perceived sharpness

[netadmin22]

I have been learning to use my new Digital Rebel and it is a joy. However, when I bring the images up in Photoshop they appear less sharp than what I am familiar with from my 1.2 MP Olympus C2100 with 10X zoom. Enhancing with photoshop does not appear to help. There are difinitely more pixels but the image does appear as sharp. I am using the new 18-55 canon lens. Any comments?

[design crusader]

The 10D default setting does not perform any sharpening in the camera; instead, sharpening -- USM -- can or should be applied to the image in an image editing app like Photoshop. On the other hand, Point and Shoot cameras process the image in the camera, and the image that you see when open it Photoshop already has some sharpening applied to it.

[netadmin22]

If I did it correctly, I set parameter to one to level 3 for contrast and sharpness which I believe is the maximum in-camera processing available. THey still appear soft and sharpening with Photoshop does not bring them up to the level I would expect.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The Digital Rebel does in fact apply some sharpening,. it's default parameters include extra sharpening and contrast over the 10D's defaults,. however like the 10D the D-Rebel does not apply as much as the point and shoot you are used to.

Canon has left the degree to which you process / enhance an image up to you and your image editing software.

Do a quick search on thid forum for "Unsharp Mask settings"

Once you get familiar with the "unsharp mask" filter in Photoshop you will be all set :)

[design crusader]

Another thought, is when you are using the USM filter or similar sharpening technique in Photoshop, make sure you view the results at the Actual Pixels size (under the VIEW Menu). This is the preferred ZOOM level for reviewing the amount of sharpening applied to an image.

[Malaxos1]

I feel your pain, I sold my E10 to buy a digital Rebel. My E10's photos were incredibly sharp compared to my Rebel. I was told as you were that Canon feels that you should have control over all photo editing including the sharpening. I prefer to have an out of the camera sharp photo, I guess those days for me are over. When I look at photos done with the Rebel or 10D I see photos that are soft or sharp, all of the sharp ones have a tiny halo around the edges. This bugs me. I believe that the whole thing about giving the photographer complete control is an excuse for unsharp photos (yeah your photos are blurry but we want you to be able to fix it as you want). When I took a photo shot with film the lab never had to sharpen them for me, either I took a sharp photo or didn't. Don't get me wrong, I still love my Rebel and will upgrade oneday to another Canon camera, but They should have a selection for full sharp photos or and sharpness off. This whole thing is why CCDs are better than CMOS sensors...

[Butzl]

Could you please post the original of a typical 'soft' pic?

[MediaMagic]

You know, I understand that the automatic digitals do some in camera sharpening.

The thing is, the more shots I take, the fewer soft pics I'm getting with the 10D. Some of my shots are soft, but there are more that are acceptably sharp.

I don't know if I buy into the theory that the camera was designed to capture images that must be sharpened with a third party program. I mean, if I can get "out of the camera" very sharp images on three quarters or more of my shots, that doesn't sound to me like the camera was designed with external sharpening in mind. It sounds more like I'm just screwing up some shots (which is what I tend to believe, at least with the current information I have).

It would seem that there would be a measurable degree of softness in each and every shot, not just in a few. Someone please clue me in on this. What is the origin of this "soft by design" theory? It just doesn't make sense, complete photographic control or not.

Take care,
David

[ron chappel]

It could possibly be the 18-55 lens.EVERY pic i've seen from that lens has been soft-the type of soft that can't be effectively sharpened .It is relative how we all judge sharpness of course so hopefully the lens is good enough for you and the problem is elsewhere.

[Timo Autiokari]

This is good, very important subject.

The old digicams in the 1.2MP range had CCD chips with rather large element size (the size of individual "pixel"). I use the word element instead of "pixel" since pixel is incorrect characterization for 1CCD color-masked imaging chips.

Since then the trend has been that we get more and more M"pixels" of lesser and lesser quality. The cause of this is the continuously reduced element size. As an additional side effect the smaller elements also require higher quality lenses (more resolving power).

With large element size the fill-factor of the normal front-illuminated CCD technology is high, fill-factor is the percentage of the active element area (the actual light sensing area) from the overall element area. There is non-active element area (blind area) in each element because the chip has to have a lot for aluminium wires on top of it e.g. for signal and power paths. When the element size gets smaller then 1) the fill-factor gets less because the width of the aluminium wires can not be shrinked much and 2) the maximum charge the elements collect is reduced so the noise level gets higher and dynamic range gets smaller.

