Originally posted by: SinNisTeR
i love my sd400
Well tell me why? I love it too. Hows the flash working out for you? I feel it's a little weak.
Plus tell me how did my pics come out?
The first pic looks ok. I actually find the bokeh to contribute to it. It's not the greatest picture and it could be more defined but no big problems here.
The second picture looks OOF. Was your camera in macro mode and were you using a tripod? That might be the reason it's OOF.
The third picture looks fine to me! It makes me hungry AND thirsty. That's all.
Canon makes great P&S cameras. I have a SD300 that I carry around and a DRebel for other photography.
The second picture looks OOF. Was your camera in macro mode and were you using a tripod? That might be the reason it's OOF.
The third picture looks fine to me! It makes me hungry AND thirsty. That's all.
Canon makes great P&S cameras. I have a SD300 that I carry around and a DRebel for other photography.
Actually I was just holding it (no tripod), it was in macro mode but it was windy and the flowers were moving. Thanks for the comments on the pics.
I think they look awesome. You can't beat the features/size of the SD-series. I love my SD200.
If you're trying to get RebelXT quality out of a credit card sized camera, you won't. But you gotta admit it looks EXTREMELY good for the small size/price.
If you're trying to get RebelXT quality out of a credit card sized camera, you won't. But you gotta admit it looks EXTREMELY good for the small size/price.
rh71,
Check your settings to see if the auto ISO is selected.
If it does, change it to ISO 50 or 100.
Disabled flash, put it on tripod or table, use timer and check the shot again after that.
Should reduce the noise. Auto ISO prolly pump it up to ISO 400 (noisy) to compensate for lack of flash.
Epoman,
Your camera should be able to take reasonably sharp & nice pictures, regardless of it's a small P&S. There is a general consensus that SD300/400 produce softer picture on the corner & edge than its predecessor (S400/500), but not that noticeable unless viewed at 100%. It is believed that the new UA lens is the culprit, but that is also why the camera can be that thin. Can't have the cake & eat it too
A little bit of sharpening prolly should take care of it.
Just to give you some comparison, here are some that I took with Canon S400.
I'm not a great photog by any means but I think these are pretty sharp and show what a small cam can do.
My Nikon D70
AZ's Sunset
Lexar JumpDrive
Getty
Sammich Anyone ?
Check your settings to see if the auto ISO is selected.
If it does, change it to ISO 50 or 100.
Disabled flash, put it on tripod or table, use timer and check the shot again after that.
Should reduce the noise. Auto ISO prolly pump it up to ISO 400 (noisy) to compensate for lack of flash.
Epoman,
Your camera should be able to take reasonably sharp & nice pictures, regardless of it's a small P&S. There is a general consensus that SD300/400 produce softer picture on the corner & edge than its predecessor (S400/500), but not that noticeable unless viewed at 100%. It is believed that the new UA lens is the culprit, but that is also why the camera can be that thin. Can't have the cake & eat it too
A little bit of sharpening prolly should take care of it.
Just to give you some comparison, here are some that I took with Canon S400.
I'm not a great photog by any means but I think these are pretty sharp and show what a small cam can do.
My Nikon D70
AZ's Sunset
Lexar JumpDrive
Getty
Sammich Anyone ?
Saint Nick
Lifer
- Jan 21, 2005
- 17,722
- 6
- 81
2nd pic looks a little soft, but otherwise, alright. i love my SD200. I'm not expecting superior pics, as I went around snapping w/ my rebel at my friends party (just happened to have it w/ me), so I'm a little spoiled.. but it works well enough for the 4x6 if I want to print out. flash sucks indoors (general P&S flash photography really irks me, but it must be done, i don't have steady hands), but i find my sd200 to be just fine.
Originally posted by: kyutip
rh71,
Check your settings to see if the auto ISO is selected.
If it does, change it to ISO 50 or 100.
Disabled flash, put it on tripod or table, use timer and check the shot again after that.
Should reduce the noise. Auto ISO prolly pump it up to ISO 400 (noisy) to compensate for lack of flash.
Epoman,
Your camera should be able to take reasonably sharp & nice pictures, regardless of it's a small P&S. There is a general consensus that SD300/400 produce softer picture on the corner & edge than its predecessor (S400/500), but not that noticeable unless viewed at 100%. It is believed that the new UA lens is the culprit, but that is also why the camera can be that thin. Can't have the cake & eat it too
A little bit of sharpening prolly should take care of it.
Just to give you some comparison, here are some that I took with Canon S400.
I'm not a great photog by any means but I think these are pretty sharp and show what a small cam can do.
My Nikon D70
AZ's Sunset
Lexar JumpDrive
Getty
Sammich Anyone ?
Thanks for the reply, I'm getting more and more convinced to keep my SD400.
i have an sd300 and my photos often appear a little washed out (except in macro mode). i normally run washed out pictures though 'the gimp', making the following adjustments: brightness, contrast, sharpness.
look at your yellow flower pic before and after:
before gimp
after gimp
the difference is subtle, but i think the second one looks a little better.
look at your yellow flower pic before and after:
before gimp
after gimp
the difference is subtle, but i think the second one looks a little better.
WOW! yeah there is a BIG improvement thanks for taking the time to this for me. I have Adobe Photoshop 7 but do you think "the gimp" is easier or better?
Unfortunately, Canon used a smaller CCD for the SD200-SD400 than they had in the S400 and have in the S410 / S500 / SD500. The result is noisier images... since I like evening / low light pictures, CCD size (well, noise at higher ISOs) was a big factor in what I decided to buy. I would have gone for an SD400 if the CCD was bigger, but it's not, and the SD500 cost more than I really wanted to spend.
I ended up getting a Fujifilm Finepix F10, and it's pretty good - but one thing that occurs a lot is blown highlights - the brightest part of an image ends up white. You can avoid it by doing the metering in a different part of the scene or adjusting the exposure a bit though, so it's not a huge problem.
Some pics from here and here.
1
2
3 (I should've used a lower ISO here)
4 (I didn't mean to use the flash).
5
6a vs 6b - they're the same thing, but one metered with the sky and the other with the trees (note that in 6a the sky is *completely* overexposed)
7
Keep the fscking camera. It's a great P&S and it'll last you for a couple of years. It won't take the pictures like a DSLR but what else can you expect from a compact digital camera?
Let this thread die please, Epoman's question's been answered plenty of times.
Let this thread die please, Epoman's question's been answered plenty of times.
rh71
No Lifer
- Aug 28, 2001
- 52,816
- 1,013
- 126
thanks for that info. I just did a test in manual mode (you were probably right about auto mode)... with lower ISOs, it takes longer to complete snapping the picture and with my unsteady hands, it creates a bit of a blur. However, the lower ISOs did get rid of the noise in the flash-less pics. At least now I know... I'll try for a happy medium.
I think they are fine. My 5MP A95 I think gets a little sharper under ideal conditions, but that (A) might be in my head and (B) might have to do with the lens they use on the Elph's (smaller camera, less quality lens?)
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram