Maybe I missed the secret handshake...so here goes again: Canon S40pictures exhibit some flare

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bay Area Dave, Sep 17, 2003.

  1. To all:

    Is this an issue with CCD imaging devices or more likely to be the fault
    of the lens? Since it's my first Digicam, I haven't got anything to
    compare to. I'd hate to trade up to a digital SLR if they all have more
    flare than a film camera.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Have you read Phil Askey's review?
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons40/

    The lack of response could be simply because the review was nearly 2 years ago,
    and this is a very fast moving field. I wouldn't expect many responses about my
    first digicam, a CP775, and I've only had it 18 months..
    Anyway, I hope Phil's review gives you an idea of what your camera should do.
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Sep 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thanks, Malcolm!

    I found confirmation and an example of blooming on page 13 of the review
    at the website you offered. Guess what I see is what others see. I
    hope other digicams won't do that in the near future. I'd like to get a
    digital SLR when the prices come down IF I can get great contrast like
    with my film SLRs.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 17, 2003
    #3
  4. I just looked again at dpreview - this time I looked at sample pictures
    taken with the new Rebel. It ALSO exhibits bloom ( i looked at a night
    shot of an office building; the lighted office windows exhibit a lot of
    bloom). Now I'm becoming convinced this may be endemic to digicams...

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Hi Dave

    I think you're looking hard for a reason to not go digital.

    Suggestion: No need to have a reason. Just don't go digital.

    Stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Sep 17, 2003
    #5
  6. Blooming is indeed an actual physical response of the CCD sensors to
    extremely bright areas. Whether they do it *more* than film I haven't
    tried to test; film does also do it.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 17, 2003
    #6
  7. oh no, Stan I like the S40. It's just that one thing about the images
    that bug me. It isn't obvious on every shot, just many of them. :) I'm
    not going to make the mistake I did just as CD players were getting
    better--I bought an expensive turntable. Within a year or so, I found a
    CD player to my liking, and ended up mothballing the Linn for a Nak
    OMS-7 and lots of little shiny silver discs. I don't want to buy any
    more film SLR's - I've already got at least 5 cameras as it is. But I
    would like to know if all CCD's suffer from flaring or blooming.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 18, 2003
    #7
  8. David,

    Do you know if any of the other types of sensors are better in that
    regard AND better in terms of noise and color accuracy? I've read that
    the Sigma camera uses a CMOS sensor, but IIRC, that hasn't been all that
    well accepted. Am I right?

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Phil has just reviewed the recently released, and much hyped, Fuji digicam with
    the two sensor cells per pixel. This is supposed to deal with (some of ) the
    problems you may be mentioning, but Phil wasn't impressed.
    I live with it on my 10D, and normally dial in a little under-exposure to
    control the worst highlight blow-outs, and if necessary, adjust Levels in
    Photoshop.
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Sep 18, 2003
    #9
  10. that might help; thanks. I'll try setting exposures down and bit and
    then adjust the levels back up in PE. I notice the problem esp. when
    looking a trees against a bright background, and specular highlights
    (shiny metals, for example).
    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 18, 2003
    #10
  11. The Sigma SD9 uses the Foveon X3 sensor, which uses layered
    transparent cells to actually measure each color separately. The
    theory is wonderful, but the evaluations and samples have not been.
    Then there's the fact that it *only* takes Sigma lenses.

    Generally you'll get better results with the larger sensors. The
    DSLRs tend to blow the socks off the consumer cameras.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 18, 2003
    #11
  12. I bet! Unfortunately I'm not a position to spend upwards of $3k just on
    the body. and I don't want a DSLR with a chip that ups the effective
    focal length by a factor of 1.5 or 1.6 . I LOVE wide angle lens. I
    don't want to have to spend a princely sum to get a super duper wide
    angle like a true 14mm just to have an effective 21. Guess I'll have to
    wait another generation...reminds me of how I waited out the Betamax vs
    VHS wars. When RCA came out with a 4 event, 4 hour machine, that was
    good enough for me and I bought one. Looking back, it was still kinda
    nuts--$1,200 for a monster machine that could break a small table to
    bits! and it wasn't long before it gave up the ghost, either.

    at some point, a digital SLR is gonna have most or all of the features
    that I want.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 18, 2003
    #12
  13. Bay Area Dave

    Rafe B. Guest


    Sounds like you're still fence sitting, which is OK.

    Me, I sat on that same fence for years, patiently
    scanning film while folks raved about their Coolpix 900s.

    I tested the waters with a G2 and liked what I saw.
    But it was not a replacement for my Nikons.

    Waited another year, started hearing good things
    about the 10D. Downloaded 10D images. Compared
    them to my 35 mm scans. Decided it was time to dive
    in. No regrets.

    One thing about the 10D and its peers -- they demand
    the very best lenses. Image area is still pretty small,
    so you've got to make the most of it.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Sep 18, 2003
    #13
  14. Bay Area Dave

    Todd Walker Guest

    I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. There are plenty of people out
    there taking excellent pictures with 28-135 USM lenses and 50mm f/1.8
    and f/1.4s. No, you don't get the color rendition and contrast of an L
    lens, which is why my next lens purchase will be an L, but the results
    are still excellent.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Sep 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Bay Area Dave

    FOR7b Guest

    I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. There are plenty of people out
    The 28-135 IS and the two 50mm lenses you mention, especially at typical
    apertures are indistinguishable from an L lens. In other words they are are
    among the best non L lenses.




     
    FOR7b, Sep 18, 2003
    #15
  16. Bay Area Dave

    Eric Gisin Guest

    How can some pieces of glass affect contrast and colour rendition?

    |
    | I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. There are plenty of people out
    | there taking excellent pictures with 28-135 USM lenses and 50mm f/1.8
    | and f/1.4s. No, you don't get the color rendition and contrast of an L
    | lens, which is why my next lens purchase will be an L, but the results
    | are still excellent.
    |
     
    Eric Gisin, Sep 18, 2003
    #16
  17. Bay Area Dave

    Mikey Guest

    Because all the light used to form the image goes through those pices of
    glass?
    So any distortion, abberation, reflections, anything that happens there
    will affect the image.
     
    Mikey, Sep 18, 2003
    #17
  18. Bay Area Dave

    Todd Walker Guest

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Imagine if you were to breathe hot
    air on your lens then take a picture. It will come out with low contrast
    and dull colors because you are taking the picture through a fogged
    lens, right? Well the same goes for the quality of a lens. If it is a
    low quality lens, it's just like taking a picture through a fogged lens
    although of course much less pronounced. If you use a high quality lens
    like a Canon L however, you will get a sharp, colorful, contrasty
    picture with minimal abberations and distortions.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Sep 18, 2003
    #18
  19. Bay Area Dave

    PiZzazZ Guest

    The 28-135 IS and the two 50mm lenses you mention, especially at typical
    Not so. L-lenses are visibly better in contrast even when the center
    resolution is similar to a non-L lens.

    Jason
     
    PiZzazZ, Sep 18, 2003
    #19
  20. Bay Area Dave

    Paul H. Guest

    Poorly-coated optics can increase lens flare which can severely reduce
    contrast which can, in turn, affect apparent color rendition. Color
    rendition is also drastically affected by chromatic abberation caused by
    ineffective achromatic lens coatings and distorted lens geometry.

    It's amazing how much trouble bad glass can cause.
     
    Paul H., Sep 18, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.