Canon A75 "softness"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Terence, Jun 3, 2004.

  1. Terence

    Terence Guest

    Here's my personal opinion on the subject. I have to admit since I got
    my camera I haven't been happy with how some of the pictures have been
    turning out. So I decided to do a very informal test and spent a
    couple of hours taking random pictures around my house using various
    camera settings, in different lighting conditions, both handheld and
    tripod-mounted.

    My own conclusion is that AiAF doesn't work very well; even in a
    brightly lit scene. More often than not, it did not come to complete
    focus on my intended subject. Even when those green focus boxes
    correctly identified the parts of the frame where my subject was
    located, the picture still didn't come out well.

    I'm MUCH happier with how the pictures come out with AiAF turned off,
    and light metering switched to spot. Now my camera works exactly like
    how my 35mm Canon P&S does. I just compose the shot with the subject
    centered, then frame the scene as needed and take the picture.

    I can't see myself ever using the full Auto mode (nor AiAF) on the A75
    ever again, except maybe for testing purposes - I just didn't find I
    had any control over how the camera focused with that feature enabled.
    Having said that, I'm happy with the pictures the A75 takes,
    especially now that I've learned a little more on how to use it.

    And before I get flamed for stating facts, this is just my own
    experience, so ymmv.

    Terence
     
    Terence, Jun 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, auriga_m38
    @yahoo.com says...
    > I can't see myself ever using the full Auto mode (nor AiAF) on the A75
    > ever again, except maybe for testing purposes - I just didn't find I
    > had any control over how the camera focused with that feature enabled.
    > Having said that, I'm happy with the pictures the A75 takes,
    > especially now that I've learned a little more on how to use it.
    >
    > And before I get flamed for stating facts, this is just my own
    > experience, so ymmv.
    >
    > Terence


    Terence,

    Glad to here you're happy with the camera and found what was causing you
    the trouble.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. That's wonderful! Enjoy your Canon A75. Some people use Photoshop to sharpen
    photos if needed.

    Ty

    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, auriga_m38
    > @yahoo.com says...
    > > I can't see myself ever using the full Auto mode (nor AiAF) on the A75
    > > ever again, except maybe for testing purposes - I just didn't find I
    > > had any control over how the camera focused with that feature enabled.
    > > Having said that, I'm happy with the pictures the A75 takes,
    > > especially now that I've learned a little more on how to use it.
    > >
    > > And before I get flamed for stating facts, this is just my own
    > > experience, so ymmv.
    > >
    > > Terence

    >
    > Terence,
    >
    > Glad to here you're happy with the camera and found what was causing you
    > the trouble.
     
    Tyrone Jackson, Jun 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Terence

    nixjunk Guest

    >That's wonderful! Enjoy your Canon A75. Some people use Photoshop to sharpen
    >photos if needed.
    >
    >Ty
    >


    Nice sentiment until the last sentence.
     
    nixjunk, Jun 3, 2004
    #4
  5. I said "if needed". I thought I continued nicely with "sentiment".

    Ty



    "nixjunk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >That's wonderful! Enjoy your Canon A75. Some people use Photoshop to

    sharpen
    > >photos if needed.
    > >
    > >Ty
    > >

    >
    > Nice sentiment until the last sentence.
    >
    >
     
    Tyrone Jackson, Jun 3, 2004
    #5
  6. Terence

    nixjunk Guest

    >> >That's wonderful! Enjoy your Canon A75. Some people use Photoshop to
    >sharpen
    >> >photos if needed.
    >> >
    >> >Ty
    >> >

    >>
    >> Nice sentiment until the last sentence.


    >I said "if needed". I thought I continued nicely with "sentiment".
    >
    >Ty


    Considering your past remarks on sharpness I doubt you were trying to be
    helpful.
     
    nixjunk, Jun 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Terence

    Martik Guest

    Martik, Jun 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Well I thought that the general consensus for dealing with "soft photos"
    from some of the Canon A series cameras was to apply a small amount of
    sharpening if desired. Am I wrong? And if I am not wrong, how is that not
    trying to be helpful?


    Ty

    "nixjunk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >> >That's wonderful! Enjoy your Canon A75. Some people use Photoshop to

    > >sharpen
    > >> >photos if needed.
    > >> >
    > >> >Ty
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Nice sentiment until the last sentence.

