Optical problems.

[narrell]

I have been away from this site for a while due to both a major melt down of my Sony Alpha700 (smashed in an accident), the lack of $$ to repair/replace it, and a problem with my own eyesight that I'm hoping will soon sort itself out.
I have over the last few weeks taken a few shot with my husbands Sony A550, but have found that no matter what I try the image is always slightly blurred or soft.
So I am now thinking of taking a step back to a point and shoot / super zoom until my eyesight improves, as the focusing I assume will be less of a problem.
I haven't used one for quiet a few years and would like anyone with personal experience to recommend a couple so I can review them and make a decision.
Thanks in advance!

[ricktas]

Blurriness or softness can be caused by a myriad of things

1. not in focus
2. subject moving
3. camera moving
4. photographer shake (see 3)
5. Shutter speed to slow

and more

Post some examples of the problem and we should be able to advise on the cause / resolution.

[mpb]

I think you will be disappointed will a point and shoot. I am not sure how you will get sharp shots with a p&s if you can't get them with a dslr.

Why not look at a second hand camera, just saw an A700 go for $255 on eBay. You probably already have the lenses and other accessories, and you would need to spend a reasonable amount on a p&s or super zoom that you would be happy with.

I would also recommend looking at the sony's with an electronic view finder if your eye sight is dodgy. They provide a number of tools to help with focusing like focus peeking and highlighting in focus areas. You could probably pick up an A57 or the like for under $500.

[bitsnpieces]

As mentioned, there are many reasons for blurriness, but one I think I'll add is the possibility it's just getting old and needs a little tuning, or worst yet, replacement. This will also answer Mark's question of why a P&S may have sharper photos.

But hopefully it isn't so, and is only the things Rick has listed.

Anyways, I would also agree with what Mark said - you have so many things available for the Sony Alpha range already, it'd be a waste to leave them to gather dust - definitely a lot of cheap second hands, heck, I'm sure prices have gone down quite well you can get some cheap brand new ones too.

To get a good P&S, you'll be spending around the same amount of money for a DSLR, and as Mark mentioned, the new EVF stuff - a57, a58, and a65 are all very similar priced and definite must haves if you want to try EVF and low on budget.
Buying a cheap P&S just won't give you the quality you want, of course, unless you can find a good deal somewhere for a good one, but it's really up to you.

But if you really find that you want something more simple and will get you going, you should look at some of Sony's new Cyber-shots - WX350 has 20x zoom, HX60 has 30x zoom, and HX300 has 50x zoom.
If huge zoom isn't a necessity like that, and you want good zoom and high quality, the RX10 is a good choice of 8x zoom with a professional 24-200mm f/2.8 lens, though much more pricey (but I presume that if you don't want to do DSLR anymore, you probably have some stuff you're looking to sell anyways right?)

Myself personally, I've used the WX300, which is the same as the WX350, just less features, and it took great photos. Only thing I didn't like about it was image distortion on the sides of the image when using wide - the image would look pulled out.

I've been looking at the HX300 and while, and the RX10, reading reviews - both look very competent, though I haven't used them myself.

If water, shock, smash, are factors, may I even suggest the Olympus Stylus TG-3? I haven't used it, but my friend has one, loves it. I've seen the quality of models under it and they look great. It has 3 lenses which you can buy (in the future if you like) for macro lighting, fisheye effect, and I think the 3rd is a small telephoto lens if I remember correctly.

Anyways, those are some of my ideas.

[griffljg]

This may (or may not) solve your problem:

I have a little Olympus XZ2 point and shoot camera, although it is really far more than that. I noticed that occasionally I was getting shots out of focus or that the focus refused to lock on to the subject. Than I noticed that the camera seemed to have changed inexplicably (or so I thought) to manual focus. Then I noticed that the little lever at the bottom of the camera on the right had been knocked to the right. This little lever is the switch for changing from manual focus to auto focus and back.

Problem solved! - Or though not really. I don't know what Olympus were thinking when they put that little lever in such an exposed position. I now know that I have to check the auto focus switch before I use the camera.

It might be worthwhile taking a look as to whether this could also be happening on your camera. - The camera is maybe inadvertently being switched to manual focus.

