Regreting my XSi

I have the older Drebel, and I can honestly say that the kit lens is pretty bad. Throw a Sigma 30mm 1.4 on it and it will shine! It is a modest investment that will make your jaw drop. However, I should not have to convince you of this, if you like the Oly... get another Oly! Borrow some lenses, (better quality ones!) and then make a decision. Buying a 40d with the same lens will only further your frustration. You really do need to spend some cash on a few lenses. Get a prime, and go from there.

Your observations are well taken. I'm sure the next few posters will jump all over you for daring to criticize a Canon. But I too have noticed that all pictures taken with the Canon (and I have used the Rebel, the 10D, and the 20D) appear soft and need post processing sharpening to look good. They also do blow out highlights. On the other hand the colors are very pleasing and flesh tones are beautiful. Maybe the Olympus sharpens all this stuff up in the camera before you see it?

Another thought. You might try a Pentax. Or a Nikon. They come right out the camera very sharp. I don't think it's totally the Canon lens (the new 18-55mm IS actually has garnered some very good reviews) I believe it is something inherent in the processor.

Hi Richard, Just a few thoughts,

I mostly shoot really wide landscapes and want edge to edge sharpness with a lot Depth of field. I mistakenly thought the Canon's 12mp vs. the Oly's 8 mp's. would make a big difference.

Resolution will have no effect on sharpness. Sensor size can have an effect on DOF with a given lens though. (And while I'm a Canon user, I think Oly makes fine cameras and lenses) Anyway...

If you're comparing out-of-camera jpegs, well, in many ways you're really comparing Olympus's interpretation of the RAW data versus Canon's since jpegs are processed in-camera and those processing algorithms are proprietary to the manufacturer. You might see if you like your RAW files better.

I personally wouldn't judge an entire company's lens line on the basis of a kit lens either. I suspect Oly may have - or may have had - a clunker or two themselves.

About the softness: It may be helpful if you could post images because it's possible there's a problem with either your Canon lens or body. Stuff happens - UPS could've kicked your box out of the back of a truck somewhere and something's out of alignment. I've only had to use Canon's service a few times and each time their NJ service center was excellent when needed. Anyway, take 5 minutes to shoot a well-lit newspaper taped flat against a wall, using a tripod, and trying several apertures and focal lengths.

Another thing to consider: It's quite possible that Olympus simply applies more aggressive sharpening to its jpegs than Canon does.

One reason - maybe - to stay with Canon isn't the individual camera or lens but the entire system offered. Perhaps you'd like to do some bird photography some day for example. Does Olympus offer the same kinds of products (really long lenses) as Canon in that area? (I don't know - maybe they do!)

Finally, if indeed the Oly is a better camera for you, then there's nothing wrong with that. I suspect you could get most of your money back for the Canon on Ebay - although I certainly hope you sort out the problem and end up keeping it. Good luck!

What Picture Style did you use? What are the saturation/contrast/etc settings? Have you tried shooting RAW and post-process?

No point in changing cameras if you don't even bother to find out what they are really doing.

BTW, is the Enter/Return key broken on your computer?

Pfft.

I have had the 10D since the day it was introduced, have compared over 1000 images from the 40D and XTi in some depth, and have recently spend 2 hours gear fondling a friends XSi.

First: Canon quality / features on the lower end at this point is a function of the date released, not the money spent. The XSi seems to have almost all the useful features of the 40D. The 40D and XTi seem VERY similar in image quality.

Second: Live view is a waste of time as a practical matter. I cannot fathom when I would use it. The shutter lag and lack of AF is RIDICULOUS.

Third: I have worked with Canon "styles" or "shooting modes" since I bought a EOS 630 in 1989; and I STILL don't understand how they work. I stick with Av and M. If Super lazy: P.

The XSi should be able to take AWESOME pictures. If you can't get reasonably sharp images at F8 on a tripod. . . . there is probably something fundamentally wrong and you should post some samples. If your highlights are blowing out: The XSi can EASILY tell you this, and you should dial in a stop of Exposure Compensation. If this makes the shadows too dark. . .then you simply asking the impossible of a dSLR.

This is not a knock on Olympus. I would expect that camera to take AWESOME pictures as well. Post samples of those as well. :)

Who sold you the camera? If you show him your soft images, would he be willing to swap your camera for one that works better? As you know, lots of people do get sharp pictures from Canon cameras, even with the kit lens, and even without sharpening in PhotoShop. Otherwise, we would all switch vendors. I admit that when I photograph a scene with both sunlight and shadows, I have to set exposure compensation to -2/3. That's with a 350D. All modern cameras, including Olympus, are capable of taking great pictures. It sounds like you got a lemon.

