My Rebel XT is going back to the store.

[JohnW37]

Hi everyone. I have been wrestling the last 2 weeks with my new Rebel Xt. I find that all the pics have the "soft focus" issue. I took similar pictures with my Sony DSC717 and the Rebel XT and posted them here. My question is.....why is the Rebel XT so soft-focussed? and Why is does the Sony's picture look so much better out of the camera?

The Xt is going back today.

[bauerman]

You are not going to get comparable pictures straight out of the camera from an XT that you are used to with the pro-sumer 717's. That is just a fact - DSLR shots require more work in post processsing to get exactly the same sharpness and contrast that you are used to seeing from your other cameras. What lens are you using on the XT? What aperture? What shutter speed? These items would be very helpful in determining if you actually have a problem or if you just have hand shake from too slow of a shutter speed or a similar issue.

Your Sony's pictures will most likely always be better out of the box - but that does NOT mean that the XT has a problem - at all. Maybe we can help you out.............post some information about what settings and lenses you are using.

[sugar_babygirli]

You know, my 20 D did the EXACT same thing when I first got it. They were incredibly soft compared to my 4 mp Minolta.....but that was with the kit lens.

I purchased the 85mm 1.8 and Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 and WOW they are incredibly sharp you can see every single eyelash practically. No post processing now! :) Maybe it's just your kit lens (they tend to be crappy) and you should keep the XT and try a different piece of glass?

Just my $0.02 :)

[tim]

Looks like you're using wide an apertire to me, parts of the leaves are focused fine. It'd be useful if you posted the image with EXIF information still embedded, that'd give us a lot more clues about what's going on. It could also be you have a poor lens, try another lens in a shop before you return that camera. Once you have a good lens and understand how to use it it will make you great pictures.

[Curtis N]

I agree with Tim. It's not a focusing problem, nor a lens issue.

It's a depth-of-field issue (DOF).

Thankfully, it's something you can control, once you learn how. It's one of those critical concepts that's covered in every book on basic photography.

[JohnW37]

Thanks for all your comments. I dont have the EXIF info because I am at work...but..in a nutshell....

Both cameras were set for full auto. The lens on the XT is a Canon 17-85 EFS (not the kit lens). I paid $799.00 for this lens.

Is there something that I am missing here? Why would i pay 3 times as much for a DSLR when i have to work 5 times as hard to get a good picture?

Dont get me wrong....I love taking photos with the XT. I love seeing "through the lens" as I shoot. I just see alot of fuzziness going on. I understand DOF and its implications, but you cannot deny that of the two shots about, the Sony 717 wins for clarity and DOF.

Cheers. :)

[Curtis N]

Why would i pay 3 times as much for a DSLR when i have to work 5 times as hard to get a good picture?
Because with a DSLR, you get to define what is a "good" picture.

Sometimes you don't want a lot of DOF. It's often considered advantagous to blur the background so the viewer's attention is automatically directed toward the main subject, be it a person, a flower, or whatever.

I made the jump from P&S to DSLR for a number of reasons:
1) The ability to attach a wide variety of lenses
2) The hot shoe for a "real" flash unit
3) Higher ISO capability for low light conditions
4) Much wider parameters in terms of aperture, shutter speed, etc.
5) The ability to shoot RAW (which is discussed to great length in other threads)
6) A multitude of other capabilities too numberous to mention

I'm not familiar with the Sony 717, so perhaps it has some of these capabilities. But the point has been made in this forum more than once that if you're going to shoot in full auto mode, the advantages of a DSLR may not justify the price. When you get to the point where you want to take full control of your images, you won't want to use the P&S anymore.

[JohnW37]

I am aware what DOF can bring to a photo and I am aware that it is used to provide focus to the "item of interest" in a photo. Most of the shots that I take are with manual settings and I fully appreciate the advantages of manual controls. To me, even the parts of the shot taken with the XT that are in focus.....are still out of focus. There is a softening going on.