[narrell]

A few images with lots of problems. :cool:

http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC01440_zps664ebc53.jpg.html
http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC01235_zps641ec8ea.jpg.html
http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC00888_zpsa256329b.jpg.html

[ameerat42]

Narell, I have used the "IMG" links on your Photobucket pages (listed above) to link the images into the thread.
Basically, copy that code and paste it in your posts here.

Usually, images contain the EXIF data that can give us an idea of your settings fro the shot. In the direct links
to these images the Camera EXIF does not show, but I found it when I clicked to enlarge the images (to "View Original").
Am.

Your images, in orser as above (I hope):

http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSC01440_zps664ebc53.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC01440_zps664ebc53.jpg.html)

http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSC01235_zps641ec8ea.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC01235_zps641ec8ea.jpg.html)

http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSC00888_zpsa256329b.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC00888_zpsa256329b.jpg.html)

[bitsnpieces]

Well, it doesn't look much of a camera shake problem or anything, Larry's comments about the switch may be a potential - that could be one thing to try checking first.

It seems the first and third image are fine with regards to focus, unless it's not focusing on what you wanted it to focus on - if you could provide some details on your what you were aiming for, we can get a better idea of the focus problem.

The second image I don't know if it we just missed the focus, or if there's a front focus problem. Those are my guesses I guess.

I couldn't find the "View Original" button, so no idea of the EXIF data

[ameerat42]

Bitsn...
It's the magnifier button: You get "View Original" come up when you hover over it after the 1st magnification, ie, on the 2nd click.

[bitsnpieces]

Oh there it is... I magnified it twice, but didn't notice the second one on the bottom right again :D

Thank you. And as you can see, I don't use many online photo services... lol

But I still don't know what to do next... Hovering on the image doesn't bring up any information like it does here, downloading the image didn't either... I don't see any info anywhere too :(

Nevertheless, unless we know what she was focusing on, I don't think we'd get far though :shrug:

Edit: Ah, gotcha, will look for one. Thanks :)

[ameerat42]

You need an EXIF Viewer add-on, either for Chrome or FFox.

[narrell]

Sorry I do not know how to show the exif Info. I shot these in RAW and then saved them straight from PSP to my desktop without any alterations. Sorry the first image was not the correct link, the correct image was the following one.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSC01275_zps396a54e7.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC01275_zps396a54e7.jpg.html)
There was no particular focus, just general focus on my surrounds that I felt was not quiet right. With the image being out of focus and also soft.
Thank you for your help Ameerat42. I do not usually post my images to the internet, so am grateful for the pointers.

[ameerat42]

Narell, you don't really have to "show" the EXIF. Some sites (seem) to strip or change the EXIF from the camera and replace it with nothing, or other data.
Now for this image I cannot see camera EXIF data :rolleyes: !!! when I click on view original image.

The image is overexposed (maybe you were exposing for shadow detail??), and when I clicked the largest size I rather thought the blurriness was
from camera shake. Perhaps you had a low shutter speed?

Apart from that it looks an interesting composition of the subject matter.

Finally, if you want to add an EXIF Viewer to your browser, just go to "add-ons" and search for one. They are usually called
"exif viewer".
Am.

[narrell]

Thank you ameerat42, this image was taken at the wrong time of day with full blazing sunlight (around noon in Far North QLD), I know this was definitly not a good time, but was hoping to at least get a semi good shot. When I looked through the viewfinder I thought this image was clear, sharp and in focus but found out it was none of these when i got home. This is the kind of problem I have been having. When I take the shot in AV mode and manual focus it, it looks to be in focus, and then after downloading my images I see they are not focused. This still happens when I use a tripod, so I'm thinking I now need to go to Auto mode to prevent this as I do not want to give up my love of photography. As I stated in a previous post I had completely forgotten about Auto mode on my Sony as I have never used it, but I am also thinking that as bitsnpieces mentioned, it may just be time for a new camera also.
Thanks again for your comments and i am now off to look for an EXIF Viewer. :D

[bitsnpieces]

I only have a couple of guesses based on what you've described:
1) Image-stabiliser mechanism fail
2) Image-stabiliser fighting against itself

If you really are holding everything stead (and as you say, on a tripod), it couldn't be user shake, which is why it leads me to think the two possible reasons above. But there could be more - this is just guess based on what I've learned and experience.

