Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon a95 not sharp enough?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
April 18, 2005 2:52:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that the
Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main
problem I am having is that the pictures aren't sharp enough, or at least
they are not as sharp as I think they should be - even the "in focus" ones
:)  Am I spoiled by looking at shots from 8+ MP cameras on the web and in
magazines? Am I expecting too much, or is it common to need to do
enhancement on the desktop? The shots do compare very favorably to some 2MP
shots I tried with a cheapo camera in that I can zoom in on them much
further (the only way I know to compare detail and sharpness), and of course
the overall size is much larger (shooting max size). The detail seems to be
there (at least by comparison). I tried shooting in superfine vs fine (at
ISO 50), but I really don't see a difference. I've tried many modes and
settings in different conditions, and nothing is as sharp as I would like.
Also true for macro shots. So, again, am I expecting too much, or is fixing
it on the desktop the common scenario? Thanks.

More about : canon a95 sharp

Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:02:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

At 'actual pixel' viewing, even a very good digital image will look
slightly soft. If the camera is doing a lot of in-camera sharpening,
you will see the contrast halos around edges. You need to zoom back by
about 25% at least, and then make a judgement.

On that camera, at full-res in superfine mode, you should be able to
lightly sharpen the image, and then print to about 10" x 8" and get a
very sharp print. Assuming the image is sharp (ie not out of focus or
blurred by camera shake) of course!

If you can do that, it's more likely to be technique problems than your
camera. From what I have read, the A95 produces very good images for a
5Mp camera. If you can't, then the camera may actually be faulty, but
that is a long shot.
April 18, 2005 11:28:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:52:33 GMT, "Alan" <not.me@uhuh.rcn.com> wrote:

>I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that the
>Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main
>problem I am having is that the pictures aren't sharp enough, or at least
>they are not as sharp as I think they should be - even the "in focus" ones
>:)  Am I spoiled by looking at shots from 8+ MP cameras on the web and in
>magazines? Am I expecting too much, or is it common to need to do
>enhancement on the desktop? The shots do compare very favorably to some 2MP
>shots I tried with a cheapo camera in that I can zoom in on them much
>further (the only way I know to compare detail and sharpness), and of course
>the overall size is much larger (shooting max size). The detail seems to be
>there (at least by comparison). I tried shooting in superfine vs fine (at
>ISO 50), but I really don't see a difference. I've tried many modes and
>settings in different conditions, and nothing is as sharp as I would like.
>Also true for macro shots. So, again, am I expecting too much, or is fixing
>it on the desktop the common scenario? Thanks.
>
>
Something to keep in mind.. is that the higher you go in pixels..and
shooting with any zoom, the more likely you are to see minute camera
shake. Try without any magnification or using a tripod..
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:44:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

>My only complaint was that there were a few
>digital artifacts in an overexposed area of the shot-
>kind of like speckling, but not quite.

Hmm. Were these TIFs or JPGs? If they were TIF files, then it's more
likely a printing issue, but I would be surprised if that was an issue
on a proper lab printing machine. On cheap four-colour printers you
will see speckles of ink where the printer has had to `dither` it's
inks to get the pale color required. Better printers (and photolab
printers) should not suffer from this. More likely if they are JPG's,
it may be jpeg artefacts. These are often in the form of `squares`
that look they don't quite match up properly. Were these images shot
at superfine? You may have just spotted the difference!

Or it could be some form of posterisation, but that doesn't usually
look 'speckle-y'.

Can you scan that area maybe and post it on a webpage?
April 19, 2005 6:41:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Responses in line...

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1113868946.636083.224600@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> At 'actual pixel' viewing, even a very good digital image will look
> slightly soft. If the camera is doing a lot of in-camera sharpening,
> you will see the contrast halos around edges. You need to zoom back by
> about 25% at least, and then make a judgement.

Thanks. Excellent information.
>
> On that camera, at full-res in superfine mode, you should be able to
> lightly sharpen the image, and then print to about 10" x 8" and get a
> very sharp print. Assuming the image is sharp (ie not out of focus or
> blurred by camera shake) of course!
>
> If you can do that, it's more likely to be technique problems than your
> camera. From what I have read, the A95 produces very good images for a
> 5Mp camera. If you can't, then the camera may actually be faulty, but
> that is a long shot.
>

It's looking like my monitor is the culprit. I checked out the shots on my
monitor at work (far better than the one I have at home, which is a MAG
981FS- work is a high-end Nokia), and they looked much better. I also tried
different monitor resolutions on each, and there were definite differences.
I printed one out at Kinko's ($5.00, but convieniently located in my office
building), and it came out extremely sharp-and that was without me touching
it at all. My only complaint was that there were a few digital artifacts in
an overexposed area of the shot- kind of like speckling, but not quite. Is
that normal in an overexposed area? At least I know the softness isn't the
camera, but now I need a new monitor!

Thanks again.
April 19, 2005 6:42:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"lefty" <wpm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eig861hq1gcmmikisdb77u3ar91dnkl3oh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:52:33 GMT, "Alan" <not.me@uhuh.rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that
the
> >Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main
> >problem I am having is that the pictures aren't sharp enough, or at least
> >they are not as sharp as I think they should be - even the "in focus"
ones
> >:)  Am I spoiled by looking at shots from 8+ MP cameras on the web and
in
> >magazines? Am I expecting too much, or is it common to need to do
> >enhancement on the desktop? The shots do compare very favorably to some
2MP
> >shots I tried with a cheapo camera in that I can zoom in on them much
> >further (the only way I know to compare detail and sharpness), and of
course
> >the overall size is much larger (shooting max size). The detail seems to
be
> >there (at least by comparison). I tried shooting in superfine vs fine (at
> >ISO 50), but I really don't see a difference. I've tried many modes and
> >settings in different conditions, and nothing is as sharp as I would
like.
> >Also true for macro shots. So, again, am I expecting too much, or is
fixing
> >it on the desktop the common scenario? Thanks.
> >
> >
> Something to keep in mind.. is that the higher you go in pixels..and
> shooting with any zoom, the more likely you are to see minute camera
> shake. Try without any magnification or using a tripod..

