Canon A40

[MentorRon]

I am accumulating any samples I can of this one side out of focus issue:
http://www.pbase.com/mentorron/a40_focus

[srhaymes]

MentorRon:

Thank you for the offer to post A40 focus problem pics. How can I provide you with one or a few of my pics?

BTW, I got my A40 back from the Canon Service Center after the second attempted repait and I have had the chance to test it with about 50 pics systematically taken of the same subject at different focal lengths, compressions and portrait v. landscape orientation. The subject contains both man-made objects and nature objects. I reviewed the images in Irfanview where I also checked the EXIF info.

Here are my results after the second repair:

1) The Viewfinder is NOW out of alignment and somewhat blurred making focusing difficult.
2) The pictures are still blurred when the focus is at infinity with no noticable improvement.

While not wanted to transgress to a place where Steve's Digicams Forums should not go, I contacted my local DA's Office of Consumer Affairs and at their recommmendation, I am writing Canon requesting that they replace my defective A40.

So as more and more people discover defective A40's, Canon will have to address this problem with the A40 which I suspect is a significant QA/QC problem in the manufacturing process.

Steve

[MentorRon]

You can open a free account on www.pbase.com like I did and put them in gallery there.

[MentorRon]

I have just been viewing C. Manly's photos in view of his comments about being happy with the resolution and sharpness of his unit. I think that some of them have had post-processing, and some have no EXIF data. I find that many of them are "soft" (i.e.: I feel they should be sharper). They have also been highly compressed, since they should be close to 1MB in size and they are about 100kb, so it makes it tough to decide if the camera made them soft, or the compression was the culprit. I also see major pixellation in sky etc.
e.g.:
103-0390_IMG_proc1.jpg is inconclusive as not at infinity and right end and left end contain no similar objects to compare.
104-0485_STD_proc.jpg, IMG_0480_4.jpg and STB_0483.jpg: the right hand foreground bushes are blurred. compare it to the ones at the far left.
IMG_0487.jpg seems blurred at the top (would that have been the right in a landscape format, or is it just chromatic aberration?).
IMG_0115.jpg is very soft, so it's hard to tell if either side is bad.
IMG_0117.jpg is difficult to determine, as the right side is in deep shade, but appears less sharp than the left.

For what I consider sharp for a 2MP camera (1600x1200), see my gallery at
http://www.pbase.com/mentorron/my_finepix_2800_
You can also see 1.3 MP pics (1280x960) from my old FinePix 1300 fixed focus and what's possible at 0.3 MP (640x480) with a cheap CMOS sensor (Agfa CL18: cost $10 Cdn.).

[cmanly]

Hello MR -- thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, you are right almost all (if not all !) of those have been post processed. I have uploaded some additional ones (beginning with 111) which are all 'pure'. do you see the kind of clarity issues you describe with these? I also thank you for pointing me to your examples.

Originally Posted by MentorRon

I have just been viewing C. Manly's photos in view of his comments about being happy with the resolution and sharpness of his unit. I think that some of them have had post-processing, and some have no EXIF data. I find that many of them are "soft" (i.e.: I feel they should be sharper). They have also been highly compressed, since they should be close to 1MB in size and they are about 100kb, so it makes it tough to decide if the camera made them soft, or the compression was the culprit. I also see major pixellation in sky etc.
e.g.:
103-0390_IMG_proc1.jpg is inconclusive as not at infinity and right end and left end contain no similar objects to compare.
104-0485_STD_proc.jpg, IMG_0480_4.jpg and STB_0483.jpg: the right hand foreground bushes are blurred. compare it to the ones at the far left.
IMG_0487.jpg seems blurred at the top (would that have been the right in a landscape format, or is it just chromatic aberration?).
IMG_0115.jpg is very soft, so it's hard to tell if either side is bad.
IMG_0117.jpg is difficult to determine, as the right side is in deep shade, but appears less sharp than the left.

For what I consider sharp for a 2MP camera (1600x1200), see my gallery at
http://www.pbase.com/mentorron/my_finepix_2800_
You can also see 1.3 MP pics (1280x960) from my old FinePix 1300 fixed focus and what's possible at 0.3 MP (640x480) with a cheap CMOS sensor (Agfa CL18: cost $10 Cdn.).

[MentorRon]

I looked at 111-1164_IMG and 1168. These are the only 2 of your new postings I could use for edge to edge sharpness comparisons and they both pass with flying colours. I am unhappy with the way the A40 reproduces over- and under-exposed areas though. In your family shot (1190), the gentleman outdoors and the chair on the right do not appear unsharp in the way they would on film. My FinePixes seem to do a better job in those types of situations. That may be what happened to the white wicker chair on my www.pbase A40 samples: it is overexposed and just slightly out-of-focus so it looks strange, as if something is wrong with the lens (as if it was grease smeared).

[cmanly]

Thanks MR for your observations. I wish that the A40 had a little better control over depth of field for shots like 1190.

Originally Posted by MentorRon

I looked at 111-1164_IMG and 1168. These are the only 2 of your new postings I could use for edge to edge sharpness comparisons and they both pass with flying colours. I am unhappy with the way the A40 reproduces over- and under-exposed areas though. In your family shot (1190), the gentleman outdoors and the chair on the right do not appear unsharp in the way they would on film. My FinePixes seem to do a better job in those types of situations. That may be what happened to the white wicker chair on my www.pbase A40 samples: it is overexposed and just slightly out-of-focus so it looks strange, as if something is wrong with the lens (as if it was grease smeared).

[MentorRon]

Any camera at a particular focal length has a fixed depth of field. The Canon is no different in this respect than any other (they can't redo scientific principles). However, it just appears that overexposed or out-of-focus items at the edges of the frame do not appear "right" somehow. I have been taking 35mm colour slides for amost 50 years now, and am used to what an object should look like in a photo. I have not been able to figure out what happens with this Canon (the A40). I do not see this condition on the pictures I have found on the Web taken by the A10, A20, or S30. And as I mentioned, it does not seem to happen on any of my FinePixes. Some of the Olympus cameras I have been interested in, and have seen images from, also do not seem to have this effect at the edges. I have seen images from the best Canon true digital SLRs (e.g the D30) and they have their own picture "problems" that bother me: I don't like their colour balance, too blue (cold). I hate to be "hard" in my evaluation of the A40, as it's such a versatile camera and I still recommend it to many people as a terrific value in it's price class. I wish my FinePix 2800 had some of it's features !!!