Canon / Sony comparison

[bananabender]

I don't want to have rocks thrown at me on my first post... please accept these comments as my personal subjective impressions! I have been moderately satisfied with my 600D Canon (followed on from a 350D) but recently had a visit from a friend with a Sony A77 and a Sony 18-135 lens. It's painfully obvious after swapping pictures that her photos are much sharper than any of mine, even those taken with my much-loved 70-200L. While I must admit that she has a better eye for composition than I do, I thought that I had sufficient technical competence to hold my own as far as sharpness... we both were using AF so no advantage there. Is this just a case of "you get what you pay for"... although there doesn't seem to be a huge price difference? I'm definitely not a newbie... first camera was an Ilford 120 in the 50's and worked my way up to the Canons but I'm feeling a bit outgunned at the moment. Comments and advice appreciated....

BB.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well experiences vary I suppose but in my experience photo sharpness has a lot more to do with technique and understanding your camera's autofocus system than it does the camera/lens itself. Granted better equipment can help, but really it's no substitute for technique particularly in the area of sharpness. For good, sharp photos your best bet is the old tried and true, stop down the lens when you can, pay attention to your DOF, and up your shutter speed. Most folks recommend you shoot with a shutter speed at least equal to the focal length your shooting at to avoid camera shake, me I recommend you shoot at 2-3 times that shutter speed whenever possible.

Don't get me wrong, good lenses and a great AF system can make a difference, certainly photo's shot with my 85 mm 1.8 AF-S G are by and large sharper off the camera than the ones I shoot with my 18-50 mm, but in the end I believe the biggest difference in sharpness comes from technique, not equipment.

 

[jaomul]

If your comparing jpegs it could just be down to the sharpening settings in camera. If processing raw some cameras have different strength filters and need more pp sharpening. I'd really doubt that either camera with a similar quality lens would yield significantly different sharpness photos, all else being equal

 

[tirediron]

...we both were using AF so no advantage there. Is ...

Not necessarily the case. Some AF systems work better than others, and it's not uncommon for a particular camera/lens combination to require fine-tuning of the AF to acheive optimal results. I'm not a Canonite, so I'm not sure if your camera has the ability to fine-tune the AF system, but it is entirely possible that it's back or front focusing. More likely however, as Robbins has suggested is a technique issue. Poor camera holding technique, shutter-speed to low for the focal length, etc. If you could post an image or two (along with full EXIF data) it might help resolve the issue.

 

[tirediron]

If your comparing jpegs it could just be down to the sharpening settings in camera. If processing raw some cameras have different strength filters and need more pp sharpening. I'd really doubt that either camera with a similar quality lens would yield significantly different sharpness photos, all else being equal

Another VERY likely possibility! Totally missed this one.

 

[ConradM]

I don't want to have rocks thrown at me on my first post... please accept these comments as my personal subjective impressions! I have been moderately satisfied with my 600D Canon (followed on from a 350D) but recently had a visit from a friend with a Sony A77 and a Sony 18-135 lens. It's painfully obvious after swapping pictures that her photos are much sharper than any of mine, even those taken with my much-loved 70-200L. While I must admit that she has a better eye for composition than I do, I thought that I had sufficient technical competence to hold my own as far as sharpness... we both were using AF so no advantage there. Is this just a case of "you get what you pay for"... although there doesn't seem to be a huge price difference? I'm definitely not a newbie... first camera was an Ilford 120 in the 50's and worked my way up to the Canons but I'm feeling a bit outgunned at the moment. Comments and advice appreciated....

BB.

A 600D is a T3i right? These 2 cameras are not really comparable. When the a77 was released it was $1000 just for the body IIRC. The AF in the a77 alone would make a huge difference in sharpness compared to your 600D I would think.

I used to think my a33 had decent AF until I got my A77.

 

[KmH]

Yes, T3i is the USA name, in Japan it's a Kiss X5, and the rest of the world - 600D.

 

[TCampbell]

Well experiences vary I suppose but in my experience photo sharpness has a lot more to do with technique and understanding your camera's autofocus system than it does the camera/lens itself.

^^ This

I've encountered a lot of "this camera isn't sharp / has focus problems" threads on camera forums. While the cameras support AF micro-adjust for those times when a calibration adjustment would improve focus... the VAST majority of "problems" turn out to be the photographer not using good technique.