Now that was a long paragraph. I got lost a couple times trying to move my eyes to the next line. But I think you said the Rebel sucks and your Oly is great.

Now I have no doubt the Oly is a good camera. However it's a different camera than the Rebel and, like people, each camera has unique strengths and weaknesses. It's up to the operator to learn those strengths and weaknesses in order to make the best of his gear. I'm sure if I ran your Oly like it was a Nikon or a Canon I'd be disappointed with IQ. On the other hand, I know without a doubt you can get great results with the XSi once you learn its operational and post-processing idiosyncrasies. However that's up to you. If you run it like a point 'n shoot you should expect point 'n shoot results.

First, shoot RAW, pay attention to the histogram (keep to right but don't clip) and process in DPP. Play with the Picture Styles and parameters in DPP until you find a pleasing look. Once you see a pattern of settings that work most of the time, save as a recipe. If you set up similar settings in-camera you can save a lot of mouse clicks in post-processing. And, to rule out technique, use a tripod and cable release (disable IS) for some stopped down sweeping landscapes. Remember, expose RAW files to the right but don't clip.

"Second: Live view is a waste of time as a practical matter. I cannot fathom when I would use it. The shutter lag and lack of AF is RIDICULOUS."

Personally I don't use LV much. But I did try a bunch of times and by gum it works pretty darn well. In fact, AF works great on my 40D in LV mode. Once you activate AF in the menus, use the AF-on button to focus. Shutter release is almost instant since AF isn't tied to it.

Could we see a sample? It may be that we can help you analyze and perhaps improve the situation. The camera and lens combination you have should perform reasonably well. Either something is out of adjustment or there is a technique issue to take a look at.

Dan

It sounds like you know how to use your Oly and you don't know how to use the Canon. AFA what you should do from here, how can anyone but you answer that? If you were happy with your Oly, why did you get rid of it? Thousands of people use the same Xsi without problems, it's highly unlikely that you have a "bad" camera. It's very likely you haven't had it very long and haven't figured out how Canon does things yet. Over and over you talk about how the camera doesn't do this and it doesn't do that, it doesn't do anything you don't tell it to do. You're making the standard mistake of thinking the camera should take the pictures for you.

It seems like the "My camera doesn't take good pictures" whine is becoming more and more common @ Pnet as more people trade their P&S in for a DSLR, and think they should have this photography thing all figured out in a couple of days and then get frustrated and post about it here where there's no shortage of well intentioned people willing to take their hand and go "there, there".

Posts like this don't ask questions so much as seek validation. How can anybody else see through your eyes? OK, here's my advice. If your that unhappy, sell the Canon stuff and go back to what you know. Because obviously, Olympic cameras and lenses take better pictures. Good luck.

If you want to sell used camera gear, the best place to do it is at the Fred Miranda Buy and Sell forum or the Classifieds here at Pnet.

I wonder if you have a bad specimen (lens or body), Popular Photo just did a review and it was glowing on the resolution, noise, etc. With lens reviews the IS kit lens scores well also. I would think unless you are doing a slow shutter speed, I would keep the IS turned off. What is the sharpness set to in the camera? What are the shutter speeds and apertures you are using?

Dennis

Some San Francisco snaps I took yesterday with my new XSi. I have no regrets.

Richard, just like Dan has mentioned, it's better to post some samples. Please ignore rude comments.

Sorry about the run on paragraphs, I can't seem to disable them! I swear I'm using the enter/ return key. Tried the plaint text-HTML box to no avail. I appreciate everyones input. Just for the record, I do shoot in RAW and use Photoshop elements 6.0 for PP, I just seem to have to do a lot more of it. I don't think it's a faulty lens, it's not out of focus soft, it's just not as sharp (to my eyes) as the Oly's 14-45mm. I usually shoot in Av or M. Haven't found much use for the other modes. As far as picture style either Vivid or Monochrome. I haven't messed with the in-camera contrast or sharpness as I usually do that in PP, good idea though. I check the histograms and have them set to come up on the display. I can usually manage the clipping eventually, the GND filter really helps, but it's a hell of a lot of fussing around that I never used to have to do. I swear this camera is very sensitive to highlights. I have gotten good results, it just takes forever, and I'm used to getting it close without a lot of messing around in menus. I'm not saying the E-500 is perfect either, the view finder is tiny, the AF hunts around and sometimes can't lock at all in low light and the manual focus is terrible on the 14-45mm kit. The noise is also pretty bad at higher ISO and long exposures. So you win some you lose some. Perhaps I had unrealistic expectations because it said Canon. I can manage the clipping, I'll try the suggestions and look into a better lens. Thanks for your input everyone.

