Is the problem me?
Discussion
Last weekend I was at a lovely place in some gorgeous sunshine.
I took some pictures there on an a100 and also on an IXUS900 and I preferred the pictures of grass (or anything green) from the small pocket, fully auto camera than the bigger, expensive, technically better one.
I'm wondering if it's me, that the Sony is taking accurate pictures whilst the Canon is compensating in some way "because that's what the customer wants"?
Suppose the question might also be which is the better picture? Am I right to prefer the 2nd?
Sony a100
Canon IXUS 900
I took some pictures there on an a100 and also on an IXUS900 and I preferred the pictures of grass (or anything green) from the small pocket, fully auto camera than the bigger, expensive, technically better one.
I'm wondering if it's me, that the Sony is taking accurate pictures whilst the Canon is compensating in some way "because that's what the customer wants"?
Suppose the question might also be which is the better picture? Am I right to prefer the 2nd?
Sony a100
Canon IXUS 900
The ixus is better exposed (IMHO - sky is not blown out) but then it's not exactly the same image . . . you need to review shots that could be difficult - any landscape with the ground and the sky can confuse cameras . . . and there's nothing worse than a white liiking sky when it just wasn't . . .
$0.02
Fd
$0.02
Fd
Was the ixus (not a camera I've ever used btw) on a 'landscape' setting? I only ask it's quite common for greens and blues to be saturated more by a camera set to 'landscape' than one that isn't (or one that leaves more control in the hands of the shooter).
Do other images from the a100 come out ok? Have you got saturation turned down on a setting somewhere?
I don't see how it can be you as such, must be the ways the camera are set up. Funnily enough my wife showed me a pic she took in our garden recently and I was surprised how vividly the colours came out - it was only a cheap Nikon digi compact. Not sure my 5D would have captured the colours that strongly. Maybe its a trick by the manufacturers to make the shots look better?!
Do other images from the a100 come out ok? Have you got saturation turned down on a setting somewhere?
I don't see how it can be you as such, must be the ways the camera are set up. Funnily enough my wife showed me a pic she took in our garden recently and I was surprised how vividly the colours came out - it was only a cheap Nikon digi compact. Not sure my 5D would have captured the colours that strongly. Maybe its a trick by the manufacturers to make the shots look better?!
fergusd said:
The ixus is better exposed (IMHO - sky is not blown out) but then it's not exactly the same image . . . you need to review shots that could be difficult - any landscape with the ground and the sky can confuse cameras . . . and there's nothing worse than a white liiking sky when it just wasn't . . .
Don't think so as I have so many examples. (Also, both cameras were on 'auto' mode and neither were on a landscape / sun / green filter setting.)Same shot:
a100
IXUS
And some more from same day :
a100
IXUS
I'm torn between being impressed with the IXUS and disappointed with the a100!!
Was the first photo a point and shoot fully auto effort? On auto mode I really don't think you will see much difference between different cameras... indeed cameras designed to operate in auto point and shoot mode may well be programmed to function more effectively in that setting.
No I think the problem, forgive me, possibly is you. I would probably be in Program mode for this shot or possibly aperture priority to maximise depth of field. Then I would have pointed the camera at the sky and locked the exposure to whatever the meter indicated, then refocussed and snapped away. A quick check of the screen may have suggested a nicely exposed sky but a dark foreground, in which case I would have switched to manual, kept the aperture constant but gradually lowered the shutter speed... until the screen showed me a ground / sky compromise that I could live with.
This type of scene is always a nightmare to expose correctly.. and to be honest I would usually end up tweaking the contrast and saturation in PS (or similar)as getting the exposure right in the field is so difficult.
PS. check the exif data for both shots... I suspect you will discover that different shutter speeds and apertures have been selected - and the difference in look is probably simply down to that
I'm no expert but since getting my first DSLR 6 months ago I have begun to realise that the key to a good pic lies with the photographer not the camera - perhaps cliched but true.