The Sony 717 has full manual controls as well (albeit, not as wide a range of apertures as the XT) and the shots that I take in manual mode with the 717 are always *a lot* sharper then the XT's images.

I have taken shots with manual focus.....focussed precisely on a subject....it looks amazing in the lens during the shot.....and when i upload it to my computer. the sharp focus is gone. Even in the RAW file (which I use as well).

Are we, in general, accepting lower quality shots with the DLSR's because people have it in their head's that DSLR's are better?

When the DOF is set for the desired effect, the shutter has been pressed and the picture has been uploaded, there is still a huge difference from what I saw in the lens compared to what I am seeing in the final picture.

[twalker294]

Here are a couple of excerpts from messages that I posted on DPR last week regarding the same type of question. I think they are appropriate here:

"We see plenty of p&s users come in here after buying a digital SLR and complaining that their p&s takes better pictures. No, it doesn't -- it takes pictures that have more "punch" straight out of the camera because they have greatly increased saturation and contrast but they lack detail in the highlights and shadows because they have much less dynamic range than a digital SLR. They also have a lot more noise and are basically unusable over ISO 100. Just read the Sony forum and see everyone there who insists that their 828 takes better pictures than any digital SLR. I haven't looked there lately but I can guarantee they are there -- they always are."

"I don't want to scare you away from a digital SLR either. They are fantastic tools but they require more work on the back end than p&s digitals and anyone who tells you different is either living on another planet or their standards aren't as high as most DSLR owners. But if you are willing to learn a bit and take the time to process the keepers, you'll be rewarded with fantastic shots that no p&s digital can touch. Just don't fall into the trap of comparing the straight out of the camera pictures from the 20D and your p&s side by side and saying "I spent how much for THIS?" Instead, learn the ins and outs of post processing and then compare the p&s to your final product from the 20D and you'll say "I paid for THIS!"

As stated in the above quotes, a point and shoot digital will give you pictures with more "punch" straight out of the camera. This is because the camera does more processing of the picture such as adding sharpening, contrast, and saturation. However once these adjustments have been made they can't be undone and they are done at the expense of dynamic range, shadow detail, etc. Sony is one of the worst about this.

The pictures from the XT will run rings around those from the 717 but they do take some work because Canon is leaving the decisions about how the final product will look up to you. If that doesn't interest you then return the XT and buy an F828. From what I have seen it is a great camera that produces excellent pictures with no post processing. But you STILL won't be a the level of quality of the XT...

Todd

[EOSAddict]

If you don't want the XT.....

[soupdragon]

sugar_babygirli

You know, my 20 D did the EXACT same thing when I first got it. They were incredibly soft compared to my 4 mp Minolta.....but that was with the kit lens.


Please mention that on the unadulterated junk thread.

[Curtis N]

This is because the camera does more processing of the picture such as adding sharpening, contrast, and saturation.
That was going to be my next (and final) guess.
What are the sharpening/contrast/saturation settings on the two cameras? Even if you shoot raw, the camera settings will be used in the conversion by default unless you change them.

[roanjohn]

Hmmm...........I would need to know more.

Is this a center crop?? Or is it to the side?? What aperture did you use?? The 17-85 is not the sharpest lens in the block..............due to the XT's bigger sensor (compared to the Sony), you will really need a very good lens (usually prime) to harness its full potential. Do not return it yet........practice..........Use a smaller aperture, see if this phenomena still occurs.

Ro1

[pierrot]

There is another very dummy experience to make: put pictures made with the 20d or dRebel in a folder of your computer, other ones made with a P&S into another folder. Then choose to display the folders content as thumbnails. Then switch from one folder to the other one, then back and again. What do you see as an evidence?

Thumbnails of pictures made with the P&S are far more punchy (saturated, bright and contrasted) than the ones coming from the DSLR. This is simply because of the flattering "preprocessing" made by the P&S camera for the benefit of a consumer's eye. DSLR don't apply such an "enhancement" and their pictures appear more flat.