    >
    > >I said "if needed". I thought I continued nicely with "sentiment".
    > >
    > >Ty

    >
    > Considering your past remarks on sharpness I doubt you were trying to be
    > helpful.
    >
    >
     
    Tyrone Jackson, Jun 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #9
  10. Terence

    Jim Spen Guest

    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <EEPvc.13831$OI5.905@edtnps84>, martik@_nospam_telus.net
    > says...
    > > Common problem with the Canon A series. Check out the powershot forum at
    > > http://forums.powershot-a.com/

    >
    > Deja Vu all over again.


    No Brian, No, not others that have the same problem.... GASP! Could
    someone else other than
    you perchance have a opinion or fact that WAS legimitate and true contraire
    to your opinion??? Double GASP!
    The pink elephant has entered the building...
     
    Jim Spen, Jun 4, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <V7Rvc.878$>,
    says...
    > > > Common problem with the Canon A series. Check out the powershot forum at
    > > > http://forums.powershot-a.com/

    > >
    > > Deja Vu all over again.

    >
    > No Brian, No, not others that have the same problem.... GASP! Could
    > someone else other than you perchance have a opinion or fact that WAS legimitate and true contraire
    > to your opinion??? Double GASP!
    > The pink elephant has entered the building...


    No Jim, quite the opposite. The "problem" appears to be the same as it
    was before: lack of understanding of AiAF, poor test shots and ignorance
    of the fact that lenses wide open will be soft around the edges,
    especially the low-cost compact lenses used in point and shoot cameras.

    Opinions, no matter how many of them there are, do not constitute fact.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Terence

    nixjunk Guest

    >Well I thought that the general consensus for dealing with "soft photos"
    >from some of the Canon A series cameras was to apply a small amount of
    >sharpening if desired. Am I wrong? And if I am not wrong, how is that not
    >trying to be helpful?
    >
    >
    >Ty
    >


    You need to become more knowledgeable about digital imaging and digital
    cameras.
     
    nixjunk, Jun 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Terence

    Jim Spen Guest

    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <V7Rvc.878$>,
    > says...
    > > > > Common problem with the Canon A series. Check out the powershot

    forum at
    > > > > http://forums.powershot-a.com/
    > > >
    > > > Deja Vu all over again.

    > >
    > > No Brian, No, not others that have the same problem.... GASP! Could
    > > someone else other than you perchance have a opinion or fact that WAS

    legimitate and true contraire
    > > to your opinion??? Double GASP!
    > > The pink elephant has entered the building...

    >
    > No Jim, quite the opposite. The "problem" appears to be the same as it
    > was before: lack of understanding of AiAF, poor test shots and ignorance
    > of the fact that lenses wide open will be soft around the edges,
    > especially the low-cost compact lenses used in point and shoot cameras.
    >
    > Opinions, no matter how many of them there are, do not constitute fact.


    It is not the opposite, a repeating question over and over, the SAME ONE...

    Brian, you don't even know the defination of a fact, here it is for you....

    Defination of Fact from Dictionary.com

    1.. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based
    on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. YES THIS WAS TESTED AND FOUND TO BE A
    REAL OCCURANCE BY MYSELF<<< MANY OTHERS AND PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS>>>
    2.. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic
    engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed
    fact.
    3.. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. SAME
    AS ABOVE
    4.. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken
    facts. MOST DEFINATELY
    5.. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before
    the fact. NA

    And how do you know right away without any testing or seeing this persons
    camera that the problem lies with the
    AiAF or something else, that is FAR FROM A FACT or even a lnowledgable
    opinion because YOU DON"T KNOW
    FOR SURE SO HOW CAN YOU MISGUIDE PEOPLE WITH YOUR GUESSING AT THE PROBLEM.

    UNREAL...
     
    Jim Spen, Jun 4, 2004
    #13
  14. I agree with you. I've got a long way to go.

    Ty

    "nixjunk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >Well I thought that the general consensus for dealing with "soft photos"
    > >from some of the Canon A series cameras was to apply a small amount of
    > >sharpening if desired. Am I wrong? And if I am not wrong, how is that not
    > >trying to be helpful?
    > >
    > >
    > >Ty
    > >

    >
    > You need to become more knowledgeable about digital imaging and digital
    > cameras.
    >
    >
     
    Tyrone Jackson, Jun 4, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <97Zvc.21235$>,
    says...
    > 1.. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based
    > on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. YES THIS WAS TESTED AND FOUND TO BE A
    > REAL OCCURANCE BY MYSELF<<< MANY OTHERS AND PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS>>>


    Which doesn't mean squat.

