300d Crappy Kit lens Unsharp Mask vs Good lens no USM

I was wondering if using the cheap 300d kit lens plus unsharp mask

will yield photos just as sharp and detailed as using a good lens

wihtout the filter. Does havign a good lens give you more detail or

can most of the benefits a more expensive lens be in photoshop? i

don't have this camera (yet, waiting for succesor to 10d), but i was

wondering how digital stuff works.

ANything realted to photography is subject to the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) rule. If the light is never recorded on the sensor, you can't "invent" it. Heck, if you could, do you really think people would be spilling thousands of dolars on "L" lenses when they could magicaly get sharp pictures with a crappy lens?

 

Sorry bout the tone, it had to get out :P

 

You just can't invent what isnt there!

Just as with film, get it when you shoot it. Trying to compensate in the darkroom or with Photoshop is a compromise, you will be better off getting it right the first time. Having said that, the kit lens isn't a bad little lens. If you keep waiting for the next version of the 10D I'm betting you will wait a while yet.

 

Rick H.

The absolute answer is no.<br>You can sharpen to some extent but the same applies to the better lens,so the gap is still there.

<br>However,the kit zoom(which seems to be 'reasonable')+ carefull sharpening may end up with much better prints than you'd get from a film camera with a kit zoom....if that helps.

<br>For what it's worth i've noticed that cheap sigma lenses work well with USM while canon kit zooms don't do as well.

Ya know => I dragged out my 28-105 recently, and I was doing the post processing tonight along with photos taken with my 24/2.8. Frankly, the 24/2.8 just LOOKS better.

 

Its not that the better lens doesn't need sharpening: It's just that (1) the images look better before sharpening, and (2) the images look better after sharpening.

I must confess I don't really see the point of this question. After all, all Canon's DSLRs are designed in this way that you need to apply USM in post-processing. Not doing so is plain silly.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

I have that lense, and some more expensive ones. It ain't no 'L' glass, but if your doing your job right...the pics will come out great!

Well, are you shooting sports or scenery?

hah

<i>It ain't no 'L' glass, but if your doing your job right...the pics will come out great!</i><p>

I never saw EF-S lenses and hopefully I never will, but I would say it's exactly same crap as 28-90/4.0-5.6 lens. It's plastic, it's light and it doesn't fly far enough when you throw it away. But for some occassions it works quite ok. For example stopped down to f16, shooting landscape with not much of details. As soon as you have some details it's crap.<br>

And to original question. No you can't. If you could I'm sure noone would want to spend few $1000 on lenses which would do same as $50 lens with some USM. If photo is screwed up no USM can fix it. Some USM is necessary for pretty much all digital work (scanning or DSLR), but not to save screwed up photos.

At the canon forum on dpreview.com, a few people are comparing the kit lens with the 17-40L, with actual images posted. Their conclusion is that the L lens is clearly better at the very corners, but a draw at the central portion. It was a long thread with many people chiming in, naturally not everyone agreed on the conclusion.

"<i>I never saw EF-S lenses and hopefully I never will, but I would say it's exactly same crap as 28-90/4.0-5.6 lens...</i>" <p>then, Primoz, I'd say your opinion on the lens is about as valid as a movie review from Helen Keller...<p> Evan, <p>I find it interesting that you call the 300D's Kit lens "crappy", yet you have never used it yourself. On what are you basing your opinion? I've never used the EF-S lens either, and I'm sure that, at $100, it's no "L" lens, but you should try it yourself before you condemn it. You should probably also do a LOT more research on digital cameras and the digital workflow beofre you shell out a thousand bucks for a digital SLR, IMO.<p>Try <a href=http://www.luminouslandscape.com>Luminous Landscape</a> and <a href=http://www.dpreview.com>DP Review</a>. There is a lot of information about digital photography on those sites that you may find enlightening (or, not, depending on whether you are willing to take the time to learn).

I never reply to most of the questions comes on photo.net, ?cause probably I believe I am no good for it. But this question just freaked me out.

 

Poster hasn?t even used this lens, don?t even have a DSLR and is just waiting for an upgraded 10D and he/she CONFINDENTLY condemns a lens saying ?Crappy?. I am sorry to say but a bad carpenter always blames his tools. I am using this kit lens and I also have some other wonderful lenses like 100mm macro and 70-200 f4 L and I would say 18-55 does a wonderful job for its price. Just compare the price $100/- Vs $700/-, what sense does it makes? $700/- lens has to be well built and should have environmental seals, or else why would anyone pay such a huge sum?

 

Coming to your question, USM can only bring back some details but there it will never replace a prime like 24/28 or 50mm.

 

Just to prove my point, these following shots are taken with CRAPPY KIT LENS.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1836186&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1875786&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1930093&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1990626&size=lg

 

Dhiren

Hey Primroz, DITTO Alan.

 

Rest. I have the kit lens, it runs figure $100 with the camera and for that price it's not crappy. It's what you would expect. I got lucky enough to get my camera body on a Canon 600mm, 1.4 IS USM... this weekend. I won't kid you, the 600mm (~$15,000) was sharper, but for my needs its not that much sharper. For the time being, I'll be happy to get my shots in focus, and do what I can with PS or other software.

 

Steve

lovely pictures Dhiren.. but some people here just want to spend upwards of $500 to feel comfortable with a piece of photographic equipment..

 

Better photographers take better pictures with a $100 Vivitar lenses and a manual Vivitar camera than people here would ever take with their $1500 10D and $800 17-40L lens..

