Canon and Nikon

[MikeDB]

I know I'm new here but could I suggest you shoot some proper test images. Get this weeks Amateur Photographer, it has a free test chart (or download one). Set it up and follow the instructions. Shoot a series of images through all apertures. Sure, like running through grey scale tests for DR it will produce a stunningly boring set of images but at least you will be able to tell if your camera and lens combination is working correctly and that your PP is up to scratch. If that's the case then perhaps it's just perception and skill level but at least you will have a bench-mark test to decide on.

Mike

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

A digital image needs just as much work after it's been shot as a film one does.

I know there's some work required PP. However, the better you have to start with, the better the end result. Otherwise we wouldn't pay more than £40 for a lens, no? And we'd be brandishing Casio cameras. All I'm trying to do is to establish what that starting point should be.

TBH from what I can see the problem doesn't exist with the camera, but its operator

It would be helpful if you could tell me how you came to that conclusion. Without mentioning PP, because you haven't seen them PP. Or composition, or lighting, or anything else that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Thanks

If you think pre-processed those photographs look OK, then cool...maybe I'm overestimating the camera and need to spend more time in Photoshop. I'll be interested in the opinions of others on this.

I know I'm new here but could I suggest you shoot some proper test images. Get this weeks Amateur Photographer, it has a free test chart (or download one). Set it up and follow the instructions. Shoot a series of images through all apertures. Sure, like running through grey scale tests for DR it will produce a stunningly boring set of images but at least you will be able to tell if your camera and lens combination is working correctly and that your PP is up to scratch. If that's the case then perhaps it's just perception and skill level but at least you will have a bench-mark test to decide on.

Thanks, Mike. I'll check that out.

 

[fixedimage]

You don't need to be shooting test charts.

Heck I don't even worry about test charts and I'm using well used 2nd and 3rd (and probably 4th and 5th) hand bodies and lenses to shoot weddings and getting images in the national papers.

While it's impossible to tell for sure from the small jpegs uploaded here, the images of the dog and the lenscap look pretty sharp to me so in my opinion, there's no problem with the equipment.

Look at that pic of the dog, I can't find anything wrong with it. The colours are lovely and rich, it's sharp, has nice DOF, most of all though, it's nicely composed, from a nice low viewpoint to bring the viewer eye to eye with the dog and has a good focal point, something many of the images you have posted are missing.

Practice will bring consistency and if you actually pay attention to what your camera is set to then it's more than capable of taking a decent picture.

 

[Rod.F]

...I've seen people change cameras and their results have changes immediately.

Hi, I've got a 350D also, had it about 5 years and would like to write in its defence. During those years I have got to know it inside out, from going through the menu blindfolded to making adjustments when taking pictures. I'm pretty sure that when I do get a new camera (possible 5D mk3) that my results will immediately be a step back as it will require a lot of mastering. This seems to be the case with most people I know, the only people I know that get immediate better results are those only use the auto mode on the old and new cameras.

Perhaps your camera is a dud, it does happen, however I have never been under the impression that the 350D isn't a capable camera. Anytime that I do not get results that I am happy with is because of my own failing. Things like mirror lock up and picking the right f stop do help, however normally the problem is me taking the camera out on day when things don't even look great to start with.

 

[MikeDB]

You don't need to be shooting test charts.

Why, they work.

Heck I don't even worry about test charts and I'm using well used 2nd and 3rd (and probably 4th and 5th) hand bodies and lenses to shoot weddings and getting images in the national papers.

While it's impossible to tell for sure from the small jpegs uploaded here, the images of the dog and the lenscap look pretty sharp to me so in my opinion, there's no problem with the equipment.

Look at that pic of the dog, I can't find anything wrong with it. The colours are lovely and rich, it's sharp, has nice DOF, most of all though, it's nicely composed, from a nice low viewpoint to bring the viewer eye to eye with the dog and has a good focal point, something many of the images you have posted are missing.

