300D - disappointing image quality

[darkwood]

I've had a G3 for two years and been very pleased with it. I recently 'upgraded' to a 300D and frankly I am disappointed with the image quality. I expected that even with the cheap consumer 17-55 EFS it would at least equal the G3. How wrong I was! It lacks sharpness, it's like it's only 3 mega pixels and it's sort of 'flarey' like a halo around bright objects. It also seems to lack depth-of-field. Focus is accurate and its all clean. Things improve when stopped right down but then I have to raise the ISO and some noise advantage of the larger sensor is lost.
I bought a 50mm 1.8 II for low light thinking it would be sharper as well - It isn't!
G3 owners - do you agree, or do I have a fault?
Or do I have to pay out £100s for an L lens. How much better is an L anyway?
Dont know what to do - advice appreciated.

[langer]

ar.... yes the "L" question... I was asking the same question myself "How much better is an L?" until I saw this link:

http://dicagirl.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=62&exhibition=1&pass=public&size=default&lang=eng

This dude, from what I can tell have used the 85mm 1.2 L and others. most shots are on wide aperature adn from what I can tell are razor sharp.

about the 300D, well I own a 300D myself and I agree with you to a certain degree. The images are a little on the soft side. I often have to do sharpen slightly in PS. I came from a film camera background EOS 5 T90 etc.. bought the 300D for convinence more than quality. but the kit lens 16-55mm is a bit crapy to say the least.

I wouldn't shell out for an L lens tho. the 300D might not be good enough to do it justice. I am also dying for some features like Flash exposure compensation etc on the new 350D. my next target is the 20D.

[mvs]

You've made a jump to a totally different type of camera than you're used to. P&S cameras do quite a bit of image processing in the camera....DSLR's do not. What you see is exactly what you shoot. To get the best images, you'll have to invest some PC time to tweak your images (using PhotoShop or Elements etc)

it's like it's only 3 mega pixelsActually, it's 6.3mp

[chucksberg]

If your "very pleased" with the G3, keep it, return the 300d and save a lot of money.

[Dante King]

What mode are you shooting? The 300D should blow the G out of the water if your technique is good and camera setting are correct. Of course, a spot of post porcessing is always some times in order. Do not give up! From reading others posts your response is natural and typical for your situation.

[tim]

What mvs said. If you shoot jpg try turning the sharpness up, if you shoot raw you need to do more aggressive sharpening. Once you learn how to use it properly it will blow the G3 away. You don't need L lenses, but for best sharpness try stopping your lens down 2-3 stops from it's maximum aperture.

[nitsch]

Darkwood/Langer - MVS has hit the nail on the head.

Point and shoot cameras adjust the sharpness/saturation etc in the instant you take your picture, so you can look at them on screen or print and go hey thats a nice picture.

DSLR's record the image as it is with very little in camera processing (especially if set to parameter 2 - which is my preference). You HAVE to perform post processing and the beauty of this is that you can adjust the image to exactly how YOU want it not how the camera manufacturer has deemed it should be.

Once you understand this, you will start producing pictures with your 300D that are awesome. If you don't want to have to do this then yes, stick with the G3.

[drisley]

I've had a G3 for two years and been very pleased with it. I recently 'upgraded' to a 300D and frankly I am disappointed with the image quality. I expected that even with the cheap consumer 17-55 EFS it would at least equal the G3. How wrong I was! It lacks sharpness, it's like it's only 3 mega pixels and it's sort of 'flarey' like a halo around bright objects. It also seems to lack depth-of-field. Focus is accurate and its all clean. Things improve when stopped right down but then I have to raise the ISO and some noise advantage of the larger sensor is lost.
I bought a 50mm 1.8 II for low light thinking it would be sharper as well - It isn't!
G3 owners - do you agree, or do I have a fault?

I went from a G3 to a 300D, and even with the kit lens it beat the G3 in image quality. There was so much more detail to work with, and you could sharpen in post-process much more aggressively.
With the cheapo 50F1.8II lens, the image quality BLOWS the G3 out of the water completely.
Either something is wrong with your kit, or the user is the weakest link.
Good luck.

[KenW]

It take a while to get the settings down and get a better lens than the kit lens.

Ken

[Paul_B]

To get the best images, you'll have to invest some PC time to tweak your images (using PhotoShop or Elements etc)


I've been a little disapointed as well with many of my shots. I took this to be me learning dslr. But I was thinking when I got to know it well, the shots would look better. Are you saying it's normal that all shots require some photoshop/elements attention ?.
I use RAW so I can fix my mistakes when need be, but I was hoping I'd get to the point where I don't need to spend so much time doing fix ups.

You HAVE to perform post processing and the beauty of this is that you can adjust the image to exactly how YOU want it not how the camera manufacturer has deemed it should be.