That's very out of focus pic. You have enough shutter speed there but don't know if you had a stable shooting position though.

The XSi seems to apply noise reduction to in-camera JPGs, even at low ISO. Shoot RAW and convert using DPP which came with your camera. You'll notice the difference in fine detail. But even those need some extra sharpening. That's not a complaint; I like the low-sharpening approach so I can add that as desired later. Here's a shot from my XSi and kit 18-55mm IS lens at 55mm (its "least sharp" focal length). First one is full frame reduced in size, second is a 100%-size crop. http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_0051_ls_1000w.jpg --- http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_0051_ls_crop.jpg

1) In order to separate paragraphs on Photo.net you have to have two (2) carriage returns in between. Don't ask why, it's just that way. Sometimes you just have to learn how to use tools, you know.

2) I'm sure that the latest Canon product is just inferior to your older Olympus. It's funny that no one else noticed this, but you should get rid of your new XSi and get a new Olympus pronto. Perhaps then you will be pleased.

That photo you posted above is in no way what you should be getting from your XSi and kit lens. See the links in my post above.

Hi Richard,

From the photo you posted, I can only conclude that you have a defective sample. Results are to be *much* better.

[]s Walfredo

Richard

Please post some example images. You may get better feedback that way.

Zafar

sorry. there was long delay between submitting and confirming the response

yeah something's wrong somewhere with your system for sure. must be a lemon.

For landscape, if its a specific goal, have you considered using lenses better suited than zoom, for example OM zuiko 18mm 3.5, 21mm 3.5 or Zeiss 21mm, nikon etc, all fit and work on the canon. they also have better distance scales to use hyperfocal technique, but I guess I am talking being serious :)

Try manually focussing and/or do some proper lens test just to be sure..

Something seriously wrong with that picture. Half the stuff in my portfolio was shot with a 300D and kit lens or similar, or 350D. I have recently got the 450D and the image quality is certianly no worse.

Richard, I agree with the others, the photo you posted shows a focus problem. I don't know if it's the lens at fault or the operator. Anything is possible but, certainly that image is NOT indicative of what the camera (or even the kit lens) can do.

I do want to offer some cheap but, hopefully good, advice:

When you get into a new system/camera you cannot and should not expect great results until you have REALLY learned how to use it. There is no cutting corners on that, I am afraid. You get out what you put in.

Your complaint, though well intended and well taken, also reveals a certain lack of understanding of digital imaging as a whole. The topics involved have been discussed millions of times here, on PN. If you do a search for in=camera jpg, RAW conversion, etc... you'll get the relevant information. Suffice to say that a digital picture is like a negative and as such needs intervention from the user.

Such intervention can occur within the camera, by applying certain parameters to taste (such as saturation, sharpness, etc...) or can be done later during RAW conversion (a much better approach).

When people judge in-camera JPG they are simply comparing the settings currently chosen for that buil-in set of programmable pramaters. nothing more, nothing less. It's up to you, the user, to come up with a set of parameters that suits your taste. Each person has different needs and different tastes. Personally, I much prefer to be given that choice than to be forced with too much in-camera sharpening and/or saturation.

If you are serious about landscape you'll have to invest in a GREAT lens, or at least something better than the kit lens. Though your sample clearly shows some problem, I would still NOT consider using the kit lens for serious landscape work.

Also, try getting familiar with DPP for converting your RAW images. It will give you a sense of the parameters that are in your camera as some are mirrored into the program.

But, here are SNAPSHOTS, not prepared shots, taken with the XSi and kit lens. Those are unedited, in-camera JPGs. As you can see, the lens is sharper than what you have posted. Obviously it's not as sharp, nor does it have the same color and contrast as my 24-70L...which cost MORE than 10 times as much...I would be upset if they performed the same! :)

ANd here's the crop...

Have you checked that the AF/MF switch on the lens is set to AF? Have you tried using MF to focus manually?

Hi Richard,

I use both Canon and Olympus cameras. I am using the top of the line from both manufacturers, both in bodies and in lenses, but some of the observations are still relevant. The question is, why did you switch to Canon in the first place? I did so out of necessity, as the Canon kit I use is all primes and it weighs a ton. I find the Olympus, with two good zooms, a better camera for travel and street shooting. My problem is that both cameras have nothing in common in the way of controls. Switching back and forth always challenges my short term memory! I would concur with many of the prior posts that your solution is a better lens. I also think someone mentioned that you should compare raw images from each camera. That is truly the only way to evaluate the sensors and processors. If possible, borrow a couple of prime lenses for the comparison.

