300d: strange sample photos with a lot of blur

[nikee]

hi

I am looking into buying maybe an eos 300d and found some sample photos on the web. those at http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples/ look very good IMHO.

but what bothers me: look ath the samples at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EDR/EDRPICS.HTM, like http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EDR/FULLRES/EDRFAR_F045.HTM

this one was apparently taken at f/4.5. there is so much blur in this photo, I would have to put butter on the lens with my Powershot G3 to get such results - what's the matter with these.

can anyone explain this?

[defordphoto]

Those are pretty bad samples, I agree. What's wrong with them? Who knows. Hard to tell. Without knowing the history of then photos all one can do is guess. From the brief read on the text I suspect these are shots right out of the camera with no post-processing.

One thing to keep in mind when moving from a P&S to an SLR is that most P&S's do a lot of processing in the camera to punch sharpness, color and contrast. Most times this in-camera processing results in colors and contrast that are over-saturated.

The Canon line of current dSLR's does not do that, though you can play with the settings on JPEG and get things punched pretty high. Canon's goal was to provide us with a camera(s) that would produce accurate color balance and they have done a wonderful job. The 10D is rated as the most color accurate camera ever.

But, a lot of folks love over-saturated color and contrast. And even though that results in quite an impressive photo, the color balance is over-saturated, in most -- but not all -- cases.

I have found that when I am shooting JPEG the color-balance is incredible. White balance is usually pretty good too but many times needs tweaking here and there. Once you get a workflow down for working with your files it becomes such a rewarding experience.

Also, keep in mind (I'm sure you are but I am going to say it anyway) that viewing photos on a computer monitor does most photos no justice and you are not getting anywhere near the resolution the photo was originally shot at.

So, the moral of all this is don't rely on those photos alone to make your decisions. They pretty much suck are are not good examples of what the Rebel is capable of. I am sure a few of our members here will treat you shortly with some fine Rebel example photos. I am see some stunning samples here the last month or so.

Hope that helps.

[Jim_T]

The 300D is just a body that holds a CCD and the required stuff to digitize and store images.

The *lens* determines the quality of the picture.

Your G3 has a great permanent lens and as a result it takes great pictures. The quality of 300D images depends on the lens the user selects. Cheap lens = Cheap pictures..

If you want good sharp shots, purchasing a 10D is only the first step. You've still got a minimum of $1000.00 US worth of lenses to buy.

If all you're after is an extra megapixel, faster autofocus and low noise at higer ISOs.. Then the kit lens should be OK... But it will show.

[defordphoto]

Thanks Jim. I didn't even get into the lens issues, which are HUGE. My post would have been much, much longer than it already is. :)

[robertwgross]

I can explain it. Some of those samples are small crops from the overall image. When you use an inexpensive zoom lens, you tend to get little bits of blur showing up around the edges, and especially if you are at the wide open end of aperture.

---Bob Gross---

[Jim_T]

RFMSports wrote:
Thanks Jim. I didn't even get into the lens issues, which are HUGE. My post would have been much, much longer than it already is. :)

Looks like we posted at the same time :)

Thanks for bringing up the in-camera sharpening and saturation aspect.. It's not easy to compare a DSLR with a fixed lens digicam.

[Tom W]

Most of the images on the imaging-resource web site are pretty decent, but I see a problem with extremely high contrast material, particularly where the sky can be seen through the trees. I think that this is a lens issue, not a body issue. It appears to be some flaring, similar to what one might get with a moderate quality telescope. The problem is much more pronounced on the computer screen when the image is shown at its full pixel size. I'd like to see the same picture with the same camera using some different lenses of varying quality and of similar focal length.

[nikee]

hi

actually, I fully understand the issue with the lens - and the one delivered with the 300d kit seems to be only about $100 (when comparing the kit price vs. the body-only price). so, a $100 lens seemingly is too cheap to get good, sharp pictures.

for my G3 I concur with you. The hard-mounted lens is really great. I bought a Canon teleadapter (2x), which is quite nice, but at the same time produces unsharp areas around the edges of the photo.

for the other posts, that tried to help me: it's clear to me that my LCD does not reproduce color correctly. but for me it's never been a color issue anyway - but instead a lens problem.

so, to come back to the topic: I could contact the author of the review and ask him about his view of things - maybe he can enlighten us.

another thing: I have the strong feeling that the 300d is _crippled_ so much - in fact only the price is an advantage over the 10d, pretty everything else has been left out. what hurts me most is that they obviously crippled the firmware - apparently to not de-value their 10d.

so, if I will really buy a 300d, do you think the lens coming with it (18-55mm) is not worth buying, but instead I should look for a better one (which then?)?

thanks & regards
nicola

[defordphoto]

Ahhh so now this is a lens issue. If I was buying this camera I'd probably go ahead and get the kit with the lens just to have that wide capability. However, if you have the cash for L glass then toss the S lens and use that $100 for a good lens.

On the other hand it sound like you may be disappointed with the Rebel over the 10D in what you're saying. And we're learning more about the Rebel that it is indeed not (just) a crippled 10D but a different camera internally. It doesn't even have the same footprint and uses a different, cheaper, BigEd.

However, the sensor itself is nearly identical and produces some stunning work with the proper glass. Glass is the key here to getting good results with this, or any other camera.

Good luck with your decision.