For example, my friend had a waterproof Sony camera, and after a while, it constantly vibrated - you can feel the camera vibrate, so when taking pictures, of course, it's all just shake. It was the Image-stabiliser which failed, causing the thing to just keep shaking. The repairman had to disable that feature from the inner core since there was no menu to disable the Image-stabiliser.
I don't know if Sony's Image-stabiliser works the same way on DSLRs to the point & shoot, and being that it's a bigger camera, you probably won't feel it, but do you hear anything? Then again, being a higher quality machine, it's probably silent too. But this is simply a guess - the Image-stabiliser has failed.

But the image doesn't look like it's shaking that bad (the shake was so bad on my friend's camera, you're really only getting photos of streaks), which leads to #2 - Image-stabiliser fighting itself.
When set on a tripod, I read that using image-stabiliser can actually interfere with the quality of photo, like the image-stabiliser thinks there's shaking, it's always thinking there's something to adjust to, so when there actually isn't, it's confused and sometimes just does the wrong thing.

Now, if it is a user shaking problem, then it could be your shutter speed is too slow, especially if you're zooming in, it's easy for the camera to pick up any shake - sometimes Image-stabiliser isn't enough to make it clean. Because looking at your previous 3 photos, they don't look like there's camera shake, just out of focus - that could be just incidental, or another problem on it's own (front/back focus problems - getting old, just needs some adjustment)

So I have a few ideas:
1) Try auto mode
2) Put it on shutter priority and set the shutter speed to 1/60, at least around there. I'm not too concerned about the photo you try taking, I just want to see what could be the cause of the shake. I'm hoping at 1/60, should be fast enough to not capture any user shaking, but slow enough so if the camera is doing it, it can still get caught. Try 1/60, then 1/80, 1/100, and 1/160. Basically just trying different speeds (incase 1/60 is still too slow and you get both camera and user shake, if you know what I mean - more tests, more chances of finding an answer).
3) Turn image stabiliser off, and do the same above. That way you have a comparison of the amount of shaking, if any, and help deduce what amount of shake is user, and if any, whether the camera is shaking itself or not.

Tests shouldn't take too long.

Maybe others may have a more efficient way to testing, but only reason I suggest the above is because of what I think it could be, and if I'm wrong at that point, well, this all goes out the window along with it so oh well :P

Also, I'm guessing this is your husband's camera, so although you may decide to move on to a point & shoot, I'm sure your husband probably might still want to be able to take photos with his camera - so if it can be fixed without much, it's worth it right? :)

[arthurking83]

Firstly, so time isn't wasted offering advice that may not be appropriate, look into the exif issue.

I don't think you need an exif viewer as such, you just need to eliminate the step in your workflow where exif is all lost.
I downloaded one of your images from PB, and it had no exif whatsoever!

I think this is more likely to be a result of some edit or conversion process with your software.(which I think was PSP?)

So firstly look into PSP, and make sure that, when you 'save as' or convert your raw image, or save a final web upload version or whatever ... it doesn't strip the exif.
So software has an inbuilt routine where if you (for eg) 'save to web' or something like that, it strips the exif automagically, and there may not be options to change that.
If this is the case with your software, look to a different saving/converting routine.

Then again, in saying all that, I think bitsnpieces is on the right track tho.. do some shutter speed tests to see if you can get a sharp image.
Shoot something static, if handheld is your predominant preference, then do that .. otherwise use a tripod.
Static subjects that are useful are bricks in a wall, the side of your house, the columns holding up the verandah roof .. etc. Flowers and all that look nice, but if they're moving in the breeze, and the images are coming out blurry, the results will be misleading.

Note that exposure affects the apparent sharpness in an image. Too dark and the image may be all black(so of course may have nothing sharp in it to portray a sharp image, but overly bright and overexposed subject has the same appearance.

Your closeup flower shot is overexposed. You can just make out some detail in the flower, but it gets washed out, and hence looks blurry.
If this image was shot in raw made, go back to the raw image and reprocess it. First step would be to set about -1 to -1.3Ev underexposure and see if it helps to restore some tone detail in the flower area.