Practice will bring consistency and if you actually pay attention to what your camera is set to then it's more than capable of taking a decent picture.

It's a fine answer, a good answer even but not an answer to the original question. Any analysis on the images posted is, right or wrong irelevant. Good dog picture, bad dog picture. Good shed, bad shed. Composition, framing, white balance, ISO, JPEG, RAW all valid but not pertiant. Boiling the question down it really is about either quality, ability or equipment. In reality it's a question about equipment. Best way to test that is with a chart.

Mike

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

You don't need to be shooting test charts.

Heck I don't even worry about test charts and I'm using well used 2nd and 3rd (and probably 4th and 5th) hand bodies and lenses to shoot weddings and getting images in the national papers.

You're probably right. If you're familiar with a variety of cameras, you know what to expect.

I'm not. And I genuinely think the results are a bit off. Just want to check them out, that's all..

While it's impossible to tell for sure from the small jpegs uploaded here, the images of the dog and the lenscap look pretty sharp to me so in my opinion, there's no problem with the equipment.

I can't explain why it handles simpler and closer subjects better. Maybe it's short sighted! I'm reasonably happy with the way it handles many situations, but it will consistently struggle with more detailed shots, without fail.

Look at that pic of the dog, I can't find anything wrong with it. The colours are lovely and rich, it's sharp, has nice DOF, most of all though, it's nicely composed, from a nice low viewpoint to bring the viewer eye to eye with the dog and has a good focal point, something many of the images you have posted are missing.

Again, the images I've posted are to show what the camera produces. Not what I produce. They are two distinct things, and I'd like not to confuse them.

Practice will bring consistency and if you actually pay attention to what your camera is set to then it's more than capable of taking a decent picture.

I can assure you, I pay attention to what the camera is set to, when I'm not being so lazy. It makes no difference to what I'm describing in this thread. Aside from shooting in RAW, I've utilized every setting available, fired off thousands of shots over the past 5 years, and every single one of them share some common factors that I've outlined.

I'm frustrated tbh, as I've tried everything already, but I guess my best option is to try some other cameras and compare them.

Hi, I've got a 350D also, had it about 5 years and would like to write in its defence. During those years I have got to know it inside out, from going through the menu blindfolded to making adjustments when taking pictures. I'm pretty sure that when I do get a new camera (possible 5D mk3) that my results will immediately be a step back as it will require a lot of mastering. This seems to be the case with most people I know, the only people I know that get immediate better results are those only use the auto mode on the old and new cameras.

Perhaps your camera is a dud, it does happen, however I have never been under the impression that the 350D isn't a capable camera. Anytime that I do not get results that I am happy with is because of my own failing. Things like mirror lock up and picking the right f stop do help, however normally the problem is me taking the camera out on day when things don't even look great to start with.

It's good to see support for it. I love the 350d. I think it's a great piece of kit. I just feel mine has some failings. And for that reason I'd like to hear from people who have positive experiences with it rather than just the negative.

At the end of the day, whether it's the camera, the lens, or just something I'm doing wrong somewhere, or underestimating, it's something I want to put right.

 

[fixedimage]

It's a fine answer, a good answer even but not an answer to the original question. Any analysis on the images posted is, right or wrong irelevant. Good dog picture, bad dog picture. Good shed, bad shed. Composition, framing, white balance, ISO, JPEG, RAW all valid but not pertiant. Boiling the question down it really is about either quality, ability or equipment. In reality it's a question about equipment. Best way to test that is with a chart.

Mike

If the OP can't take a half decent photo of a shed then what makes you think he can take a half decent photo of a test chart?

There have been pics posted which prove - as much as a small jpeg can - that the camera is not at fault.

That said, if the OP can manage to take a decent pic (or several dozen) of a test chart and spending one of these lovely sunny days we have been getting recently stuck in the house doing so is the only way that he can get over the camera being at fault then fair play.

