Image quality

[pazzy]

Hi
This photo looks clear when you view it at this size :
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1300/1402556088_f4dcb0fbcc_b.jpg

but when viewed at the original :

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1300/1402556088_58017ca785_o.jpg

not so clear , is this colour fringing ?

this was taken with the Canon 400D, but with the 18-55 mm kit lens ,

IF i get a better lens will this not be as noticable, or is this an effect
you will always see when image is 100%.

 

[sabbath999]

as a suggestion, why don't you isolate exactly what you are unhappy with by cropping the part that is bothering you at 100 percent.

 

[chris]

View the original image at 100%, now view the processed shot at 400% to get the same image size and you will see that the original contains much more information and the processed shot is very pixellated or blocky.

The poor quality may be due to using the extreme end of the zoom range where the lens is maybe not so sharp as nearer the centre of the range. The shutter speed of 1/160 sec should rule out camera shake.

 

[Digital Matt]

Flickr automatically makes several different sized versions of your photo when you upload it. Each one is sharpened. The smaller picture appears more "clear", or sharp, because it has been sharpened. If you are shooting in jpg, there are settings in camera that control sharpness. If you are shooting raw, you can control this afterwards. Either way, some additional sharpening in software can often be beneficial, especially when using a cheap kit lens.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Crap lenses are just that..crap.

 

[pazzy]

OK, so what about a good lens that won't show that ?

within the €400-€500 range ? for (17-80mm) ..

AND ..

... will the CANON 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS USM (about €500) show that ?

I'd love to see some demo pics of the 70-300 at 300 ...