Hello,I have recently purchased a Canon 350d,I use to have a Fuji s5600 digicam which served me very well for 2 years.I made the upgrade to the Canon expecting to have much better image quality (sharper,more vivd etc),But alas i am finding i am unimpressed with the images.I have been using the kit lens and also a sigma 70-300 lens and am finding both produce soft images.I have tried manual settings and all the auto settings and am now thinking that i have wasted £450 !!!!!. Could i be doing something wrong? Is the kit lens really that bad? Have i got a dud camera? I have posted in the d40 forum before because i was going to swap the Canon for a d40,I wish i had now!
Any help or information would be helpful as i have asked these questions on several Canon based sites and got nothing. Thats another reason i wish had bought into a Nikon system!
Hopefully, you will get some good suggestions here
I've not used any Canon cameras, so I can't really comment myself. I do know that it's fairly common for someone moving up from a compact digital to a DSLR to be a little disappointed at first. A DSLR (from any company) is likely to need more "tweaking" of the various settings (like WB, Hue, Sharpness, etc...) in order to start producing images that look like you want them to look.
Could i be doing something wrong? Probably. I do something wrong on every shot I take.
Is the kit lens really that bad? Typically no. It has its limits, but I've seen some very nice shots done with this combination.
Have i got a dud camera? Perhaps.
I don't know what your expectations are, but if you are judging your results based on full-sized on screen images, remember that you would normally look at an equivalent sized print from a longer distance.
Without seeing some sample shots, there's little more one can say except that the differences between Canon and Nikon are not as large you might infer from reading equipment forums. While most of us here prefer the Nikon system, either one could be right for you.
Try to borrow a Nikon D40 or another Canon to see if it's your camera, your subjective judgment, or expectations.
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck
It is more than likely user error. Its kind of expected. Ive been shooting with a DSLR for over a year and I still find myself in situations where I feel like a complete idiot for not knowing something very basic. Id say post your results for us to take a look but youd probably have better luck in a Canon forum since they know Canon equipment better. Dont leave the forum though. However I do have to warn you, if you stay here long, youll end up making the switch. :- )
Set +2 or +3 sharpness. Set ISO 800. Set aperture 11, aperture priority. Try to focus on closest subject - on aperture 11 all of cheap kit lenses suffering of focus back shifting - kind of distortions. When you got nice stable result, switch to Nikon - just kidding! Good luck! Do not hesitate to ask! THX. Dimitri
You mentioned that you're expecting more vivd images. I don't know if Canon has the same settings as a Nikon but I just learned about Color Modes. I was shooting landscapes in Mode I and my buddy kinda looked at me and said "Oh GOD no!".
For landscapes, you want to shoot in Mode III which is a more saturated color blend. Much like when shooting Fuji Velvia 50 slides.
Use Mode I for portraits and general people shots where you don't want to see all that color.
I honestly don't know what use Mode II is. I'm either shooting people or landscapes so I and III are for me.
Again - I don't know if you have the same options, but that's something to consider.
"You, you and you … Panic. The rest of you, come with me." ~U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sgt.~
Mode I - jpeg/NEF & NX Tweaked for low saturation, good for people, use like Astia Mode II - NEF Untweaked, general use, use like Provia Mode III - jpeg/NEF & NX Tweaked for high saturation, good for landscapes, use like Velvia
Mode II is used if you are doing post processing (mostly NEF) and can decide where to go with contrast, saturation etc.
At least that is my understanding and I hope it helps.
No use to a Canon user though.
Always look on the bright side of life de dum de dum........... :) :) :) Dave C Scottish Nikonian My Gallery
If you are handholding you are not going to have sharp images. If you are zooming in right in for a fullsize view but still with a tripod to some pple they may be dissapointed. If you want truly sharp images don't view fullsize no matter what camera you have $500 or $50,000. if you want more vivid change the camera setting or do it on the software via a computer.
yes, more than likely your issue is lack of skill...
>Is the kit lens really that bad?
What kit lens? It is a kit lens, but then again-- that is unlikely to be your main issue.
>Have i got a dud camera?
>I have posted in the d40 forum before because i was going to >swap the Canon for a d40,I wish i had now!
A d40 is unlikely to help you. Your grasping at straws and easy solutions in vain.
>Any help or information would be helpful as i have asked >these questions on several Canon based sites and got >nothing.
Where? If your asking for help sound like you know something and provide meaningful data. For example, include specific images and questions. If you post something like, "my images suck, is my camera a dud"-- you'll likely get ignored.
Start by reading your manual, getting a few good books on photography and learn to use your camera-- whether that be a canon or nikon.
----- "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -William Blake
Thanks everyone for your replys,i take on board all of the ideas i.e it could be me etc etc,i was advised to set all the parameters to zero,take my shots and then adjust them in photoshop.And have been given some advice on workflow which seems to be getting results. scott.