Canon DSLRs have the CMOS imager chips, CMOS is natively very noisy no matter what the element size is so there is a lot of noise averaging processing going on right there on the CMOS chip, this processing relies on the captured data over the neighboring elements (even over a 7x7 kernel) so naturally the apparent sharpness gets the hit. The active area of each individual element is very small for all CMOS devices (CMOS sensor technology has very small fill-factor always, the sensor is an active diode (pn junction) and there is much more wiring on the CMOS chip than there is on the CCD) so again the image lose apparent sharpness, an edge of a shape that falls on the element area either falls on the non-active area of it and gets not detected at all or it falls on the active area of the element and gets detected.

In the early days there was cameras like the Canon eos*dcs*3 that had 16x16 micrometer element size (256 micrometer squares) and these chips were thinned (the chip was etched down in thickness), this enabled them to be back-illuminated therefore the fill-factor was 100% (no aluminium wires on the way). This camera produce exeptional image quality, the apparent sharpness is very good (there is no in-camera sharpening), noise level is very low and dynamic range is high, but there ae just 1.3 M"pixels". Now, the downside is that there could only be some 3 M"pixels" in a full frame 35mm size chip and such a chip would be rather expensive.

So... it is a difficult formula. Both the professionals and the consumers seem to want nothing else but more and more M"pixels" but at least currently those ever increasing M"pixels" can not be manufactured with high quality in realistic chip sizes.

I tried to explain above that both the CCD and CMOS technologies suffer from these problems, CMOS suffer more from the fill-factor but on the other hand can win the CCD in noise level as Canon has shown, also Canon CMOS enables very long exposure times due to this.

With proper post-processing (in linear RGB working-space) it is possible to improve the apparent sharpness a great deal, I have produced e.g. some 20x30 inch posters with my D60 at amazingly good quality (apparent sharpness was not bad at all, not razor sharp but quite decent).

BR,
Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

[Malaxos1]

I agree that the 18-55mm lens is not that sharp, I went out within a few days of getting my D Rebel and bought a 28-75mm f2.8 lens. Things are better now but nothing close to the E10...Dean

[Leonid1111]

Hi everyone,
Thinking of trying myself in the market place: fine art,
landscapes...What kind of photo gear will I need to be competetive? What kinds of photo art are more accesssible for greenhorns? All replies will be most appreciated,
Leonid

[ron chappel]

Thanks timo! Very interesting info.
I was definitely going to jump into DSLR with the 300D but maybe not now....I have the 'advantage' of being low on cash at the mo, so i'll wait a little bit and see what else comes out. in thre next half to one year.
Well...maybe-it is hard to resist these new things if one has the money !

[okteh18]

I must agree with you about Canon Digital 300D producing very soft pictures. I'm so used to my G3 that when I saw the result of my new 300D, I felt "cheated". It is even worst when I tried my Tamron 28-300mm on my 300D. The pictures are really really blur, not just soft but super blur, even USM can't help. I thought I was the only one having this problem because I complaint to Canon and was told that I am the first person they encountered complaining about 300D not sharp. They actually loaned me another unit to try and the results are just the same. I'm a very sad person....spend so much money and not getting the result expected from Canon.

[jjguest]

i use a d60 with sigma lenses that i find sharp enough.
I prefer good sigma lenses (ex) than bad canon one, because "L" canon lenses are too expensive for me

http://www.pbase.com/image/22179219
http://www.pbase.com/jjguest

[The Photo Tuell]

Sometimes it's not the camera causing 'soft' pictures...

I don't know what the fuss is about, I can get very sharp pictures if I have a steady hand or use tripod.

Here's an example (with shallow DoF, not bad focus):
http://www.pbase.com/image/21491561/large.jpg

Full size here: http://www.pbase.com/image/21491561/original

I only use Parameter 2, and don't use USM or sharpen in Photoshop/Paint Shop Pro. I think this is sharp enough for me.

[jjguest]

jjguest wrote:
i use a d60 with sigma lenses that i find sharp enough.
I prefer good sigma lenses (ex) than bad canon one, because "L" canon lenses are too expensive for me

http://www.pbase.com/image/22179219.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/jjguest
http://www.pbase.com/image/22179219.jpg

[Timo Autiokari]

So then, as is so common we got to see some downsampled images as a proof of perceived/apparent sharpness.