I'd rather be out getting practice by taking photos of something interesting, getting real life use from my camera but maybe the OP wants to wait till we are back to that flat grey low contrast light before he ventures outside.

 

[fixedimage]

I forget to set anything, and realise half an hour later that I've left it in Manual Mode thinking it's in Program

I can assure you, I pay attention to what the camera is set to, when I'm not being so lazy. It makes no difference to what I'm describing in this thread.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

There have been pics posted which prove - as much as a small jpeg can - that the camera is not at fault.

You've yet to explain why?

And I'm not interested in composition and all the rest of it. That's not what this thread is about. We're talking about technical quality from glass and a few electronics, not creative genius.

 

[fixedimage]

You've yet to explain why?

And I'm not interested in composition and all the rest of it. That's not what this thread is about. We're talking about technical quality from glass and a few electronics, not creative genius.

Because they are sharp and well exposed.
I even went as far as to compliment you're use of DOF and low viewpoint.:bang:

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

You're being very selective with your quotes there, fixedimage....missing half the sentance....you're a funny character, but you've also been helpful in your odd little way. I'd prefer to keep this thread going somewhere, even if it is very slowly

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

Because they are sharp and well exposed.
I even went as far as to compliment you're use of DOF and low viewpoint.:bang:

The first three. Are they sharp and well exposed?

 

[fixedimage]

While it's impossible to tell for sure from the small jpegs uploaded here, the images of the dog and the lenscap look pretty sharp to me so in my opinion, there's no problem with the equipment.

Look at that pic of the dog, I can't find anything wrong with it. The colours are lovely and rich, it's sharp, has nice DOF, most of all though, it's nicely composed, from a nice low viewpoint to bring the viewer eye to eye with the dog and has a good focal point,

 

[fixedimage]

The first three. Are they sharp and well exposed?

No, they're awful!
Which is why you should spend a day out shooting, practicing and getting more consistent, not sitting in the house shooting test charts and worrying about your kit. :bang::bang::bang::bang:

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

No, they're awful!
Which is why you should spend a day out shooting, practicing and getting more consistent, not sitting in the house shooting test charts and worrying about your kit. :bang::bang::bang::bang:

I've spent 15 years doing it. It's not working...

Maybe I shouldn't give up my day job, huh

But the question is, how can I be consistent, say shooting dogs, jumping around the room (I can show evidence), but never once manage to get a still shot of a building correct?

 

[odd jim]

The canon 350d is still a very capable camera.

Just browsing through last years landscape photographer of the year book proves this, quite a few finalists used the 350d.

I'd suggest it's technique, and reading some of your posts on here it's evident that you don't take time and care over your shots (just snapping away without knowing your settings?).

 

[odd jim]

I've spent 15 years doing it. It's not working...

Maybe I shouldn't give up my day job, huh

But the question is, how can I be consistent, say shooting dogs, jumping around the room (I can show evidence), but never once manage to get a still shot of a building correct?

What goes wrong when you shoot still buildings?

I can't see how this can go wrong?

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

What goes wrong when you shoot still buildings?

I can't see how this can go wrong?

This is exactly my point!

Buildings, landscapes, anything with detail...the evidence is on the previous page.

And I do check my settings. ..when I feel like it.

 

[odd jim]

This is exactly my point!

Buildings, landscapes, anything with detail...the evidence is on the previous page.

And I do check my settings. ..when I feel like it.

When you feel like it? Why would you not feel like it?? It sounds a bit like you don't care what you shoot or how you shoot it!

As above, what goes wrong when shooting a building, and what lens and settings do you typically use to shoot buildings or landscapes?

 

[fixedimage]

I've spent 15 years doing it. It's not working...

Maybe I shouldn't give up my day job, huh

But the question is, how can I be consistent, say shooting dogs, jumping around the room (I can show evidence), but never once manage to get a still shot of a building correct?

