Focus/ Sharpness Concerns

[jewey4]

Hello everyone,
Ok- So I've spent the last couple weeks researching digital cameras and have almost decided to go with the C-5060 but am a little concerned about its focus/sharpness.
I've looked at the pics posted on this and other sites, and although I've come across some really nice underwater ones, a lot of them seem to have a soft focus on them. Sure, the focus isn't terrible but its not completly sharp. And this goes for close and far shots. I've seen this a little from some of the other brands of cameras as well. Is it the photographer or is it the housing? I know a lot of these photos have come from new photographers to the 5060 so it may be a learning curve thing. I hope so - I'm willing to experiment until I finally get it right.
I'm pretty set on a 5 megapixel camera so I can have the option of cropping and printing at 11 x 14, so sharpness is a concern for me.
Any advice? Does anyone else notice this or am I crazy? Do I have a warped ideal for hyper-crispness? Maybe my monitor is a little fuzzy! Or, its just when I see pics taken from SLR cameras I always admire the focus quality on them. Ahh! I want to buy a camera this week but I'm concerned with which camera focuses the best.

Thanks,
Jasmine

P.S. This is in no way an insult to those that have posted pics. Like I said, there are many beautiful shots, I just want to know if there are additional requirements/accessories in getting really sharp pics.

 

[Gilligan]

I do find my pics to be "soft" as you say on focus. I adjust almost every one of my photos in Photoshop to some degree. Adjusting the sharpness to some degree is a given as far as I am concerned. I prefer to use the after the fact software program than messing with the sharpness controls on the camera itself.

DSLR cameras are an entirely different product and cannot be compared to the prosumer "point and shoot" cameras like many of us here use. DSLR will yield far better results but your are looking at between $2000 and $3000 for camera and housing versus $400 to $700 for point and shoot setups.

If you have the money and feel you will dive enough to warrant buying DSLR then by all means do so. If not, be sure you understand that you will need a decent software program to edit your photos with the point and shoot cameras.

BTW, DSLR cameras do not use the monitor to take the picture, only to view it after it is taken. You must use the viewfinder to take the photo.

 

[Dee]

In addition to Gilligan.....

Don't forget that viewing photos online does not show photos to their best. Compression issues, variances in monitors, etc. all effect what you see on your screen.

I have printed several photos that on my monitor look just a bit soft but when printed are tack sharp.

 

[jewey4]

Gilligan
Yes- the comparison can't be made between the two kinds for sure. I
definitely don't have the budget for a DSLR yet. And honestly, for 600
- 800 bucks, the shots people can get are incredible (especially from what I've seen from you and Dee!). It's funny caz I've never looked at your photos and thought soft but maybe that's because you already sharpened them in Photoshop. That's good to know that manipulation afterwards will be possible. I do have Photoshop so I guess I should be fine.

Dee-
I forgot about the fact that people are compressing their images so we can enjoy them on the forum. I'm sure that has a significant impact on them.

I've debated back and forth between the 5060 and 5050, which you so love, but I just keep leaning towards the 5060 but I just want to make sure the picture quality is just as good (and hopefully slightly better )

 

[ike]

Following is a sampling of 5060 photos with Ikelite housing:

http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/kimballphotos.html

More of his photos here:

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/share/welcome?i=EeANWTVw1buWbHVA&sm=0&sl=0

 

[jewey4]

Following is a sampling of 5060 photos with Ikelite housing:

http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/kimballphotos.html

More of his photos here:

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/share/welcome?i=EeANWTVw1buWbHVA&sm=0&sl=0

Wow the colors are beautiful on those. But you know what-it's really hard for me to completely judge because I can tell they've been compressed a lot, especially when looking at the water areas and edges. I see that "wiggly" effect. When I look from far, they look amazing, but to be completely honest, when I just sit at my computer the quality doesn't look that great. But I'm sure its because of the compression. I wish I could see what an image looks like without much compression so you don't get all that pixelation along edges. I know I've seen it done with many of the 5050 pics posted here. I mean, I just looked at Gilligan's recent Maui pics and I think, "wow, those look great" and I'm assuming they've also been compressed in order to be posted. It would be nice if I could find someone's website that supports a high quality image that I could check out (regardless of download time).