I can buy the best violin in the world, but as I don't know how to play a violin, owning a "better" instrument will not somehow make it sound like I am not just torturing cats. The tool does not guarantee a better outcome no matter how good it is ... unless the person using the tool has learned to leverage it's capabilities.

Keep in mind there are other 600D shooters getting very impressive results ... so it's unlikely that there's something fundamental to the design of the camera that results in soft images. It's usually the technique, selection of focal ratio, selection of focus points (and awareness of how focus points actually work) and the focus mode. As shooting circumstances change (and the type of shot changes), you want to have an awareness of how to approach that circumstance. E.g. you don't want to shoot "action" photography (rapidly changing subject distances) with a camera left in "One Shot" focus mode.... but likewise you don't want to use "AI Servo" mode for portraiture. There's a reason the camera lets you pick these things rather than using one mode for everything.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well experiences vary I suppose but in my experience photo sharpness has a lot more to do with technique and understanding your camera's autofocus system than it does the camera/lens itself.

^^ This

I've encountered a lot of "this camera isn't sharp / has focus problems" threads on camera forums. While the cameras support AF micro-adjust for those times when a calibration adjustment would improve focus... the VAST majority of "problems" turn out to be the photographer not using good technique.

I can buy the best violin in the world, but as I don't know how to play a violin, owning a "better" instrument will not somehow make it sound like I am not just torturing cats. The tool does not guarantee a better outcome no matter how good it is ... unless the person using the tool has learned to leverage it's capabilities.

Keep in mind there are other 600D shooters getting very impressive results ... so it's unlikely that there's something fundamental to the design of the camera that results in soft images. It's usually the technique, selection of focal ratio, selection of focus points (and awareness of how focus points actually work) and the focus mode. As shooting circumstances change (and the type of shot changes), you want to have an awareness of how to approach that circumstance. E.g. you don't want to shoot "action" photography (rapidly changing subject distances) with a camera left in "One Shot" focus mode.... but likewise you don't want to use "AI Servo" mode for portraiture. There's a reason the camera lets you pick these things rather than using one mode for everything.

See, again, it sounds so much smarter when you say it.. lol..

But seriously though, great synapsis, as always.

 

[Ido]

Did you compare the shots on a computer monitor, or just on the cameras' LCD screens?
If the former, were these JPEGs or RAW files?
If the latter, which software did you use to display them?
Did you "pixel peep", or looked at the image as a whole?

 

[bananabender]

Shots were compared on a 23" computer monitor, full screen with some additional zooming in... I look at sharpness from the viewpoint of an old B&W enlarging hobbyist and miss it if it's not there. They were viewed in JPEG via basic Windows 7. I'm tending to think that you do "get what you pay for" and the pricier A77 has a better AF engine than the 600D/Kiss 5, given that my 70-200 L Series Tele doesn't seem to change the comparison. Be interesting to know how the high-end Canons compared.

 

[chuasam]

sharpness whatever! when you get to a higher level...see what happens when you try to upgrade with a Sony.

 

[ConradM]

sharpness whatever! when you get to a higher level...see what happens when you try to upgrade with a Sony.

What does that mean?

 

[chuasam]

If you go professional, there's no Sony rentals, you have to find a Sony dealer, there's no Sony Professional sevices. Sports shooters can't count on Sony having a presence at large sporting events to support them.

 

[Derrel]

The Sony has a better sensor. The T3i is scoring a 65 on DxO Mark's sensor performance scale; The Sony A77 scores a 78. The Sony has 1.9 EV better color depth, and 1.7 EV more dynamic range. The Sony has a little over 24 megapixels, the Canon 18.79 megapixels, so the Sony could be seen as offering roughly one-third more pixels than the Canon has. Perhaps the totality of all these things are what you are seeing as creating better images from the Sony?

The most-troubling issue with these now-old (2009 era) Canon sensors is the limited dynamic range they can handle.

Here are state-of-the-art-APS-C compared with best-of-the-last-generation compared with Canon technology designed in 2008, and first put into a camera in 2009, and the same sensor continually reiterated across five subsequent cameras.

Nikon D7100 versus Sony SLT Alpha 77 versus Canon EOS 600D - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark