PowerShot A75 not as good as I thought?

Well, it was $150, it had manual controls, and most common-folk raved about
the Canon A75. I haven't had many complaints in the week that I've used it,
mostly indoors, but I did think the images were a little soft. I am no
professional, but even set on a tripod with good lighting, I felt they were
not sharp enough. So, then I found a post in this group about the whole
Canon A line being junk and Canon's "undersharpening" and I have no problem
returning the camera if I decide to while it's still within the return
period.

Only problem is what do I buy instead? I would go up to $200 (street prices,
found on pricegrabber.com or such, not store prices), but I want manual
controls, and that's why I bought the A75. I've heard that the A80 is better
in picture quality. The Nikon 3100/3200 have no manual controls, so even if
people say those take better pics, I really really don't want it to be fully
automatic, so that's why I originally chose the A75.

Can you advise me, please?

BTW, here's a shot I took with the A75 of my cat: http://tinyurl.com/55krd

 

I don't think you're going to do better, given your budget.

 

OK. What's the next realistic level? $250? $350? I can buy a digital Rebel
for $350 with a little bit of work and selling my film Rebel, so that's why
I wanted to stick to lower bracket until I "grew up" into a DSLR.

 

Looking at the image it's what I would expect from a $150 / 3.1MP camera, I
don't believe it's that bad. What was the compresson/quality setting ?. If
it's your first digital camera you'll probably find most pictures soft
straight from the camera compared to what you expect. I'd ensure you have
the highest quality settings and practice with sharpening.

But if you want something better try something with more pixels, eg A80,85,
95, G6 etc but as you say it will cost a bit more. For best quality find
something with RAW format.

 

Here's the original: http://tinyurl.com/64u6o

The one in the first link was compressed in Photoshop already

I am using max size, and Superfine quality compression. I was confused at
first, thinking that Superfine compression would mean most aggressive
compression, but I realized it's just the opposite. heh

 

You won't like a DSLR any better, particularly a Canon. Canon takes a very
conservative approach to in-camera processing, leaving most of it up to the
user. They will 'look' soft when in fact images out of a Canon DSLR respond
very favorably to an unsharp mask.

Mark

 

Are you suggesting I could improve the images I have now by an unsharp mask?
I will try to play with it in photoshop... What would you suggest as good
resources for this information? Thanks

 

It's my understanding that *all* digital pictures can be improved by
unsharp mask.
I know it's true with my A75 and also with its predecessor, an A40.
I use Photoshop Elements 2.0. Delighted with results on both cameras.
Just got back nine 8 x 10s from the processor, taken on a recent trip to
Paris, which my wife will be putting in albums, along with many 4 x 6s.
I'm prejudiced, of course, but I think the 8 x 10s are dazzling.
Even though I have a good 17 inch monitor, I don't think any monitor can
give you a true representation of what can be achieved in a print.

-- Ron

 

That's a very tidy picture from a cheap digital camera. The A80 would do a
better job but at more cost.

With such a close up you can expect the depth of field to be limited, where
the picture is sharp it is sharp enough to compliment Canon on their economy
optics.

Sorry - I don't think you have anything to complain about. If you want
better snaps, pay a lot more money.

John

 

No, if it's depth of field that's decided by the physics of the situation.
To get a better depth of field, you need to select a smaller aperture. Since
the A75 has aperture priority, it will do that. Of course, the shutter speed
will increase to compensate, the cat will move and then everything will be
blurred. Let's get real here, that picture will be judged as good by most.
To do better implies better photo skills and that in no way reflects on the
op, like I said, I thought it was a good shot as is.
Dave Cohen