For example, downsampling an image by 50% (using Bicubic or Bilinear methods) will average/combine each group of 4 pixels in the image into a single pixel. This has the following effects:

1) the apparent sharpness is increased as the effective element size is now quadrupled.

2) the noise level is averaged somewhat so the image can take/withstand stronger sharpening in post-process.

3) and the 6M"pixel" camera then is just a 1.5M"pixel" camera.

If we had an imager chip with the same chip size and the 4 fold element size then we would, in addition to the above, have better dynamic range, binning (combining) the digitized pixels do not increase the dynamic range at all but a larger size elements there at the end of the light path do. (one of the "example" images btw show rather badly clipped range).

The question/discussion in this thread has been about "perceived sharpness" this means "pixel quality" (local contrast, resolution, MTF), so the images must not be re-sized and the pixels must be viewed/evaluated at 100% zoom.

When we buy a 6M"pixel" camera we surely expect to get usable 6M"pixels" and just not huge images that need to be downsampled down to 1.5M"pixels" in order them to be at the same or close to the quality level that a 1.5M"pixel" camera provides out of the box.

So, please post CROPPED examples and be honest. The other way to hide the poor image quality is to post images where the subject is large and/or very close (magnification is high) so even the "small details" are tens of pixels in size, with such images the vision does its magic by "ignoring" a lot of the noise and the poor MFT of the sensor gets hidden because there is not too much very fine detail to be resolved (the vision does not require the very finest detail to be resolved in such a high mag case).

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net/

[Malaxos1]

I am convinced it is because of the CMOS censor as opposed to have a CCD censor. My E10 was 4mp and the images were razor sharp. I new that when I switched cameras that I was trading image quality. I have studied that matter out and found that there are pros and cons to both censors. With a CCD the pros are superior image quality, the cons are that they are more expensive to make therefor more expensive cameras and they are power hungry. CMOS censors produce less than siperior images that need photo editing to make them 100% usable, the pros are that they are chreaper to make and are less power hungry, resulting in long battery life. Please understand that in the books that I read this in the authors are using high end Nikon or Canon digicams, that means they are personally using CMOS censors. This helped in my descision making. One of the books is about shooting digital weddings in which I do. So we need to work with what we have and that means using USM all the time. I will say though that the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens that I bought does seem to help comared to th junk 18-55mm that came with the Rebel.

[jjguest]

timo autiokari wrote:
So then, as is so common we got to see some downsampled images as a proof of perceived/apparent sharpness.

For example, downsampling an image by 50% (using Bicubic or Bilinear methods) will average/combine each group of 4 pixels in the image into a single pixel. This has the following effects:

1) the apparent sharpness is increased as the effective element size is now quadrupled.

2) the noise level is averaged somewhat so the image can take/withstand stronger sharpening in post-process.

3) and the 6M"pixel" camera then is just a 1.5M"pixel" camera.

If we had an imager chip with the same chip size and the 4 fold element size then we would, in addition to the above, have better dynamic range, binning (combining) the digitized pixels do not increase the dynamic range at all but a larger size elements there at the end of the light path do. (one of the "example" images btw show rather badly clipped range).

The question/discussion in this thread has been about "perceived sharpness" this means "pixel quality" (local contrast, resolution, MTF), so the images must not be re-sized and the pixels must be viewed/evaluated at 100% zoom.

When we buy a 6M"pixel" camera we surely expect to get usable 6M"pixels" and just not huge images that need to be downsampled down to 1.5M"pixels" in order them to be at the same or close to the quality level that a 1.5M"pixel" camera provides out of the box.

So, please post CROPPED examples and be honest. The other way to hide the poor image quality is to post images where the subject is large and/or very close (magnification is high) so even the "small details" are tens of pixels in size, with such images the vision does its magic by "ignoring" a lot of the noise and the poor MFT of the sensor gets hidden because there is not too much very fine detail to be resolved (the vision does not require the very finest detail to be resolved in such a high mag case).

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net/
this is a crop of complete shot maximum jpg :
http://www.pbase.com/image/22265123.jpg

[Timo Autiokari]

Here is my D60 example, the workflow is ICC color-managed linear RAW process.

This is the thumbnail of the big picture:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/vitr-thmb.jpg

A crop, no in-camera or post-process sharpening, extremely soft:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/vitr-nousm.jpg

The above crop with USM applied with Photoshop:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/vitr-usm.jpg

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net/

[jjguest]

timo autiokari wrote:
Here is my D60 example, the workflow is ICC color-managed linear RAW process.