Well when I looked at the EXIF on the dog shot, I noticed that it was shot at f2.8, which creates the shallow DOF and focuses attention on the dog, You could try that outside with a building, picking out one detail which will hold the viewer's attention, I only have the image of a building that you posted here to compare it to but I think that'd create a better image than an eye level shot or a rather dull looking building.

I also think the dog shot is so successful because of the richness of colour which comes from being inside under (presumably) artificial lighting, you're not going to be able to reproduce that outside on the types of days that the outdoor shots you posted show, that light is far too flat, there's no real shadow or highlight.

In the 2nd more successful 3 images you posted, you are a lot closer to what you are photographing than in the first 3 images, this makes your focal point more clear and separates it from the background more.

You may call this creative genius and say that you're more interested in technical quality but I'd say you have the technical quality so it's the creative genius that you need to worry about. I could be controversial/antagonistic and say that the technical stuff is the easy bit, the creative stuff is the hard bit and some photographers will profess to be owners of duff lenses or bodies and spend their life shooting test charts so that they don't have to ever figure out how to compose a good image.

I'd also say that you could give the most experienced photographer the best camera in the world and they'd still struggle to take a GOOD photo when faced with the scene in your first 3 images. Well, they wouldn't struggle actually, they just wouldn't bother pressing the shutter, they'd move the camera somewhere else, find a better angle or something more interesting to shoot etc.

 

[lensflair]

The idea of the above photographs, is to show them on a level playing ground, straight out of the camera, just as they come out of everyone else's.

If everyone can look at them, and say, yep, that's about what they should look like. Or, nope, they're tragic! I just want to know....are they normal, or not? I can post up hundreds, they'll all look the same. Would a 550d produce the same results out of the box? Or a 7d?

Post processed, they look a hell of a lot better. And I'm keen to further my PP skills. But that's another topic.

For now, I'd like to know what I can expect out of the box. And if anyone can point me to a thread of photographs, straight out of the box, that'd be great. Then I'll leave you all alone while I study them

edit: and I can say I'm not looking for an excuse to upgrade. I could do without it. Unfortunately I have a wedding to shoot later in the year and I don't want to do it with sub-par equipment.

Well I'm afraid what you are seeing is what you can expect out of the box. There really doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the images you are posting. Some of them have flat lighting etc. but the camera aint going to fix that.

Here's a suggestion, go to a good camera shop, take a memory card. Ask to look at the camera you are interested in and take some shots with it. Take your current camera along and take the same shots with that. Go home and compare the shots.

If you think the new camera is an improvement buy it if you think its worth it.


There's not really much point asking people to post images that they can take with the camera because the camera you are using should be able to produce excellent results with a decent lens. I'm a nikon user BTW.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

When you feel like it? Why would you not feel like it?? It sounds a bit like you don't care what you shoot or how you shoot it!

Mo offence, but I've never met such a difficult bunch of people! To be fair I worded that badly....sometimes I like to take snaps...and sometimes I like to participate in 'photography'...depending on the mood. Soometimes I'm not interested, and sometimes I am. Some days I like to eat cereal, and others I eat Bacon.

As above, what goes wrong when shooting a building, and what lens and settings do you typically use to shoot buildings or landscapes?

As mentioned, I've tried every setting under the sun. My decisions create the overall effect of the input, sure, but from my experience, the camera has its limitations from a purely technical perspective. That's not to say I (or someone else) can't create great photographs with it (it's produced some pretty good ones over the years), but I get frustrated in regards to soft focus amongst other issues in certain environments.

 

[woof woof]

You might have tried every setting...

The first batch of shots you posted were poor, the next batch were better so you've shown that you can take better shots and to me that says that your camera is ok.

Soz to be difficult... but I doubt that buying a nice new camera will improve your keeper rate. Buying new things is nice though and if you want to do then buy.

PS. If you like I'll post some of my shots taken with a 300D. Even that old camera was capable of taking good shots... your 350D shouldn't have a problem either and I don't think there's a technical fix for you. Sorry.

