D60 SOFT !

[DVWarrior]

I am on my 2nd D60 and 2nd Sigma lens 20mm F1.8.
My viewfinder shows me pin sharp images but the camera image is slightly soft. WHY ?
I think I know why this happens it's obvious if you think about it.

1. No lens made including Canon has been made with this smaller image, they are made for a 35mm footprint and DIGITAL is a comprimise.

I got a shock to find that my 1st lens the 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma was in fact a 38-112mm f2.8 this is kack.

Then you see the new trend with the 11MP EOS D1 having a full 35mm frame soon we will see the 7MP D70 with full 35mm frame mark my words Canon have fallen fowel with this smaller footprint causing many lenses to produce soft images.

They talk about "back focus" this is a video term As I work in video but I can see no way of tweeking the back focus on a D60.

Another bod in another forum has been told that it's the lens mounting seat that's out of spec on some models surly Canon should own up to this and recall these...NOW.

Oh by the way as a Canon man for over 20 years I hate to use other maker lenses but Sigma can produce the goods at a 3rd of the Canon equivalent.
So if Canon could stop and rethink the so called pro lens mentality then we would all be happier and Canon would be richer.

I am giving up and returning my D60 for a full refund and will re join the D-SLR crew when I can afford one with a true 35mm footprint and lenses that give you their true focal lengths.

[wingnut1]

DVWarrior,
I have the Sigma 20mm f1.8 and it is the sharpest wideangle I ever had. I use it on a Nikon D1x and it's as sharp as the Nikon lenses I own, although you need to be careful with flare.
You need to have an understanding of how lenses work with digital. The x factor with the D60 & 1D etc. means only the centre part of the lens is used, but this is usually the sharpest part of the lens anyway and means you won't have sharpness falloff at the edges, so your image has the potential to be sharper from the centre portion of the glass than from the whole area.
On the other hand, all the digital SLR's (and all digicams) have an AA filter in front of the CCD or CMOS sensor and this has the effect of softening the image a bit. There are no exceptions to this and you just have to get used to either sharpening in-camera or doing it in Photoshop afterwards, some AA filters soften the image more than others. If you shoot RAW then you won't be able to sharpen in-camera anyway as you get the raw data from the CCD without alterations, the exception being that some RAW formats allow you to tag sharpening & colour info to the file.
Some lenses are really sharp and you may not have to sharpen the image at all, or very little. I'm a Nikon DSLR man so I can't say about Canon glass, but the Nikon 60mm Micro is the sharpest lens I ever used and the macro shots I take with it very rarely need any sharpening at all.

[DVWarrior]

Sorry but I have a few DV camcorders all of which are sharp. I had an Olympus E-10 which produced sharper images than my 2 D60s. You don't spend upwards of £2000 to get a compromise on image sharpness.
You start of sharp then tweek in photoshop not the other way about.
My D60 is faulty it produces soft images with a very sharp 20mm lens end of story and this forum is full of unsharp un happy D60 owners.

[jpbeale]

All the consumer-level digital cameras I know of have significant sharpening added internally. Once the camera has "sharpened" an image it cannot be perfectly undone afterwards. *

Canon made a design choice with their D30 and D60 DSLR models not to add very much sharpening, leaving it to the user to add the shapening deemed necessary for each particular image, using the algorithms of their choice. Many professional camera users appreciate this flexibility, although it is an additional step, it gives them more control over the image. If you don't choose to excercise that control you can simply use software that will batch-process all your images with some fixed degree of sharpening.

*in theory it could be undone if you knew the exact camera algorithm, except where levels are clipped, but the algorithms are not generally available AFAIK, and anyway if you work with JPEG, the compression artifacts defeat you.

[DVWarrior]

I would not call the Olympus (£1400 new 2001) 4MP
E-10 a consumer camera by any stretch of the imagination...anyway you are getting away from the point.
BACK TO BASICS...
What is the point of Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc. making pin sharp lenses if the end result is soft.
Professionals like me choose to make pin sharp images soft ither by using a SF filter or in Photoshop.
If you can't rely on the picture you are taking to be pin sharp whats the point...why do Canon etc. only show pin sharp pics as samples because that's what you should expect from a camera that costs more than a Hasselblad.

I will try to explain...

When I take a pic with a D60 it looks pin sharp in the viewfinder. When I look at the image it has focused about 0.5mm back from the focus point...that's not correct.
Digital sharpening is entirely a seperate issue...the lens does not hit the chip as it should causing all pics to be a nats crotchet out of focus, making it a mechanical issue not an electronic one.

