Sharp Images ?

[CGNKlaus]

With my Casio 3500EX (3.34 Megapixels) I took many pictures f.e. of NYC, Paris, etc.

Now I've bought a 300D and I find the Images of the Casio still sharper.

When I use a sharpening function of f.e. Photoshop or any other program the images of the 300D look great, but not before.

I'm not talking about the focus of the camera. I mean the image-sharpness itsself.

Am I doing something wrong ?

[CGNKlaus]

By the way: I use the standard 18-55 lens. Camera setting is "auto" with large image-size....

[Jesper]

Every digital camera does some processing to the image that the sensor records: the camera sharpens the image, boosts the saturation and contrast etc.

This is nice if you want to have great photos right out of the camera. But sometimes you don't want the camera to do a lot of those things. For example, to get the best color reproduction, you don't want the camera to change the saturation of the colors a lot.

More advanced cameras, such as your 300D, do less processing to the image that the sensor records than compact cameras such as your Casio. Instead of the camera, it is expected that the user is also more advanced and wants to do more processing him- or herself on the computer.

You should also understand one thing about digital image sharpening. Sharpening is, in principle, a destructive operation - i.e., a little bit of the original image data will be lost when you sharpen an image. If an image is sharpened very heavily, it is impossible to undo the sharpening without artifacts remaining in the image. So if your camera already sharpened the image a lot, it has already thrown away some of the data in the original image.

When processing an image on the computer, you will want to do sharpening as the very last step in the process, so that you can use as much as the original image data as possible for the other processing steps (such as correcting color and contrast).

If you don't want to do a lot of processing and you want good photos right out of the camera, you can try changing the sharpness, saturation and contrast parameters on your 300D and see what you get - experiment a bit until you find the best combination of settings for you.

[timmyquest]

Thats the way it is supose to be, P&S's in any format are geared towards the person who simply wants to take the shot and let the work be done there. With an SLR especially a digital SLR, there is a lot to be left to you.

You can however jack the sharpening up in your camera if you want.

[cmM]

it depends a lot on which lens. The kit lens is not the sharpest in its league...
Get an L, and I don't think you'll complain any more ;)
here's on with a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS .... (God, I get chills when I type that) :P
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/jun23702001.jpg
I think that's pretty damned clear... (and that car was quite far)

[G2Jim]

All advice above is great, and that picture makes me drool! I'm seriously contemplating cashing in some savings bonds to purchase the canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens used for that shot along with a 100mm macro, since all I have is the 300D kit lens. Photos like this really get me chomping at the bit!

[CGNKlaus]

Thank's for your replies... Until today I was wondering why I've spent about 1000 $ for a Camera which pictures are "as good as" my Casio.

Your answers took me back on track...

I will lend a better lens and try it out...

@cmM: Did you use any kind of software or is it the original picture ?

[timmyquest]

I'm in no way saying he is wrong about quality lenses, but the kit lenses isnt that bad.

http://www.antiwall.com/pics1/april04/in-the-woods-stream.jpg

[rick barclay]

No complaints about mine, either. Got to admit, I like Timmy's pic better. But this photo was shot as a large jpg and has no postprocessing. That DRebel kit lens ain't no slouch IMHO.

http://flashdaddee.com/Picturea%20073.jpg

[cmM]

@cmM: Did you use any kind of software or is it the original picture ?
Sharpening in C1 when I converted from raw (100), and I slightly adjusted levels in PS, but other than that, I didn't do anything. That's what I do to most of my pictures.
I didn't say the kit lens is bad, I just said it's "not the sharpest in its league". It's my only wide angle, and I use it at times:
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/jun23702003.jpg
(taken with the kit lens)

[drisley]

OT: CmM, I have a 70-200mm F4L ,and I'm seriously considering the 70-200mm F2.8L IS. Is that lens much larger and heavier than the F4L?