The overall feeling here tho, with these images is that they are all a 'bit too bright'(although #1, with the fish statues seems OK!) .. overly bright image imply softness in the images in two ways.
as already said, too much brightness can make the image look soft(as in the flower image) but it also implies that the shutter speed is a bit slower than it needs to be too, which suggest camera shake too.
Without exif data, it's hard to tell which and what.
So get on top of the disappearing exif data problem first.

[bitsnpieces]

True, the EXIF data would help eliminate some possible guesses already, but since I wasn't able to view them also, thought I'd just throw it in anyways. :)

[blkmcs]

The question that no one seems to have asked Narrell is "are photos taken by your husband with this camera also out of focus?"
If yes then ditch the camera, if no then look at what you are doing that is different to what your husband is doing.

Have you tried taking the same shot using manual focus and then using auto focus? If so are both shots out of focus?

Have you and your husband tried taking the same shot using the same settings? If so is one in focus and one not in focus?
Maybe the diopter adjustment is fine for your husband but not for you.

[narrell]

ok, just need to clear up a couple of things...
1. These photos are taken with my Sony A700B by me.
2. The out of focus/soft problem I am having has only started in the last 4 month.
3. I have no idea how to keep the exif details with the images, when I view them on my PC the exif data is on the bottom of the window.
4. I intend to do the testing as soon as I can, both hand held/tripod, Av, Shutter & also Auto modes.

Bitsnpeices... You mentioned feeling a shake..Lately when I first switch the power on I feel shake and also hear a noise similar to a grinding sound. (have stopped using it for fear of doing more damage before I can get a repairer to have a look at it).

Blkmcs....we have not tried taking the same shot but this is something we will check out as well.

Thank you everyone for your time. I will try to re-upload the images with the Exif data as soon as I find out how to do it.

[bitsnpieces]

Just to make sure it isn't a standard shake (I don't know about the A700, but the SLTs will have a quick sensor shake presumably to shake off any dust), does that shaking and grinding noise stay after turning on? Like while trying to use, you can still feel/hear shake/grind? You could try removing the lens and just looking in the camera when turning on too - maybe it's noticeable.

If that's the case, as you did say your camera got smashed, depending how bad of one, I wouldn't be surprised something internal messed up.

But either way, I would still try the things mentioned on here to test your camera, with your husband, different modes, but if you start feeling those shakes/vibrations/grinds are definitely out of the normal, stop, get it to the repair shop, evaluate costs, and then I guess decide whether you repair, replace, upgrade, take a new path, etc. Choices are endless :)

[narrell]

shaking and grinding noise stop after the power is on. Will do the tests and then make a decision. (due to bad weather, this may take a week or two).

[deef]

Hi Narrell. The examples you put up are very overexposed which makes me wonder if there is a setting on the camera which is increasing the exposure by 2 stops. I am not familiar with your model camera so can't offer guidance as to where to look.

I wonder about this setting because I downloaded 2 of your pics and processed them in Lightroom. The processing consisted of reducing the exposure value by 2, recovery 30, blacks 20, clarity 74, vibrance and saturation 26, sharpening 107. So a minutes work produces a result which shows that there is plenty of quality info in the file to get a reasonable result. This leads me to think that the camera settings are a bit out of whack.

Hope that helps you searching for the answer.


http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/JED_HSV/Aus%20Photography%20uploads/DSC01235_zps641ec8ea-2copy_zpscbbb7858.jpg (http://s170.photobucket.com/user/JED_HSV/media/Aus%20Photography%20uploads/DSC01235_zps641ec8ea-2copy_zpscbbb7858.jpg.html)

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/JED_HSV/Aus%20Photography%20uploads/DSC01275_zps396a54e7-2copy_zpse40d5cb2.jpg (http://s170.photobucket.com/user/JED_HSV/media/Aus%20Photography%20uploads/DSC01275_zps396a54e7-2copy_zpse40d5cb2.jpg.html)

[martycon]

Now here is a good practical suggestion

[bitsnpieces]

The first image with the flowers may have just been exposure problems, but the second one definitely has blur, thus we want to test whether it's user or camera

If it's user, then that's easy, some tips, advice, done deal.

If it's camera, then we'll know what to do next.