[Andy_T]

Also,

bear in mind that two things are definitely possible

1) to take great photos with a crappy camera
2) to take crappy photos with a great camera

Common knowledge tells that #2 is easier to do :)

Regards,
Andy

[FOS2003]

Hi all,

Just following the thread here, new to the forum. I purchased the dig. rebel last week and have shot almost 500 pictures with it so far--love "coming back" to the SLR fold after leaving film last year to a go to a Olympus D510 (great little P&S, btw...except for the lens cover...another thread!). I came from a EOS 620 from my high school and college days (staff photographer for my undergrad's PR dept.)

I've been using my Canon 70-210 zoom that I've had with my EOS 620 and have gotten sharp pictures with it in the past.

Recently, however, on my Dig. Rebel (most recently some prospective Xmas shots yesterday), I've noticed a "softening" effect on the subject, even though I would spot focus on the eye and lock before recomposing.

On a couple of pictures, I don't know if it's my eyes playing tricks on me, but despite doing the above focusing technique, I noticed that either just behind or in front of the subject seems to be sharper than the subject.

BTW, I've usually turned the focus on to just lock on the middle so it's not focusing on more than one spot (should I be doing this?).

Anyway, at first I thought it was my lens till I looked at some previous year's Xmas pictures I shot with it on film with the EOS 620 and they were sharp.

Thanks for any help with this!

Ernie Medina

[nikee]

FOS2003 wrote:
I purchased the dig. rebel last week and have shot almost 500 pictures with it so far

Recently, however, on my Dig. Rebel (most recently some prospective Xmas shots yesterday), I've noticed a "softening" effect on the subject, even though I would spot focus on the eye and lock before recomposing.

On a couple of pictures, I don't know if it's my eyes playing tricks on me, but despite doing the above focusing technique, I noticed that either just behind or in front of the subject seems to be sharper than the subject.


it's called front- and back-focus and apparently happens because there are certain manufacturing tolerances (lenses and bodies) regarding auto-focus.

because 35mm analog photography "allows" more in terms of soft focus, DSLR cameras with a crop of e.g 1.6 will expose these tolerances much more quickly to the final product (the photography).

German users have already complained at Canon and gotten the offer to let re-adjust their camera (and their Canon lens) for free. They need to send in both the camera and the potentially soft focusing lens, so Canon tech support can track down the exact cause.

See http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/News/17/58.htm (it's German, but you can use http://babelfish.altavista.com/ - it is easily understandable after translation).

All in all. focus-troubles with 10D, 300D etc. seem to be quite a common thing.

[FOS2003]

Thx for the info on the front/back focus issue. You mentioned something about sending it away for checking--is there something they can do to fix this aberration or will they just say, "It's within acceptable tolerances so live with it."?

With the holidays here, I'm hesitant to ship it away when I just purchased this early for all the photo opps! ;-)

Thanks!

Ernie

[Andy_T]

Hi FOS,

before doing anything here, be sure to do a forum search for '10D autofocus issue'.

This was a HUGE issue half a year ago with the 10D, so there are a lot of threads on how to detect front- or back-focusing etc.

However, bear in mind that
- many of the 'focus issue' were due to wrong technique (understandably if somebody is new to the not-so-easy technology)

- the 6.3 MP of the 10D and the DRebel mercilessly point out any shortcomings of Canons 'Consumer lenses' (read: non-L-Lenses) and *many* users complain about 'soft' photos when using those. Do you have other lenses (e.g. 1.8/50, as fixed lenses normally take far superior pictures than the inexpensive 'consumer' zooms) or even the kit lens (18-55) - do you have the same behaviour there?

- it seems somehow unlikely that - after the uproar the 'focus-issue' at the 10D created and the efforts Canon did to remedy it, they would have the same thing happen again at the DRebel. This is the FIRST time I read about a DRebel 'focus issue'.

Don't get me wrong, it might definitely be the case that your camera is not working correctly, and then Canon definitely has to fix it.

But the possibility exists that one of these threads holds the solution for you.

Regards,
Andy

[FOS2003]

Thanks for the heads-up on the 10D threads, Andy. I'm new here and didn't know I could do a search like that. Also didn't know about the "non-L-series" lens. I assume I can just check on the lens and see which one it is. That's probably why I've seen other friends' shots with their Canons and they are much sharper than my shots were on film. Will check it out. Thx! Ernie

[theoldmoose]

A lot of folks that shoot film never see their shots on any media larger than a borderless 4x6 print, at 'normal' viewing distance.

When you start shooting digital, the temptation is to blow everything up to 100% and view it closely on a monitor. At that point, depending on the number of megapixels in the image, that is akin to printing a 16x20 poster, and sticking your nose in the print.

At that point, a lot of film shooters would say, that's not as sharp as I thought it was. So it goes with digital. I have some nice digital snapshots of my grandkids sitting on my desk, printed on 4x6 glossy stock. They look quite sharp, but I bet if I blew the original RAW files up to 100% on a monitor, I'd find fault with the focus or sharpness. Just handholding the shots, even in bright sunlight, is bound to cause some sub-pixel smear, which might be perceived as a focus problem.

Autofocus is not an exact science (although the algorithms used by the camera try to make it so), and in the field, can be misled by a great number of things. If you use a lens aperture with a decent DOF, and resist the temptation to micro-inspect a 100% crop, then you'll probably never notice if the exact focus spot is not right where you might have placed it manually.

That said, if you perform some testing, as outlined elsewhere on this forum and others, and find that a particular lens/camera combination is consistently back- or front-focusing outside of what you might consider 'normal' DOF limits, then I'd definitely be concerned.

Otherwise, enjoy the camera and don't be supercritical about focus issues, until you've become more familiar with the way digital tends to magnify all faults (at least to you).