EOS 2000D Blurry pictures as compared to my old Samsung Galaxy S9 phone

[v3anders]

I just got the entry level 2000D in preparation for taking a photography class. I gave it a test drive. I see that the pictures are blurry and fuzzy compared to old phone, which has half the pixels. Is this normal? or do I have a defective camera?

[jrhoffman75 · Accepted solution]

I assume it is a typo, but the EXIF data says 2000D; you posted 4000D.

In P mode the camera should take very good images. But, modern smartphones are dealing in computerized photography, so they are doing a lot of processing to the image. Often that produces images that initially look great and are fine for Instagram and Facebook, but really aren't quality images that you would enlarge and place on your wall.

It's like the television wall in Best Buy or Wal-Mart. In the aisle the bright crisp model catches your eye, but look closely and its over-saturated  and  over sharpened. Tiring to the eyes in the long run.

The Landscape Picture Style favors smaller aperture for depth of field at the expense of a lower shutter speed since it assumes that the landscape is stationary. It also accentuates blues and greens since they are predominant colors in most landscapes.

Set the camera to Program mode and Standard Picture Style, Auto ISO, Evaluative Metering and One-Shot AF with a singe center focus point. Then go out and shoot. 

[jrhoffman75 · Accepted solution]

I did get the files this AM Valentin.

My assessment is that the statue images prior to file 348 show motion blur. In all cases the shutter speeds were at or below 1/focal length. You want to have the shutter speed to be equal or faster than 1/(2xfocal length). 

348 achieves that and the image is sharp. (FL=18; SS=1/40)

The field picture on the cellphone looks sharp, but most serious photographers will likely tell you it is over sharpened. Look at the halos around items like the power lines and even some of the grass blades. It's not realistic. But it depends on your use. If your end use is Instagram or Facebook posts (that's all my granddaughters use their images for) then it is fine and works. Even on a iPad it would look fine.

The rabbit was right on. 

No image is going to stand up to examining a small portion of the image. 

I don't think there is anything wrong with your camera, but Trevor's recommendation of trying a different lens is worth pursuing.

I also suggest you shoot in RAW and use the free Canon DPP software. DPP will utilize all the in-camera settings that the camera uses to create the JPEGs but you can more easily edit.

I mentioned in an earlier post (and it may have come across harsher than I intended) this camera may not be the best tool for your use case. I have friends who have switched from high end Canon cameras (5DIII and 7DII) to using iPhones for ease, weight reduction, and the amount of processing and customizing that can be achieved with apps. Their end use now is web posting and our camera club competitions with 1400x1050 pixels max.

[Tronhard · Accepted solution]

Hi again:
I just caught up on your interchange with John during my night.  He has given some well-considered and expressed analysis and advice.  I noticed one comment you made about the relative merits of the camera against a cell phone as regards aperture. 

The field picture on the cellphone looks sharp, but most serious photographers will likely tell you it is over sharpened. 

Yes, I was able to simulate what the cellphone did in post processing (test-244), but that is not the reason the cellphone picture is more in focus. It was able to take the picture at f/2.4, 1/593 and ISO-50, while the camera could only manage f/8, 1/80 and ISO-100.

Rather than send a lengthy explanation in this never-ending series of posts and replies, for mutual easy reference I am sending you an article I wrote that may explain why the numbers between your cell phone and the camera are so different and why all is not what it seems.

[v3anders]

Thank you, Trevor. I see that with your camera, you are able to get a much higher shutter speed, while in Landscape mode, than I can in mine.

I am trying to borrow a camera with a lens compatible with mine, to troubleshoot the problem, as you suggested.

Yes, also I find responses very difficult to find, even though I sort newest to oldest.

[jrhoffman75]

Hi valentin.

The terminology can get confusing to a newcomer to Canon cameras.

Trevor said "landscape style" . I am assuming he meant Landscape Picture Style. Picture Styles adjust the camera processing parameters like sharpness, contrast and color tuning to suit certain shooting conditions. The base Style is Standard. The Landscape Picture Style increase sharpness and contrast and accentuates the blues and greens, which are the general colors in landscape compositions. The Landscape Picture Style can be selected in any of the camera shooting modes (Av, Tv, etc.) has nothing to do with shutter speed or aperture. You can have an infinite combination of shutter speeds and aperture with Landscape Picture Style.

There is also the Landscape Scene Mode (the icon with the mountain and clouds). That is a setting that takes control of the camera settings. It will set the Landscape Picture Style, set a smaller f/stop (higher number) of generally f/8 to f/11, set a shutter speed of at least one over twice the lens focal length (i.e. at a focal length of 100mm shutter speed would be approximately 1/200) to avoid motion blur from camera shake, and  target a low ISO to minimize noise. It's all done by the camera Digic processor. It is basically a point and shoot mode directed at getting better landscape shots.

The Scene modes do nothing that you can't do yourself when you understand the goal. Landscape images typically want everything in focus so you want a large depth of field, which means small aperture opening (high f/number). You could get the same effect by shooting Av at f/8 or f/11, setting the Landscape Picture Style, and Auto ISO. For beginners that is multiple steps and they may not understand the concepts - the Scene modes do that for them.