I would suggest that you get rid of the Canon, even though there is really nothing wrong with it, and spend your money instead on a newer Olympus and a very good lens. I use the Olympus 12-60 2.8 and it is a fabulous zoom in most cases. It is pricey, but it is money that is well spent if you are truly passionate about your work. Although Canon has a much deeper system, I do not think, using both, that Olympus gives anything away in terms of quality of the image and build. I think almost everything you truly need will be available in the Olympus system. Good luck.

Hi Richard, here are a couple of Canon XSi groups on flickr. You will find some photos taken with the XSi. I'm sure you will find many that are quite good.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_xsi/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon450d/

Check all of your settings and maybe try a different lens at a camera shop. You shouldn't be having these problems unless you got a lemon.

Olympus manufactures fine cameras. Canon makes great ones too. Unfortunately at the entry level Canon doesn't compare to the image quality, feature set and ergonomics of Olympus, Pentax or Nikon. If you want to take a small step above entry level pricing and graduate to a semi-pro dslr with a superb kit lens, expanded dynamic range and whopping a 14.6 MP CCD that outperforms the Nikon D300 at ISO 800 or below with only minor differences at higher ISO - try the Pentax K20D. Even Canon guru Bob Atkins raves about it.

For what it's worth:

In February, I managed to get a nasty scratch on the filter on my 70-300 lens on my XTI. Because I was on at trip at the time, I dropped into Best Buy and picked up one to replace it. For the next 2 weeks, absolutely nothing I shot was in proper focus and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out why.

Just to be sure, I took off the new filter and the focus problem was gone. I would have never thought a filter was the problem, but when I went to the local camera store and got a better quality one, the focus problem went away.

From Popular Photography:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5326/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-xsi.html

" Overall, this is the best imaging performance we've seen so far in the "step-up" class of DSLRs in the $800-900 price range (see Competitive Set for details), and betters that of several more-expensive cameras.

For example, the 14.6MP Pentax K20D ($1,130 street, body only), tested in the March 2008 issue, had slightly higher resolution at ISO 100 but dropped off more quickly at higher ISOs, and it had serious color-accuracy and noise problems in JPEGs over ISO 400. For that matter, Canon's own EOS 40D ($1,140 street, body only), while providing Excellent image quality, is a tick behind the XSi across all indicators. Of cameras costing under $2,000, only the Nikon D300 provides better imaging overall."

I am not trying to start an argument, but I don't agree with the statement about feature set and image quality that Duane mentioned. The low end Nikon's are limited in lenses, have only 3 AF focus points, cannot meter through the lens with Nikon's older MF lenses (with an adapter on my Canons I can use Nikon and meter through the lens on the XT, 20d and XTi ). With the XSi you get the new DIGIC III processor from their pro line, live view with 2 modes of AF, fastest performance in fps, 14 bit A/D converter, etc.

Dennis

thoughts-

kit lenses may be ok, but definately not super sharp; they are made to sell cheap. that is why they are a kit lens.

picture modes are for beginners or for the peole coming over from p&s cameras. they are not supposed to be adjustable, and they are not.

dslr cameras are not like p&s in one big way. dslrs have to be setup first to shoot the way you want it to and to get max quality images. it took me 2 1/2 hrs tp setup mt dslr to great jpegs. how long did you spend?

you said the contrast sharpness saturation were not adjusted in the camera. why not that is part of setting up the camera. if you use without adjustments at default then you are getting what some enginneer in japan thinks is a good appearing pic. is that what you are willing to settle for?

camera modes. like M and Av. i use them all. it depends what i what i want from the scene and situation and what the type of picture opportunity it is. you have to use the camera mode that is appropiate for the scene and situation and the photog's desires and needs.

if you have blown out skys and the rest of the scene is exposed ok, then you a dealing with a scene/situation in which the Dynamic Range exceeds the camera sensor's ability to record it. the photgrapher has to make adjustments to the camera to prevent this from happening, or use a different technique . in effect the camera is yelling for help, and the user is not supplying it.

going from 8 to 12 mps will increase resolution. that is show more detail. but it also make the camera less forgiving of mistakes because there are more pixels to show those mistakes. what a 6-8mp camera could hide, the 10-12-14mp camera will not. therefore the user's care technique and skill level must increase just to get the same level of quality shots. otherwise the camera at the original skill and technique level will just show the errors and sloppy technique. the camera in other words becomes less forgiving. please go to m reichman's website, luminouslandscape.com, and see what he says about using the canon1dsIII or II or I with normal technique and normal grade lenses. as far as he is concerned, the user would be wasting his time and money. also the image quality would actually go down. thius is because the camera now is so good that it will show every error the user makes in poor technique and the imperfections in the normal grade lenses.

an extremely common misconception is that if the user goes from a certain grade camera and upgrades the quality and mps to a higher level camera then the user can take better pictures. nothing could be further from the truth. the camera does not make the user's pics better; the user does. he is the most important element in the shooting of pics.

