Canon 350D, not Sharp ?. (1 Viewer)

[tribsa]

Can anyone help me,

At the moment I have a Canon 350D, I have always thought the images are a little soft and not as sharp as they should be, the camera is set as sharp as can be in the settings and when I get a good shot I feel it is much improved when I sharpen it in photoshop.

A freind of mine has a 300D and has just bought a 350D, after taking several shots with it he now has it up for sale as he thinks the 300D is a better camera and a lot sharper.

I talked to the manager in my local Jessops store about upgrading to the 20D and he thinks the images taken would not be any sharper and therefore I would be wasting my money changing.

I must be able to get sharper shots than I am getting at the moment, can anyone advise me.

Barry

 

[stevo]

What type of focussing method have got the camera set to?IE one shot etc it may not be the camera it could be a lens problem if you have another lens or can borrow someone elses lens I would try that first if this doesnt work & the camera is still under warrantee then I send it back it may be that the camera needs recalibrating I am not an expert on this but Canon should be able to tell you.

Steve.

 

[Kiki]

I have a 350D (and had the 300D) prior to that. I am pleased with it and do not have any 'soft focus' problems. It is teamed with the Canon 100-400IS Lens and if shots are soft focus it is down to me rather than the camera.

 

[tribsa]

What type of focussing method have got the camera set to?IE one shot etc it may not be the camera it could be a lens problem if you have another lens or can borrow someone elses lens I would try that first if this doesnt work & the camera is still under warrantee then I send it back it may be that the camera needs recalibrating I am not an expert on this but Canon should be able to tell you.

Steve.

Hi Stevo,

I have changed the camera once already, I have the standard lens and a 28-135 IS, also a 70-300 IS.

I am convinced that overall the images are soft.

I have tried the camera on Manual focus, one shot and Continuous, as well as bird photography now and then I use it for motor racing.

Barry

 

[postcardcv]

It seems that all digital slrs will produce slightly soft images (I think it has to do with the low pass filter?), but the 350D is not worse than any other. I use a 350D and have no problems at all with the sharpness it delivers (though shots need tweeking in photoshop, this is just a fact of digital photography). Soft images is likely to be down to one of three things...

1. lens quality- not all lenses are equal, it might be that you need to stop down a bit to get the best out of your lenses.
2. filters? - if you're using a filter on your lens(es) this may be causing a problem, there have been a number of threads on here about how filters can degrade image quality.
3. camera calibration - sometimes a camera's AF system is slightly out so it focuses in the wrong plain, this is someting that Canon could fix.

I'd also add that I would turn down the in camera sharpening, it's better to do any sharpening that's required in post-processing. If you take a look in the gallery you'll see that the 350D is more than capable of producing high quality, sharp results - check out psilo's gallery to see what I mean - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5984

 

[paul goode]

Hi Barry,

Following on from what Peter has said I very much doubt that there is anything wrong with your camera. I had a 300d and when I changed to a 20d I was stunned at how soft the images were 'out of the camera.' I was even more stunned though when I found how well they sharpened in photoshop!

This is how they are designed to work, and as Peter says its to do with the low pass filter. I believe that Canon have done this to keep noise to a minimum and assume people using DSLR's will post process the images. Therefore a soft image out of the camera doesn't matter.

The best advice (well, Nigel Blake's so thats good enough for me,!) is to set the sharpening parameter in camera to the minimum and use the far better algarithms in Photoshop (or equivalent) to sharpen the image.

The 300d I think was set up more like a compact to give decent images straight out of the camera but I certainly find that the 20d's processed images are far better and the 350d has the same innards so there's no reason for the results to be any different.

Paul

Edit. Very modest of you Peter, whats wrong with your own gallery! http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=3294

 

[Keith Reeder]

Barry, post up some examples, mate.

 

[tribsa]

Hi Barry,

Following on from what Peter has said I very much doubt that there is anything wrong with your camera. I had a 300d and when I changed to a 20d I was stunned at how soft the images were 'out of the camera.' I was even more stunned though when I found how well they sharpened in photoshop!

This is how they are designed to work, and as Peter says its to do with the low pass filter. I believe that Canon have done this to keep noise to a minimum and assume people using DSLR's will post process the images. Therefore a soft image out of the camera doesn't matter.

The best advice (well, Nigel Blake's so thats good enough for me,!) is to set the sharpening parameter in camera to the minimum and use the far better algarithms in Photoshop (or equivalent) to sharpen the image.

The 300d I think was set up more like a compact to give decent images straight out of the camera but I certainly find that the 20d's processed images are far better and the 350d has the same innards so there's no reason for the results to be any different.

Paul

Edit. Very modest of you Peter, whats wrong with your own gallery! http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=3294

HI Paul and Peter,

Thank you very much for both your comments, I shall try the camera with the sharpness set to the lowest position and try sharpening in Photoshop, I also have filters on the len's so I will try some shots without them on, the thing is I like them in place to protect the front ellement.

Kind Regards Barry

 

[tribsa]

Barry, post up some examples, mate.

I have some shots on the Forum.

Barry

 

[tribsa]

It seems that all digital slrs will produce slightly soft images (I think it has to do with the low pass filter?), but the 350D is not worse than any other. I use a 350D and have no problems at all with the sharpness it delivers (though shots need tweeking in photoshop, this is just a fact of digital photography). Soft images is likely to be down to one of three things...

