Calling Canon 400D users

[MeadsMan]

Hi,if your a Canon 400D user,have you been totally happy with the sharpness it delivers to your photos ? I have to confess I have been a little dissapointed.I put this down to the lower end lens I been using,a Canon 300USM 111 75 / 300.It`s one reason I asked the other question on Canon DSLR bodies,regarding auto focus.I just been reading another review on the 400D,[I have read lots ] This chap suggests that most photos would need a little tweaking focus wise taken with a 400D, He also goes on to say that shooting in landscape picture style helps but dosn`t cure the problem I didn`t spend £400 odd quid to get second rate results if I am honest,it`s a big disappointment for me.I am not a big fan of messing with things in the likes of photoshop,my own PERSONAL view is that it`s cheating.And it`s certainly not something I expected I`d have to do,with a camera from reputable manufacturer like Canon. Anyone have simular troubles.

[matt_xyz]

I don't have any problems with my 400D regarding sharpness. DSLR images, unless sharpened in-camera, often appear a bit soft when viewed at 100% but I suppose it depends on how soft your images are.

The first thing to do is to rule out camera shake or subject movement so make sure you're testing it on a solid tripod in good light with a stationary subject.

I use a 30D and a 400D and find both to be equally sharp. That said, it's the lens that is normally responsible for sharpness (or lack of it) assuming your camera is focusing correctly. A few test shots should ascertain whether it is focusing correctly or not.

Matt

[MeadsMan]

Thanks Matt,With a risk of sounding big headed,I am very aware of what can cause soft images,regarding camera shake ect,I have had good results,I was just expecting far far more,I have not had the 400D that long,the Misses keeps saying give yourself a chance to get used it,perhaps I am expecting to much to soon.I did find this comment interesting Matt " DSLR images, unless sharpened in-camera, often appear a bit soft when viewed at 100% but I suppose it depends on how soft your images are" . It all gets a bit confusing,another chap on the forum said if your photos were not sharp when viewed at 100%,they would not be of good enough quality to sell,It`s not really an intention of mine to sell on photos,but I am fussy when it comes down to sharp images I suppose.

[mh68]

Hi Meadsman. When looking for sample shots from the lens I eventually bought (sigma 70-300) I seem to recall the lens you mentioned not being considered very sharp by quite a few Canon users.Maybe thats where the problem lies? Obviously some lenses give sharper results than others.
As for your query re. sharpness of full size shots, it does get a bit confusing, which is why I started the thread i think you`re referring to

Mark H

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by MeadsMan

Thanks Matt,With a risk of sounding big headed,I am very aware of what can cause soft images,regarding camera shake ect,I have had good results,I was just expecting far far more,I have not had the 400D that long,the Misses keeps saying give yourself a chance to get used it,perhaps I am expecting to much to soon.I did find this comment interesting Matt " DSLR images, unless sharpened in-camera, often appear a bit soft when viewed at 100% but I suppose it depends on how soft your images are" . It all gets a bit confusing,another chap on the forum said if your photos were not sharp when viewed at 100%,they would not be of good enough quality to sell,It`s not really an intention of mine to sell on photos,but I am fussy when it comes down to sharp images I suppose.

I think that may have been me who made the 2nd statement about unsharp images not selling But I don't think there's a contradiction there. Images should be as sharp as a DSLR allows, that is what I mean by sharp at 100% if it is to sell i.e. there should be no softness caused by poor technique, subject motion etc. However, even the best taken DSLR image in the world, while acceptably sharp, may still benefit from some sharpening and hence may appear slightly soft compared to a sharpened image.

But I think we really need to see a 100% crop of some images that you think are soft. There's certainly nothing wrong with the Canon 400D per se, so either your unit has a slight fault or there's a lens problem.

Matt

[Ollie]

No problem with the sharpness from my 400D but I'm a firm believer that it's the lens that delivers the sharpness more than the camera. I can get good sharp results from mine using the Canon 400mm f5.6 lens or the Sigma 50-500mm lens.
Roger

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Ollie

No problem with the sharpness from my 400D but I'm a firm believer that it's the lens that delivers the sharpness more than the camera. I can get good sharp results from mine using the Canon 400mm f5.6 lens or the Sigma 50-500mm lens.
Roger

This is true. The lens is almost the be all and end all of sharp images. That's not to say you can't improve them later, of course you can.
Quite a few people are disappointed when they move from a compact digital to DSLR. To say that you don't believe in using Photoshop or similar, means that you wont get the best out of your camera.
It's NOT cheating. It's doing yourself what the compact cameras try to do automatically. It's no more cheating than it is to do your own film developing.
One of the points of a DSLR is to allow you the freedom to adjust the output of the camera to suite your needs.
If you don't wish to do this, then just change the settings in your camera to apply automatically what you don't want to do in Photoshop or similar.

[galanthus]

My canon 400d has been really good, I had the lens you're talking about and to be honest it was a fine lens. I did chop it in for a canon 70-300 IS lens, however, this was because a lot of my walks are in woodland and I needed the extra stability and quicker response when light is fading.

Photoshop needn't be used to completely alter shots or insert dubious looking objects, it can be used, as others have said, to slightly sharpen up your shots and just tweak levels or saturation. Maybe you're needing to get used to the feel of the camera a little, it's quite light. stick with it

[willing to learn]

Been Pretty pleased with mine, with all the lens have have use todate, I am only a novice so I have a loads to learn.I used a Fuji S500 before and it did the job I wanted, perhaps I should try and use it along the canon and compare the images, then swallow hard if they are on a par
Regards
Colin

[MeadsMan]

Thank you for all the replies,I still do find it a bit of an annoyance that you have to doctor your photos to get them pin sharp,as mentioned and I agree I think the lenses have a lot to answer too regarding this.And I have been rather shocked to learn of late that the likes of Canon are actually releasing poor quaility glass.I don`t really see much point in posting a cropped photo here,as often in the resize process I know that can sharpen an image anyway.So whats the best way to sharpen my image further then ? Is it better to do this as a RAW file or convert it first to a jpeg or tiff first ? I do like on occasion to print my photos,if that makes any odds.The only photo programme I have that can work with a RAW file is the one that came with my camera,do I just use the slider adjustment titled sharpness ? what degree of this is deemed o.k and not over the top ? Sorry for akll the questions.

Thanks Mark.