[v3anders]

Thanks, John. I have played with the Landscape Style. I even tried to customize Sharpness and Contrast to get a better picture. I did get confused. I thought Trevor was talking about "mode", even though he clearly said "style". Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

BTW, I did grant to access to the shared folder this morning.

-Valentin

[jrhoffman75 · Accepted solution]

I did get the files this AM Valentin.

My assessment is that the statue images prior to file 348 show motion blur. In all cases the shutter speeds were at or below 1/focal length. You want to have the shutter speed to be equal or faster than 1/(2xfocal length). 

348 achieves that and the image is sharp. (FL=18; SS=1/40)

The field picture on the cellphone looks sharp, but most serious photographers will likely tell you it is over sharpened. Look at the halos around items like the power lines and even some of the grass blades. It's not realistic. But it depends on your use. If your end use is Instagram or Facebook posts (that's all my granddaughters use their images for) then it is fine and works. Even on a iPad it would look fine.

The rabbit was right on. 

No image is going to stand up to examining a small portion of the image. 

I don't think there is anything wrong with your camera, but Trevor's recommendation of trying a different lens is worth pursuing.

I also suggest you shoot in RAW and use the free Canon DPP software. DPP will utilize all the in-camera settings that the camera uses to create the JPEGs but you can more easily edit.

I mentioned in an earlier post (and it may have come across harsher than I intended) this camera may not be the best tool for your use case. I have friends who have switched from high end Canon cameras (5DIII and 7DII) to using iPhones for ease, weight reduction, and the amount of processing and customizing that can be achieved with apps. Their end use now is web posting and our camera club competitions with 1400x1050 pixels max.

[v3anders]

> My assessment is that the statue images prior to file 348 show motion blur. In all cases the shutter speeds were at or below 1/focal length. 

Hi John,

Thanks for your detailed assessment. 

The problem with my camera (the one that I have, not necessarily all 2000D cameras) is that I was not able to get a faster shutter speed in the morning using AV mode. 348 has a faster shutter speed, because I increased the ISO to 400, but it still does not look totally in focus to me. Going to ISO 800 and above made the photos grainier. That was a problem just in the morning. I the afternoon, I was able to get pictures with shutter speeds above 1/100 and even increase the AV value. I just added the pictures (508-512) that I took yesterday afternoon 

I will let guys know after I experiment with another camera and lens. 

[jrhoffman75]

I agree that 509 is not sharp, but look at the focus point analysis:

The camera focused on the leaves. When you have a particular subject of interest, you should use single focus point. In auto AF point selection, the camera will choose the closest object to the camera with sufficient contrast to actuate the sensor. The leaves offer more contrast than the statue.

Look at 510 and 512. The statue was the selected focus target. Look at the fine detail in the skin in the 100% crop image.

What editing software tools do you have?

[v3anders]

> When you have a particular subject of interest, you should use single focus point. 

Yes, I did try that yesterday also, and the pictures turned out better. (525 and 526)

> The field picture on the cellphone looks sharp, but most serious photographers will likely tell you it is over sharpened. 

Yes, I was able to simulate what the cellphone did in post processing (test-244), but that is not the reason the cellphone picture is more in focus. It was able to take the picture at f/2.4, 1/593 and ISO-50, while the camera could only manage f/8, 1/80 and ISO-100.

> What editing software tools do you have?

None, for the most part. I only used "Digital Photo Professional 4, Version 4.16.0.0"  for the test-244.jpg file.

> I mentioned in an earlier post (and it may have come across harsher than I intended) this camera may not be the best tool for your use case. 

My use case is to be able to take landscape pictures in a variety of natural light situation (dawn, midmorning, dusk, sunset ...). I may need a lens that can deal with low light, or a case with sensor that is more sensitive. I think testing with a different camera and lens will help me.

[rs-eos]

Low-light photography demands one or more of the following:

• Adding light to the scene.
• Wide aperture (e.g. f/1.8, f/1.2)
• Slower shutter (unless you're trying to freeze action)
• Higher ISO values.
• Sensor with larger sensor sites and/or better sensor technology.

[v3anders]

Thanks, Ricky, I agree... but

• Adding light to the scene is difficult to the landscape, while I am walking in the park. I could use the flash, but does not work, if the subject is far away. Plus, the whole idea is to capture the natural light.
• Wide aperture (e.g. f/1.8, f/1.2): Unfortunately, the kit lens only goes down to f/3.5. I do want to try different lenses. I am in the process to see if I can borrow one.
• Slower shutter (unless you're trying to freeze action). I have shaky hands, so slow shutter speed causes blurriness. 
• Higher ISO values. With my camera, going more than 400, causes noticeable graininess. 
• Sensor with larger sensor sites and/or better sensor technology. I am also trying to borrow a different case.

[jrhoffman75]

Hi Valentin. Your answer to Ricky provided some good insight to me. Based on what you wrote I would classify your shooting as general travel rather than landscape.

Based on the spec sheet your cellphone lens is a 25mm full frame equivalent. That would be 18mm for your camera. To get same angle of view and depth of field you should keep your lens at the 18mm setting. I have nerve issues in my legs that sometimes affects my balance. I frequently use a monopod for shooting. Helps stabilize camera without being obtrusive. If you decide to keep the camera or get a different one I definitely recommend a lens with image stabilization.