This is the thumbnail of the big picture:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/vitr-thmb.jpg

A crop, no in-camera or post-process sharpening, extremely soft:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/vitr-nousm.jpg

The above crop with USM applied with Photoshop:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/vitr-usm.jpg

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net/

this is anover crop from a total shot done with sigma 70-300 apo macro and not resized :
http://www.pbase.com/image/22265764.jpg

[tony723]

netadmin22 wrote:
I have been learning to use my new Digital Rebel and it is a joy. However, when I bring the images up in Photoshop they appear less sharp than what I am familiar with from my 1.2 MP Olympus C2100 with 10X zoom. Enhancing with photoshop does not appear to help. There are difinitely more pixels but the image does appear as sharp. I am using the new 18-55 canon lens. Any comments?

Yes, I agree that the sharpness of 300D is not what I expected. Partly may due to the 18-55 len. My original G1 seems to have a better len (I heard that the F2.0 len is came from Zeiss). I think other DC e.g. Sony, Nikon, Olympus may have similar cases.

However I did check some very sharp photos in pbase.com using 300D. They all use much better Canon lens.

[Malaxos1]

My photos are pretty sharp with the D Rebel but not with the supplied lens. My new 28-70mm f2.8 is much better. Even with USM I don't believe the images are as sharp as I was getting out of the E10. All nice and sharp images still have that halo around them. Pretty sad...Dean

[netadmin22]

When I posted my original comments regarding "perceived sharpness" I had no idea of the response that would be generated. Thank you all very much for your input.

Apparently, the 18-55 lens is the main problem so I have been doing some experimenting with other lenses with better results.

Question?? How do I post a picture to this forum along with my message?

Question 2? I see a lot of reference to USM which I use but not in a very sophisticated manner. What is the proper way (or best way) to utilize USM?

Thanks again for all the input.

[Timo Autiokari]

netadmin22 wrote:
Apparently, the 18-55 lens is the main problem so I have been doing some experimenting with other lenses with better results.

I have no experience with that lens but generally lenses are not so very poor in quality. It is just that when we hook them to a DSLR we get poor results, this is because the individual elements on the imager chip are so very small in size that the resolving power of the lens starts to limit the sharpness. So, lenses that gives very good sharpness on 35mm film give way too soft images with the DSLRs. Also, because the individual elements are so small there has to be a strong blurr-filter on top of the imager chip, this is called as an anti-aliasing filter, it blurrs the image that the chip sees so that the color-mask-array algorithm that interpolates the final image can work without introducing severe edge artifacts.

We simply need larger element size in the imager chip, this automatically calls for larger chip sizes too.

How do I post a picture to this forum along with my message?

You first upload the image to somewhere so that it can be seen from the internet and then here you'll put the URL link to that image inside the img tags, psl click the Help link on top of this page for more.

I see a lot of reference to USM which I use but not in a very sophisticated manner. What is the proper way (or best way) to utilize USM?

There is no single best way to use USM, change of lens, change of focussing distance, change of zoom ratio, etc, even change of exposure time will affect to what the optimal parameters of USM are. But general quidelines do exist.

Radius: This is the radius (often in in pixels) of the area that the effect is applied over. In Photoshop radius=0.5 means a 3x3 pixel kernel, where in most other SW it is radius=1. Applying the effect using a larger than 3x3 kernel will reduce the fine detail, edges become thick. The only cases where you would want to use a larger than 3x3 kernel are 1) when the optical path was too blurry and 2) when the image has been resized (upsampled) digitally.

Threshold: The aim of this parameters is to help with the noise, USM will not affect to edges where the level difference is less than the threshold value used. This parameter very easily makes the image to appear severely un-natural, some part of the image gets sharpened and some do not, so it should be used only as the last resort and even then with very very small values only.

Amount: is the strenght of the effect itself. In non-linear RGB working-spaces you 1) can not apply strong enough sharpening without introducing the irritating white halo around all the edges in the image and 2) USM will not affect properly to the dark end of the range. So in addition to the USM parameters themselves the choise of the RGB working-spaces has a big effect to the result, it is in fact the most important factor for high quality USM.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

[openspace]

Print one out on high quality photo paper. Then check the sharpness. You may be surprised. When people talk about soft images, most of the time they're taking about what they see on their monitors. But when they print them out, they are often pleasantly surprised.