[GenEOS]

I was going to write a nice reply and try to add my two cents worth, but... From your reply I see you don't really want answers or ideas to help. If you had better results with ther cameras, then I suggest you go back to them.

[redbutt]

There has been some mention on the board of having Canon "tweak" the camera for you. Have you tried that? Just tell them the problem and have them adjust the camera.

[jpbeale]

Perhaps I misunderstood the issue. If the lens itself is good, but there does not appear to be a plane of sharp focus anywhere in your image, I would point to Canon's level of electronic sharpening which gives a less sharp appearing*image than you would expect from using most other digital still or video cameras, that use stronger post-processing internally.

But if your final image has a plane of focus somewhere other than where it appeared in the viewfinder, then you have a mechanical misadjustment in the viewfinder screen which should be fixable by Canon service. If this is the case, if you focused say 5 feet away in the viewfinder you would end up with an area of the final image which is in perfect focus, but perhaps at 5.5 feet away instead.

*by "sharp appearing" I mean acutance, not resolution, as described here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml

[DVWarrior]

GenEOS wrote:
I was going to write a nice reply and try to add my two cents worth, but... From your reply I see you don't really want answers or ideas to help. If you had better results with ther cameras, then I suggest you go back to them.

Don't understand why you are offended by my last reply but thanks chaps.
The D60 is MINCE and is going back to the shop.
Sorry but I don't tolerate 1 day old £2K SLRs going back to Canon or anyone else for that matter to be fixed, it should not be duff in the first place !!!
Optics are all the same when you choose between Canon & Nikon, as much as I am a Canon man I have to bow to Nikon for a while till Canon get their act together.

Reading other forums and the need for a decent D-SLR
I might plum for the Finepix S2...any comments will be appreciated.

[hmhm]

DVWarrior wrote:

When I take a pic with a D60 it looks pin sharp in the viewfinder. When I look at the image it has focused about 0.5mm back from the focus point...that's not correct.
Digital sharpening is entirely a seperate issue...the lens does not hit the chip as it should causing all pics to be a nats crotchet out of focus, making it a mechanical issue not an electronic one.



Off the top of my hand, here are a few possibilities, you can judge on your own which seem the most likely:

1) There is an international conspiracy to push faulty equipment on the market, and though thousands of D60 owners have never taken a single sharp photo ever, only the few that are immune to Canon's hypnotizing mind rays have figured it out and decided to complain. The rest are deluded into believing that they are using their D60 to make fantastic images.

2) Photos from the D60 call for USM in post-processing the way a recipe might call for adding "salt to taste". Try editing your images using unsharp mask in Photoshop, or try using the in-camera "+1" setting for sharpness.

3) Your D60 is faulty in some way. Unlikely, if you've seen the same problem on two cameras.

4) Your lenses aren't the sharpest. I wouldn't be surprised if a 20mm lens wasn't very sharp, but your 28-70 Sigma should have been fine.

5) The steam coming out your ears is fogging the lens. Calm down and catch your breath. Lots of people are getting great results with
the D60, some of them had to be patient and learn one or two new things along the way.

6) Your softness is due to AF inaccuracy. Try manual focus on a large subject (e.g. a building) at f/8. Is it still blurry?

7) You're using a very small aperture (e.g. f/22) and you're seeing some softness due to diffraction.

Try posting a sample image somewhere, along with EXIF info.
-harry

[DVWarrior]

Thanks Harry,

Answer...
1. Gosh you may have something here...!

2. I did try the +1 sharpness in Set 1 plus remembered to use any prog other than full auto which ignores Set 1 settings.

3. If they are from the same batch they could both be faulty.

4. 20mm lens looks pin sharp in my viewfinder plus many folk have had great results with same lens in a D100.

5. Yip the steam could be a factor.

6. OK I was going to by sarky but thanks I have tried this.

7. Nine it's cloudy over here, I am lucky to get f5.6 with 1/125 sec in daylight but I have tested using external pro flash gun at 1/180 @ f8 still no joy.

Thanks for your time all of you but I think I will still migrate to the S2 and try the competition.

[redbutt]

I assume that you're going with the Fuji because you have Nikon lenses? Have you thought about checking out the Sigma camera with the new Foveon sensor? Just a thought...since you now seem to be in "test" mode after your D60 experience.

The results from the Foveon are supposed to be quite remarkable.