Reason why we can also presume it's camera is based on the information provided, this was never a problem beforehand, but now is. Hopefully we'll get some test results back soon :)

[narrell]

Well, The decision has been made, I decided to purchase a new Sony a65, and so far I am pleased with the results, though lots more practice is needed. These photos were both taken by me, late this afternoon, with a light drizzle happening. Both hand held. I definitely prefer the a65 shot for a first attempt. I'm pretty sure at least some of the problems I was having, if not all were due to the age of my a700. I have no idea how to get the Exif INFO to show, so if anyone could steer me in the right direction were there is instructions to do that, I would be very pleased.
Photo taken with Sony a700
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/700s_zps37064b76.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/700s_zps37064b76.jpg.html)
Photo Taken with Sony a65
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/65s_zpsc1d73b5f.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/65s_zpsc1d73b5f.jpg.html)

[bitsnpieces]

Hi narell,

I'm presuming settings on both cameras were the same right?
Did you get a chance to test at different shutter speeds or such?
If so, I would have to say, the a700 definitely hit its age and could use some repairs, ie. I'm pretty sure that isn't camera shake problems from that image.

Anyways, great to see another Sony a65 user - though I personally would love an a77, but for the budget, the a65 is a great camera.

Regarding EXIF data, are you using Photoshop? If so, are you saving for web or saving normally?
Saving normally should keep the EXIF data.
If you're saving for Web, then on the right side of the Save for Web box, you'll see metadata - change that to All.

If you're doing that already, or saving as JPEG already, then it could be that Photobucket strips that data away, so you'll need to manually tell us the settings you use.

You can do that by right clicking the file, Properties, Details tab, and that'll list all the basic stuff like shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc. I hear some people say sometimes it's not completely accurate - nonetheless, it helps.

[arthurking83]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that the A700 image is completely affected by camera shake.
And that the A65 image is not.

exif is intact.

A65 image is ISO 1600 and 1/160s .. whereas the A700 image is ISO 400 and 1/5s.
There is a possibility of capturing an image at 18mm and 1/5s, but on inspection of the A700 image, this definitely wasn't optimum shooting settings.
End result is lots of camera shake.

Note that while the A65 image is sharper looking, it has lost a fair amount of detail at ISO1600 due to noise and noise reduction.

[bitsnpieces]

Hm... If that's the case, then yes, that would be camera shake, thus my question of whether they were shot the same way. Without being able to see the EXIF data myself... it's hard to say what the reason was...

Which brings the question, how come my EXIF Viewer doesn't work? It hardly ever displays anything... Only once did it display some data which I could not understand...


Bad JPEG file head, SOI marker not found: 0x3c 0x21
Status = -1

Unable to extract some or all of the EXIF data, which may have been removed from the image file.

I may need to reinstall it or something... -_-

[arthurking83]

Nah! my web based exif viewer didn't show any exif either, so it's a PB issue.
I downloaded the images from PB(which for some reason came in at full size, 12+Mb! :eek:)

most exif is contained within those files.

[narrell]

ok, now I am confused, the settings on both cameras were the same when I took the shots-ISO100 and 1/5s, so not sure how they ended up different. I'm using Photoshop and I save as normal jpegs..not web ready. I have been told PB does sometimes strip the exif data, so I guess I need to look for somewhere that doesn't. I'm off to take a few more test shots..this time with my tripod, so I can rule out the people shake..:lol:

[bitsnpieces]

That's interesting.

Try a faster shutter speed though if you're on a tripod, and turn off image stabiliser also.
Let the camera do it's own setting for ISO and aperture. We're not so much worried about image quality, just looking for shake and blurriness, and what could be causing it.

So if it's on tripod, turn off stabiliser, put a nice shutter speed of 1/50 at least I'd say, 1/100 if you can, and let it rip. :)

[Speedway]

There is 1 setting on the camera which is different on both cameras and that is the metering mode the A700 is set to spot and the A65 to multi segment this could account for the difference depending on where the spot metering is set. I use spot for most of my wildlife and sport photography but switch to a wider mode for landscapes etc. I also use single point focus switching that around to suit the situation and have occasionally taken a quick shot where the focus point was way off
Cheers
Keith.