 

[Gilligan]

Websites usually display gif's or jpg's and at 72 dpi so that will be difficult for you to accomplish.
I shoot all my pics in the camera's JPEG mode. I don't use TIFF as it is a memory hog. I don't have RAW format on my model.
I almost never get prints so the JPEG mode is fine.
The few times I have gotten prints I take the original camera photo into Photoshop, make all my adjustments, crop it to print size (4 X 6" at 300 dpi), burn it on a CD ROM and take it to Costco. The prints have always come out fine.
Keep in mind that digital camera sizes are not compatible with print sizes so there is some cropping when making them print sizes, unless your camera model has the optional setting to make them so. I have that setting but never use it.
Remember to always keep the original camera photos and edit copies.

 

[jewey4]

Interesting, I go to work this morning and look at the above links again, and I can barely see the distortion issues I had last night from my home computer. They look beautiful. The wiggle effect is barely discernable. I think I'd be excited to get pictures that looked remotely close to these.
Ideally I just would want a DSLR image with a 600 dollar package, don't we all, and that's just not gonna happen right now. It sure beats the disposable! Thanks for the helpful link.

Gilligan, 72 dpi would definitely cause the distortion I'm seeing. At 300, I'm sure they look amazing. Thanks, I feel good about going ahead with this.

 

[louisianadiver]

Hello everyone,
Ok- So I've spent the last couple weeks researching digital cameras and have almost decided to go with the C-5060 but am a little concerned about its focus/sharpness.
I've looked at the pics posted on this and other sites, and although I've come across some really nice underwater ones, a lot of them seem to have a soft focus on them. Sure, the focus isn't terrible but its not completly sharp. And this goes for close and far shots. I've seen this a little from some of the other brands of cameras as well. Is it the photographer or is it the housing? I know a lot of these photos have come from new photographers to the 5060 so it may be a learning curve thing. I hope so - I'm willing to experiment until I finally get it right.
I'm pretty set on a 5 megapixel camera so I can have the option of cropping and printing at 11 x 14, so sharpness is a concern for me.
Any advice? Does anyone else notice this or am I crazy? Do I have a warped ideal for hyper-crispness? Maybe my monitor is a little fuzzy! Or, its just when I see pics taken from SLR cameras I always admire the focus quality on them. Ahh! I want to buy a camera this week but I'm concerned with which camera focuses the best.

Thanks,
Jasmine

P.S. This is in no way an insult to those that have posted pics. Like I said, there are many beautiful shots, I just want to know if there are additional requirements/accessories in getting really sharp pics.

Hi Jasmine. Several factors are involved in image sharpness, but the most important is the quality of the lens and port--especially for wide angle photos. The edge-to-edge sharpest images are produced by water contact lenses, as the water becomes an element of the lens and no port is necessary. The most famous of these are the Nikkor 28mm for Nikonos, the Nikkor and Sea&Sea 20mm for Nikonos, and the benchmark Nikkor and Sea&Sea 15mm lenses for Nikonos. Of course, these lenses are for a discontinued film camera. Fixed lenses that use diopters to simulate different focal lengths, such as those used by many consumer systems, typically suffer in sharpness and contrast. The advantage of SLR systems (digital or film) is the tremendous option of lenses, although dome ports must be carefully matched to even approach the quality of the water element wide angle lenses. The Nikkor 105mm and 60mm have been the choices of many pros for macro for several years. I use 2 separate systems for my photos--a Nikonos/15mm combo for wide angle and a film SLR (N90s) with either a Nikkor 105 or 60 for macro. The camera is a box; the lens is what matters most in image sharpness. As digital photography is taking the world by storm, high quality film systems can be bought fairly inexpensively. A Nikonos III/Sea&Sea 15mm/Ikelite 100a strobe combo dedicated to wide angle photography can be put together for less than $1,500 and is capable of producing world class images in the right hands. On the other hand, the consumer camera images are very good as well, and small increments of additional quality come at a high price. - Clay

 

[Detonate]

This guy shoots with a 5050:
http://www.digitaldiver.net/trip_reports.php?reportID=99

His photos are razor sharp in my opinion.

Take note of this picture:

and a crop taken from it:

Focus is an attribute of the lens more than the camera. And Olympus cameras have really good lenses in my opinion.