A70 Firmware - Photography

[Dave Weller]

Hi,

anyone knows where I can download the latest firmware for the A70 ? (cant
find it on canon.com)

Tx

[Dave Weller]

tx Jim

[Zol.]

Why?
What `problems` are you hoping to fix?
The A40 never had a firmware update although it did have a calibration
adjustment for the auto focus

Zol.

"Dave Weller" <nospam_davewieee.com> wrote in message
news:bf1v35$a1k3r$1ID-199997.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Hi,
>
> anyone knows where I can download the latest firmware for the A70 ? (cant
> find it on canon.com)
>
> Tx
>
>

[Dave Weller]

soft picture quality

[colinco]

In article <bf25gq$ae0aq$1ID-199997.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Weller
wrote...

> soft picture quality
>
>

I doubt that Canon will change. For shots you think need tweaking try the
following freeware

[url]http://www.applied-maths.com/paul/photocontrol.zip[/url]

3rd party tutorial here

[url]http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/PSTV_photocontrol.html[/url]

[Don Coon]

While in shooting mode, press FUNC, scroll down to effects and change to
"Vivid". This will up the saturation and sharpness. Some people want the
picture printer-ready right out of the camera and thus use the "Vivid"
effect.

Others want to do the tweaking in imaging SW where they have more control.
Some consider this mode "soft."

Suggestion 2: Shut off 5 point focusing. Too often the camera focuses on a
part of the picture you didn't intend and results in an out of focus picture
some call "soft." To select a single focus point (I even did this on my
10D!), enter Menu and turn off AiAF. I'd suggest this to anyone new to the
A60/A70 or even 10D -- until they feel comfortable with the controls.

By the way, I'm convinced that 90% of "focus problems" with the A60/A70/10D
are caused by the 5 (7 on 10D) auto focusing system.

Best of luck!


"Dave Weller" <nospam_davewieee.com> wrote in message
news:bf25gq$ae0aq$1ID-199997.news.uni-berlin.de...

> soft picture quality
>
>

[Dave Weller]

Thank You very much Don !

Btw , is the A70 a good camera for the price ?

[Zol.]

I wish we could get a definitive answer on this `soft image` - To be quite
honest most of my shots come out sharp & clear - the ones which don`t are
usually due to me being in a hurry to take the shot and jinxing the camera
when I press the shutter button all the way down. Held steady the camera
produces some excellent shots ... Zol.

p.s. Has anybody asked anyone in Canon about the so called `soft image`
matter ? (Z)

"Dave Weller" <nospam_davewieee.com> wrote in message
news:bf25gq$ae0aq$1ID-199997.news.uni-berlin.de...

> soft picture quality
>
>

[Rich]

"Zol." <com>
 
quite 

There is soft, there's normal and there's eye-piercing. Some films
also had the reputation for being soft.
Mine seem fine to may eye. You could do a little post-processing and
have an eye-piercing look to the pictures.
 
image` 

Yes. Asked TS at Canon. They guy, who otherwise seemed intelligent,
said he never heard of it. He added that the one A70 they have in the
office worked fine.

Take if for what it's worth. Either the TS folks at Canon are stupid,
or play stupid. At least they could read the comments about their new
product on the net and have a ready response. Regardless what that
response would be. Maybe they do read and the _official_ response is
_never heard about it_ :-))

Rich

[Zol.]

I`ve just posted an image in the "alt.binaries.photos.original" group taken
with my A70; "Pilot Request by Zol." - this was even taken with some
electronic zoom as well - the only thing I did was make sure the camera was
absolutely steady when it was taken - this shot was taken yesterday ... Zol.

"Rich" <com> wrote in message
news:ikhRa.80438$.. 
> quite 
>
> There is soft, there's normal and there's eye-piercing. Some films
> also had the reputation for being soft.
> Mine seem fine to may eye. You could do a little post-processing and
> have an eye-piercing look to the pictures.
> 
> image` 
>
> Yes. Asked TS at Canon. They guy, who otherwise seemed intelligent,
> said he never heard of it. He added that the one A70 they have in the
> office worked fine.
>
> Take if for what it's worth. Either the TS folks at Canon are stupid,
> or play stupid. At least they could read the comments about their new
> product on the net and have a ready response. Regardless what that
> response would be. Maybe they do read and the _official_ response is
> _never heard about it_ :-))
>
> Rich
>
>[/ref]

[YeahRight]

I posted a response/sample as well. I've only owned it a short while, but
some of my shots have been fantastic.

cheers,
Matt.

"Rich" <com> wrote in message
news:ikhRa.80438$.. 
> quite 
>
> There is soft, there's normal and there's eye-piercing. Some films
> also had the reputation for being soft.
> Mine seem fine to may eye. You could do a little post-processing and
> have an eye-piercing look to the pictures.
> 
> image` 
>
> Yes. Asked TS at Canon. They guy, who otherwise seemed intelligent,
> said he never heard of it. He added that the one A70 they have in the
> office worked fine.
>
> Take if for what it's worth. Either the TS folks at Canon are stupid,
> or play stupid. At least they could read the comments about their new
> product on the net and have a ready response. Regardless what that
> response would be. Maybe they do read and the _official_ response is
> _never heard about it_ :-))
>
> Rich
>
>[/ref]

[Zol.]

Hi, I`ve checked this out - the only suggestion I have is to set your Image
compression to superfine rather than fine but I love the Image - Zol. :)

"YeahRight" <com> wrote in message
news:iLkRa.3630$bellglobal.com... 
> > quite 
> >
> > There is soft, there's normal and there's eye-piercing. Some films
> > also had the reputation for being soft.
> > Mine seem fine to may eye. You could do a little post-processing and
> > have an eye-piercing look to the pictures.
> > 
> > image` 
> >
> > Yes. Asked TS at Canon. They guy, who otherwise seemed intelligent,
> > said he never heard of it. He added that the one A70 they have in the
> > office worked fine.
> >
> > Take if for what it's worth. Either the TS folks at Canon are stupid,
> > or play stupid. At least they could read the comments about their new
> > product on the net and have a ready response. Regardless what that
> > response would be. Maybe they do read and the _official_ response is
> > _never heard about it_ :-))
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >[/ref]
>
>[/ref]