Still having camera problems... [Archive]

decemberfall

12-31-2006, 02:20 AM

Okay, so i've had my Canon S3 IS now through the holidays, and i'm still having problems with it, most days 3/4 of the pictures taken with it come out fuzzy, the iso setting is on auto like Canon recommends. One of my best friends from work has the same camera in the 5 megapixel model and he looked at it and said his has never taken pictures like that, they've all been okay, but nearly all of the pictures are fuzzy, some so fuzzy it's hard to tell what they are and neither the people nor the camera were in motion when the pictures were taken... I sent an email to Canon about the issue on Thursday and they said I would have a response in 24 hours and still have not heard anything back from them. I'm considering taking the camera back to Best Buy and getting a new one because i'm starting to believe it's a defect in the camera. If anyone has any suggestions it would be greatly appreciated. OH and if you want to see examples of the new fuzzy pictures, let me know...

tobey

12-31-2006, 07:43 AM

Yes, I'd definitly like to see some examples.

Were these pictures taken indoors? And if so, did you have the flash on? Do you have it in full auto mode?

decemberfall

12-31-2006, 02:42 PM

yes its in full auto mode... I have some pictures with flash and pictures without flash.

These had the flash on:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0013.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0014.jpg

***** Please see next post for this picture, as we are limited to 4 pics per post...

These two did not have flash, as they were taken from the other side of a room, the people in the shots were under a bank of windows and fluorescent lights (and yes it's me in the second one):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0095.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0099.jpg

Canon just said that it means the people in the pictures were moving... Well only problem with that is, that pictures were taken before and after these shots, and they were the same shots and they came out perfect, it's just like in the middle of taking pictures a bunch of them turn out fuzzy and there is no rhyme or reason behind it.

i'm really getting frustrated with this, and i've talked to a bunch of people that have digital cameras, and some have the same kind of camera just an older version without the image stabilization and they haven't had any fuzzy pictures, unless someone is like running in front of the camera... i'm even more frustrated because my 1.1 megapixel camera in my video camera has never taken a fuzzy shot, and it doesn't even have flash!

I'm just to the point of wanting to take it back cause it just doesn't seem right, and i mean i don't want to pay $350 for a camera that i can't guarantee or not if it's going to take a good picture.

decemberfall

12-31-2006, 02:43 PM

here's the other picture

This one i don't think i used the flash, but i'm not sure:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0002.jpg

masherscf

12-31-2006, 09:12 PM

All these photos suffer from camera shake.

It's unrealistic not to expect camera shake when taking photos in ambient light using any sort of zoom even with the IS active. The IS only gives you about 2 stops of shutter speed. Divide the focal length by four and this is the maximum shutter speed you should use. Even then your subjects are going to have to hold pretty still.

When your taking photos with room light, don't use the auto-ISO setting. Set the ISO as high as you can without causing an unacceptable amount of noise. I think 800 is that maximum setting on that model.

If this doesn't help I would suspect that your IS is defective.

Test out the IS with the following procedure.

1. disable the flash

2. set the ISO to 800

3. make sure the IS is active

4. take a picture of a still object with lots of contrast.

5. deactivate the IS.

6. repeat step 4.

7. Compare the pictures.

tobey

12-31-2006, 09:20 PM

Ok, it looks to me like the shutter speed is way too slow. I don't think there's anything wrong with the camera.

I read somewhere that in auto mode, the S3 tries to keep the ISO as low as possible (to prevent grain), and to do that it needs to slow the shutter speed down.

I think you'll have use shutter priority (Tv) mode and control the shutter speed manually to get a decent picture indoors. With the flash on, a shutter speed of 180 to 200 should be about right, but I don't know, you'll have to experiment. ...this may not be the right camera for you.

EDIT: Well, apparently this camera isn't as flexible as I thought it was... Just do what masherscf said, he seems to know more about this model than I do, and he types faster than me too...

masherscf

12-31-2006, 09:29 PM

With the flash on, a shutter speed of 180 to 200

As long as the shutter speed is at least 60 and not more than the sync speed of the flash, the shutter speed should be irrelevant if the flash is used.

In any case, the image stabilization should allow her to use a shutter speed up to four times slower than with no IS. That is still probably not enough to prevent camera shake at the lower ISOs. Remember that this camera has a hefty zoom and that will exacerbate camera shake.

I'm not aware that this camera has an acceptable amount of grain at the highest ISO. It will certainly be apparent though.

My Nikon D50 cranks up to ISO 1600 and the grain is only slightly more apparent than at 400. Of course, the newer DSLRs go even higher.

tobey

12-31-2006, 10:25 PM

Well I'll take your word for it. I'm not too familier with the technical aspects of flash photography, as I'm more of a slow shutter speed + tripod kind of guy.

masherscf

12-31-2006, 10:47 PM

Well I'll take your word for it. I'm not too familier with the technical aspects of flash photography, as I'm more of a slow shutter speed + tripod kind of guy.