I noticed that when sorting my pictures made with G5 and my 20d. When you jump from a collection to the other, the visual difference is really stunning!

[dmstraton]

Don't do it...there isn't anything wrong with the camera. I am an XT newbie (so forgive the lack of formal camera-vocabulary) and experienced somewhat of the same problem. My issue stemmed from incomplete knowledge of how the AF system worked, being used to focusing on the using the the center only and then composing from there, the 7 auto-focus areas threw me a bit. I kept getting focus on the wrong spot. I basically locked down the center focus area so it was more like a p&s (and my ancient Maxxum SLR) and practiced with it a bit...no problems. Definitely, you won't get "punchy" images like on a Sony, but blow up your images a bit and take a look at the difference. No comparison, XT amazing.

Lens choice definitely makes a difference...the 18-55 EFS is okay, I prefer the Canon - 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM EF Lens that I picked up along with the kit...I enjoy this lens much better, but one other thing I have definitely experienced is due to me: Camera shake...once I worked on my stance etc, a lot of issues went away.:cool:

[ed2day]

That out of focus image you are complaining about is what you paid the big bucks for! The P&S makes it very difficult to get out of focus areas with its inherenently large DOF (due to it's small physical size). That's actually considered a big advantage of SLR's. I suspect Tim is right about DOF and focusing issues. You say you shot in Normal mode which gives unpredictable focusing and I believe will tend to pick the closest objects. But even objects that are in focus may not be as sharp as the point&shoot for the reasons mentioned. There's more work involved with the DSLR both in taking the picture and after, but I think it's worth it. If it's more than you bargained for stick with the Sony.

[JohnW37]

Again, thanks for the suggestion / comments.

More info: I used the center AF point on both cameras when taking the pic. Both photos are cropped from the center.

As far as post processing, I have done that to several of the photos that I have taken and some HAVE come out amazingly. My only problem with this camera is the focus. Not DOF, not colors, just focus. I will state it again.....even the parts of the photograph that are in focus, are out.

Post process-sharpening can only do so much if a certain level of sharpness is not there from the beginning, right? Or am I way off base?

I want to keep this camera....I really do......I also want shots where the part of the image that I want to stand out, is in focus. I am going to play around with some DOF stuff tonight and post some more pics....

I appreciate all the comments. This was exactly what I was looking for

Cheers :)

[CyberPet]

Of course it can be a problem with the camera or the lens.... I mean, there's always that chance that it's a bad copy. But also remember that a compact camera does "things" with the images that a DSLR doesn't, so it does require more work on your behalf. Plus of course the better glass you have, the sharper images, but even then you have some post processing to do.

So... to rule out camera or lens, you need to do some tests. Tripod, same subject, same settings and different lenses. And if these tests proves to be "correct" then it's more up to the user (i.e. us, you, me and everyone else) to deal with the results and the output of the camera.

You can also try different settings in the camera, if you want to increase sharpness in-camera instead of doing it afterwards (however I suggest not, you have more control afterwards), adjust for saturation, etc.

So don't take it back just yet... frist rule out any problems, then lets see what's going on. :)

[lostdoggy]

You know when I first got my DRebel I demonstrated to my coworkers by taking a candid 3/4 shot of another coworker. I put it on the monitor loaded it up on PS Element and zoomed in on his ear at around 600X and everybody was in awe to see the hair sticking out of his ear clearly. There were very little pixelating like some P&S at 600X.

[Jackal]

I haven't had a problem with my XT taking blurry pictures. Here's something hairy to show detail :p

[KennyG]

The shot was taken at F4.5, 28mm with a lens that has a minimum focus distance of 1.15ft. What you see is mainly a DOF issue. You can not relate the aperture settings on an F717 to an XT due to the sensor differences. You need to use a much smaller aperture with your XT to get sufficient DOF, which you do not have in your example.

