Digital Cameras and soft images

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The following statement was extracted from a posting by Jim Townsend:

"As others have mentioned.. Good post processing will sharpen up
the images. DSLR's don't sharpen as much as P&S cameras. This
is a common complaint."

As someone who uses a 35mm SLR for slides (to be viewed once or twice,
then filed away), I am thinking of converting to a DSLR. But, I just
like to take sharp pictures and have no interest in any form of 'post
processing'. Would a decent point and shoot then be a better option for
me rather than a D70 or 20D?

One goal was to exchange the slide projector (that doesn't work) for a
computer projector for viewing the hundreds a pictures I can take with a
digital. I do own a C-700 and a Sony T1, but am not happy with the
sharpness. (For prints, I have been using an old Olympus Epic.) The
other objective is to switch from the 5-6 cameras that I take on
vacation down to two or three. It is a nuisance to take a slide, print
and digital backup picture of each subject.

JAB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jbert wrote:
> The following statement was extracted from a posting by Jim Townsend:
>
> "As others have mentioned.. Good post processing will sharpen up
> the images. DSLR's don't sharpen as much as P&S cameras. This
> is a common complaint."
>
> As someone who uses a 35mm SLR for slides (to be viewed once or twice,
> then filed away), I am thinking of converting to a DSLR. But, I just
> like to take sharp pictures and have no interest in any form of 'post
> processing'. Would a decent point and shoot then be a better option
> for me rather than a D70 or 20D?

The post processing does not take much of any effort on your part. It
just means you can make choices and not accept the default.

BTW at least some (like Canon 20D) do allow you some sharpness control
at the camera.

>
> One goal was to exchange the slide projector (that doesn't work) for a
> computer projector for viewing the hundreds a pictures I can take
> with a digital. I do own a C-700 and a Sony T1, but am not happy with
> the sharpness. (For prints, I have been using an old Olympus Epic.)
> The other objective is to switch from the 5-6 cameras that I take on
> vacation down to two or three. It is a nuisance to take a slide, print
> and digital backup picture of each subject.
>
> JAB

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit

 

[Jim]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jbert" <james.bertilson@yale.edu> wrote in message
news:d3h36h$h5b$1@news.wss.yale.edu...
> The following statement was extracted from a posting by Jim Townsend:
>
> "As others have mentioned.. Good post processing will sharpen up
> the images. DSLR's don't sharpen as much as P&S cameras. This
> is a common complaint."
>
> As someone who uses a 35mm SLR for slides (to be viewed once or twice,
> then filed away), I am thinking of converting to a DSLR. But, I just
> like to take sharp pictures and have no interest in any form of 'post
> processing'. Would a decent point and shoot then be a better option for
> me rather than a D70 or 20D?
>
The images from my D70 are, if anything, sharper than those from my N90s.
Moreover those from my Coolpix 800 are as well.
I take that you never enlarge the 35mm images because, after all, that is a
form of post processing.
Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jbert"
> The following statement was extracted from a posting by Jim Townsend:
>
> "As others have mentioned.. Good post processing will sharpen up
> the images. DSLR's don't sharpen as much as P&S cameras. This
> is a common complaint."
>
> As someone who uses a 35mm SLR for slides (to be viewed once or twice,
> then filed away), I am thinking of converting to a DSLR. But, I just
> like to take sharp pictures and have no interest in any form of 'post
> processing'. Would a decent point and shoot then be a better option for
> me rather than a D70 or 20D?
>
> One goal was to exchange the slide projector (that doesn't work) for a
> computer projector for viewing the hundreds a pictures I can take with a
> digital. I do own a C-700 and a Sony T1, but am not happy with the
> sharpness. (For prints, I have been using an old Olympus Epic.) The
> other objective is to switch from the 5-6 cameras that I take on
> vacation down to two or three. It is a nuisance to take a slide, print
> and digital backup picture of each subject.
>
> JAB

I think all dslr's you can set the sharpening at different levels as well as
color saturation and contrast - so if you really do not want to do any
postprocessing that is possible.
Images from a digicam LOOK different, creative use of dof is almost
non existing - if you are used to 35mm slr I think you'll hate the limitations
of a digicam. If you do mostly macro and landscape where everything has
to be in focus a digicam is the way to go though. ;o)-max-

 

[Darrell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

";o)-max-" <ma22x3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MZX6e.111747$Vf.4177716@news000.worldonline.dk...
>
> "jbert"
> > The following statement was extracted from a posting by Jim Townsend:
> >
> > "As others have mentioned.. Good post processing will sharpen up
> > the images. DSLR's don't sharpen as much as P&S cameras. This
> > is a common complaint."
> >
> > As someone who uses a 35mm SLR for slides (to be viewed once or twice,
> > then filed away), I am thinking of converting to a DSLR. But, I just
> > like to take sharp pictures and have no interest in any form of 'post
> > processing'. Would a decent point and shoot then be a better option for
> > me rather than a D70 or 20D?
> >
> > One goal was to exchange the slide projector (that doesn't work) for a
> > computer projector for viewing the hundreds a pictures I can take with a
> > digital. I do own a C-700 and a Sony T1, but am not happy with the
> > sharpness. (For prints, I have been using an old Olympus Epic.) The
> > other objective is to switch from the 5-6 cameras that I take on
> > vacation down to two or three. It is a nuisance to take a slide, print
> > and digital backup picture of each subject.
> >
> > JAB
>
> I think all dslr's you can set the sharpening at different levels as well
as
> color saturation and contrast - so if you really do not want to do any
> postprocessing that is possible.
> Images from a digicam LOOK different, creative use of dof is almost
> non existing - if you are used to 35mm slr I think you'll hate the
limitations
> of a digicam. If you do mostly macro and landscape where everything has
> to be in focus a digicam is the way to go though. ;o)-max-
>
So you never really used a dSLR! I have shots with shallow DOF, some with
large DOF, My 14mm stopped down to f:16 will give me 6" to infinity. My
other lenses give me around what they gave me before. My 85mm f:2 still
gives me selective focus. The circle of confusion is different, which
changes the DOF slightly. with a "point & shoot" digicam they have the same
DOF as a dSLR or film camera. If I look at a camera like the Canon A95 (as
an example) it has a 7.8mm~23.4mm lens, not a 38 - 114mm lens. People look
at the equivelent (FOV crop factor) but at the end of the day it's a
7.8~23.4mm with similar DOF to a 7.8~23.4mm lens. A 7mm lens has a very
large DOF...