No I think the problem, forgive me, possibly is you. I would probably be in Program mode for this shot or possibly aperture priority to maximise depth of field. Then I would have pointed the camera at the sky and locked the exposure to whatever the meter indicated, then refocussed and snapped away. A quick check of the screen may have suggested a nicely exposed sky but a dark foreground, in which case I would have switched to manual, kept the aperture constant but gradually lowered the shutter speed... until the screen showed me a ground / sky compromise that I could live with.
This type of scene is always a nightmare to expose correctly.. and to be honest I would usually end up tweaking the contrast and saturation in PS (or similar)as getting the exposure right in the field is so difficult.
PS. check the exif data for both shots... I suspect you will discover that different shutter speeds and apertures have been selected - and the difference in look is probably simply down to that
I'm no expert but since getting my first DSLR 6 months ago I have begun to realise that the key to a good pic lies with the photographer not the camera - perhaps cliched but true.
Edited by bd02 on Wednesday 6th June 13:53
Consumer compact cameras often have the saturation turned up a little to make the 'snaps' look vibrant. DSLR's *i think* have slightly truer colour representation.
As for the over-exposure, its surprising that its doing that in auto. For a quick solution, use P mode and turn down the exposure compensation a bit. I usually use -0.7 or more on my dslr in bright sunlight.
As for the over-exposure, its surprising that its doing that in auto. For a quick solution, use P mode and turn down the exposure compensation a bit. I usually use -0.7 or more on my dslr in bright sunlight.
gregorio! said:
Consumer compact cameras often have the saturation turned up a little to make the 'snaps' look vibrant. DSLR's *i think* have slightly truer colour representation.
I think that's the case here.gregorio! said:
As for the over-exposure, its surprising that its doing that in auto. For a quick solution, use P mode and turn down the exposure compensation a bit. I usually use -0.7 or more on my dslr in bright sunlight.
I'm sure there are ways to correct, but my question is should I need to? Ie. is the pocket camera not playing fair?I was in a similar situation when I still had my ixus 5 thing and got my 350d.
What you need to ask yourself is which one is more real? Was the grass really that green?
And which do you prefer?
My personal opinion on it is that I like my pictures to be as real as possible when I take them, then I bugger about with them in photoshop
D
What you need to ask yourself is which one is more real? Was the grass really that green?
And which do you prefer?
My personal opinion on it is that I like my pictures to be as real as possible when I take them, then I bugger about with them in photoshop
D
1st its sunny & bright, ideal conditions for the P&S to excel, not that the dSLR shouldnt too.
But the P&S is built to generate nice out of the camera pics with saturation & sharpening/contrast all tweaked for you.
The dSLR isnt, its meant for you to control it how you want to. I think the sony has overexposed a little, so long as it hasnt lost the highlites its recoverable, and 'exposing to the right' is the correct thing to do anyhow, but probably moer to do with what meetering is being used etc. The sony wont have applied any heavy processing to the files, leaving that up to you later (or typicaly you can set some in menu options for jpg's).
But the P&S is built to generate nice out of the camera pics with saturation & sharpening/contrast all tweaked for you.
The dSLR isnt, its meant for you to control it how you want to. I think the sony has overexposed a little, so long as it hasnt lost the highlites its recoverable, and 'exposing to the right' is the correct thing to do anyhow, but probably moer to do with what meetering is being used etc. The sony wont have applied any heavy processing to the files, leaving that up to you later (or typicaly you can set some in menu options for jpg's).
The answer, without being harsh is; yes, the problem is you. BUT it's easily rectified, and is a problem we've all faced, or are likely to face.
When shooting RAW I almost always add a little more colour saturation, a little contrast and add a little sharpness where needed.
Consider buying a book such as: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photoshop-Digital-Photogra...
When shooting RAW I almost always add a little more colour saturation, a little contrast and add a little sharpness where needed.
Consider buying a book such as: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photoshop-Digital-Photogra...
pikey said:
I'm wondering if it's me
It's not you, it's me. I can't help the way I feel, and things have't been right now for a while between us.There just isn't that spark any more.
I think it's time we both moved on.
Of course I haven't met anyone else.
Sorry for the thread hijack. I couldn't help myself!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff