Picture from Canon A40

[Tweek]

Originally posted by dbchoong
But when I used a Hoya UV filter on my A40, the results were surprising!! The A40 produced pictures that not only matched the S40, it even beat the S40. I never thought a cheap UV filter can improve pictures so dramatically.

Really?? that's interesting... would like to see the before and after pictures!

I always thought UV filter degrades image quality (but minimally) in most situations.

 

[copland]

I thot the UV filter only to protect the lens. For A40's case, there is already an auto lens cover hence the guy at John 3:16 said it is not really necessary to get. So far, I have the hoya +4 close up filter.

dbchoong, am looking forward to see the difference. If it is noticeable, I will probably get one.

 

[copland]

dbchoong, the one taken with the A40 really clear;y better.

do you have one of A40 with and with the UV filter?

 

[dbchoong]

Here's a first one. Both in 1024x768, Superfine, ISO50, Auto.

We chose this because of the contrast of shaded and bright to see how it handles both in the same photo.

Here's the S40 pic:

Here's the A40 pic:

The wall on the left is actually NOT pink, it's more like the biege like the one in the A40 photo.

Yes, I also thought UV lens only protects the lens and not enhances photos. Somehow, on a bright day, the UV filter seem to be doing wonders for my A40.

 

[PsychoBoy]

I have he UV filer also. this is taken with it on. but it is a nite shot

 

[hong]

from exif

A40 using F8 , 1/200 and Program and ISO 50
S40 using F3.5, 1/1000 and Auto and ISO Auto

A longer shutter in A40 allows you to see further, coupled with high F number

it's quite well known that S40 constrast and saturation is soft, you can try upping the constrast and saturation and sharpeness in S40 and see how it compares

Auto mode tends to force S40 to use the shortest shutter speed with a low F number (wide angle) in this case, it choose F3.5 and 1/1000, however, personally for me i would choose a setting close to A40 for better comparison

 

[dbchoong]

Here's another comparison. We were standing in the sun taking the photo of the shop in the shade. No flash used.

S40:

A40:

 

[copland]

Originally posted by hong
from exif

A40 using F8 , 1/200 and Program and ISO 50
S40 using F3.5, 1/1000 and Auto and ISO Auto

A longer shutter in A40 allows you to see further, coupled with high F number

it's quite well known that S40 constrast and saturation is soft, you can try upping the constrast and saturation and sharpeness in S40 and see how it compares

Auto mode tends to force S40 to use the shortest shutter speed with a low F number (wide angle) in this case, it choose F3.5 and 1/1000, however, personally for me i would choose a setting close to A40 for better comparison

I assume you are referring to the pics shared by dbchoong...

are you saying that the pictures are different because more of the settings rather than the UV filter?

 

[dbchoong]

Yes, I think he meant the settings had something to do with the difference. I think so too. The 1st shot we took (A40 without filter) showed the S40 with better pics. Can't post those photos as my Coolconnect is full...

We're still a bit puzzled right now on whether the UV filter had any effect or not. But for the time being, I'm leaving it on...

On Monday, we're trying to do a digicam shootout. We've invited a Nikon 775 and a Olympus C700 owner to join us.

Originally posted by copland


I assume you are referring to the pics shared by dbchoong...

are you saying that the pictures are different because more of the settings rather than the UV filter?

 

[Jango]

Are those A40 pictures taken with the UV filter?

 

[dbchoong]

Yes, they are.

Originally posted by Jango
Are those A40 pictures taken with the UV filter?

 

[copland]

Originally posted by dbchoong

We're still a bit puzzled right now on whether the UV filter had any effect or not. But for the time being, I'm leaving it on...

Guess I will be making a trip to CP for my UV filter

 

[hong]

Originally posted by copland


I assume you are referring to the pics shared by dbchoong...

are you saying that the pictures are different because more of the settings rather than the UV filter?

that's what i think, having a different setting may results in different quality, it's also interesting to see that pics taken with A40 superfine compression filesize is lower than S40

as for the 2nd comparison, different settings as well as different focus distance are used, i am not sure how will that translate to the pic quality, any expert here can advised???

 

[hong]

Originally posted by dbchoong
Yes, they are.

are we still able to turn off the camera, close the lens cover with the UV filter?? can take a pic of how does it look like with UV filter

 

[misato]

It seems everyone is putting the lens adapter too good use. But sadly.. i'm too busy to do some shooting during the weekend, having a exhibition at bugis. BTW, over this weekend, Bugis junction have some very interesting culture performance put up, with the 2 main event being japan and korean tradition art( dance i think).

 

[misato]

Originally posted by hong


are we still able to turn off the camera, close the lens cover with the UV filter?? can take a pic of how does it look like with UV filter

The len adapter and UV filter sits on top of the built in lense of the A40, giving it an extra layer of protection even when the camera shut off. The only disadvantage is that the lense adapter extended the profile of the A40, making it non-pocket friendly. but isnt that what most of the SLR user faces, when adding lenses to their camera

 

[dbchoong]

Another bad thing about having the adapter is that flash photography suffers. A shadow will be caused by the protruding adapter.

So, with it on, can't flash....

But it'll come in very useful as you later add on more filters - maybe a close-up, polarizer or a star filter to enhance your photos.

:gbounce:

 

[dbchoong]

I think the settings played a big part in the difference. The 2nd comparison, I thought the settings were quite close.

A40: 1/100, F4.8
S40: 1/60, F5

Yeah, and big doesn't mean better (filesize, I mean)!!

Originally posted by hong


that's what i think, having a different setting may results in different quality, it's also interesting to see that pics taken with A40 superfine compression filesize is lower than S40

as for the 2nd comparison, different settings as well as different focus distance are used, i am not sure how will that translate to the pic quality, any expert here can advised???

 

[hong]

hmm, canon may have improve the jpg compression alogrithms in A40

2nd pics setting are close, but they are focusing @ different distance i not sure how will it affects the light metering especially the photos is taken @ max zoom mode

 

[copland]

Originally posted by dbchoong
Another bad thing about having the adapter is that flash photography suffers. A shadow will be caused by the protruding adapter.

So, with it on, can't flash....

But it'll come in very useful as you later add on more filters - maybe a close-up, polarizer or a star filter to enhance your photos.

:gbounce:

I was just testing it and find that if nyou zoom fully i.e. 3x zoom, you do not get the shadow on the bottom right of the picture.