Does anyone get slightly unsharp images from their Canon Rebel T2i?

[08Raven]

I just bought one, and it's a good camera but the images seem un-sharp. Not blurred from motion or anything like that. When I take the picture (focusing to infinity) I press the shutter halfway and wait for the dots to blink then take the picture; the images are "soft" not crisp.... Does this happen to anyone else with this particular camera? This has happened with all lenses that I own. What could the problem be?? It uses a CMOS chip right?? thanks

[ceremus]

We can probably help more if you can post some examples along with the EXIF data.
Noting the lens information would also be a good idea.

My guess would be that your shutter speeds may be too low, but we won't know for sure without more information.

[ErikUngerPhotography]

There are several reasons an image can be unsharp.

1) Too slow of a shutter speed

2) Holding the camera and lens wrong

3) Focus is slightly off

4) If shooting RAW, the images are going to be slightly soft. RAW images require a little bit of sharpening.

[inkista]

Three most likely culprits:

1. You don't know how to hold the camera, yet.

2. You don't know how fast a shutter speed you need, yet. My personal limit is about 1/30s or 1/focal length, whichever is faster. (I.e., with a 200mm lens, I need 1/200s, with an 18mm lens, I need 1/30s). VR/IS can compensate for a stop or two, but not too much more than that, and of course, that's only against camera-shake blur, not subject motion blur.

3. Misfocus. Just because the lights went off doesn't necessarily mean your subject is in focus, particularly if you're using the full AF grid. Which square went off can be key, and sometimes selecting the specific AF point you want to use will make a huge amount of difference.

[08Raven]

I can only try and not sound like a prick at the moment but I'm a little mad at Canon. I found that the pictures were coming in sharper at a smaller resolution other than the Large (18MP option) I've heard that this kind of thing happens with cheap televisions to. And although it may have been a lens issue or me, or whatever, I figured that if I had to pay ~$800 and still use Photoshop to sharpen pix for just about every shot then, I'd rather have something more reliable (especially for the price). So I'm getting the NIKON D5100. Same as what Ken Rockwell uses As far as I know he's pretty credible. Although the Nikon may not be made in Japan, I do know it takes sharper pix because my Dad owns one and he can hardly see. And his pictures come out tack sharp! I also found that the Nikon has a few creative special features that kind put Photoshop in the camera use. However, I do understand that 99.7% of pictures still have to be sharpened in a photo editing program for professional prints and what not, but I wanted something that is more "independent from Photoshop" Call me lazy or whatever but I don't want to sit in front of a computer all day adjusting what ~$800 should have already adjusted. At least not to the extent that this camera was making me do it at. Sorry Canon. People, please wish me luck with Nikon! I would post pix but I don't want to hear it.... I feel it's time for a change anyway, hehe.

[dmann]

Originally Posted by 08Raven

I can only try and not sound like a prick at the moment but I'm a little mad at Canon. I found that the pictures were coming in sharper at a smaller resolution other than the Large (18MP option) I've heard that this kind of thing happens with cheap televisions to. And although it may have been a lens issue or me, or whatever, I figured that if I had to pay ~$800 and still use Photoshop to sharpen pix for just about every shot then, I'd rather have something more reliable (especially for the price). So I'm getting the NIKON D5100. Same as what Ken Rockwell uses As far as I know he's pretty credible. Although the Nikon may not be made in Japan, I do know it takes sharper pix because my Dad owns one and he can hardly see. And his pictures come out tack sharp! I also found that the Nikon has a few creative special features that kind put Photoshop in the camera use. However, I do understand that 99.7% of pictures still have to be sharpened in a photo editing program for professional prints and what not, but I wanted something that is more "independent from Photoshop" Call me lazy or whatever but I don't want to sit in front of a computer all day adjusting what ~$800 should have already adjusted. At least not to the extent that this camera was making me do it at. Sorry Canon. People, please wish me luck with Nikon! I would post pix but I don't want to hear it.... I feel it's time for a change anyway, hehe.