1. lens quality- not all lenses are equal, it might be that you need to stop down a bit to get the best out of your lenses.
2. filters? - if you're using a filter on your lens(es) this may be causing a problem, there have been a number of threads on here about how filters can degrade image quality.
3. camera calibration - sometimes a camera's AF system is slightly out so it focuses in the wrong plain, this is someting that Canon could fix.

I'd also add that I would turn down the in camera sharpening, it's better to do any sharpening that's required in post-processing. If you take a look in the gallery you'll see that the 350D is more than capable of producing high quality, sharp results - check out psilo's gallery to see what I mean - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5984

Hi Peter,

The main reason I have the 350D is for taking pictures at motor racing events. Do you think I would be better with a 70-200 L canon lens rather than the 70-300 IS lens which is not an L series, and do you think I would need one with the image stabiliser, I have been told that you get better shots when panning without the stabiliser on.

Barry

 

[macshark]

Hi Peter,

The main reason I have the 350D is for taking pictures at motor racing events. Do you think I would be better with a 70-200 L canon lens rather than the 70-300 IS lens which is not an L series, and do you think I would need one with the image stabiliser, I have been told that you get better shots when panning without the stabiliser on.

Barry

For motor racing, you would most likely be better of with any one of the Canon 70-200L lenses. (There are currently four 70-200L versions,)

Assuming that you are looking at the 70-200 f/4L (without IS) which is comparable to the 70-300 IS in terms of price, you would get one f/stop faster operation at full zoom and faster AF. You would lose 100mm of your zoom range. Based on your useage of the 70-300 IS, you can decide.

As for the image stabilizer, it is not that much help when your subjects are moving very fast. Using high shutter speeds (and high-ISO to achieve them) is probably the only sure way to get sharp pictures. The 70-300 IS (and most of the newer Canon IS lenses) have a special mode (mode 2?) where the image stabilizer only compensates for the vertical motion of the camera lens. This is useful for taking pictures of objects that are moving horizontally by tracking them with the camera/lens.

The best way to take "sharp" pictures of fast moving targets is to use center only focus, AI-Servo mode and track your subject.

 

[eastwood]

Have you check out the serial number of your 70-300 IS lens? If the 3rd digit of the serial number is 0 or 1, there is a manufacturing defect probably in the IS group of elements and has been recalled for service. I have mine done in Canada.
Check out
http://www.pixalo.com/community/news/canon-us-service-recall-6877.html

 

[postcardcv]

Hi Peter,

The main reason I have the 350D is for taking pictures at motor racing events. Do you think I would be better with a 70-200 L canon lens rather than the 70-300 IS lens which is not an L series, and do you think I would need one with the image stabiliser, I have been told that you get better shots when panning without the stabiliser on.

Barry

Hi Barry

Always hard to know which lens will suit someone else... but if you are happy to use a shorter lens than the L series lense shoulod be of a noticeably better quality. As for IS, I've never used a lens with it so can't really comment, but clearly I don't think it's vital. I'd certainly recomend testing any lens you might be interested in before buying it.

Filters have been discussed many times one here (with some very strong opinions both ways), here are a couple of threads to look at, if you search you'll find plenty more...
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=66657
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=63988

 

[robinchittenden]

Can anyone help me,

At the moment I have a Canon 350D, I have always thought the images are a little soft and not as sharp as they should be, the camera is set as sharp as can be in the settings and when I get a good shot I feel it is much improved when I sharpen it in photoshop.

A freind of mine has a 300D and has just bought a 350D, after taking several shots with it he now has it up for sale as he thinks the 300D is a better camera and a lot sharper.

I talked to the manager in my local Jessops store about upgrading to the 20D and he thinks the images taken would not be any sharper and therefore I would be wasting my money changing.

I must be able to get sharper shots than I am getting at the moment, can anyone advise me.

Barry

I seem to remember that I had a 10D which had to go back for readjustment. It was focusing either in front of or behind of the point you wanted it to focus. I think it was a software correction that was needed.

Hope that helps

Best regards

Robin Chittenden

 

[mothman]

Can anyone help me,

At the moment I have a Canon 350D, I have always thought the images are a little soft and not as sharp as they should be, the camera is set as sharp as can be in the settings and when I get a good shot I feel it is much improved when I sharpen it in photoshop.

A friend of mine has a 300D and has just bought a 350D, after taking several shots with it he now has it up for sale as he thinks the 300D is a better camera and a lot sharper.

I talked to the manager in my local Jessops store about upgrading to the 20D and he thinks the images taken would not be any sharper and therefore I would be wasting my money changing.

I must be able to get sharper shots than I am getting at the moment, can anyone advise me.

Barry

Barry are you shooting in RAW or JPEG?

I am asking simply because I am fortunate to have photographer Andy Rouse as a friend of mine and when I complained recently about the same thing from my 350 he told me off and said that I should be shooting RAW images,this I duly did and was stunned by the results. It was a different camera!!

Incidentally if you decide that the work-flow caused by RAW is too much and still use JPEG, DO NOT use the in camera sharpener as it severely limits the amount of post sharpening that you can do.