Anybody here using the Canon Pro 1???

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

In article <MPG.1cbf4e0226cfc18f989986@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet says...
> I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review sites
> to go by.
>
> Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody have
> any practical experience with this???
>
> There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise that
> can be lived with.
>
> AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
> that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??
>
>
>
That was supposed to be "anything higher than ISO 100 unusable in the Sony.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

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

In article <RaudnaaPL532WsjfRVn-2A@comcast.com>, weaver@nospam-corvusdev.com
says...
>
> "Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cbf4e0226cfc18f989986@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> >I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> > (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review
> > sites
> > to go by.
> >
> > Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody
> > have
> > any practical experience with this???
> >
> > There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise
> > that
> > can be lived with.
> >
> > AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
> > that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??
> >
>
> I've been shooting with a Pro1 for about a year. Daylight shots at ISO 50
> are stunning--very close to DSLR quality, IMHO. 100 is still very good, but
> digicam good rather than DSLR good. As for ISO 400 -- certainly it's not
> ideal, but with a bit of noise reduction, I find it is possible to get shots
> that I consider very usable. I doubt it's *very* different from the 828 in
> this respect (it's the same sensor--the only differences would be in the
> in-camera image processing).
>
> The Pro1 is certainly not a perfect camera, but I'm very happy with the
> combination of compactness and image quality (if I had a DSLR I'd rarely
> bother to carry it--the film SLR that's been sitting on my closet shelf for
> 10 years is testimony to that). The camera has lots of other nice
> attributes as well--body is very solidly built, the articulated LCD is
> great, RAW shooting is fast--I think it's going to keep me happy for a quite
> a while yet.
>
> When you get it, do make sure you have the upgraded firmware.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
What has the upgrade got???

Ive got a limited connection tonight and cant go to any websites ...

Only thing working is comcast homepage and giganews.comcast so I cant
investigate myself (though I probably could tomorrow.

I dont know whats wrong with the isp, I cant get through on the trouble call
number.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

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

In article <1112932012.219570.44120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
thedeepabyss@whoever.com says...
> Same thing with Comcast broadband.here in Utah. Weird; last time
> anything like this happened it was during that huge DOS attack a
> couple of years ago. I'd guess something was triggered this evening.
>
> ECM
>
>

Its working here in Connecticut now at 5AM Friday, but its still slow, and
some urls arent working.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

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

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cbf4e0226cfc18f989986@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review
> sites
> to go by.
>
> Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody
> have
> any practical experience with this???
>
> There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise
> that
> can be lived with.
>
> AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
> that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??

No, but the incredibly bad AF system is objectionable! If you're used to the
Sony, the Canon will drive you crazy. Constant hunting, slow response, etc.
Take a look at the "timings" page in the review (DP Review) for proof.

>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

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

In article <42566562$0$39949$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, not@right.now
says...
>
> "Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cbf5c22e909e50598998b@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> > In article <MPG.1cbf4e0226cfc18f989986@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
> > lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet says...
> >> I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> >> (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review
> >> sites
> >> to go by.
> >>
> >> Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody
> >> have
> >> any practical experience with this???
> >>
> >> There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise
> >> that
> >> can be lived with.
> >>
> >> AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is
> >> it
> >> that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > That was supposed to be "anything higher than ISO 100 unusable in the
> > Sony.
>
> With a program like Neat Image, the Sony is usable up to 400.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Larry Lynch
> > Mystic, Ct.
>
>
>

I've never liked what the Sonys pictures look like after "neat Image" or
"noise ninja" too "FLAT" and "Featureless".

As I think I said before, from what I've seen posted of the
Canons ISO 400 pictures, the noise is more like "grain" and less like "color
speckles" than what Ive been getting from the Sony at higher ISO.

I've used some ISO 200 shots from the 828, but not ISO 400.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.