentioned comparing apples to apples - or, prints to prints (and I beleive that you pointed this out earlier in the thread). I take halfway decent pictures with my S400, but they look a little rough at 100%, even on a good monitor. Still, the 5X7's that I've printed on my older 4-color printer are quite nice, even if the colors are less than ideal.

I do know that 8X10's from the Elan come out quite nice. I'm not sure that 20X30's would be all that nice though. :)

I think that it would be interesting to do side-by-side comparisons between film and the 10D on the same subject matter, through the same lens used in the mid-range of its zoom but framed identically, even if the photographer had to move a little. I know that its impossible to exactly duplicate conditions when you have to use different focal lengths to acheive the same framing, but I would still like to see some comparison.

[daveh]

You probably know this but the sensor in the 10D is many times the size of the one in the S400 and also a different technology. The quality is very different. (I mean physical size not pixels.)

Based on my Elphs (I've had a few) I thought of digicams as toy cameras for web shots and the like. Within a few days of getting my 10D (with the original intent of using it for glorified web shots only) I started thinking that film is dead. Just my opinion.

There are a number of comparisons of digital to film. I think I may have read maybe 100 :D Opinions are all over the map but here's one (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml). A lot really depends on what you want. I think I can still get more resolution out of film - but the freedom from noise/grain/grunge in the 10D puts it over the top for me.

[hotmetal]

Yes that's right, hot metal did use good lenses.

I've been using canon cameras for years, my EOS 5s are 10 years old and still going strong.

Do I understand the 10D?, well I took all my test shoots on a bright sunny day, using 100ISO rating for the sensor.

Exposures were 1/350th @ f5.6.

All images were recorded in RAW mode, with no in camera sharpening. These were converted to TIF mode via Adobe camera RAW plugin (suitably modified to accept 10D files) also converted to TIF using Canon software, just for the comparison.

Sharpening was in photoshop USM varying between 100 and 400% at radius combinations between 0.2 and 1.0, threshold set at zero.

Prints were produced on a Fuji Diamond Laser printer, this outputs to real photographic emulsion, no ink jet to cloud the issue here, at a size of 14.7"x9.5" on gloss paper.

Images are just no sharp enough for this output, also bright straight lines runnning across the image at about 30 degress have noticable "jaggies"

I still feel that there just are not enough pixels to produce good sharp images at this print size.

[Tom W]

daveh wrote:
You probably know this but the sensor in the 10D is many times the size of the one in the S400 and also a different technology. The quality is very different. (I mean physical size not pixels.)

Based on my Elphs (I've had a few) I thought of digicams as toy cameras for web shots and the like. Within a few days of getting my 10D (with the original intent of using it for glorified web shots only) I started thinking that film is dead. Just my opinion.


Absolutely, the difference is there. I'd never expect the Elph to replace the Elan II, but I will some day replace the Elan with a digital body (Please note that there is also a sizeable difference between the S-400 and earlier Elphs - this isn't my first one). Anyway, the purpose of the Elph is entirely different - I have the Elph for 2 reasons. First, its convenient as heck to carry around, and second, I'm slowly walking into the pool of digital photography. I'm partially in the learning phase, and partially in the "wait for the price to drop" phase.

There are a number of comparisons of digital to film. I think I may have read maybe 100 :D Opinions are all over the map but here's one (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml). A lot really depends on what you want. I think I can still get more resolution out of film - but the freedom from noise/grain/grunge in the 10D puts it over the top for me.


Thanks again, Dave. I've checked the link.

Here's another from the same site that gives a direct side-by-side comparison: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml .

I've seen quite a few digital/film comparisons - enough to know that digital has earned its place in the world. But I hadn't really seen any that make the direct-type comparison that I was wanting. Admittedly, I haven't been looking very hard either. :)

[Tom W]

hotmetal wrote:
Yes that's right, hot metal did use good lenses.

I've been using canon cameras for years, my EOS 5s are 10 years old and still going strong.

Do I understand the 10D?, well I took all my test shoots on a bright sunny day, using 100ISO rating for the sensor.

Exposures were 1/350th @ f5.6.

All images were recorded in RAW mode, with no in camera sharpening. These were converted to TIF mode via Adobe camera RAW plugin (suitably modified to accept 10D files) also converted to TIF using Canon software, just for the comparison.

Sharpening was in photoshop USM varying between 100 and 400% at radius combinations between 0.2 and 1.0, threshold set at zero.

Prints were produced on a Fuji Diamond Laser printer, this outputs to real photographic emulsion, no ink jet to cloud the issue here, at a size of 14.7"x9.5" on gloss paper.

Images are just no sharp enough for this output, also bright straight lines runnning across the image at about 30 degress have noticable "jaggies"

I still feel that there just are not enough pixels to produce good sharp images at this print size.

Well, I think that clears up any ambiguity that your earlier post may have contained. ;)

I'll first say that I'm not the one to give you the best answer to your post. I am curious about the issue since I will be going digital on the SLR some day.

Anyway, I'm not sure if the jaggies come from the camera or elsewhere in the process. I've noticed on-screen jaggies from my digital pictures at various levels of zoom that disappear when I go to 100%. I haven't seen them in print, though my prints are much smaller and I really haven't printed that many yet.

All I can say is experiment a little with different formats and processes includingskipping the processing entirely (if you haven't already).

[hotmetal]

Thanks Tom, I see your waiting to see too.

I was fortunate enough to be able to try out an EOS 10D without having to purchase it.

I'm in no hurry to make the change from film, I guess I was just disappointed with the results after all the hype here in the UK magazines.

I'll keep reading the forum and see what develops.

Let me know when you make the change over to digital.

P.S. I currently do digital work by way of a Nikon Coolscan 3 from EOS 5 produced Fuji trannies.

ALan

[Tom W]

Don't worry, Alan! When I do make the change, I'll probably be very vocal about it! :)

[fox1]

yogad wrote:
So, my question is, why were the ones from my trip soft? Was it camera shake, ISO (800 -1600 at times), or just because I suck?
YogaD

Is sharpness enough on really dull/dark days.? I deliberately set out to capture this image on a rainy moisten-laden day. This was taken with a normal 75-300 USM lens (hand held) in Scotland for heavens sake! Thanks 10D!

http://www1.airpics.com/showimg.php?imgid=40400

[kahfluie]

I was going to post a similar topic then ran into this one.

I've noticed my first few shots on my new 10D was very soft. I've been able to correct it by changing the contrast, but to be honest I expected more clearer and sharper photos.

I'm almost embarrased to say the lens I am using because quite frankly it;s a cheap lens... the price was right (man do I miss my sigma). Anyway what I am using is a Promaster 28mm-200mm lens (the claim is that the lens is made by Tamron).

Most of you seem to think the culprit is the lens, so I'll have to go out and send very little on a new lens :) I suppose I should stick to Canon lenses from now on.

I'm hoping to be able to take shots like those I've seen in this forum.

Would anyone have a tutorial on how to use RAW. I've tried but I guess I just don't get it. I currently use Photo Shop and Paint Shop Pro - wondered if the Photoshop Elements software that came with the camera were worth installing etc.

By the way, I love the new 10D. This is my first SLR Digital Camera. Got a great deal on it.

Cheers,
Ed

[daveh]

Could you elaborate on "don't get it"?

I use C1 LE and fix up exposure, contrast, curves etc. as needed and then output a Tiff for finishing touches.