Hi Richard, I looked at the EXIF data of your photo in irfanview and the focus mode of the lens is in MF (manual focus). This indicates either of the two problems (to my limited knowledge)

1. AF/MF switch set in MF position in your 18-55 lens or 2. Your lens is defective

Imagining wildly, your XSi body could also be defective to detect the lens to be in MF mode when it is actually in AF mode.

The best bet is to check this switch and few more snaps and then a visit to the store who sold you the kit in the first place.

Good luck

Persevere with the camera. If you want sharper pictures make sure that the shutter speed is 1/250th minimum and make sure that you are focussing with care. There is nothing wrong with the Rebel at all. I hope you are shooting RAW too. Remember that you will have greater depth of field for a given angle of view with the Olympus than with the Rebel simply due to the differing sensor sizes, but if you are stopping the lens down this should not be a problem (assuming you are holding it steady)

Here is a hand-held shot I made with my XSi.

Here is some detail from this shot.

Duane, do you work for Pentax, or do you have a real dislike for Canon?

Your post history certainly implies one or the other...

1. work on your focus (and check that it's actually on AF) 2. get a better lens. I upgraded to the Tamron 17-50mm which is a great lens on your canon. 3. Use tripod, set aperture to f8 or f11 for maximum sharpness

>>> I upgraded to the Tamron 17-50mm which is a great lens on your canon.

That's what I'm using on my XSi and I'm really pleased with it.

>>That's what I'm using on my XSi and I'm really pleased with it.<<<<

You should be, those shots are great. Well, you had a little to do with it. (-;

No Darren, I've never worked for Pentax but did work for Minolta at one time though. I once owned a Canon SLR - the T50. It was promptly replaced by a used and somewhat abused Pentax K1000 which was and still is an outstanding film camera. 23 years later the Pentax still performs...

Use the lens hood supplied, no filter (unless it's a high quality MC polarizer), mirror lockup with 2 sec self timer activation, and use a good tripod with the center post lowered! Then stop the lens down 2 or 3 f stops at most for maximum sharpness. This is what I taught my photo students for 20 years who had l unsharp photos. Now for processing I shoot in raw and high quality j-peg, with the j-peg setting of landscape mode which increases saturation and sharpness. If you choose Canon's DDP software to open your raw images you can choose the landscape mode there to convert your images. I agree with one of the responses that says to test your lens by shooting the pages of a newspaper (stock quotes) taped to the side of your house with the methodlogy suggested above. I test every new camera/lens this way. I once sent back a new Nikon telephoto lens that had the sharpness of a Coke bottle, it was returned in a week blistering sharp!

>>Unfortunately at the entry level Canon doesn't compare to the image quality, feature set and ergonomics of Olympus, Pentax or Nikon.<<

I beg to differ...

"... try the Pentax K20D. Even Canon guru Bob Atkins raves about it..."

Well, not exactly. I have said that on paper it looks like a very interesting and full featured camera! However I have not yet laid hands on one myself (I got no response from Pentax when I asked for a review sample...) so I can't really "rave" about it until I actually use one. It has impressive specifications and it would certainly be on my list of cameras to look closely at if I was buying my first DSLR. That doesn't mean I'd buy one of course. That would depend on actual perfomance, not specifications.

I think Canon make excellent products (I own lots of them myself), but I'm not blind to the fact that there are also excellent products from other manufacturers and If someone says they prefer Olympus or Pentax (or Nikon or Sony) to Canon, I'd have no argument with them choosing something other than Canon.

I've made thousands of images with my XTi, including many wide angle landscapes, and have been extremely pleased with the results. I would caution anyone against the ghastly kit lenses, however. I've not used the new IS version, but my partner has the older 18-55 and I think it's dreadful. Don't waste money or time on EF-S lenses. Mid-range lenses are better, like the 28-135, but even with that lens I seem to have good days and bad days... But with a good prime or L-series lens the XTi is magnificent. Of course, I only shoot RAW and think Picture Styles are for kids and a complete waste of time. Like you, I have noticed a tendency to blow highlights a bit... until I zeroed in on the sweet spot by exposing to the left, and bringing up the shadows in Lightroom.

Before you get rid of the XSi, go rent a nice L lens and take it out for the weekend. I love my 16-35L for landscapes. Or try a ridiculously sharp prime like the 300mm 2.8 to see what the XSi is capable of before you toss it out.