Apart from the over-processing done by the Sony (I had one once, so I know how agressive it is) the huge DOF gives the false impression that it is good at focussing. A DSLR on the other hand can have a DOF as sharp as a knife blade and you have to understand how to best work with it, such as the effect on close vs distant subjects.

[eos-rob-uk]

johnw37

don't lose heart, i had a few doubt's about the 350d, some reviews called the images "soft", it's the price you pay for the anti-alias filter partly.

I did a focus test when i got the camera.

go here for full details how to do a quick focus test

http://www.canon-dslr.com/Canon_Jan05/Canon_SLR_Focus_Test.htm

Or you can just put your box on a table 10 ft or so away, center focus on white bit with black text for contrast and square up the camera to it and place a white plastic ruller at 45 degrees to the edge and shoot the edge of the box at various focal leghths and aperture settings (on a tripod of course and use self timer) use manual and auto focus if you want. this should show back or front focus problems.

this will show you without doubt if there is a problem

try these tests with all your lenses and post your results.

here is a crop of a shot i took today with my kit lens on a dull (yet again day) sorry dial up guys stright from camera 350D set to parameter 2 thats no extra contrast, sharpening, saturation etc. I like to trust photoshop to do these if required.

Large JPEG
ISO100
F18
1.3 seconds
focal lenth 40mm
as you can see not tack sharp but not out of focus

regards

rob B

P.S.
hi KennyG hope to bump into you at Croft some time
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bateman.family/Croft-bikes/IMG_4531-test.jpg

[tim]

It sounds to me like you're trying to talk yourself out of a digital SLR. P&S cameras can give great images, and if you're not interested in learning a lot about the camera and post processing, a P&S is definitely more suitable for you than a DSLR. A DSLR will give you flexability and features a P&S can't touch, once you learn to use it well. Figure a minimum of 6 months to become reasonable with the camera, and a year to get really good. And i'm not kidding. I'm pretty good with technology and i'm not bad at taking photos, for myself I figure it'll take a year before i'll say I can take a picture in just about any circumstances: night, day, fires, rain, fireworks, flash photography, etc, etc. For different peoples it could vary between a few months and a few years before you're able to take a great picture in any situation.

If you do want to make great pictures you'll have to be prepared for the learning curve. If not, return the XT. And like I said earlier, go into a camera shop and try an L lens (Luxary - Canons best) to see if it's just a problem with your lens.

[robertwgross]

Is there something that I am missing here?

Yes, you seem to be missing the concept of depth of field.

When you point your lens down toward some flowers like that, the camera is going to have to reach toward a wide open aperture in order to get a decent exposure. You, as the operator, should be able to choose other settings to avoid the problem.

---Bob Gross---

[jimlp]

Thanks for all your comments. I dont have the EXIF info because I am at work...but..in a nutshell....

Both cameras were set for full auto. The lens on the XT is a Canon 17-85 EFS (not the kit lens). I paid $799.00 for this lens.

Is there something that I am missing here? Why would i pay 3 times as much for a DSLR when i have to work 5 times as hard to get a good picture?

Dont get me wrong....I love taking photos with the XT. I love seeing "through the lens" as I shoot. I just see alot of fuzziness going on. I understand DOF and its implications, but you cannot deny that of the two shots about, the Sony 717 wins for clarity and DOF.

Cheers. :)

I wouldn't take the camera back but I would return the lens if possible, you payed way to much for it (assuming you are in the US).