I have another question. The SLR Rebel can be had in Film or Digital. Do they not take photos the same. The film rebel would be final photos, would they look the same as the digital ?. One would think you could get equal results from either. I would hope that you can get good results from digital SLR without image processing every picture taken.

Could someone suggest custom parameters that would give results for doing as little pc work. I'm currectly using "Parameter 1". I really don't know it well enough to setup custom settings for myself. While I like the ability to control final results with RAW, I also thought I'd get to the day where I did less and less processing on the pc. There will always be those couple of nice photos that deserve some extra time/effort, but I would think most should come out rather good if done correctly.

[darkwood]

Thanks for the replies which tell me
1. Not to give up yet. I've spent the money anyhow! I still dont know if I need to get an L lens though.
2. There may be a fault. I don't think it's me. Please take a look at my pics, mostly G3 here http://www.darkwood.me.uk/Album%201/index.html see if you agree.
3. Post process and use Raw. I used to use the G3 raw but rarely was the improvement worth the effort. I dont mind a bit of sharpening but there doesnt seem to be much detail there to start with. I know the 300D is 6.3MP - but it's only a 3MP lens.

[Wildman]

Photos taken with a film camera are also processed... by the photo lab. I'd much rather have it done my way than how some machine or lab person thinks produces the best results.

After a thousand exposures with my 20D the pictures are starting to look pretty good. There's a steep learning curve to using a DSLR. Be patient.

[drisley]

Thanks for the replies which tell me
1. Not to give up yet. I've spent the money anyhow! I still dont know if I need to get an L lens though.
2. There may be a fault. I don't think it's me. Please take a look at my pics, mostly G3 here http://www.darkwood.me.uk/Album%201/index.html see if you agree.
3. Post process and use Raw. I used to use the G3 raw but rarely was the improvement worth the effort. I dont mind a bit of sharpening but there doesnt seem to be much detail there to start with. I know the 300D is 6.3MP - but it's only a 3MP lens.
You don't need an L lens necessarily. The 50mm prime is very close to L quality, and the kit lens when stopped down slightly is almost as good as the 17-40L in most cases.
Looking at your pictures, they are very nice, but there is no reason you can't get even better pictures with the 300D.

[tim]

On the occasions I shoot JPG I don't need to do any processing on my 20D. I found the 300D the same.

[roanjohn]

1. Use the Photoshop elements that came with your camera to add contrast, saturation and some USM to your photos.

2. If you do not have time to post-process your photos, increase the contrast, saturation and sharpness parameters in your Rebel. If you max those parameters out, I'm sure you will get the exact same photos you see from your G3.

3. You do not need an L lens to realize that the picture quality of the Rebel is 100 times better than the G3.

Ro1

[KenW]

Here is a link a pretty good photo in a fairly well light gym. A Dreb with a 50mm 1.4 shots well when set right. I got a ton of shots like this and others just as good from a gym with less lighting. Don't give up, just keep shooting and checking your settings.

http://www.kway.org/Vball/IMG_3644.jpg

Ken

[slin100]

Images from a DSLR usually have a milky, flat appearance to them. They almost always need a contrast boost and sharpening. You can bump contrast in many ways in Photoshop: by adjusting the Contrast slider, applying an S-curve in Curves, or performing a low-contrast enhancement (low level, high radius unsharp mask) such as 20,50,0.

Follow this with a high-level, small radius unsharp mask (300, .3, 0 for example) to sharpen the image.

Doing these two will often do wonders before your very eyes. These techniques may not always be appropriate for all images, but it will do in a pinch.

[RockOne]

I know the 300D is 6.3MP - but it's only a 3MP lens.
huh ? Not quite sure I follow this statement. The lens has no pixels !

[Sicily1918]

Darkwood,

I know what you're talking about -- I went to the zoo last weekend with my rocking 100-400L and a 20D... I should'a been set. My GF took the little Sony DSC (3.2MP or thereabouts) with her. With the exception of when there was low light or someone moved too fast, ALL of her pictures looked great (say, 90%). After looking at mine, I noticed they weren't as sharp, and some were clearly soft.

Then I began to look more carefully. I noticed just how much more detail I'm catching with the 20D... the colors aren't as vivid, but they reflect reality, and any touch-ups (in PS) increase the quality of the shots by a factor of 10... and about the only thing I did is increase the levels, USM (standard 300, .3, and 0), and ran the old version (1.2) of Noise Reduction on high-ISO shots.

All told, it takes about 10 seconds to apply these settings, and I kicked that Sony camera's ass around the 100-400 lens (it's not a city block, but it's still a pretty big lens :mrgreen: ).