 

[dinners]

Time and time again, I'm seeing smoother results from Nikon. I don't know if this is to do with Nikon's ISO performance, if the 350d was just a little poor all round, or if I got a duff.

In reply the original question.....back to my entry level days.....

I used to use a Nikon D50 and every image seemed to be just spot on.

At the same time I had Canon 40D and 50% of the images were rubbish.

Took me a while but in the end I worked out that the Nikon was just helping me. Once I got to grips with the Canon it was even Stevens

I still maintain - Nikon give the best results off the shelf.

 

[odd jim]

Soft focus is easily corrected though, if AF is soft you can tweak with MF.

From what I've seen and read, it sounds as if your heart isnt in making it work, and if you'd rather get reasonable shots straight out of the box you might be better off with a bridge or 4/3 system?

I could be way off the Mark as I don't know you or the years of photography you've undertaken, only what's in this thread!

I had a 400d which is very similar to your 350d and I got some absolutely beautiful shots with it, and I only upgraded for better high iso performance as I had started to shoot indoor sports.

An upgrade will generally help you improve but only if you are prepared to put time and effort in.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

...but I'd say you have the technical quality..

If you think the technical quality of what the camera produces is there, then fair enough. The other stuff is another topic...which I'm sure I will post at a later date. Hopefully with some better images

Well I'm afraid what you are seeing is what you can expect out of the box. There really doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the images you are posting. Some of them have flat lighting etc. but the camera aint going to fix that.

Here's a suggestion, go to a good camera shop, take a memory card. Ask to look at the camera you are interested in and take some shots with it. Take your current camera along and take the same shots with that. Go home and compare the shots.

If you think the new camera is an improvement buy it if you think its worth it.


There's not really much point asking people to post images that they can take with the camera because the camera you are using should be able to produce excellent results with a decent lens. I'm a nikon user BTW.

Cheers. Maybe I'm expecting too much. But I think I'll take your suggestion and try out some others.

I apologise if I've been difficult I'm now off to bed. It's been interesting and educational, and you've all been helpful....if not a little frustrating

Peace.

 

[DemiLion]

OK here is what you don't understand, despite your 15 years of experience, as shown in the first 3 photographs:


Depth of Field - The focus is 'out', as you call it because your aperture is too wide, ie f/.45 and f/5 and therefore the DoF is too narrow for the shot.
White Balance - The colours look awful because you've use Auto Wb and not adjusted, hence you are about 1000 Kelvin or so out and the images are too blue.
Exposure - Both the landscape and the out building are overexposed washing out the colours and blowing the sky.
Sharpness- The images have had little or no sharpening and hence look like slush.

Almost all of that can be corrected in PP and, apart from sharpening, it can be improved in the original capture; but whether you have a £2000 lens or one worth £50 on the front they are still going to look like crap if you can't be bothered to get it right.

The indoor shots have been working because your errors have been masked.

Can I once again suggest that you learn to use a digital camera and to post process the results properly?

As an after thought I would strongly suggest that you get the Bride and Groom to find another photographer for their wedding.

 

[lensflair]

There's no doubt that better gear can improve the quality of our images and remove certain limitations. But you can produce really good work with the most basic of gear if you understand light and composition. The never ending quest for the right gear that will just make it all happen is actually a barrier that gets in people's way of developing as a photographer IMO.

Like someone mentioned the light in some of those images you posted just isn't conducive to making a great image, you could take a great image of a brick if the light is nice enough. You need directional light to give objects form and texture and the shadows are part of that. If you want great light for landscapes you should try around sunrise or sunset. Look at the images you think are great and study the light, does it have warmth or is it cool light, what direction is it coming from. There's a quote by Joe Mcnally that I think is a quote from someone else which goes something along the lines 'if you want to make something interesting don't light all of it'. That's exactly what you have in the image of the dog and is why it's a more engaging image, the light is directional and creates highlights next to shadows, this is key to good light.

