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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 28, 2002, 3:34 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220
Default 7Hi, poor quality images

Just been going through our holiday photos from Florida, took my new 7Hi to try it out. Out of nearly 400 photos I guess about 70% are not good enough to print, main problems are lots of "grain" and poor focus, 2 shots I took of my kids after they had been on Nickleodeon TV with the presenters indoors with flash are quite blurred, the file info tells me the camera set itself to 1/8 @ f3.5 and 1/6 @ f2.8 yet the flash was charged and fired!. The biggest problem is "grain" particularly in peoples faces in group shots where the face is only about 5% of the total image size, I never had this problem using my previous Olympus E-20 and duplicate shots taken with the old trusty Casio QV-3500 are all fine. All shots were taken at either fine of extra fine settings at full resolution.

Shots of faces wich fill over about 40% of the image are fine, no loss of detail and good colour balance, subjects in shadow or at least not in direct sunlight are worst, I tried a test at home today with my daughter, in an ordinary room on a bright day using red-eye reduction flash with a camera-subject distance of about 7 feet, at 28mm the camera set to 1/45 @ f2.8 and the image was very grainy, at 75mm it set to 1/60 @ f3.5 and the image was much better, at 100mm it set to 1/90 @ f3.5 and again no problem with the image quality.

Is it just me or is this normal for this camera?, I can post some cropped examples if required to my webspace.
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 28, 2002, 6:44 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

you feel that there are issues with the camera and it's capabilities. these were taken back about 1.5 months ago in Corning NY on a little weekend trip and the second batch was taken in sept with my now gone(sold) 7i. the first set shots were taken without a strobe and are handheld. the second was taken using the built in strobe on the cameras. athe the same range mentioned. these are all are also exposed in the same range as your indoor shots that you had issues with (refer to the exif data). realize that these are 640x480 lo rez images down converted from the extra fine (2.5:1 compression) 7Hi and superfine on the 7i(tiff) originals. nothing else done to it. fairly shallow DOF at aperture 3.5 and 2.8.

http://www.pbase.com/crusader/working_glass

http://www.pbase.com/crusader/cgt


the values you gave like 1/8 sec and 1/6 sec with the the internal flash were not useable. even 1/45 at 2.8 at 6 ft should have been higher.
were you using the internal built in strobe for all shots?
did you use an external strobe?
these numbers don't make sense. i myself have this camera and the 5600hsd strobe for a little more umph when necessary in the light department. need a little more info.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2002, 8:00 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220
Default

Thanks for the reply, your shots look great!.

Yes, I was using the internal flash as my Sigma 430 doesn't work with the digital only my XTSi.

I ran another set of test shots tonight, indoors, 100w room lamp, 7feet distance, using my poor wife as a test subject!, using the internal flash, red eye reductionat 28mm I got 1/45 at f2.8, very grainy and lack of definition to the face, zooming up to 75 or 100mm I got 1/90 at f3.5 and a no grain and good definition, it seems that the camera is under exposing?.

I went back over the holiday shots and pulled some samples from them, these are all about 15% of the original image and have not been resized or resampled just cut, pasted as a new image and saved.

m1 to m4 show (to me at least) the lack of facial definition and grain, thse were from shots took in daylight at about 1/1000 @ f4.

m5 is a sample from another daylight shot where my daughters face covered about 60% of the image, same settings as the others but more direct sunlight, no grain or lack of definition.

I also included a sample from the Casio QV-3500 3.3mp, this was taken indoors using built in flash, 1/60 @ f2, again about 15% of the total image size but much better facial definition and no grain.

Samples are at,

http://freespace.virgin.net/display.systems/z/c1.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/display.systems/z/m2.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/display.systems/z/m3.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/display.systems/z/m4.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/display.systems/z/m5.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/display.systems/z/c1.jpg

Kind regards,

Jeff
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2002, 8:07 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

what was the ISO setting in each shot?

i generally keep mine in auto. the highest it has gone is 200 using the strobe.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2002, 6:42 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220
Default

Either ISO100 or 200 on Auto setting. Quite a few of the daylight shots were taken using fill flash or red eye reduction as it was a bit overcast, these were shots of my kids with various cartoon characters at Universal studios.
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2002, 3:40 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

i would definitely put in a call to minolta tech support in the UK. those shots are grainy and the values you gave seem askew quite a bit. the ISO info makes sense though. at 200 there should be no "grain/noise". i'm in Florida right now leaving tomorrow to go back to NJ by car. call and get their input. i believe you might need a little check up in the shop. let me know.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2003, 12:43 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
Default

Phaedra, I believe you've gotten this answer, but the camera certainly can take some vivid pix, like this one I just took in Sicily http://marksquires.com/images/ortygiaharborPICT0066.jpg

I did find that using the ISO feature to pump up the ISO rating produced lots and lots of noise. At 800 the pix were basically awful. It's one feature that does not work well. At 100 or 200, all was well. http://marksquires.com/images/PzaNav...asPICT0074.jpg

I think I'm going to play around with the latter to up the contrast and saturation more---this is basically what the camera gave me other than cropping.
monsieurms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2003, 1:16 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220
Default

My problem seems to be mainly in shots with less than optimal lighting, having sat and thought about it a lot of our Florida photo's were took against a bright background with the exposure compensation at +1 or higher, I took some macro shots of a new coin lit by a pair of 100W lamps and these were excellent, when the weather brightens up (snowing at the moment!) I'll take a series of outdoor shots to see what results I get at various settings of ev comp, contrast, ISO and fill flash, the built in flash does seem fairly poor, anything over about 6 feet is not very well exposed.
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2003, 1:44 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
Default

I generally had good luck with night shots, and with flash. Of course, taking night and flash shots is a skill in and of itself--failure is sometimes my fault, not the camera's. I also liked some bright light shot. For instance, here, I liked the silouhettes of the Greek temple versus the bright sea---there is a little backlighting but considering that I was virtually shooting right into the sun, the camera I thought handled this extremely well. With my film camera, this lighting situation would've resulted in black blobs to the right a lot of times. http://marksquires.com/images/templePICT0018.jpg This is by no means a perfect shot, but the conditions were extremely difficult and the camera did a pretty fair job of balancing it out without much help from me other than a touch of exposure compensation.

I did think there were some issues on other types of lighting patterns. For instance, light streaming into between trees confused the camera a bit (more so on the viewfinder than the actual jpg). Of course, these can be tricky shots for any camera and photographer, and it really requires bracketing to get it right.

Another thing I thought I noticed were some problems focusing sharply. On reflection, I don't think it is a focus issue at all. I've certainly gotten some shots now with sharp focus. I think I've forgotten to pay attention to depth of field after going a couple of years having left my film camera home and having only used a cheapie point and shoot. My problem in this shot,

http://marksquires.com/images/ortygiaMarketPICT0082.jpg

was to my mind not focus as I originally thought but depth of field. (I cropped the worst of it off the top...)
monsieurms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2003, 1:58 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6
Default

Pictures are out of focus!? You might have a defective camera. I agree with sjms, call Minolta support.

Regards,
Marvz

http://www.pbase.com/tharts06
Marvz 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 9:16 PM.