I have found this with my t1i and I am currently struggling with this badly! I dont want to use photoshop on every shot either. Wondering if you could help me out by posting a pic pls? I would like to see if they end up soft like mine. I have been using a tripod (occasionally even a remote to get sharper pics), I have been using a 50mm lens 1.8 and wont go more than 3.2, using a fast shutter (usually 1/100 or faster), and the only time I get it looking somewhat sharp is when the picture is over exposed!

Sorry if I'm high jacking your thread but I wanna know whats going wrong because I can't go get another camera or lens....

Thanks a bunch

[ceremus]

08Raven>
There's nothing wrong with switching from Canon to Nikon (both Japanese companies btw), especially if your dad has equipment he can share. But bear in mind, you can shoot with a $2000 camera and a tack sharp lens, if your technique is wrong your pictures are going to be poor.

Now not having seen any examples I don't know if that's the case with your technique or not. Although I will say that the D5100 and the T2i are fairly comparable cameras. The 5100 competes directly with the T3i, and the differences between the T2i and T3i are fairly minimal. Barring a dud copy, if you're having difficulty with the Canon side switching to the Nikon model in the same price bracket isn't going to get you a world of difference.

You said you were shooting in the full 18MB size on the T2i, that means you were shooting in RAW. RAW files are not converted to JPEG in the camera, and as such they will always require more post processing to look their best. The same will be true of the Nikon if you shoot those files in RAW. Post work is not limited to RAW files either mind you, there's almost no shot you can take that won't be improved by some basic post processing (levels, curves, etc).


dmann>
Examples? With EXIF maybe?

[dmann]

I attached an image.

EXIF
f 5.6
ss 1/400
iso 100

It is a little bit sharper than most I am referring too but I cant post the other ones without getting permission so this will have to do.

Thanks so much and sorry for hi-jacking the thread

[ceremus]

I honestly can't find much to complain about sharpness-wise in that photo. I can clearly see a lot of detail in the little fuzz on his cheeks, his pacifier is likewise very sharp and detailed, and you can see the plane of focus in bits where his hair is catching the light.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a sharp lens, fairly sharp wide open and very sharp at f/2.8 and smaller apertures (higher f numbers), and this is a pretty good example of that.

I noticed your examples in your other thread, the other thing I would mention particularly in regards to the 2nd family photo is to watch your shutter speed when you get down to 1/80, 1/60, or slower. The 50mm lens doesn't have a stabilizer, and even small hand vibrations can blur up a shot when using those slower speeds. Be aware of your handholding technique. If you have one available, a tripod isn't a bad idea either.

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by 08Raven

I can only try and not sound like a prick at the moment but I'm a little mad at Canon. I found that the pictures were coming in sharper at a smaller resolution other than the Large (18MP option) I've heard that this kind of thing happens with cheap televisions to. And although it may have been a lens issue or me, or whatever, I figured that if I had to pay ~$800 and still use Photoshop to sharpen pix for just about every shot then, I'd rather have something more reliable (especially for the price). So I'm getting the NIKON D5100. Same as what Ken Rockwell uses As far as I know he's pretty credible. Although the Nikon may not be made in Japan, I do know it takes sharper pix because my Dad owns one and he can hardly see. And his pictures come out tack sharp! I also found that the Nikon has a few creative special features that kind put Photoshop in the camera use. However, I do understand that 99.7% of pictures still have to be sharpened in a photo editing program for professional prints and what not, but I wanted something that is more "independent from Photoshop" Call me lazy or whatever but I don't want to sit in front of a computer all day adjusting what ~$800 should have already adjusted. At least not to the extent that this camera was making me do it at. Sorry Canon. People, please wish me luck with Nikon! I would post pix but I don't want to hear it.... I feel it's time for a change anyway, hehe.

Something seems fishy. In the OP (which was his first post, by the way) he said he just bought the T2i, and had issues with "soft" images. Then, less than 12 hours later he posts the quoted post. In that he says that it's "time for a change". I wonder if we're just dealing with a troll. Besides, just reading his last post is pure comedy.