 

[arad85]

You still haven't said what lenses you are taking these photos with. The "bad" lenses all appear to be a 50mm lens (at least the first two are). The second "nice" set all appear to be a 28mm lens. Given you say you use primes, this could be affecting both focusing performance and rendition of the photos.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...the technical stuff is the easy bit, the creative stuff is the hard bit and some photographers will profess to be owners of duff lenses or bodies and spend their life shooting test charts so that they don't have to ever figure out how to compose a good image.

I'm saving that to my quotes file.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

OK here is what you don't understand, despite your 15 years of experience, as shown in the first 3 photographs:

Depth of Field - The focus is 'out', as you call it because your aperture is too wide, ie f/.45 and f/5 and therefore the DoF is too narrow for the shot.
White Balance - The colours look awful because you've use Auto Wb and not adjusted, hence you are about 1000 Kelvin or so out and the images are too blue.
Exposure - Both the landscape and the out building are overexposed washing out the colours and blowing the sky.
Sharpness- The images have had little or no sharpening and hence look like slush.

Almost all of that can be corrected in PP and, apart from sharpening, it can be improved in the original capture; but whether you have a £2000 lens or one worth £50 on the front they are still going to look like crap if you can't be bothered to get it right.

I'm getting a little bored with repeating myself now. I'm not looking for critique on the images. They are not good images. I haven't any processed versions of any of them because I have no wish to polish a turd. And that's down to me taking crap photographs. Yes. You don't have any crap ones at all?

They are random and typical examples that highlight the results that the camera produces.

I can spend my day posting photographs at every aperture, and I can guarantee you, aside from the obvious differences that they will all suffer from the exact same lack of sharpness. But if you want to ignore that, then fine. Not really any point in discussing it further.

If that 'lack of sharpness' looks OK to you guys for an unprocessed image, then fine, there's not a problem.

As an after thought I would strongly suggest that you get the Bride and Groom to find another photographer for their wedding.

They requested me having been familiar with my photography over the years. Which you've yet to see...

You still haven't said what lenses you are taking these photos with. The "bad" lenses all appear to be a 50mm lens (at least the first two are).

I noted them earlier on. The 50mm is the well acclaimed, albeit budget, 'nifty fifty', Canon 50mm f1.8 MkII. Which through my experience is actually a touch sharper than the Canon f2.8. 28mm also used in the 'better' shots. Both are a hell of a lot sharper than the kit lens. From which I have no originals to post up because I haven't used it for 2 or 3 years.

 

[fixedimage]

I'm getting a little bored with repeating myself now. I'm not looking for critique on the images. They are not good images. I haven't any processed versions of any of them because I have no wish to polish a turd. And that's down to me taking crap photographs. Yes. You don't have any crap ones at all?

Yes I'm sure we all do have crap photos but I certainly wouldn't post any of my 'duffers' online as people would judge me by them as is happening to you.

They are random and typical examples that highlight the results that the camera produces.

I could use my pro bodies and L glass to take photos that look like crap, I could pick up a Hassy with a 40 odd mp digital back and take pictures that look like crap, any camera that involves the user in the settings can take poor photos, you have proved with the dog image that your camera can take good ones.

You keep saying that these are snapshots and these are your duff shots, maybe what you want/need is a camera that takes more control of the process and will produce fairly good images with the least of effort on your behalf.

I can spend my day posting photographs at every aperture, and I can guarantee you, aside from the obvious differences that they will all suffer from the exact same lack of sharpness. But if you want to ignore that, then fine. Not really any point in discussing it further.

But when you did this a while ago with batteries you found no fault with the camera?

If that 'lack of sharpness' looks OK to you guys for an unprocessed image, then fine, there's not a problem.

No most of the images you have posted - unprocessed or not - look like crap for reasons you have been told over and over, DOF, over exposure, white balance.

You are looking at crap photos and trying to blame the sharpness of the equipment, the sharpness isn't an issue, the technique, the photographer, YOU are.

They requested me having been familiar with my photography over the years. Which you've yet to see...

