Canon 350D Sample Gallery

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:2005022012513470814@deryck.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/c [...] page11.asp
>


What else is there to say - apart from a warning to avoid the area around
Olympus head office - due to the high probability of despairing executives
throwing themselves off the roof while holding a print-out of the penguins
at 800 ISO........after stabbing to death the designers of the Four-thirds
system as a punishment for leading Olympus into financial ruin....

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All I have to say after looking at the ISO 1600 watch shot:

"Noise? What noise!?"

Even after I cranked the shadows up a bit, the noise (what little there
is of it) is nice and even through the picture.

Any one want to buy my 10D on eBay?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-A7995A.12473920022005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> In article <2005022012513470814@deryck.com>,
> deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/c [...] page11.asp
>>
>> Deryck
>
> I'm impressed.
>
> The ISO 800 and 1600 images don't have obvious noise filtering damage
> like they do in the 300D. It's a very fine and unobtrusive grain that
> wouldn't be noticeable in most prints unless there's post-processing
> enhancement.
>
> I might be seeing some noise filtering effects at ISO 400 but I'm not
> sure. It could also be an attempt to sharpen up that kit lens.
> Whatever it is, the effect is insignificant.
>
> Color looks perfect, though my eyes weren't there to see the original
> scene.

... and it is the first cam I see that does render "reds" the way it should
... no saturation or blow out .. amazing. Too bad I just got me a G6 .. :-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <z_mdnXJob8xDnoTfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, C@comcast.net says...
> Hell they look better than the 20D photos, no banding, good exposures
> without screwing around with PS or Noise ninja, to make a decent picture.
> I will wait for it or the next ??D version. TOO many bugs in the 20D for
> now as it looks like the 350X is solving some of the 20Ds problems.

What 20D problems?

I got through a lot of the 20D pictures of pBase and elsewhere and don't
see any of the banding/etc. etc.

So all I can say is, the issue of problems is overblown. The firmware
screwup was not kosher, but Canon certainly isn't throwing shoddy
product at the populace.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well, I was waiting until the Oly/Evolt tests came out before I made my
buy...I've used Nikon for many years...People can bitch all they
like...But-No way...You can beat this camera...The Olympus-300-Evolt....In
all honesty...Is a very poor camera...Glad I waited!

--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c82d0b7ccbdc31598a622@news.verizon.net...
> In article <z_mdnXJob8xDnoTfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, C@comcast.net says...
>> Hell they look better than the 20D photos, no banding, good exposures
>> without screwing around with PS or Noise ninja, to make a decent
>> picture.
>> I will wait for it or the next ??D version. TOO many bugs in the 20D for
>> now as it looks like the 350X is solving some of the 20Ds problems.
>
> What 20D problems?
>
> I got through a lot of the 20D pictures of pBase and elsewhere and don't
> see any of the banding/etc. etc.
>
> So all I can say is, the issue of problems is overblown. The firmware
> screwup was not kosher, but Canon certainly isn't throwing shoddy
> product at the populace.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Boch" <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2ujSd.47066$XY5.43387@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Well, I was waiting until the Oly/Evolt tests came out before I made my
> buy...I've used Nikon for many years...People can bitch all they
> like...But-No way...You can beat this camera...The Olympus-300-Evolt....In
> all honesty...Is a very poor camera...Glad I waited!


Agreed, the Evolt isn't up to much - but it does have one feature that I
personally think should be standard on every digital camera, Pixel Mapping.

I had it on my E-10 and it came in useful as the sensor aged and developed
dead pixels, the on-board pixel mapping sorted the problem out instantly.

As someone who is seriously thinking about the 350D, I'd like to ask what
owners of other brands do when (it its is 'when' not 'if') dead pixels
occur?

I know that Nikon require you to send the camera back to them to have their
version of pixel mapping run on the camera - but that can take weeks, and
can cost a fair bit when the warranty has expired.

So, is there a work-around (that doesn't involve lots of tedious cloning in
PS)? - a freeware pixel mapping facility for Canon,perhaps? (similar to the
Russian one that only supports older Coolpix cameras)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <37u3pgF5d8cjbU1@individual.net>, knild@venturenet.com
says...
> Agreed, the Evolt isn't up to much - but it does have one feature that I
> personally think should be standard on every digital camera, Pixel Mapping.
>
> I had it on my E-10 and it came in useful as the sensor aged and developed
> dead pixels, the on-board pixel mapping sorted the problem out instantly.
>
> As someone who is seriously thinking about the 350D, I'd like to ask what
> owners of other brands do when (it its is 'when' not 'if') dead pixels
> occur?
>
> I know that Nikon require you to send the camera back to them to have their
> version of pixel mapping run on the camera - but that can take weeks, and
> can cost a fair bit when the warranty has expired.
>
> So, is there a work-around (that doesn't involve lots of tedious cloning in
> PS)? - a freeware pixel mapping facility for Canon,perhaps? (similar to the
> Russian one that only supports older Coolpix cameras)

I found out recently that Adobe's RAW converter does an excellent job of
finding and correcting stuck pixels when I shot some JPEGs and noticed a
stuck pixel or two at higher ISOs. Of course, this requires you to
shoot RAW and use ACR, but hey, you should be doing that anyhow.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c83fae1bb2bcbda98a633@news.verizon.net...
> In article <37u3pgF5d8cjbU1@individual.net>, knild@venturenet.com
> says...
>> Agreed, the Evolt isn't up to much - but it does have one feature that I
>> personally think should be standard on every digital camera, Pixel
>> Mapping.
>>
>> I had it on my E-10 and it came in useful as the sensor aged and
>> developed
>> dead pixels, the on-board pixel mapping sorted the problem out instantly.
>>
>> As someone who is seriously thinking about the 350D, I'd like to ask what
>> owners of other brands do when (it its is 'when' not 'if') dead pixels
>> occur?
>>
>> I know that Nikon require you to send the camera back to them to have
>> their
>> version of pixel mapping run on the camera - but that can take weeks, and
>> can cost a fair bit when the warranty has expired.
>>
>> So, is there a work-around (that doesn't involve lots of tedious cloning
>> in
>> PS)? - a freeware pixel mapping facility for Canon,perhaps? (similar to
>> the
>> Russian one that only supports older Coolpix cameras)
>
> I found out recently that Adobe's RAW converter does an excellent job of
> finding and correcting stuck pixels when I shot some JPEGs and noticed a
> stuck pixel or two at higher ISOs. Of course, this requires you to
> shoot RAW and use ACR, but hey, you should be doing that anyhow.<<<



Is that so? - great stuff, that's the final hurdle removed from buying
non-Olympus, thanks very much.

BTW, are we talking 'hot' (showing as result of longer exposure time)
pixels, or actual 'dead' (showing as tiny pin-pricks of bright light)
pixels? - and how does
ARC fix them? - do you just open the affected RAW image and it corrects them
automatically?

Thanks again

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I see a "boxed x" surrounding a white pixel.
What gives???
________________
G. Paleologopoulos


"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c841896de90c63e98a63d@news.verizon.net...
>
> In article <37uudrF5fk2fiU1@individual.net>, knild@venturenet.com
> says...
.....................................................................................................
> You can see a dead pixel in the upper right hand corner of this picture,
> and another in the lower left (both are towards the edge):
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/image/38387361/original
>
.........................................................................................................