Normally, the camera senses the amount of light coming from the flash and shuts it off when the proper exposure as achieved. This is usually much faster than 1/60th of a second.

If you like the tripod. You can do a trick called "dragging the shutter." Most moder cameras have a setting for slow shutter sync of the flash. The Camera shuts off the flash when proper exposure of foreground detail is reached but leave the shutter open to get exposure of the background detail. This is useful for taking pictures of people in front of sunsets...as long as the hold pretty still for the exposure length.

tobey

01-01-2007, 05:37 AM

Normally, the camera senses the amount of light coming from the flash and shuts it off when the proper exposure as achieved. This is usually much faster than 1/60th of a second.

That makes sense. You learn something new everyday...

decemberfall

01-03-2007, 04:30 PM

guys i'm gonna try and look at it this either tonight or at latest tomorrow, i hurt my arm at work on Friday, and spent all last night at the med center getting it checked, so i haven't had much time to look at this... but i will try tonight.

decemberfall

01-03-2007, 10:59 PM

masherscf

01-04-2007, 12:14 AM

2 things, first it will only let you set the ISO at auto or HI auto, and second can you please give an example of "lots of contrast"

Just something that easy to focus on.

decemberfall

01-05-2007, 01:08 AM

okay took 2 pictures of me wearing my brand new sunglasses:

This one has image stabilization on:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0126.jpg

and this one is off:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0127.jpg

They both were taken with HI auto ISO

I can't tell a difference...

masherscf

01-05-2007, 01:32 AM

I can't tell a difference...

Both pics are slightly out-of-focus. Thats probably the auto-focus.

This is kinda what I was looking for. Both these photos were taken in the same light with the same settings but the VR (What Nikon calls "IS") is activated in one. The shutter speed was 1/4 sec. Thats a full four stops less than 1/60 sec.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/346114624_0e6dedcee9.jpghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/346114399_fabe2735cc.jpg

I wish you has more control over the shutter settings. If you don't see some sort of difference, I'd suspect a defect.

decemberfall

01-05-2007, 01:43 AM

ah, i see... i will find something to take another set of pictures with.... coming right up.....

decemberfall

01-05-2007, 01:51 AM

one on the topis IS on, one on the bottom is IS off

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0141.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0140.jpg

decemberfall

01-05-2007, 01:52 AM

is it just me or do the pictures look better with it off??

masherscf

01-05-2007, 02:14 AM

is it just me or do the pictures look better with it off??

You're still picking stuff with too much depth. It's hard for your camera's auto focus to lock in. Find a simple black and white drawing and stand about five feet away with the axis on the lens perpendicular.

We're trying to eliminate all focusing issues except camera-shake.

decemberfall

01-05-2007, 02:20 AM

You're still picking stuff with too much depth. It's hard for your camera's auto focus to lock in. Find a simple black and white drawing and stand about five feet away with the axis on the lens perpendicular.

We're trying to eliminate all focusing issues except camera-shake.
yeah, my problem is i don't have any flat surfaces to sit the camera on and place a picture or something, i'll try again tomorrow it's bed time (yes I know it's 10, but if i don't go to bed then I can't get up in time for work) So we'll continue this tomorrow, but I have to figure it out by the 8th or can't take the camera back...

masherscf

01-05-2007, 01:16 PM

yeah, my problem is i don't have any flat surfaces to sit the camera on and place a picture or something, i'll try again tomorrow it's bed time (yes I know it's 10, but if i don't go to bed then I can't get up in time for work) So we'll continue this tomorrow, but I have to figure it out by the 8th or can't take the camera back...

Dear lord! You need to hold the camera in your hand for the IS test. You should photograph a flat surface.

decemberfall

01-05-2007, 07:42 PM

well for the last picture I took, i sat the camera on the table and didn't move it between pictures, but i see what you mean... i'll find something when I get home...

masherscf

01-05-2007, 09:55 PM

well for the last picture I took, i sat the camera on the table and didn't move it between pictures, but i see what you mean... i'll find something when I get home...

The trouble is that the camera didn't move WHILE the picture was being taken. It's important to have a little shake when testing the IS.

decemberfall

01-05-2007, 10:58 PM

The IS does work...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0142.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/IMG_0143.jpg

I'm to the point of thinking my $400 camera shouldn't cause me more issues that my dad's camera which cost him half as much... Is it bad when something that is supposed to bring you joy, just causes you frustration?

masherscf

01-05-2007, 11:09 PM

The IS does work...
Is it bad when something that is supposed to bring you joy, just causes you frustration?

There's a learning curve with every bit of new tech. It's a good bet that your camera has about ten times the capability of your Dad's. Growing pains are natural.

You just have to watch the light levels when you're not using the flash. The IS should give you a lot of flexibility, but it is not magic.

decemberfall

01-06-2007, 01:52 AM

There's a learning curve with every bit of new tech. It's a good bet that your camera has about ten times the capability of your Dad's. Growing pains are natural.