I dont know why, but now a days, its become a fashion to buy the most expensive equipment and to have an L is like a status symbol.

This is not generalization but I have noticed this many times and its a sad trend in medium like photography.

yea. you guys posted the responses i most expected. about the "crappy" kit lens, i mean for film not for digital because digital postprocessing makes a big difference. and i really don't understand how everyone calls the other kit lens for canon EOS cameras "crappy", while this one can be decent? its not even a prime lens. can you explain there? of course you can get great pictures. it depends on the photographer. That wasn't the point of the post, but the same lens "hacked" on a film camera might not look so great??? read what i posted.

i don't have that much money to spend on gear or i wouldn't be asking this. i just wanted to compare how the results of the two situations. its hard for me to explain what im trying to ask online.

let me rephrase. why buy the expensive glass when digital requires postprocessing which makes everything look sharp anyway in most situations?

I would be curious to see how these prejudiced, opinionated reviewers would price each canon lens if they were given a sample of each and asked to guess their price based on quality observed. Would they price the 17-40L 8 times higher then the "crappy" $100 kit lens? I doubt it. People make uninformed decisions about things based on nothing more than the price that the company puts on them. The sad thing is that these snobbish attitudes are affecting people that come here for help. I do own the kit lens. I also own the 50mm f/1.8. Coincidentally, just two days ago I did a comparison of these two lenses just precisely because of the quantity of debate I've seen here on the subject. The 50mm is supposed to be razor sharp, right? Possibly the best you could ever expect to see come out of your camera, right? And the fact is that I did find this to be true. However, the fact is that after taking a detail-packed shot of pine needles, snow crystals, etc., with both lenses, I could barely tell a difference between both lenses, and only at certain apertures (F:4 and 22), and then while viewing side by side at 100%, I used different levels of USM to compensate and what little difference there was ALMOST DISAPPEARED. I know some will call me ignorant for saying this, but this is the practical answer. Evan: take it from someone who owns this lens and camera; you will be perfectly happy with this lens. Be GLAD that it only costs $100, not disappointed.

This conversation has taken a bizarre twist.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase a response:

 

Unsharp Mask works by increasing contrast where edges occur. This makes lines stand out better in an otherwise slightly fuzzy image.

 

Unsharp Mask will not work when you have many small edges in an image. For images of stars, falling snow, or fireworks USM does horrible things.

 

Also, a sharp image is more than just sharp lines. It is more accurate rendition of tonal changes, such as the skin on a face where a guy has 5 oclock shadow. A sharper image will show more detail, where a fuzzy image will blur this effect. USM is not nearly as effective in bringing this out as a good lens is capable of bringing it out.

 

*****

 

So: BOTTOM LINE: A better lens will result in a cleaner image that requires less sharpening. The image BEFORE sharpening will be better with the good lens. The image AFTER sharpening will be better with the good lens. Sharpening is required with ALL lenses.

 

*****

 

The unfortuante truth is that Canon sensor technology requires an anti-aliasing filter before the sensor. This is in part because each pixel only sees one color. This anti-aliasing filter requires a "resharpening" step somewhere along the line in order to clarify the image. In the cheap P&S's, the sharpening step is done "in camera". In the dSLR's, Canon has chosen to move this step to photo shop post processing.

 

I suspect in part that this is because the "optimal" sharpening does in fact depend upon (1) final image size, (2) lens quality, and (3) personal preference. Since dSLRs are more frequently used for enlargements and are used with a variety of lenses, with picky photographers. . off camera sharpening is a must.

 

One of canon's competitors uses sensors with multicolor pixels (not Nikon, I forget who). It would be interesting to see what sort of sharpening those cameras require.

are u referring to Sigma and the Foveon stuff?

Yeah, those them guys!

 

Intellectually, that technology should yield better pictures. BUT there is more to having a good camera than having a good concept.

 

As an example, many consider the 1D, at 4mp, to have better image quality than the 10D/300D at 6mp.

_____

 

Remember, the biggest thing between the sensor and the pulitzer photo is the glass. :)

 

But oddly enough, the biggest problem with most cameras resides BEHIND the viewfinder. . . .

Evan

I have the kit lens, and as stated above, USM will take the initial detail captured by the sensor and it will be effective in enhancing certain aspects of it (see Jim Larson's Post). Some expensive glass will record more detail initially. Therefore, it's not really a USM issue. You can't sharpen what's not there. Having said that, I've had good success with photos printed 4x6, 5x7, and even some 8x10 using the kit lens. I've also had crappy results using expensive glass. Ultimately, this rested soley on my abilites, (exposure, focus, composition, e.t.c.).

 

Bottom line you can get great shots with the EF-S 18-55 (or any Canon lens), if you know how to shoot with it, and what it's limitations, and strengths are.

See this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006rPU">thread</a> i started before and the links given in that thread. Apparently 18-55 EF-s is not garbage afterall, maybe that is the reason Canon made it incompatible to the 10D and other cameras..

Actually, any sort of signal processing where an analog signal is discretely sampled should have an explicit or implicit filter to prevent aliasing. Foveon is not immune, which is why the Sigma can have aliasing artifacts in its' images. The Foveon DOES eliminate the chromatic effects aliasing can produce in a bayer pattern sensor.

 

This is a design choice Sigma made, probably in response to the lower pixel count the sensor has, in an attempt to boost apparent resolution. It seems part of the market likes this approach.