[arthurking83]

Like Speedway said, the metering mode used had an influence.

A700 was indeed set to spot, and A65 set to pattern(or matrix, or overall) mode.
The metering mode has caused the difference in shutter.
Also, I can't see the Auto ISO bit setting set in the file's exif data, so I assume that ISO was manually set to 400.
A700 was set to Aperture priority.

Note that you had the A700 set to f/4.5(at 18mm) whereas you had the A65 set to f/4 at the same focal length. Was this the same lens or different for each camera?

With the A65, I also can't see any auto ISO setting made in camera, but the exposure mode used says it was "normal"(whatever that is) .. and this implies an auto exposure mode.
I'm guessing this is similar to a landscape or portrait type auto program mode, and so I assume the camera automatically switches to an auto ISO setting in this situation.

I remember a few consumer level cameras doing this, where when you set them to Landscape mode, it then sets ISO to 400 and you can't change it. It was very frustrating to try to figure out why.

Exif is set up almost OK the way you have it now and it is PB that is not allowing exif plugins to read the metadata. You have to download the image to see the data.
Note tho that while you can see some exif data, PS still strips a lot of the manufacturer specific data out.
This is probably why the ISO setting referring to Auto mode or manually set can't be seen.

One way to get around this if you're asked to upload an image with full exif is to use any software from your manufacturer to convert raw images to jpg, or alternatively shoot in jpg mode for the sample images and upload them as they are(not editing with PS!!).

So for a proper analysis of whether the A700 is OK or not, firstly set it up with the same settings as the A65, focus to the same point, set it to manual exposure mode as you should do with the A65 too.
My guess is that you won't find much difference other than any specific sensor advantages that the newer camera may have.
(ie. don't look at the two respective images at 100% as the A65 images will have more detail simply due to the greater pixel count of the sensor!)

[narrell]

Ok, I went off and took 2 more shots, one with each camera. Both set to Manual, with auto focus, f/4.5 (at 18mm), ISO manually set to 100. Same lens,same tripod and even the same pro duo memory card. Uploaded to Flikr, but I have no idea how to get them to show up here...any help on that would be appreciated. In the meantime I have posted them to PB. first is A700 second A65.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSC-a700x3_zps8896296d.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC-a700x3_zps8896296d.jpg.html)http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSC-a65x3_zpsb368a30f.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC-a65x3_zpsb368a30f.jpg.html)

[bitsnpieces]

The images have been shrunken small that I can't really tell if there's anything wrong or not. Would you be able to post the original photos onto PB so we can see full size?

But judging by how it looks here, looks like the A700 is doing just fine.
Noticed you used 1/125, and a tripod too right?
So going by this, and what arthurking83 and deef said previously, I'm assuming the blurry images from the A700 could have simply been from camera shake due to slow/long shutter speeds (so make sure they stay quick/short) and overexposure (which can cause an illusion of blurriness as you don't get to see the finer details in the white mess).

Speedway mentioned that A700 uses Spot metering, is that the only metering it has? If so, just need to be careful when using that guy when you're in one of those semi-automated modes, like P, A, or S, as that metering can make exposure annoying to work with, or fun.

[Mary Anne]

I have been using PB for almost 10 years and not once has it stripped the exif data from any of my images.

The reason the exif data is not showing on some of your images would be because it has been stripped before you uploaded to PB.
As mentioned above some programs do that when you save for the web, not sure if your Adobe Photoshop Elements 12.0 does though.

If you dont have some kind of exif viewer to read the data on the posted image
Then left click on your image and under Media Info left click on Load more Hope this Helps.

I did notice you used the flash in both images, and are still using two different metering modes also.

[arthurking83]

Not that it's imperative, but this new set of images on PB seem to be of a smaller size.
if you uploaded them to PB at this smaller size, what I think may be happening is that if you upload to PB with a very large sized image, it may be doing some behind the scenes processing top display the image at a regular size(for most screens).
This could be removing the link to exif too.

On AP now with these images all three of my browser based exif viewers are seeing the exif data from those linked files.
A quick and handy one for Firefox is called Exify, which is an addon that pops up a translucent box containing minimal exif info as you hover over the image.
Handy for assessing stuff like this where you just quickly want to know what shutter speed, or whatever has been used.

