Canon a95 not sharp enough?

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.
7 answers Last reply
More about canon sharp enough
  1. 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.
  2. 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..
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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_princess_striped.jpg 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.
  7. 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.
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Cameras Sharp Photo Canon Peripherals