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.

[jrhoffman75]

Hi Valentin. If you are setting all three settings manually you need to look at the exposure meter. Trevor’s settings won’t be appropriate if the light kevel isn’t the same. 

l’ve provided all the advice I can, so I am going to refrain from more posts. It seems I’m just clogging the thread. 

[v3anders · Accepted solution]

Thank you John and Trevor. I consider the issue resolved. Here are my take aways:

1. The issue is not with my camera or lens. My friend's camera does the same thing.
2. The Landscape mode is not very good. I can take better pictures using the AV and single point focus, as you guys thought me.
3. At low light the pictures are still not very clear. The only way to fix that is to get a better lens.

I will keep the camera for now and take the class. Maybe later I buy a better lens later.

[kvbarkley]

#3 No. the solution is to HOLD STILL. Even if it means a tripod and mirror lock up.

[rs-eos]

See the list I provided again regarding low-light photography.  Getting a better lens isn't the only solution.