You should be getting images that are at least as sharp as this.

Canon XTi
16-35mm 2.8L @ 16mm
1/320th @ ﾃ 5.0
ISO 100

How about this one?

Canon XTi
28-135mm @ 90mm
1/60th @ f 5.6
ISO 200

I am not going to read all of the above because just yesterday I just read the comparisons on http://www.dpreview.com, and, according to Phil Askey of that site, the Canon blows the Olympus away. I never buy a kit lens. NEVER. Go to dpreview.com and compare the resolution charts, ISO charts, etc. There is really no contest.

I like Olympus and shot the E-20 for years (and still have it), but when they announced that the 4/3 sensor was the way to go, we parted ways.

--Lannie

>I would caution anyone against the ghastly kit lenses, however. I've not used the new IS version, but my partner has the older 18-55 and I think it's dreadful.<

You're not speaking from experience with the new kit lens. The new IS version is much sharper and not ghastly at all. No, it's not an L lens, but used appropriately it's quite good. As are the some (most?) of the EF-S lenses you so blithely dismiss.

Something is definitly wrong, check your settings.

I run a 40D, and a friend gave me the 18-55 IS since he upgraded, and its a decent (but all plastic) piece of glass that should give superb results for even a beginner.

Its ultralight, and great for walkaround/easy to carry.

"As are the some (most?) of the EF-S lenses you so blithely dismiss."

I'm sure they'll do just fine for most beginners. But I'm not interested in buying a lot of glass that I won't be able to use when I get a FF body, so I guess that's just my problem. Sorry to sh*t in your soup.

Although I have been using an Olympus E510 for a year and have been very happy with the pictures it takes, I'm selling my E510 and buying a Canon XSI. Reasons? Wider selection of lenses( I will be able to use the Tamron 18-250 Di). I can use live view and control the XSI on my laptop.( live view is GREAT for macro work!) Less noise than the Olympus. Canon build quality has always been good ( I have owned 3 Canon film cameras).

can only recommend a prime lens. kit zooms are just not that good. zooms can be very good but those that are cost a bunch. try an ef-s 60 or a sigma 30 or maybe the canon 50 1.8. there's also the canon 50 1.4, 85s, and 100s

you might consider the canon 28s or 35s

otherwise, recommend the 17-55 -- this costs a lot, though

i think the real problem is you're expecting too much from the 18-55. this lens is for snapshots. the pic you posted looks fine with some tweaking, as long as it's treated like a snapshot -- ie -- you restrict the max size.

here's a reworking of your pic restricted to 800 pixels on the long side:

"The new IS version is much sharper and not ghastly at all"

Is that from experience or rumor? I tested both lenses side by side and I really found very little difference. Could have been the particular lenses I looked at, or it could be that once a rumor/opinion is taken up on the web it gets repeated and repeated by everyone until it becomes the "standard truth".

I doubt many people have tested the IS and non-IS versions side by side on the same subjects.

the other thing i notice is you took this shot on a hazy day. you might try a uv filter, or wait for a clear day or just after it rains.

>Is that from experience or rumor?<

Experience with the kit IS lens, not with the prior one. Does this photo with the kit IS at 55mm (its least sharp focal length) look ghastly to you? First one is full frame reduced in size, second is a 100%-size crop.

If I don't successfully get the images included here, use these links (also in a post above).

http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_0051_ls_1000w.jpg

http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_0051_ls_crop.jpg

Mick,

Seems sharp enough, but it's hard to tell since the crop it so hideously JPG'd. Could you post a tiff of a cropped area?

this thread has gone on for a bit without any additional input from the OP. most of the responses have been predictable, i.e. "actually the canon xsi is capable of amazing pictures like this!" one guy even posted a 5D image, which doesn't help the OP's quandry at all. what's next, a mamiya 645 crop?

basically the OP has two choices: 1. to stick with canon and try to get better results from his xsi 2. to go back to oly, a camera he's more familiar with, and maybe get new and better glass or a different body.

what seems to have happened here was that it wasnt broken, but the OP went ahead and fixed it anyway. there was nothing wrong with the E-500, except it was an older camera and all the marketing hype convinced him to switch systems and manufacturers. that's when he ran into a learning curve.

now please dont flame me canonites, for yea and verily i am a nikonian and i wield the mighty d300, but i have a friend who has an e-500. not a bad consumer camera at all. once you figure out the menu-based options, it's very intuitive, and IQ isn't bad at all. its problems are primarily weak AF and horrible low-light capabilities, neither of which are that critical for the daytime landscapes the OP wants to take. if he was shooting sports and available light that'd be a different story.