[Icepirate]

Some of the early images I took from my xt came out soft as well. I have found that experience with the camera, and time have mostly corrected this problem.(finding out i had accidently set the diopter adjustment all the way up didn't hurt either!) I purchased a 50 mm 1.8 II lens to try some portraits with. I did get some nice shots but was unhappy with the 80mm effective on the xt. Since I got drafted by grandma to shoot my sister wedding later this month, I splurged. I purchased a 24-70 f 2.8L. There is a dramatic difference. If i get a soft focus from this lens, I did something wrong! Dslr's take more work than traditional point and shoot cameras, but once you get used to them, there is no comparison. After learning how i was messing up my pics, I have been able to get nice sharp pics out of all my lenses. You have to learn your equipment, how it works and why. Its like driving a car, when you first tried you werent very good, but would you consider selling your car and going back to riding a bicycle everyday?

[Poco]

It isn't really fair to compare the images from the P&S and XT without turning up the saturation, contrast, and sharpness parameters on the XT. I would try cranking those up to the maximum and see how the images turn out. These are not the optimal settings for most, but if it looks "better" to you then at least you know where to start.

I'm assuming that the first image is the XT image (DOF is smaller) - but it is over exposed. This can lead to lower contrast which can make it look less sharp. Try getting the exposure about the same between the two.

[Hellashot]

On the first 2 images posted, PARTS of the images are in focus. Were you using "green square" mode or were you choosing the autofocus points? Green square does not do well in picking the autofocus points you want. I recommend using P mode as your default mode.

And my kit lens is not soft at all. And images from compact digital cameras will look better "right out of the camera" because they are adjusted to do so. dSLR images are meant to be post processed. If you dont want to post process, then the XT isn't the camera for you.

I've had my Drebel for a year now and I've come a LONG way in that time since I knew just about nothing when I got my camera. Your learning curve might be very similar.

[bauerman]

MANY new users of DSLR's mistake shallow DOF for out of focus issues..............very common and very correctable with proper settings on the camera............invest the time in playing with the XT and gaining and understanding of its particular behaviour..............it's quite a bit more camera than a 717.

[JohnW37]

Pamela,

What you have in your pic is exactly what I am seeing in mine. Lack of DOF and focus. While your photo is pleasing to look at, there is no sharp focus point. Do you have any images that are razor sharp with the XT? That is what I am looking for. Even the above photo from EOS-ROB-UK is not sharp. These shots do not convince me at all that I should keep the XT over my P&S as far as aclarity goes.

Thanks for sharing, :)

[DocFrankenstein]

Post process-sharpening can only do so much if a certain level of sharpness is not there from the beginning, right? Or am I way off base?
Way off.

Sony has the same sensor array (or similar)... it's just sharpens in camera.

Try applying USM (unsharp mask) in photoshop. It will sharpen the image and will bring the image to the level of point and shoot in terms of post processing and sharpness.

try it... I think the usual parameters are .3 150 or something like that.

[ed2day]

John,
I have to agree with you about the photos posted above--not the best example. I have the original DReb, not the XT, or I'd post some pics. I can if you want.

Don't underestimate what post sharpening can do. I can be fairly dramatic and you should be able to do it better manually than in-camera.

[am_pitbull_terrier]

I haven't had a problem with my XT taking blurry pictures. Here's something hairy to show detail :p

NICE:D

[gastroboy]

use a custom setting in the XT, pump up color, contrast and sharpness to the highest level and then compare.

or shoot a pic with both camera's in its raw mode (if the sony has one)

if it still doesn't work out change the lens - you might have got a dud

[lostdoggy]

Here is DRebel Pic:

[eos-rob-uk]

these are the best i have got so far with the 350D and Kit lens.
F8 and above ISO 400 and a bit of usm


hope to have a Canon EF 28-105 f:3.5-4.5 soon
regards

rob B
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bateman.family/Croft-bikes/post/IMG_4076.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bateman.family/Croft-bikes/post/IMG_2380.jpg

[am_pitbull_terrier]

these are the best i have got so far with the 350D and Kit lens.
F8 and above ISO 400 and a bit of usm


hope to have a Canon EF 28-105 f:3.5-4.5 soon
regards

rob B

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bateman.family/Croft-bikes/post/IMG_2380.jpg

Great shot.