The moral of the story: you get a point and shoot (even one of the nice ones) for pretty nice, quick shots. You get a DSLR for amazing shots, but they take more work:




f/stops
ISO speeds
Shutter speeds
Proper lens(es) for the situation
AF vs MF
Which AF points to use (all, some, one?)
UV filter -- yes/no?
Lens hood -- yes/no?
White Balance... auto/manual/really manual (like, choosing the color temp by hand)?
Exposure comp?
Depth of field
Etc.
And I haven't even gotten to the post-processing part yet. :cool:

[griff2]

Darkwood wrote:
I wouldn't shell out for an L lens tho. the 300D might not be good enough to do it justice.
I think you'll find that the 300D is more than capable of easily differentiating between poor and good lenses. I'd rather use a 300D/350D/10D/20D with a good lens (L or otherwise) than 1 1Ds mkII witha poor lens any day.

There is a steep learning curve in getting the best out of DSLR; when you get there, you'll find it was well worth the effort.

[langer]

Have u tried fitting a 70-200 2.8L or a 300mm F4 L to a 300D griff2? Picture quality aside, it feels really front heavy. I know cause I've tried even with the grip.

[Phil V]

Have u tried fitting a 70-200 2.8L or a 300mm F4 L to a 300D griff2? Picture quality aside, it feels really front heavy. I know cause I've tried even with the grip.

The 300d with the grip with 2 batteries is a great kit with the 70-200 2.8L, It doesn't feel front heavy at all when supported on the lens tripod mount.

just remember when carrying a big lens, you're carrying the camera mounted to the lens NOT the lens mounted to the camera.

Back to original post, a little USM and some levels and your 300d will rock.

[OviV]

If you buy a DSLR with the intent of using it as a Point and Shoot you are waisting money. There are plenty of 8 MP P&S cameras out there that take very nice pictures and cost less. A good lens will make a huge difference.

If you do not believe me, mount your camera on tripod. Pick a nicely lit subject with natural light. Take a picture at f8 (as sharp as this lens gets) with your kit lens and then take the same picture with your 50 1.8 at f8. View them in photoshop at actual pixels. Can you tell the difference? I bet you can.

Ovi

[mgchan]

It doesn't take a whole lot of post processing and L lenses to get decent shots. Take a look at my site: www.dailysnapshots.com

Almost 100% of the shots were taken with the 300D and the kit lens in Auto mode, (Yeah, I'm the first to admit that!) and I have the 50 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 L which I rarely use. Last week I got the 20D and now started spending more time shooting in the manual mode.

The problem is not with the camera or the lens, though we'd like to blame it on them, but with finding the time to learn how to use and shoot with a DSLR correctly.

[mattym]

i have found that its a very steep curve with a dslr, once you get over the shock its actually very easy to get on with and use, unfortunately the camera doesnt turn you into David Bailey overnight, but with time and patience, its can really improve your shooting. What i like best is that the camera MAKES you think about what your shooting, not just whipping it out and hitting the release, to me, that makes getting a sharp image that you are proud to show all the more sweet!

[Andy_T]

Darkwood,

you have some very nice pictures on your site.

However, as there is no EXIF information displayed, it's pretty difficult to tell which ones were taken with which camera.

I'll just chime in with the overall chorus here ... when I changed from my G2 to the 20D, there was no comparison at all, even with the kit lens. I used RAW+conversion to TIFF+USM on my G2, with the 20D I just shoot large JPG, because the quality out of the camera is so great with the 50/1.8 or my Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI (close to L in image quality, but not in price).

Still, you have to observe some things.

The most important difference is DOF.
Because of the small sensor, the G series has a very deep depth of field. You use f/2.8, and get the same DOF as if you were using f/8 or f/11 on a film camera or DSLR.

I found that to be a very big disadvantage, actually, because it severely limits the creative expression you can have in a photograph.

Another thing to observe is sufficient shutter speed. The rule of thumb asks for a shutter speed of 1/focal length ... make it effective focal length. So if you use your 1.8/50, try not to use slower shutter speeds than 1/100.

As to the 'halo' around light sources in the image ... are you using some kind of filter? Might be a reason, or bad/defective coating on the lens. Did you buy the camera+lens new or used?

Still ... there are other possibilities.
It doesn't have to be user error (although it very often turns out to be).
Your camera and/or lens could be faulty. It could be badly calibrated with the lens and give inaccurate focusing.

Most likely the best way would be to post a picture to the forum and include the EXIF information. Then we can try to help you find out what's wrong.

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

I will concur with all those who say the DSLR is a mile above the quality of the G3. While it is dependant on the type of shots you want, when I got my DRebel last year (coming from a G1), I too was initially disappointed with the quality I was getting. But I also knew that this camera was vary capable and the user is the weakest link. Once you get to know the camera and the lenses, you are free to pursue the artistic part of photography. There is a learning curve coming from a point and shoot but most of us here have delved in because of either professional aspirations or because the hobby of photography is filled with endless possibilities and expressions. I find it relaxing and inspiring.......I look at my environment in a new light and am constantly remarking how something would make a great photo......then pull out the camera and shoot away!! Don't give up on the DRebel because of quality........it's in there now you have to find the inspiration and desire to take good photos.