so, really, the best option for him is to go with what he knows. he liked his pics better with the oly, and no 5D pic will change that fact (ah, the hubris...). he tried the xsi, it wasnt for him. end of story.

again, no flames, gentle canonites, for though i walk through the valley of L lenses mine standard be yellow and starts with an "N," but IMO you all seem kinda defensive about what is entirely personal and subjective criteria.

no offense, but if a pentaxian made a similar post over at the nikon forum, i'm sure he'd get honest and truthful responses which advised the best course for him (we've already advised several 5D users not to make impulse buys of a D300 just because they rock), i.e., not that the xsi (ot k10d) is a bad camera, but there's no need whatsoever for him to upgrade his body or switch systems if he was getting good results with the E-500. that money he spent might be better applied toward a good tripod or a better 4/3rd lens, like the 12-60.

anon, i bid you adieu. thou mayest talk amongst thyselves.

>Seems sharp enough, but it's hard to tell since the crop it so hideously JPG'd.<

Hmm, I see some pretty bad artifacts in that 100% crop with the monitor I'm using now (Dell LCD) that I didn't notice on my Sony Trinitron CRT monitor. I'm not sure they're from jpg compression, though. I'll have to check that out later (I'm not at my own computer). Thanks for the heads up. I don't think they're from the lens, though :-)

"I don't think they're from the lens, though"

I agree with that. ;)

Eric,

Let's not make straw men where there aren't any crows. I agree with you on the 5D pic being about as useful as wheels on a tomato, but I think the general mood of the thread leans toward helpful. The OP regrets his purchase based on the provided pic, and most of us are trying to get to the bottom of why that pic seems so far below the quality we're used to (lens battles aside... what kind of photographers would we be if we didn't argue about lenses...?)

If I'm getting the kind of sharpness that I do with a non-L lens (the cat pic, my second link above) and 2 less megapix in file size (XTi vs. XSi) then the most likely thing I can think of to blame is the kit lens. It might not be the case, but it's my gut feeling.

But the OP wants to know: "Do I sell the XSi, and get an E-520? Is it just the 18-55mm or do I invest another $1000 bucks on a high end lens?"

My suggestion was to rent a better lens before he dumps the Canon. If he still gets poor results, then by all means, this former Oly shooting Canon fan thinks he should go back to Oly.

Amen.

-c

Thanks again everyone for all the input, it's a lot to digest. Sorry for the long wait I had to work all day and then was doing some research and testing. I tried boosting the sharpness in the menu which got a little improvement, and tested on a newspaper as suggested. It's not that bad from say 30-55mm but gets soft towards the edges when pulled out around 18-24mm. F/8 seems the best stop.Tried my 70-300mm IS USM and it is sharper. Tried the Olympus lens and it seems sharper to me. Where I really notice it the most is in landscapes trying to include foreground and having it all sharp front to back.

I think over all the Canon system is better, as suggested I hit a bit of a learning curve as far as highlight clipping goes. It's probably good in the sense it will make me a better photographer. If I need a better lens so be it, I've invested this much so far and after reading all the advice I think I'll stick with it. Originally I was going to sell the Oly to defer the cost, but maybe I'll keep it and have a backup if one needs service or something. I'll start saving for an L-series!

I have a 30D and I also thought the kit lens was terrible. I bought the Tamron 17-55 f 2.8 and have been very, very happy with it. I do agree with you about the clipping problem. It seems to be technique and using a grad ND takes care of it, but I do think the camera is more sensitive to highights than any other camera I have ever used. I have been shooting with it for about two years and i don't think I get the quality that I got out of my old Sony.

>Seems sharp enough, but it's hard to tell since the crop it so hideously JPG'd.<

I can't blame those artifacts on jpg compression since the tiff looked essentially the same. Again, MUCH worse on the LCD monitor than on my Sony CRT monitor, but nevertheless present on the CRT if I put on my reading glasses and look for it. It was simply heavy-handed sharpening, a combination of DPP's default "3" sharpening plus some Photoshop USM afterward. I improved the situation by setting DPP's sharpening to 0 and doing all the sharpening with USM. Here's a quick try, but I'm not at a CRT monitor so can't really tell how it will look on one of those. I know this is now off topic, but it's certainly educational for me, a new XSi user, and possibly will help some others with landscape images from the XSi.

XSi-kit-lens-55mm-100percent

Mick,

That's more like it, though it does seem strangely noisy, unless I'm crazy. It might be what DPP processing looks like... I've never used it. What were your shooting specs? ISO?

>What were your shooting specs?<

ISO 100, 1/125 @ f11 (tripod). Converted with DPP using no noise reduction, no sharpening, and Landscape Picture Style.