Not that I'm trying to keep you in a Canon, but did you try your lenses on a D30? I'm just wondering if you are seeing something that we can't. It is possible that your visual acuity is "superhuman"...there have been studies to that effect that some people just have amazing eyesight (particularly noteable in pro athletes). And, no I'm not being sarcastic...I'm completely serious.

[DVWarrior]

Strangly enough redbutt I do have 20-20 + vision, I can see subtle changes in colour, I even note that both eyes have slightly different colour casts, green and red.
I am far from a pro athlete but do walk my dogs 3 times a day.
I don't know anyone with a D30 and no I have not got any Nikon lenses...yet !

I don't fancy the Sigma camera because you only get RAW pics with no JPegs and I bet it becomes a bore when you are trying to convert 30 or more RAW pics...the memory alone puts me off.

Butt thanks anyway.

PS Had a peek at your web site some good sharp well composed colourfull pics...Mr Butt

If I do get an S2 I will let you know how I get on compared to the D60.

[Etrigan63]

FWIW, I was under the same impression you were.

However, I got the RAW religion. I shoot exclusively in the RAW format and use BreezeBrowser to convert my images to other (usable) formats. The pictures are tack sharp. I use PS7 for any creative editing, but BreezeBrowser handles all of my conversions and shapening tasks. The program also includes customized color profiles for the D30, D60, 1D & 1Ds. Does a really excellent job (and I'm not gregarious enough to try the linear conversions) in my opinion.

[Timo Autiokari]

Hello DVWarrior,

I am on my 2nd D60 and 2nd Sigma lens 20mm F1.8. My viewfinder shows me pin sharp images but the camera image is slightly soft. WHY ?

Images from digital cameras that have only 1 sensor (those that are using a color mask array on the sensor) are all a little soft. And Cmos sensors produce a little more soft images than CCD sensors because the CMos sensors have far smaller fill-factor.

The incamera sw could easily sharpen the image considerably but no-one really wants this from a higher quality camera because sharpened images can not be edited well. Shapening should be done only as the last step in the post-processing.

I got a shock to find that my 1st lens the 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma was in fact a 38-112mm f2.8

No it is the very same 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma. There is no enlargement because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, only the image area is cropped. The 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma gives you exactly the same perspective and will not bring the subject any closer when you attach it to the D60 than when you attach it to a 35mm film body.

[Jade14]

I might plum for the Finepix S2...any comments will be appreciated. :

Sure! Once you get your S2 be sure to turn in-camera sharpening all the way up or else you are in for a big surprise...

Sharpening is not a sad fact of digital photography, it actually is a chance to selectively enhance edge sharpness (acutance). After years of being stuck with presharpened film, we finally get a chance to enhance acutance only where needed (out of focus, deep shadows or blue skies dont benefit from it) and in the right amount (a web image has totally different radius, amount and threshold requirements than a 2880 dpi inkjet print....).

I have done my own film processing since 1981, working with Minoltas, Pentaxes, Nikons, Canons, Fujicas, Bronicas, Hasselblads, Graflex and Wisner cameras (4x5). Believe me, some of the sharpest (yet natural looking) 11x14 photos I have achieved come from a D60/Photoshop/Epson 1280 combo.

Jorge Alban
Costa Rica

[DVWarrior]

No it is the very same 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma. There is no enlargement because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, only the image area is cropped. The 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma gives you exactly the same perspective and will not bring the subject any closer when you attach it to the D60 than when you attach it to a 35mm film body.


Yes...but you loose the 28mm perspective because you only see the centre of the lens...that's no good...you loose the dramatic effect of the lens.

I returned the D60 to the shop today and hey presto the camera No.2 is indeed faulty...it is only cabable of focusing correctly on one side of the frame this leads me to think the chip itself has been mounted squint.

I think there is a lot of pressure to get these cameras out and the QA is slack...Oh there are no S2s for about 2 months so I am told.

[billfranklin]

I started a thread on another forum related to this problem. If some of you want to check it out, I would be interested in your comments. I think the answer to my problem may be somewhere in the replies in this forum, but I just can't seem to find it. Maybe the Canon lens mount being out of line.

Anyway, I would be interested in your comments:http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=003725

Thanks,

Bill F.

[Rayz]

Issues like this can never be resolved by subjective opinion. Soft compared with what? Have you guys ever heard of test charts!! Norman Koren has his own specially devised test chart in his lens testing tutorial that's a real eye opener. Print out a few of these, stick them on a wall and get some hard facts.

