A85 vs A95 red-eye issue per Jeff's review...

kizler · #1 03-12-2005, 10:51 PM

Well, I've looked through the entire forum on Canon. Can't find the answer so I will ask it and see if any of you obviously dedicated folks have answers.

The A85 and A95 series cameras are really good deals right now- if you can find them. My dilemna is this:

I am replacing my Nikon 3200- the noise in indoor pics is driving me nuts. Wish I'd read the review before purchasing.

So, both the A85 and the A95 look to be much better in this regard.

However, Jeff's review of both shows much worse red-eye on the A95. He notes this. That spooks me.

EXCEPT it looks like there is MUCH MORE flash on the A95 pic, which would make sense to really increase the red-eye.

So, is the red-eye on the 95 REALLY this much worse than the 85? And with regard to noise- are they both equally good or does the 85 win out on that as well?

Thoughts? Thanks all!

(note- I read Jeff's review of the Oly C2000Z back in the day and that camera ROCKED for me for these past 6 years. Thanks Jeff!)

ricjk · #2 03-13-2005, 01:13 AM

For what it's worth, I haven't experienced any red-eye with my A95. Before posting this response, I even tried to force some red-eye shots, but I got none.

Out of maybe a hundred or so pictures of cats, only 2 came out with yellow-eye.

From my understanding, red-eye is a difficult thing to test accurately since it's very dependent on the shot conditions.

Newbie · #3 03-13-2005, 06:44 AM

There is effectively some red eye with pictures taken with the A95.... It may not be a reference tho, since I tend to get red eyes almost everywhere. For others, its really not that terrible most of the time.

dwig · #4 03-13-2005, 07:38 AM

All small cameras with builting flashes will produce red-eye, period. Owing to the physics and biology involved and the physical similarities (flash to lens distance) between the A85 and A95, its somewhat inconcievable that there would be any functional difference between them with respect to red-eye unless there is some firmware logic that performs one of the actions mentioned below, #'s 2-4.

The only ways a camera can make a difference are:

1. increase the spacing between the flash and the lens as red-eye reflections at directed toward the light source and a greater spacing can reduce the intensity from the lens' point of view.

2. perform some form of "pre-flash", either short flashes or a continous light. This makes the subject's iris close down reducing the intensity of the red-eye.

3. perform some "fill-flash" balancing. By using more ambient light and less flash, the red-eye is dimmer.

4. auto-retouch the image as a few of the newer digital cameras do.

Things that the photographer can do (and do to poor control of these factors, make most red-eye tests invalid):

1. stand near a light source so that your subjects look toward a bright light. This reduces the size of their iris and thereby reduces red-eye.

2. increase the overall ambient light giving the camera a better chance to be effective doing #3 above.

3. never photograph blondes, females, and/or young children as these are genically more likely to exhibit pronounced red-eye. Personally, I don't find this a practical option but should be considered when viewing other peoples red-eye "tests".

Red-eye comparisons are meaningless and generally misleading if they are not taken on the same day, of the same subject, in the same room, from _EXACTLY_ the same position, with the subject looking at _EXACTLY_ the same spot on the wall behind the photographer, and at least 2-3 minutes apart. The _slightest_ difference in angle to the subject's eyes can make a massive difference in the result. Also taking the first picture will have an impact on the subject's iris for several seconds to nearly a minute.

Robert · #5 03-13-2005, 03:10 PM

Given the fact that the placement of the camera lens Vs the flash tube is virtually identical on the A85 and A95 cameras I doubt there would be any difference between the two in terms of redeye effect if all the myriad variables were to be identical. Ref: The last paragraph of dwig's post.

The only way to guarantee freedom from redeye indoors is to use an external flash instead of the digicam's built in flash or no flash at all.

Bluedog · #6 03-13-2005, 10:41 PM

or correct it with most software. It's relatively an easy task.

Robert · #7 03-14-2005, 07:04 PM

True enough for just a few photos but time consuming when there are a slew of photos to correct. When correcting redeye on closeup photos it's usually evident that the software correction is really a pseudo fix.

Robert · #8 03-14-2005, 07:13 PM

(note- I read Jeff's review of the Oly C2000Z back in the day and that camera ROCKED for me for these past 6 years. Thanks Jeff!)[/QUOTE]

That C-2000 will still rock for you if you're interested in redeye free photos. It was one of the first reasonably priced digicams that had ext flash sync capabilities.

kizler · #9 03-14-2005, 08:41 PM

So, sounds like the A85 and A95 redeye issue really is similar- nothing to be gained with the 85 over the 95. How about noise- similar in low light situations as far as anyone can tell?

And the only reason I replaced the C2000Z? Size guys. Need something smaller. Keeping it around though since its been a TROOPER.

thanks!

Bluedog · #10 03-14-2005, 08:53 PM

I'm really not seeing a noise issue in any low light conditions but there again I'm not using any of the Auto modes yet. For the most part ISO 50 ~ ISO 100 is where mine stays along with Super Fine compression.

I used the remote capture/flash for this image with no editing for red eye correction and yes thats my eyes ...