So exif is now good(not that it's important but just a handy help tool to be aware of) and A700 looks fine.

Just one more question to Narell, did you crop or manipulate the last two images in any way?
The A65 image has a strange aspect ratio.
Not important, just curious.

- - - Updated - - -


.....

Speedway mentioned that A700 uses Spot metering, is that the only metering it has? If so, just need to be careful when using that guy when you're in one of those semi-automated modes, like P, A, or S, as that metering can make exposure annoying to work with, or fun.

Just had a quick look at the A700, and the metering mode selector is the ring around the AEL button.

[narrell]

Copies of the previous images before cropping.
Arthurking83....yes, I cropped the image to make them smaller,trying to not post such large images. Guess it doesn't help huh! :rolleyes:

http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSC-a700full_zpse2c0bfad.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSC-a700full_zpse2c0bfad.jpg.html)

http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab67/Narrell_Ridoux/DSCa65full_zpsf2cfedd6.jpg (http://s850.photobucket.com/user/Narrell_Ridoux/media/DSCa65full_zpsf2cfedd6.jpg.html)


Sorry, forgot about the difference in metering modes..I will retake the shots tomorrow (afternoon)and then repost. But I think I will change the subject matter...I am starting to dislike this little tree very much.

[bitsnpieces]

Well, there's definitely nothing wrong with the a65 so no need to worry about testing that baby out.

This time, the a700 I'm guessing was out of focus. Everything's a blur but doesn't look like shake or movement, just out of focus.

What you could try doing is a nice close up of the tree since you don't like the view of it at the moment and how it sticks out. A nice close up is a fresh new perspective. :)
Just remember to change your settings accordingly so you can get a nice fast shutter speed of 1/50 minimum on a tripod. :)

[arthurking83]

.....

This time, the a700 I'm guessing was out of focus. Everything's a blur but doesn't look like shake or movement, just out of focus.

......

If you're referring to the full sized images bits, then be careful about what you're looking at.

The A700 image is still quite OK, but the focusing is different to the image shot with the A65.

This could be part of Narrell's issues.

The shot from the A700 has been focused much closer in, along the grass, where it meets the concrete, slap in the middle of the frame.
DOF isn't as infinite as some would have you believe so something has to give. Hence the tree in the middle of the yard is going to look less focused than with the A65 image.

The A65 image seems to have been focused on the tree .. so it will appear sharper.

Narrell, if you can can you shoot this scene again with both. But be sure to get both cameras to focus on the tree in the middle of the yard.

So make sure the AF point is set to the centre area, make sure AF mode is set to single shot mode, metering modes should both be the same(doesn't matter which mode)

PS is stripping some of the exif data that specifically relates to camera settings.
Shoot the images in jpg mode in camera, and do nothing in PP.. upload each directly from camera to PB.

There may be a possibility that the A700 is misfocusing, but to guess at this without the in camera settings info will be misleading.
The focusing settings in camera can impact on how the camera is focusing.

[narrell]

Sorry, I am unable to post he images due to a major pc meltdown. I'm hoping to get it up and running again soon.

[Arg]

The OP is getting plenty of help and I have nothing new to add, but, how did this thread get into the Mirrorless Camera forum?

It looks more like it belongs in general Gear Talk to me. :o

[arthurking83]

The OP is getting plenty of help and I have nothing new to add, but, how did this thread get into the Mirrorless Camera forum?

......

Didn't even notice this point.

Will fix.

[narrell]

OK, My PC is up and running again.I would like to thank all those that answered my post. The ultimate outcome was total reset of my a700 followed by a cahnge of setting as recommended by some of you knowlegable & very helpful people then a few test shot. I was pleased to find out that although my camera is a little older then I'd like it to be, it still takes a resonable photo. I wieghed up the Pros/Cons and decided to invert in a new Sony A65, which I am now learning how to use. I'm also spending the time to go back to the basics so I'm hoping to go from god to great shots.
Thanks again everyone.:D:D:D
P.S. Sorry if this was posted in the wrong forum, but I thought this would be were I could get my Original question answered about buying a new camera.

[bitsnpieces]

Glad it all got sorted out for you. The a65 is a great camera - keep working at it because you'll love it. :)