You can find the charts at http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html

[Hawkeye12]

good one Ray,
i find my D60 pics that i shoot in RAW to be perfect once i post process and add USM.
sometimes, people that don't understand digital have a hard time trying to figure out just what you are suppose to do with the image after it's loaded to the computer.

[DVWarrior]

Although the test chart is a good idea why should I go to the expence of buying test charts to confirm what I already know...2 duff D60s that had focus problems.
I went for the D60 for 2 reasons.

1. Most reports in the pro press and internet gave the D60 a good write up.
2. I like Canon products and use a broadcast lens as part of my video kit.

PS. Mr Eye you are still an idiot and as I could run rings round you photographically or on the computer would you shut your amateur mouth and stay off this forum.

[Rayz]

DVWarrior,
You must be on dope and not thinking straight. If the press reports are good but your D60 isn't, then there are two possibilities (probably more).

(1) Your D60 is faulty.

(2) Your standards are higher than the folks who write the press reports.

Only way to resolve it is to print out a few Norman Koren test charts and do a few comparisons. THEY'RE FREE, MAN.

When you've done this, get back to us.

[Etrigan63]

If I want to see this behavior all I have to do is walk down the block to my daughter's kindergarten class!

The man claims to have softness issues with his D60's. If he wants help, take the photos of the test charts and post the photos. We're all adilts here (I hope) so let's stop the playground antics and resolve his issue (be it actual or perceptual).

If you just want to vent your spleen please do so elsewhere.

Calling into question other peoples' intelligence/parentage/abilities doesn't resolve anything!

[DVWarrior]

Tut Tut...Can I just add once more........................

I NO LONGER (SAD) HAVE MY D60s...A CHART WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD IDEA...BUT I SLIPED UP I STILL HAVE THE PHOTOS IF I CAN POST THEM SOMEWHERE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT.

[Pekka]

(lots of personal insult messages deleted)

C'mon calm down you all. I don't want to start banning people - I trust you have some sense to read what you're about to post at least three times when adrenalin is high.
Thanks.

[kirk]

Please see the following message thread:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4539

I think it may be exactly what is being discussed here, especially the Sigma issue. You will also find other posts here about issues with Sigma lenses. UNDERSTAND that I am not bashing Sigma, but it appears that Canons own lenses work better with their line of digital cameras. In general, I try not to make quick decisions and give every chance possible for a vendor to prove a product. I do this because I am in business myself and know how frustrating it is to have a customer "bash" a product only to find out that there was a logical explanation to what doesn't appear to be right. Taking time to work with a vendor can often save a lot of embarassment.

I would be interested to know if the prints looked "out of focus" or looking at the images on the computer was what looked "out of focus". One thing I learned real quick was not to judge a photo by the way it looks on the screen. A story was once told about a woman that always complained that her neighbors laundry (that was always "hung out to dry" ) always looked dirty. After a while, her husband was tired of hearing her bickering and told her that if she would wash her own windows, the neigbors laundry wouldn't look so dirty!

(Is it possible that your Sigma lens is defective? Two cameras with the same lens producing the same perceived defect?)

The point being, many monitors are "fuzzy", "blurry" or whatever you want to call it. In addition, when we analyze digital pictures on the computer, we tend to ZOOM IN so much that if we actually printed a picture at the size we were critiqueing on the computer, we would have a wall mural! In actuality, most pictures look great when printed at 4 x 6 to 8 x 10 untouched! I know, because I frequently do this.

That brings me to my next question: What were you replacing with the D60? If it was a 35mm camera, I can't understand why the prints would not be superior to any 35mm. If you are trying to replace, or step up to a medium format camera, I can see why you would be disapointed with the D60.

One thig is for sure. Your haste to make such a quick decision to return the camera has prevented you from determining if any digital camera would be aceptable to you. Here is a suggestion from personal experience: Go to a camera store. Take several pictures (of the same object, from the same distance, with the same camera settings). Try this on several digital cameras. Have the lab process the prints while you eat lunch. Analyze the prints. One of two things are certain. You will find a camera you like, or conclude that digital is not the format for you.

I am not arguing that the pictures look soft on the computer. Then again, I don't carry my computer around to show my pictures. I generally have them printed, which, by the way, looks FAR superior to the prints made from my Canon Elan. And from my amateur viewpoint, that is what matters anyways!

[Etrigan63]

Thank you for being a voice of reason.