>it does seem strangely noisy, unless I'm crazy.<

You're probably not crazy. I did three passes of USM in Photoshop - 100,1.0,0 / 100,0.5,0 / 100,0.3,0 - The real test is to print that image large and I haven't done that.

Originally I was going to sell the Oly to defer the cost, but maybe I'll keep it

That changes the story a bit. I figured you no longer had the Oly. Why not do a side by side comparison? Shoot in raw, use the histogram to set exposure just short of clipping, and compare them both in the same raw converter. Zero out all settings and output a 16 bit tiff in prophoto rgb. Compare these. How do they look? Is one sharper than the other? Does one have bad DR vs. the other?

It is silly expecting sharp pictures from 50$ lens! C'mon!

"Eric,

Let's not make straw men where there aren't any crows."

sorry, my bad. there was some helpful advice, but it seemed sandwiched in-between a whole lot of chest beating that had nothing to do with the OP's question. but it looks like the OP got the advice he needed, ultimately, so all's well that ends well. i personally think the oly e-500 was a pretty good DSLR in terms of IQ, as a matter of fact i think any DSLR with kit lenses will wax just about any P&S. so a lot of it is semantics. and technique.

there is an idea that getting a new camera body will automatically make one a better shooter, but, once again, the old adage holds true: practice makes perfect. it's easy to blame technology for What It Hath Wrought, but before we do that, we need to eliminate any possibility of user error.

to the OP: i'd keep the Oly too. that 2x mag. factor could come in handy with long lenses.

Interesting thread, as I suspect my Canon is faulty too. But I would appreciate it if people would mention the sharpen settings with the photos they upload. It makes a huge difference on a Canon whether you have sharpening set to 0 or 4.

This is my contribution in attempting to make this the longest Canon EOS posting in history. Bob Atkins (above) questions whether anyone has ever tested the 18-55mm IS against the regular 18-55mm. Well, after arcane searching I found a review that does this to a degree. If you follow my link then scroll down to the red SUV you can mouse over it to see the IS vs normal lens difference. It's a bit tricky and takes good hand to eye coordination but there seems to be a difference.

(link)

Wayne,

Not much difference in the two 18-55's, but the next pic down certainly has a tale to tell. The 17-55 2.8 USM blows the others away!

Photozone tested both 18-55 lenses, the IS version has miles better resolution. Here are links to both tests.

(link)

(link)

Just a couple of observations from an amatuer regarding the poor focus of the attached example:

According to the above exif data... 1) the sharpening is set to low, try increasing it a bit & see what happens.

2) The focus mode is M...This may be obvious but I don't see it mentioned anywhere above, but If you are manually focusing the camera make sure that the DIOPTER CORRECTION is set correctly to your vision. This simple step can save a lot of grief down the road. Maybe someone knocked it slightly off while handling the camera.

Jerry

>>>>>>2) The focus mode is M...This may be obvious but I don't see it mentioned anywhere above, but If you are manually focusing the camera make sure that the DIOPTER CORRECTION is set correctly to your vision. This simple step can save a lot of grief down the road. Maybe someone knocked it slightly off while handling the camera.<<<<<<<

Seems to be focused on nothing.

Often when I see sample images like this I figure that it really _is_ sharp and that it just needs some post-processing work. So I downloaded your large sample file and brought it into Photoshop... and found that it really is out of focus - not much that can be done in post.

Something is clearly wrong. I think that the person who caught the manual focus setting in your EXIF data might be onto something. I'm hopeful that perhaps you just don't have the lens set to AF and it will be as simple as returning the switch to the AF position - otherwise something may be wrong with the lens/camera.

You are correct that f/8 is likely to be your sharpest aperture on this lens and camera. If the blurry shots are wide open that could easily be a contributing factor.

Good luck.

Dan

I have an XTi. I also have 17-40 F4L that is made for a full frame camera. The below picture was hand held, @20mm and has been blown up to 18x24 and could easily go bigger. This lens would probably serve you better.

I noticed that your picture has a fair amount of atmospheric haze, and one of the problems I have had with my 18-55 on hazy days it causes my 30D not to focus properly, try another lens or a circular polarizer filter.

Also try doing multiple step shots of the same locale, then later pick out the best one you like, you will see the differences between the settings of the shots.

I had problems with my Rebel XSi producing blurry, out-of focus pictures when viewed under magnification. I put my Canon EF 24-105 lens on it, and the pictures remained fuzzy. After surfing the web, I ran across this link, http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_rebel_xsi-review/ and he recommended changing the camera from Portrait mode to Landscape mode. It fixed the problem for me.