Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Canon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2005, 2:31 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 141
Default

I still don't understand why the C-755 photo shows up, but just a link to the S2 photo... I attached them the exact same way - and the S2 photo is actually 5 kb smaller than the C-755 photo.

In any case... both photos were taken as JPEGs, and the only 'editing' to each was the resizing to fit the maximum limit here. The two cameras were set up the same for the photos, which were taken about 1 minute apart. See EXIF data for details.
EOS RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 8:00 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 407
Default

Thanks for reposting.

That S2 picture is really bad. I don't know what to say... The colors and the focus are just terrible.

I'd like to see side by side photos taken by others with the S2 to see if this is a problem with the camera, or a defect in EOS RT's camera.
Nizidramanii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 8:29 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 113
Default

It looks like the wrong white balance was used, and it also looks like the occasional soft focus the S2 has. Canon goofed on the S2 focus. it doesn't quite go "alll the way" to locking in in alot of instances.
montana500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 9:28 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 243
Default

Nizidramanii wrote:
Quote:
swgod98 wrote:
Quote:
videosilva wrote:
Quote:
The S2 has MANY, MANY features BUT the picture quality really is CRAP for a camera of this price.


No matter what I do the images ALWAYS seem a LITTLE out of focus, they just don't seem as SHARP as they should be.
Alright, here's another picture, straight from the camera. No editing has been done (aside from the liscence plate) Looks sharp to me, though it looks like I was using ISO 100...couldn't tell from the EXIF data.

I really don't think calling this camera CRAP for it's price is a fair statement. But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

http://www.danshobbyshack.com/temp/car.jpg

P.S. Maybe you could provide solid evidence of your claim by posting images...It would be worth much more to someone who is looking to purchase the camera. Just saying the camera sucks doesn't say much when others are providing evidence otherwise...(unless you think the images I am posting sucks too...lol...can't argue against that!)


*edited for the following comment*

I'm a bit surprised to hear this comment from you videosilva after seeing the comments from you about how much better the S2 IS is than the *ist dSLR camera.
haha, nice touch on the license plate.

EOS RT - Do you think you could repost your pictures? I'm interested in this camera, but I'd like to examine these kinds of issues before I make such a large purchase.



Ok, in reply to the S2 Versus the Pentax ............... For the last three or so weeks I have been getting up at 5am and getting home around 8 pm, not leaving much time to experiment. To make things worse on my ONE Day off Sunday the weather has been REALLY lousy to experiment. I have been taking pictures BUT........... it may be the wide angle adaptor. I need to test a bit more. I'm still not impressed with that Pentax.......... If I could get that S2 to focus a bit more often all would be well.......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
videosilva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 9:29 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 243
Default

How MANY pictures do you have to take with the S2 before you get ONE that you can keep ?
videosilva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 9:31 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 243
Default

All I can see on that licence plate is some thing some thing " RULES " . Possibly I'm getting a bit too old and loosing my 20/20 vision.
videosilva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 12:34 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

videosilva wrote:
Quote:
All I can see on that licence plate is some thing some thing " RULES " . Possibly I'm getting a bit too old and loosing my 20/20 vision.


Most of the images I take with my S2 are just as goodas the ones I posted. I've had the camera for 4 months? (forgot now)...and have taken well over a thousand pictures. Most outdoor soccer pictures. Some indoor. Some night.

My S2 has done me well.

Here's another one outdoors, though it's not at wideangle (closer to full tele) and it's not at widest aperture...F5. But, there are some trees/leaves near the bottom that don't particularly look very clear. The main subject looks pretty focused though...

http://www.danshobbyshack.com/temp/IMG_0441.JPG

Here's another...full tele and F3.5

http://www.danshobbyshack.com/temp/IMG_0699.JPG

These are all unedited, straight from the camera.
swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 12:44 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 141
Default

When I look at the photo of the Subaru car at full size, I wouldn't describe it as "sharp" or"clear" or "crisp" at all. It looks out of focus to me - perhaps not as much as my S2 photo - but it definitely does not look perfectlyfocused.

Viewing it at basic monitor size, it looks fine - but at full size, it's blurry. Of course, that photo wasn't taken at the best setting (only about 700 kb). And the relativelyslowshutter speed (1/20) might have contributed to the blur somewhat - I don't know. But it's definitely not "sharp" to me.

As for the two photos of vegetation in the post directly above this post... they do not look "sharp" to me, either, at full size.

You claim that both vegetation shots are "all unedited, straight from the camera" - yet 'Photoshop CS Windows' is clearly within the EXIF data on the first vegetation photo. As well, much of the EXIF data is missing, which occurs when a photo has been altered in some way.That photo also appears to have been taken at an ISO other than 50, judging by the spotty sky - but ISO is among the missing data.

The second vegetation photois also not "sharp" at full size. Also, itis not even1 MB in size - and the compression ratio is 15.3 - so it was not taken at the highest quality setting, as with the car photo.

If we are to judge differentphotos, there needs to be a certain consistency at least in the resolution and quality selection within the camera. Without that, any comparison is rather futile.

EOS RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 7:57 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 407
Default

I agree with EOS RT. These photos are kind of disappointing for a camera this popular. The Panasonic FZ cameras seem to do much better than this. Am I wrong?
Nizidramanii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 12:32 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

EOS RT wrote:
Quote:
You claim that both vegetation shots are "all unedited, straight from the camera" - yet 'Photoshop CS Windows' is clearly within the EXIF data on the first vegetation photo.
You have very good points EOS. I don't know why the ISO rating is not in the EXIF data. It NEVER is and I don't know why (Grrrr). I must have opened these in photoshop and resaved them for size purposes...probably adjustedlevels too(my bad! thanks for pointing that out!). I think that's widely known as "stick foot in mouth" I try to keep my originals in certain folders and I must have saved over them :\
The reason the second image is so small is because JPG can compress the "sky" area MUCH better because there is no detail there. That's a property of JPG format.

I should take some new photos and post them. Though, the camera does not get any more "crisp" than what I've posted. If you want the images sharper, you need to get a Panasonic FZ camera, which has even more noise at equivalent ISO settings. The FZ series camera's also tend to oversharpen things a bit, producing jagged edges on occasion.

It really is a trade off. Go look at sample photos on websites by reviewers and see the images for yourself.

swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:32 PM.