    Jim, get yourself under control. You're not objective, and you never
    have been in this matter. Because I happen to disagree with your
    conclusions, you have taken a course of personal attacks against me with
    a tone I do not appreciate. I think you need to rethink your attachment
    to this issue. An apology from you may or may not be in order, I leave
    that decision up to you.

    Reading your posts, I am reminded of an event that occurred a few years
    ago involving silicon. In particular, silicon breast implants.
    Numerous people had claimed their auto immune illnesses had been caused
    by leaky (or in some cases, not even that) breast implants. These
    individuals, with the support of some limited research, launched a
    crusade against Dow Chemical, manufacturer of the implants. They
    claimed the facts were on their side.

    To make a long story short, Dow Chemical decided to settle out of court
    to prevent a long legal battle that could have been disastrous to their
    core business. As we all know, breasts in America are a very sensitive
    issue and a jury could be easily swayed by their emotions into making
    less than objective decisions. Dow Chemical made the wrong decision.

    About a year later, if I remember correctly, The New England Journal of
    Medicine released a study done over a large sample group (nurses) and
    compared the rates of auto immune disease in women with implants versus
    those without. The study concluded that silicon breast implants did not
    increase your risk of auto immune disease - the rate of auto immune
    disease was the same in both groups. Although initial research pointed
    to a link, a large, objective study proved that link to be false.

    Moral of the story: Large groups of people (especially emotional and
    opinionated ones) can be, and often are, wrong.

    Are you right or wrong? I can't say. I can say your reasoning and
    conclusions up to this point have been ill-informed, and there is a
    dearth of hard information from you. You fail to question your own
    conclusions and get irate when others do. This shows you impart a
    pretty strong bias in your reasoning, something that makes it very
    difficult for you understand the very simple concepts I have laid out
    before you.

    If you kept your responses less declaratory and your language less
    severe, I would have never ever spoken on the subject. Because you did
    declare your opinion was indeed fact, and you did so in such a rude
    manner, all you did was feed hysteria. I felt obligated to inform you
    that your conclusions were not based upon sound logic and the opinions
    you expressed were not fact. You've done nothing to convince me
    otherwise.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #15
  16. Terence

    Steve B Guest


    >"Brian C. Baird" <> wrote
    >I am reminded of an event that occurred a few years
    >ago involving silicon. In particular, silicon breast implants.




    Sounds painful. I think you mean silicone.
     
    Steve B, Jun 4, 2004
    #16
  17. Implants

    Steve B wrote:

    >>"Brian C. Baird" <> wrote
    >>I am reminded of an event that occurred a few years
    >>ago involving silicon. In particular, silicon breast implants.

    >
    > Sounds painful. I think you mean silicone.
    >

    The silicon would be for the embedded chips used to control density,
    lift, resistance, night vision, and landing gear.....

    --
    John McWilliams

    "Um, his vocabulary, like, uh, really, ah....... sucked."
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 4, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <>,
    sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk says...
    > Sounds painful. I think you mean silicone.


    Yes, indeed I did. D'oh!

    But if they were silicone, it would give new meaning to the word
    "Sandbag." :)
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #18
  19. Er, silicon... for the joke, that is. Double d'oh!
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #19
  20. Re: Implants

    In article <UJ0wc.5481$Sw.1958@attbi_s51>, says...
    > > Sounds painful. I think you mean silicone.
    > >

    > The silicon would be for the embedded chips used to control density,
    > lift, resistance, night vision, and landing gear.....


    The future's so bright I gotta wear shades...
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jorge Alvarez

    I am confused. Is softness a bad thing?

    Jorge Alvarez, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    343
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. Z

    How do I improve "softness" of 10D

    Z, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    465
    Albert Wiersch
    Aug 31, 2003
  3. Advid

    softness in camera...

    Advid, Dec 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    500
    Mark B.
    Dec 31, 2004
  4. BD

    Canon 7D and softness - what's the latest??

    BD, Dec 30, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,465
    Henry
    Jan 1, 2010
  5. SneakyP

    Canon Softness Just An Autofocus Problem?

    SneakyP, Jan 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,137
    Paul Furman
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page