Then show us.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

My point is, I'm not concerned with the overall quality of the photos. They're not intended to be great images. And I'm not saying, look, my photos look crap...why? Maybe naively, I didn't think I'd be judged on that. I thought we'd be more grown up

What I am trying to get across, is that my photos do not look sharp, straight out of the camera. Producing nice overall photos is an entirely different topic - I wanted to focus on a specific subject for now.

Yes, the photos in this thread could have been better examples, and the aperture could have been stepped up to say f8 or above for optimum sharpness. But you just need to believe me that it will make littl;e difference to the focused area.

Regarding the second batch of shots, I've said repeatedly that the camera handles these OK And aside from the lens cap which has very little detail, they're still not sharp in my eyes. Add more detail and distance to the shot, and the camera performs poorer everytime. You'd thnk, even if I was the worst photographer in the land, I'd have got one fluke by now! But having done a little more research, it does appear that this is normal, and a lot of people have been shocked by the lack of sharpness from various dSLRs. Which I have just learned is a side effect of allowing the camera to process the colors correctly.

Of course, I've always known that a little PP is required, I just didn't expect them to be this soft. And I'm still a little unsure if they're supposed to be. But if it's normal, that's cool.

The final processed images generally turn out fairly sharp, but obviously I don't like to do too much as it can detract from the image quality (or perhaps my sharpening skills can be mastered further!). And of course, the sharper the image in the first place, the better starting point we have. So I want to make sure it's optimum. Which is the entire point of this thread. I want to make sure I have the best base to start on. My photography skills we can work on in another thread

Anyways, it's a nice day, so I'm off out to take some 'snaps'..

I have stepped down the default Jpeg settings to give me more control PP, and I'm also gonna shoot some RAW for the first time...see what happens.

 

[POAH]

You will notice that I've consciously named this thread Canon and Nikon, rather than versus. But you can take it as you will, I just don't want to get anyone's backs up, I'm sure those threads are very tired by now.

I have a genuine, and slightly more focused question, however.

I've owned my 350d for around 5 years now. And to be truly honest, I've never been 100% happy with it. The focus can be soft (particularly on shots with a lof of detail, such as landscapes), colours can be off (very often noticed in skies - slight hint of purple!), and all round I don;t find the end results smooth.

Now I've seen similar results from other users with the 350d. And I've also noticed some of these users jump to a similarly priced Nikon, only to suddenly get much better results.

Is this something any of you guys are familiar with? I'm now ready to upgrade my 350d, but I'll be sorely disappointed if I don't see a major improvement (and may I add I'm mostly using prime lenses - the kit was just too bad).

Time and time again, I'm seeing smoother results from Nikon. I don't know if this is to do with Nikon's ISO performance, if the 350d was just a little poor all round, or if I got a duff. And I'm very reluctant to shell out a lot of money before I know the answer to this.

probably been already said but it's probably down to a couple of things.


kit lens is rubbish

camera has out of spec AF

you have set the focus wrongly

your sharpening is turned to the lowest.

 

[woof woof]

What I am trying to get across, is that my photos do not look sharp, straight out of the camera....

Yes, the photos in this thread could have been better examples, and the aperture could have been stepped up to say f8 or above for optimum sharpness...

Of course, I've always known that a little PP is required, I just didn't expect them to be this soft...

The final processed images generally turn out fairly sharp, but obviously I don't like to do too much as it can detract from the image quality (or perhaps my sharpening skills can be mastered further!). And of course, the sharper the image in the first place, the better starting point we have....

Excuse me for editing your post a little but you seem to think that sharpness is the problem and you seem to be hoping that a new camera will give you improved sharpness.

IMVHO sharpness isn't the issue here, not with the shots you've posted, but before saying any more I want to go back to basics...