[ron chappel]

Yes i agree,printing instead of looking at the monitor may
help if you haven't printed allready.
Here's a good USM tutorial

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-usm.shtml

[ron chappel]

This whole 300D image quality thing has me abit worried to the point where i thought all CMOS sensors wouldn't really suit me.I had a look at some D100 pics but it's no improvement (generally i think the nikon is much worse)at least the 10D (and maybe the 300D) can get a certain percentage of good shotsThe D100 i think has colour issues.,it's either oversaturated or,if turned down,the colours aren't real anyway.The S2 pro has great colour but has an odd 'slide film' look that can't be edited away-i prefer the well lit look of the canons.I guess i'll just have to do a fair bit more research before i commit myself....

[MarkH]

For you 300D users that think that your lens may be soft, you could try what works on my 10D.

Buy a 50 f1.8, mine cost less than 1/17 what the camera cost. If the images still look soft, it is not the lens. Try faster shutter speed to eliminate camera shake. Try different sharpening techniques, there are some sharpening actions available for photoshop.

My 70-300 III produces pictures that are a little soft. I am happy with the sharpness when I use my 28-135 IS and I am blown away with how sharp the pics are when shooting with my 50 f1.8.

[Pekka]

I don't have a 300D, but I'd still like to make a comment.

Getting very sharp photos with 6mp SLR is not an easy thing. It will need a lot of practice on holding techniques, shutter release technique, how and why you use aperture and shutter speed, all related to focal lenght, subject distance and speed. You will need quality lenses, preferably without filters and definitely with hoods all the time.

Sharpness is also affected a lot by light amount, placement, diffusion and direction, and how subject (colors) reflect light.

I can tell for sure that if 300D is equal to 10D as imaging system, the camera is capable to deliver all the sharpness you can pull out of it.

For optimum sharpness you will need to shoot RAW. I convert RAW using C1 (no sharpening) and sharpen using Photokit Sharpener. Neat Image Pro takes care of the noise. With this workflow I get excellent results which look very sharp, naturally.

PS. I see people comparing sharpness of 300D with E10 and other small-sensor cameras. Are you sure that you do not mistake long depth-of-field, you (are forced to) get with compact digitals, for "more sharpness"?

[sasa]

I have had the 300D for a week now - translating into more than a hundred pictures - and I have to say I have NOT found sharpness to be a problem.

I am shooting with both the 18-55 and Canon's 55-200 and the pictures have been coming out just as sharp as they did out of my G2... though with less dof. (Using the default, preference #1 setting).

In fact, I think the 300D's ability to process jpegs is far better than the G2. The difference between using RAW and jpeg with the G2 was considerable. With the 300D, jpegs come out with almost as much tonal range as RAW pictures do.

[tony723]

Pekka wrote:
I don't have a 300D, but I'd still like to make a comment.

Getting very sharp photos with 6mp SLR is not an easy thing. It will need a lot of practice on holding techniques, shutter release technique, how and why you use aperture and shutter speed, all related to focal lenght, subject distance and speed. You will need quality lenses, preferably without filters and definitely with hoods all the time.

Sharpness is also affected a lot by light amount, placement, diffusion and direction, and how subject (colors) reflect light.

I can tell for sure that if 300D is equal to 10D as imaging system, the camera is capable to deliver all the sharpness you can pull out of it.

For optimum sharpness you will need to shoot RAW. I convert RAW using C1 (no sharpening) and sharpen using Photokit Sharpener. Neat Image Pro takes care of the noise. With this workflow I get excellent results which look very sharp, naturally.

PS. I see people comparing sharpness of 300D with E10 and other small-sensor cameras. Are you sure that you do not mistake long depth-of-field, you (are forced to) get with compact digitals, for "more sharpness"?
Hi Pekka,

Thanks for your comment. You are not quite active in this DSLR forum. Are you busy on the new version of EE?

I agree that 300D can also provide very sharp photos especially for professional photographer like you. Take the example of your G1 photos, I also got the same one but I never taken photos as sharp as I saw in your gallery. That's the difference.

By the way, I like the new 300D compare to my old G1. The shutter speed difference is entirely different and I think I can get better photos when I used to it.

Thanks for your advice again.

[MediaMagic]

Pekka wrote:

For optimum sharpness you will need to shoot RAW. I convert RAW using C1 (no sharpening) and sharpen using Photokit Sharpener. Neat Image Pro takes care of the noise. With this workflow I get excellent results which look very sharp, naturally.