Tried that. Turns out I think it's my monitor. See my responses to chrlz.
April 19, 2005 2:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1113889487.666239.121450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >My only complaint was that there were a few
> >digital artifacts in an overexposed area of the shot-
> >kind of like speckling, but not quite.
>
> Hmm. Were these TIFs or JPGs? If they were TIF files, then it's more
> likely a printing issue, but I would be surprised if that was an issue
> on a proper lab printing machine. On cheap four-colour printers you
> will see speckles of ink where the printer has had to `dither` it's
> inks to get the pale color required. Better printers (and photolab
> printers) should not suffer from this. More likely if they are JPG's,
> it may be jpeg artefacts. These are often in the form of `squares`
> that look they don't quite match up properly. Were these images shot
> at superfine? You may have just spotted the difference!
>
> Or it could be some form of posterisation, but that doesn't usually
> look 'speckle-y'.
>
> Can you scan that area maybe and post it on a webpage?
>

I don't know how good a printer it was, as it was a self-service contraption
at Kinko's. It takes any media (and scan) and prints a photo. Overall, it
looked like a lab photo, and it was a Kodak machine, so I suspect it was a
good printer. The files are jpegs, and this one was at fine, not superfine,
so perhaps that was it. The artifacts do have a squareish shape, but it's
not a firm square. It could be posterization. I don't have a scanner, but I
posted the entire shot at
http://63.246.145.60/img.php?loc=loc246&image=65e_princ... The
section in question is on the top of her head near her left ear (the
brighter areas). Sorry about the site where it is posted. This was my first
time, and I didn't know about the ads that are there.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:12:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

5/2/05 1930
alan and all
i have a canon a80 which is very simular in all except it probably has more
features and i use it to send pics over the internet.
i use it in auto and several other modes at its lowest setting cause most
people cant accept the higher pixels, and on the computer it is all
enhanced. i have dropped it several times and it still takes excellent
pics. i have had it since july and it was the highest rated digital camera
and probably still is. i am continously experimenting with it and have
asked people for there comments...i even develop fotos from it with my hp
2175 all in one printer....i do glossy, draft and normal....i have taken
pics with it in total darkness and bright sunlight....in low light
situations it is ok, (use software to enhance it)if it is back of a
auditorium and very good if the subject is 30-40 ft away. direct sunlight a
no no....i use the hp software that came with the printer and it is much
better and easier to use than the Dell and Canon....i've got the camera set
up for everything and every stage i want to take pics at.....i basically
leave it alone but still take chances with the settings.....i use the canon
32mb compact flash, the sandisk 256 mb compact flash, the sandisk ultra II
256 mb..(depending on the setting 1500 pics on a compact flash)....i have
taken nearly 3000 pics with it since july and rarely leave home without
it.....a few have turned up in local magazines. i have done everything from
tee shirts to large 8x11 glossy photos with it at its lowest settings.....i
have spent a lot of time with the camera, adjusted it, read the instruction
book over and over where i know it quite well...i have taken pics from bar
harbor to hawaii to vermont, dog parks, boating, ice fishing, rising sun
etc.....the only real complaint is multiple picture taken is too slow when
taking shots at a running animal, but because of it i got my greatest
shot....a running sheltie.....my niece and maybe a few others say my work is
like art...some of it is anyways, but some of it is luck......
wishing u all the best......and yes, my a 80 takes nearly as good as a
slr...i know...i have breakfast every week with a guy who has one, and with
the a80 can view the pics afterwards and if the restaurant or hotel has an
internet connection send them out....my last group of fotos were of a bishop
ordination recently....downloaded 24 pics to some people.....one person with
a slow internet connection took 2 hrs to download and he couldn't break the
connection
hope this helps...it really created another hobby for me...
crusty old feller and a salty dog at that

"Alan" <not.me@uhuh.rcn.com> wrote in message
news:RjM8e.18859$H_5.9825@trnddc01...
> I am new to digital photography. After much research, I determined that
the
> Canon a95 (5MP) was the best camera for me in my price range. The main
> problem I am having is that the pictures aren't sharp enough, or at least
> they are not as sharp as I think they should be - even the "in focus" ones
> :)  Am I spoiled by looking at shots from 8+ MP cameras on the web and in
> magazines? Am I expecting too much, or is it common to need to do
> enhancement on the desktop? The shots do compare very favorably to some
2MP
> shots I tried with a cheapo camera in that I can zoom in on them much
> further (the only way I know to compare detail and sharpness), and of
course
> the overall size is much larger (shooting max size). The detail seems to
be
> there (at least by comparison). I tried shooting in superfine vs fine (at
> ISO 50), but I really don't see a difference. I've tried many modes and
> settings in different conditions, and nothing is as sharp as I would like.
> Also true for macro shots. So, again, am I expecting too much, or is
fixing
> it on the desktop the common scenario? Thanks.
>
>
>
!