Digital images are just like film images in that they have to be processed. These days instead of dropping your film off at the chemists or processing it yourself in a darkened bathroom you can set the processing parameters in camera and get a ready to use JPEG or you can also shoot RAW and process the shots yourself so that you can better tweek them to your own taste, hell, you can even shoot RAW + JPEG for the best of both worlds. Sharpening is a part of processing and you can apply sharpening either in camera or in post capture processing.

The 350D is an older DSLR and although it's capable of producing better images than you've posted here (check the net to see...) the JPEG's it produces may not be as “punchy” as those from a compact or even from some more modern DSLR's.

And back to the here and now... I don't think that sharpening is an issue here. Even a straight out of the camera JPEG with all of the in camera processing parameters set to zero should look better than the images you've posted here. There's more lacking in your images than ultimate sharpness IMVHO. At these images sizes and with the whole image shots, subjects and compositions you've posted we shouldn't really be able to tell if the images haven't been sharpened well or not, there's clearly much more wrong with these images than lack of sharpness.

So, a lack of attention and effort to getting the best out of the camera plus the cameras less punchy default settings could contribute to less than fantastic results...

I see two ways forward. The first would be to go back to the basics of digital photography and take care to meter and focus and set the aperture and shutter etc to get the best possible results, either in camera or in post capture processing. The second way forward would be to ditch the DSLR and buy a mid to high end compact or micro four thirds camera and use it in auto or one of the scene modes as these cameras give JPEG's that are truly ready to use and look sharp and saturated and punchy.

I think you'd be very satisfied with JPEG's from something like a Panasonic LX5 or GF2, or maybe an Olympus Pen.

 

[fixedimage]

I'm not saying, look, my photos look crap...why?

But if you had, how many people do you think would have replied with "There's something wrong with your camera/lens" ???

You have been told that you're exposure, white balance, use of DOF and pping are all shonky. White balance is the only one of those things that doesn't effect how sharp your images look.

You've also been told that your composition skills are crap, which means you're posting images which have no focal point by which to judge the sharpness, just dull bits of this and that away off in the hazy distance.

 

[arad85]

But if you had, how many people do you think would have replied with "There's something wrong with your camera/lens" ???

You have been told that you're exposure, white balance, use of DOF and pping are all shonky. White balance is the only one of those things that doesn't effect how sharp your images look.

You've also been told that your composition skills are crap, which means you're posting images which have no focal point by which to judge the sharpness, just dull bits of this and that away off in the hazy distance.

Care to jump off that fence fixed?

 

[Rod.F]

Regarding the second batch of shots, I've said repeatedly that the camera handles these OK And aside from the lens cap which has very little detail, they're still not sharp in my eyes. Add more detail and distance to the shot, and the camera performs poorer everytime...

...Of course, I've always known that a little PP is required, I just didn't expect them to be this soft. And I'm still a little unsure if they're supposed to be. But if it's normal, that's cool.

I have to disagree with the above. Perhaps your particular camera has issues with distant details but the 350D is up to scratch for an entry level DSLR. This image below is one that I took back in 2009 and is what I use as an aid to stop me from wanting to upgrade my 350D anytime soon. Mightn't be the best photo in the world, but is good by my standards and has had only a bump to the contrast to help it.


A view from Braemar Hill by Rod.F, on Flickr

And below is a 100% crop from the image (far left), this time without any "processing" (although obviously all images have to have something done to the RAW file). Contrast looks flat as I prefer to tweak that after the Photoshop RAW plugin, but I am happy with the level of sharpness for it coming from a RAW file with zero sharpening. I think this is the level of sharpness that can be expected from the 350D on a consistent basis from decent glass. If you feel you are not getting even close to that level then there is something wrong with your camera, lenses, self or all of the above. If the 100% crop is too soft for you, then fair enough the old Canon ain't for you (or I could be doing better).

40mm F/11 10 seconds ISO100

 

[squishy]

If you're out shooting in the middle of the day atmospheric distortions and heat haze will make distant things look soft.

That's something no camera can do anything about.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

You guys have got to be winding me up?

I'm speechless. I have nothing more to say.