Disappointed with my 350D (until you boys helped me)

[wyerd]

I've had my 350D now for a couple of months, but I just can't get any decent looking shots. They're just not as sharp as I'd expect a 8meg pixel camera to be. The attached shot is an example. It was shot in RAW and PS used to reduce the size to post on here. I'm using the EFS 18-85 IS USM lens.

Should I have the kit checked over, or is it more likely user error!

Thanks,
Dave.

[SeaneyC]

How do you mean sharp? I assume you're using a tripod and a fairly high shutter speed? Almost all digital cameras require a little unsharpmask in photoshop to get a really crispy picture, also lenses tend to lose performance at extremes of f stop (when very wide open, or very closed down) so try shooting around the f8 mark to see if this is part of the problem. Lastly, as you will now probably be finding out, more megapixels does not always equal megapictures! I have recently sidestepped from a "faux" 10mp camera (the sigma sd series which is infact 3 sensors laid ontop of each other for red green and blue) to a used Canon 1D which is "only" 4 megapixels, and whilst other cameras offer more megapixels, i'm really quite happy with these at the moment. Don't get me wrong though, if someone was throwing out a Canon 1Dsmk2 or similar i'm sure i could find it a good home

Keep on testing, perhaps you have a friend who also has some canon kit, try another lens, see if yours is a friday afternoon one.

[Johndm]

Originally Posted by wyerd

I've had my 350D now for a couple of months, but I just can't get any decent looking shots. They're just not as sharp as I'd expect a 8meg pixel camera to be. The attached shot is an example. It was shot in RAW and PS used to reduce the size to post on here. I'm using the EFS 18-85 IS USM lens.

Should I have the kit checked over, or is it more likely user error!

Thanks,
Dave.

Bit hard unsharp masking a small file......but hey..

Images will never be super sharp until you invest in some better glass.
The 18-85 aint too shabby....but it aint no 'L'

[wyerd]

Thanks for the advice guys. I'll try some shots around f8 and hpoefully they'll turn out better. Maybe I'm expecting too much after looking at Johndm's fantastic aircraft shots!

Anyone in the Petersfield area who can let me try out their lens?

[mattym]

try a test, set the camera on a tripod and get your self somthing to shoot that has good definition, then shoot it at different fstop levels, also try manual focusing

if it still looks soft, take the camera and lens to nearest jessops and try them both with different lenses/bodies, if this shows the camera to be the problem, get hold of canon to get it calibrated

It's hard to tell what the problem is from your image. There are a few things to remember.

1) If handheld your shutter speed should be no slower than 1/(focal length x 1.6), so if you are shooting at 80mm then your shutter speed should be 1/128s. This helps minimise visible camera shake.

2) Smaller aperture generally means sharper as you are cutting out the weakest parts of the lens, the edges. Also means more is in focus, i.e. more depth of field. Basically try not to shoot fully open as this will give the softest images.

3) The combination of aperture, focal length and subject distance affect the depth of field. Sometimes you can have a situation with such a shallow depth of field that any slight movement backwards or forwards and your subject is out of focus. Have a look at the depth of field calculator to see whether this applies to any of your shots http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.

4) Check your focus before taking the shot. Autofocus is not perfect especially when there is little contrast at the focus point, so get the camera to focus again and if it still looks out or switch to manual.

The 350D is a great camera and you don't need L lenses to get great sharp images, you just need to get familiar with your lens and work within its limitations. I'm really happy with mine.

[homerdog]

Do you do any sharpening in post-processing. If not, do you know what level of sharpening you have set in the camera? As mentioned above, most images will require some sharpening.

You should be able to get excellent results with the 17-85 IS, and not sure I agree with the 'aint no L' comment by John, my experience suggests it is just as sharp as the 17-40L - besides which, there is no L series lens that covers the same focal length, let alone with IS

Incidentally, you took that shot at f11 and 1/125s, which should give perfectly sharp results, especially with IS

[SeaneyC]

Originally Posted by Johndm

Bit hard unsharp masking a small file......but hey..

Images will never be super sharp until you invest in some better glass.
The 18-85 aint too shabby....but it aint no 'L'

Ah fallen into the grip of the L camp!

Whilst it's true that L does generally provide a high standard of PQ, there are still many lenses to be had which will give you a very sharp picture, such as the Sigma 105 Macro, Tokina 20-35, and even the lowly plastic Canon 50mm f1.8. L will also get expensive very quickly! I don't buy into the L camp quite yet, some of the greatest L lenses are no longer even made (80-200 f2.8, 200mm f1.8), but am quietly saving for a 70-200 2.8 IS which I am sure I will never have to upgrade from (and i should bleedin well hope not at over a grand!)

Just get out there snapping! I'm sure once you gently avoid the sharpness issue, much to the health of your wallet, you'll learn more about your camera and lens, and forget you even had a problem!

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by SeaneyC

there are still many lenses to be had which will give you a very sharp picture

Absolutely, an obsession with L glass can only lead to madness

I have two non-L lenses that are probably sharper than ANY L zoom lens!

[wyerd]

Originally Posted by homerdog

Do you do any sharpening in post-processing. If not, do you know what level of sharpening you have set in the camera? As mentioned above, most images will require some sharpening.

I didn't know you could! I've just found the page in the manual. Looking at the RAW info, everythings set to mid high.

[wyerd]

I think the main problem is ME. I've come from a great point & shoot - Sony Cybershot DSC P71 - and I'm expecting too much from a camera with so much functionality straight away. As many of you have said, I need to get shooting and learn how to use it. It's a tool and I need to learn how to use it properly.

[mattym]

i had the same thing coming from my fuji finepix to the 300d, harsh learning curve

[condyk]

Originally Posted by SeaneyC

... there are still many lenses to be had which will give you a very sharp picture, such as the Sigma 105 Macro, Tokina 20-35, and even the lowly plastic Canon 50mm f1.8.

Obviously a man with stirling good taste ... you plucked three of my carefully chosen lenses and EVEN mentioned the never, ever mentioned, but simply awesome and super consistent, Tokina wide boy We even share the wonderful Sigma 100-300mm f4.

Maybe we were separated at birth

[DJW]

Originally Posted by wyerd

I think the main problem is ME. I've come from a great point & shoot - Sony Cybershot DSC P71 - and I'm expecting too much from a camera with so much functionality straight away. As many of you have said, I need to get shooting and learn how to use it. It's a tool and I need to learn how to use it properly.

Disagree. A DSLR on full auto mode should be as easy to use as a compact. Even though I've taught myself via completely manual film SLR's (Olympus OM1), I've moved through Digital compacts on to Canon 300D & use of Nikon D70 & I find on auto mode I just point & shoot. As long as you are shooting in reasonable light & give time for Autofocus to work your pictures should be fine.

You are right though that the DSLR has lots to offer when you move away from auto mode that will allow you to fully stretch yourself.

[technofan]

Mmmmm, a picture of a large boat on a sunny day should be as crisp and sharp as a frosty morning (or at least a the focal point of the subject should), without any post shop fiddling on a computer. That picture is soft from front to back, if it is not user error then the problem will be in the lens or camera. However, if it does not happen all the time with similar lighting and large subjects then it's probably operator error.....I read somewhere that National Geographic will discard literally thousands of shots inorder to find just one good one for publishing......that's the beauty of digital

Sometimes outofocus will miss, and with a DSLR you can see that in the view finder, with a stationary subject it is no drama, just manual focus.