[Lamplight]

I noticed the same thing when I went from my Olympus P&S to my DRebel with the kit lens. :) However, I have occasionally gotten shots with the kit lens that were surprisingly sharp, even with no in-camera sharpening. Now I have the 50mm 1.8 and it is usually either razor sharp (occasionally) or completely out of focus (usually). I still haven't figured that one out yet. :(

[G2Jim]

Beautiful shots guys!

[drisley]

I think sharp is what most p&s cameras try to achieve with agressive in camera sharpening... this is to please the masses.

However, image DETAIL and RESOLUTION is another, much more important, quality. I've owned the S30, G3, and 300D.
Out of the camera the S30 was the shapest because of the most aggressive in camera sharpening.
However, when it came to detail, resolution, and overall image quality, the 300D is miles ahead of both the S30 and G3. Thus, when the image is finally sharpened in post process, the result can be a product that is MUCH sharper, cleaner, a contains fewer artifacts than either of the above.

DSLR's purposly process the images very little by default. THis leaves the creative control up to the photographer in post process. Personally, I hate the overprocessed, oversharpened, halo filled images that come out of most p&s cameras.

[cmM]

OT: CmM, I have a 70-200mm F4L ,and I'm seriously considering the 70-200mm F2.8L IS. Is that lens much larger and heavier than the F4L?
I don't own either. My friend just got his yesterday, and I was talking to him an shooting pix with his lens on my body for a couple hours...

I don't know how heavy the f/4L is....

For me, though, I don't think it would be a very big issue. It's not that bad. I could carry it, I think.

[gail]

I'm in no way saying he is wrong about quality lenses, but the kit lenses isnt that bad.

http://www.antiwall.com/pics1/april04/in-the-woods-stream.jpg

Wow...is all I can say that picture is awesome........
what setting did you use for this shot?
and that was the kit lens?
Wow :roll:
I hope I can get a photo like that one day. Awesome picture Timmy,
That's one to be proud of... :P [/quote]

[ron chappel]

Those kit lens shots don't do much for me at all
-yes the one re-shown above is definitely near the best i've seen from that lens :) but still....
Maybe i'm just unfortunate that i don't go for landscapes much and foranything else i use it on,the lack of clarity really shows

nevermind.There are other lenses i DO like :D :D

[ron chappel]

Thank's for your replies... Until today I was wondering why I've spent about 1000 $ for a Camera which pictures are "as good as" my Casio.

Your answers took me back on track...

I will lend a better lens and try it out..

Just bear in mind CGN,that one doesn't need an L lens to get sharp pics.There are lot's of non zooms that are even sharper than L zooms for a fraction of the price :shock: :D
And if you want zooms instead ,there are ones much better the kit zoom for not many $

[roanjohn]

The beauty of the Rebel is that the photographer has "the" control over the final image.

At its default setting, the Rebel allows a very "conservative" in-camera processing when you take your photos. You might want to bump up the sharpness setting from your camera if you want to see instant sharpness from your pics without post processing..............(though this I would not recommend).

OTOH, the kit lens is not a bad performer.........stopped down ;-)

http://www.pbase.com/image/27598304.jpg

Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel
1/250s f/8.0 at 18.0mm iso200

Ro1

[CGNKlaus]

Here are two photos from me:

NYC (Casio 3500EX with 3.34 Megapixels)

http://www.matle.de/pictures/casio.jpg

and this

Paris (EOS 300D Kit-lens)


http://www.matle.de/pictures/canon.jpg


I did no sharpening on both pictures...

[Lamplight]

Bah, I might as well post a kit lens shot too. :D Here is one:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/127013504/147522391SzXVoM

And here is one with the 50mm 1.8:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/127013504/153111568tPxzfa

Can't recall the settings for either, but I remember that the 50mm 1.8 was about a 1 second exposure, because I manually fired an old external flash behind the bottles. It was the only way I had time to get to them. :lol: I don't recall sharpening either photos, but don't quote me on that. :?

[gail]

CG and Lamplight, nice pictures lovely shots I can't get over how you did the bottles CG, that is neat as heck. 8) Crystal clear.