You just have to watch the light levels when you're not using the flash. The IS should give you a lot of flexibility, but it is not magic.

but the bad part is his takes much better pictures...

tobey

01-06-2007, 03:13 AM

Are you using the flash in any of these pictures?

decemberfall

01-06-2007, 12:41 PM

Are you using the flash in any of these pictures?
no, his instructions said not to

masherscf

01-06-2007, 01:07 PM

but the bad part is his takes much better pictures...

I doubt that. You have a bit of camera shake is all. You should set the flash to auto until you're better at judging when to use it or not. I realise that direct flash isn't very appealing, but millions of point-and-shoot cameras are stuck with it.

decemberfall

01-06-2007, 01:25 PM

I doubt that. You have a bit of camera shake is all. You should set the flash to auto until you're better at judging when to use it or not. I realise that direct flash isn't very appealing, but millions of point-and-shoot cameras are stuck with it.
my dad took a picture of a humming bird through a screen door with his camera, and there is only a little movement on the wings. Also we compared pictures from the Christmas party which i showed you the fuzzy pictures from, and his pictures overall came out better, and he had none that were fuzzy and took pictures of the same things...

Yeah this camera tells you when to use the flash or not...

but i'm really thinking this camera is just way too much for me at this point...

masherscf

01-06-2007, 02:49 PM

my dad took a picture of a humming bird through a screen door with his camera

He got lucky. He also had daylight. The smaller aperture of his camera means a more forgiving depth of focus.

Also, how long has your dad had his camera? How long has he been taking pictures?

Shutter lag would make that humming bird picture a real crap-shoot with even the best low-price point-and-shoot camera.

You sound unhappy, the camera is too much for you to be unhappy with it.

decemberfall

01-06-2007, 03:28 PM

yeah just for reference, this is a picture my video camera took on a bad day...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/decemberfall/DSC00352.jpg

I never had a bad shot with it, at most the picture would be too dark or a little grainy... the video camera i just a little bulky so i wanted something smaller with the same capabilities... the great thing about the video camera, it is a true point and shoot, you don't have to adjust or do anything, just turn it on and start snapping and the pictures always come out good, that's what I was looking for in a camera, but I guess it just doesn't work that way!

Thanks for all your help, it was greatly appreciated!!!

tobey

01-06-2007, 06:05 PM

Yeah, you should return it. This is just stupid. This is so obviously not the right camera for you. You should be able to put a camera in auto mode, and only have to worry about whether your object is in frame, not about whether the ISO is correct, or if the lighting is just right. I've never seen a camera that has to be babied so much while in auto mode before...

masherscf

01-06-2007, 06:46 PM

yeah just for reference, this is a picture my video camera took on a bad day...

I never had a bad shot with it, at most the picture would be too dark or a little grainy... the video camera

Thanks for all your help, it was greatly appreciated!!!

It's okay. I'm just sorry that you're not happy. For the record, a properly used still camera can take far better pictures than the video camera is capable. Unfortunately, digital point-and-shoots have some foibles that you have to get around.

You can't expect to wield a still camera and a video camera the same way. Most of the limitations of your video camera are directly related to it's primary task of taking 30 frames of video per second. The smaller, more sensitive CCDs of the video camera are ideal for taking pictures quickly. The trade-off is small size, depth of field and noise.

The additional heft of the video camera my have also help you hold the thing still with those "snap-shots." This is actually a major draw-back with compact cameras. Combine this with the large zoom and you have a recipe for blurry pictures.

The user needs to make an extra effort to hold the camera still when taking a photo. In most cases, shutter lag makes shooting for the hip impossible.

Very few still camera are going to get suburb results when shooting from the hip. You can get lucky though, so I'd do it anyway.

To be honest, I was never satisfied with the depth of field, shutter lag and recycle time issues of a economy point-and-shoot digitals. But once you get used to these issues, you can take some nice photos.

I think you can master the camera given some time and patience. However, you spent to much money on it to be this unhappy. Maybe something in the Canon powershot A series is more to your tastes. It lacks a lot of bells and whistles, but you shouldn't be quite as unhappy.

masherscf

01-06-2007, 06:59 PM

If it makes you feel better...

My camera is the Nikon D50. The Nikon D50 was one of the Top 2 rated consumer DLSRs the were released in 2005. I have a professional grade Nikkor "Vibration Reduction" lens that cost about $600.

The camera doesn't miss a chance to F-up a shot. In this pic, I forgot to switch the VR on and I took the picture with one hand.

Camera shake:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/348046358_3239972a7a_b.jpg

decemberfall

01-06-2007, 09:07 PM

Thanks so much guys, I took the camera back, Best Buy was reluctant to take it back and it said right on the receipt I had until January 8th to take it back! Anyway, i'll just use my video camera for awhile, I might actually clean off the tapes and use the camera itself again!

and that's not fair either cause your daughter is too cute! and its' not that blurry...