Why my blue sky is not blue?

[GungGung]

I’ve two cameras, a canon PowerShot A95 and a Canon Rebel XTi. The pictures taken by the PowerShot A95 is constantly better than the Rebel, especially blue skies. Attached are some pictures taken on the same date/time with the same settings.

Tv 1/500, Av 8.0, ISO 200, and White balance : Auto

These pictures are taken by Rebel XTi. with a UV filter, 18.0 - 200.0 mm lens, Evaluative metering mode.
Metering Mo



These pictures are taken with A95 (Programming mode with Center Weighted Avg)




Is there any settings I should use in the Rebel XTi to correct this problem?

Thanks

[fletch]

Not used either of these cameras so correct me if I'm wrong.

I suspect it has something to do with the in camera software that converts the files to JPEG. P&S cameras are generally shipped from the factory with more "pop" in their JPEG conversion programs to give the pictures an out of the box zing to them. This supposedly appeals to this type of camera's target audience, the casual photography who won't do any PP and will print directly from the camera's files.

DSLR have more neutral settings which give a duller feel out of the box but can be tweaked more in PP. Try shooting in RAW and give the photos the pop in your RAW conversion software. If you really can't be faffed the try chainging the camera's setting to give more contrast, saturation and sharpness in the jpegs

[Chip]

Possibly the difference is caused by the fact that one used centered weigthed metering and the other used evaluative? For a true apples to apples comparison, maybe recreate but this time use the same metering?

[kencaleno]

First throw away that utterly useless UV filter-it will only give you flat colours,low contrast,and it will attract flare-as for lesns protection,that's the job of lens cap and lens hood.Regards,Ken

[gh patriot]

A circular polarizer should help with the blue sky but that doesn't explain the difference.

Shoot slower speed. It will work

[fletch]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

Shoot slower speed. It will work

Why? This will just expose the photo more, not make any differnce to the differnces between the two phtoto's when compared like for like.

GungGung - From looking again at the A95 shot with the leaves is it possible the flash went off? It looks as though fill flash was used to light the leaves while in the DSLR shot they are backlit and therefore much darker.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by kencaleno

First throw away that utterly useless UV filter-it will only give you flat colours,low contrast,and it will attract flare-as for lesns protection,that's the job of lens cap and lens hood.Regards,Ken

I have to disagree: for everyday use, especially in bright lights, a good UV filter is good to have. One of the functions of a UV filter is to reduce flare to a degree. I've also not seen any difference in my colours or contrast.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by kencaleno

First throw away that utterly useless UV filter-it will only give you flat colours,low contrast,and it will attract flare-as for lesns protection,that's the job of lens cap and lens hood.Regards,Ken

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I have to disagree: for everyday use, especially in bright lights, a good UV filter is good to have. One of the functions of a UV filter is to reduce flare to a degree. I've also not seen any difference in my colours or contrast.

Whoa the debate rumbles on... Who knew the UV filter debate would find it's way onto another thread.

This one amoung others

We get it, some people swear by them others think they are the work of satan, but does anybody realistically think the quite marked differences in the two shots above are down to the presence of a UV filter? I know I don't.

Originally Posted by fletch

Why? This will just expose the photo more, not make any differnce to the differnces between the two phtoto's when compared like for like.

You can sit here and arm chair me to death, or you can go out, and retake the picture and see if i'm right.