What is Photokit Sharpener? I have and use all the others but I've never heard of that one.

Thanks,
David

[Pekka]

MediaMagic wrote:
What is Photokit Sharpener? I have and use all the others but I've never heard of that one.

Thanks,
David

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/pk-sharpener.shtml

[rdenney]

Malaxos1 wrote:
I am convinced it is because of the CMOS censor as opposed to have a CCD censor.

With all due respect, you are wrong. My wife uses a Nikon D100, with a 6MP CCD sensor, and I use a 10D, with the CMOS chip. My images are consistently sharper than hers. Why? I know how to select optimum apertures, and I use a bag full of primes and premium-grade zooms while she uses a single inexpensive hyperzoom. I'm also willing to carry a tripod. The autofocus on my 10D is accurate, though at times I focus manually to be sure.

The pixel density of the 10D exceeds the resolving power of many even high-grade lenses, and I can readily tell the difference between my good lenses and my best lenses. I don't think there is much more I could usefully resolve without needed lenses better than those currently available.

The problem might be that people are looking at an image at the pixel level and comparing a camera with a sensor that has 133 pixels/millimeter (like the 10D and the Rebel/300D) versus a camera that may only have 80 pixels/millimeter like a 4MP digicam. At the pixel level, the latter will be sharper because they won't be testing the limits of the lenses, but at the same print size, the former will appear sharper (assuming they have the same contrast and are post-processed similarly), because there is more information in the image.

The first time I took a 4x5 image with a Schneider Super Angulon I was disappointed. It took me a while to understand what really makes a sharp image. Looking at a print with a loupe (or a digital image at the pixel level) is not the best way to assess sharpness.

Rick "who thinks sharpness is a state of mind" Denney

[ron chappel]

rdenney wrote:
Malaxos1 wrote:
I am convinced it is because of the CMOS censor as opposed to have a CCD censor.

With all due respect, you are wrong. My wife uses a Nikon D100, with a 6MP CCD sensor, and I use a 10D, with the CMOS chip. My images are consistently sharper than hers. Why? I know how to select optimum apertures, and I use a bag full of primes and premium-grade zooms while she uses a single inexpensive hyperzoom. I'm also willing to carry a tripod. The autofocus on my 10D is accurate, though at times I focus manually to be sure.

Rick "who thinks sharpness is a state of mind" Denney

This just doesn't make sense as an argument.You're saying that you're CMOS 10D used with great lenses stopped down on a tripod beats a CCD D100 witha kit zoom??
And?

[Timbre]

I have converted RAW to .jpg and .jpg 2000 in BB and the jp2 seems much sharper. Are there different sharpening sciences at work here?

[rdenney]

I wrote that my results showed more sharpness than my wife gets from her D100, and described my technique which is aimed at better sharpness, but Ron demurred...

ron chappel wrote:

This just doesn't make sense as an argument.You're saying that you're CMOS 10D used with great lenses stopped down on a tripod beats a CCD D100 witha kit zoom??
And?

I've also made images with her camera using a good lens, and at the pixel level, I find nothing to recommend it over the Canon (or vice versa, though I greatly prefer some aspects of the Canon controls and file management).

My point was that the CMOS sensor, properly executed, has as much image-making potential as a CCD sensor, properly executed, and that neither will result in images that explore their potential without meticulous technique. I'll add further (and perhaps combatively, though I hope not insultingly) that most people who argue about the relative merits of CCD versus CMOS sensors do not routinely apply such technique.

Rick "reminded of the old truism, No photographer is as good as the worst lens" Denney

[Timo Autiokari]

openspace wrote:
Print one out on high quality photo paper. Then check the sharpness. You may be surprised. When people talk about soft images, most of the time they're taking about what they see on their monitors. But when they print them out, they are often pleasantly surprised.

The issue here has been pixel quality.

The screen shows you the pixels at about 100PPI.
When you print the PPI is usually something like 300DPI. This is the same as if you woud resize the image down to 33% using Photoshop. Yes, that will appear quite sharp. But it is not the issue here.

To compare pixel quality one good method is to view the image data on the CRT at 200% zoom (or higher). As long as you compare the image quality using the same setup the comparison is good. Prints are not good for pixel quality evaluation because the pixels are printed in very small size so it is difficult to detect the differences.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net