Kong wrote:

> Hi. I am also torn between the A70 and the 3100 and yes, I had looked up
> reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On the
> http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face pictures
> of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be let down,
> I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100. It's
> without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed out. Some
> said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't makes
> sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp? For point
> & shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
> processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
> 
> Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the Fuji Finpix
> A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That camera seems
> to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then the 3100.
> But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight going into
> the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Smoothy" <bigvahid.antispam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:DoLHa.4256$ca4.449649@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 
>>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
>>>Canons and no one the two Nikons.  Still, quite a few people buy the
>>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
>>
>>There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being much
>>smaller and
>>lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like battery
>>charger or
>>Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
>>You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.      ;)
>>
>>
>>Consider these two pictures:
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
>>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
>>
>>or these two:
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0001.JPG
>>Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
>>
>>
>>(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement, and
> 
> I
> 
>>don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
>>
>>or these ones:
>>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
>>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
>>Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
>>
>>You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics, but even
> 
> in
> 
>>same situations
>>it's like this.
>>
>>I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear your
>>opinins about this.
>>
>>Thanks for your reply.
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>"Tore Lund" <tl18@next.online.no> wrote in message
>>news:bcnp8t$l156a$1@ID-124507.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>>>Smoothy wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>>In the following text, I'm talking about:
>>>>Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
>>>>&
>>>>Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
>>>>
>>>>I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less
> 
> noisy/less
> 
>>>>grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
>>>
>>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
>>>Canons and no one the two Nikons.  Still, quite a few people buy the
>>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>>(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the
>>>>online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
>>>>newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
>>>
>>>I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind.  I draw very different
>>>conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
>>>
>>>For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation, and I
>>>do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO and all
>>>the missing controls.  I just think the 3100 takes better pictures with
>>>more natural colors than the A70.  But I am quite willing to be
>>>convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the superiority
>>>of the A70.
>>>--
>>>    Tore
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image.  Sharpening 
is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the 
camera before it's stored on the media.  With the A70, things will go 
much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt to 
get them printed out.  This can be a royal pain in the neck, but it's 
not an insurmountable problem in any way.  There is also a low sharpen 
mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the 
sharpening by the DIGIC processor.  I guess it's better in this case to 
have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much 
sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.