Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

who in their right mind

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:49:01 PM

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

would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from TBM...

More about : mind

Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:49:02 PM

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

tbm wrote:
> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all
> from TBM...

I'll appreciate your list of problem-free alternatives of comparable
performance.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:49:02 PM

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

tbm wrote:
> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from TBM...

I have yet to have one problem with it.
BTW it is a great camera.

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:49:02 PM

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

"tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hmfxe.14831$ZR1.4639@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from
> TBM...

Can't resist the trolls sometimes...

I don't own one but certainly woldn't mind owning one. For every one post
complaining about a problem there are likely hundreds if not thousand of
others who have no problems.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 10:30:36 PM

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

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ynixe.26381$Q05.26115@fe08.lga...
> "tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:hmfxe.14831$ZR1.4639@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from
>> TBM...
>
> Can't resist the trolls sometimes...

Yes, me too.

> I don't own one but certainly woldn't mind owning one. For every one post
> complaining about a problem there are likely hundreds if not thousand of
> others who have no problems.

Actually, I am one among the thousands that does have a problem with a 20D.
Mine locks up. No big deal, as I am not a professional photographer.
However, there is DEFINITELY an issue with this camera and Canon seems to be
in denial. I do not use a battery grip and do have the latest firmware.
Some 20Ds (perhaps only in combination with some lenses) do lock up.
Otherwise, the 20D is an awesome camera and most owners are not having the
lockup problem.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:15:45 AM

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

tbm wrote:
> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all
> from TBM...

Lots of us, and it appears most of us have never seen any of those
problems.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:16:12 AM

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

tbm wrote:
> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all
> from TBM...

I'll appreciate your list of problem-free alternatives of comparable
performance.

NIKON....ALL BEIT THE SENSOR IS CCD ...I CANNOT RECALL ANY BAD REPORTS REGARDS NIKON KIT!!!!!
July 2, 2005 12:46:22 AM

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

"tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hmfxe.14831$ZR1.4639@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from
TBM...
First of all, only a small minority of digital photographers post here
(fortunately by the way).
Second, only those with problems post much.
Thus you get a false impression of the number of problems that any camera
has.

For example, the D70 is reputed to have a moire problem. However, I have
never seen this problem on my camera, and it was in the first batch that
came to B&H.
Jim
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:51:06 AM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:ynixe.26381$Q05.26115@fe08.lga...
>
>>"tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:hmfxe.14831$ZR1.4639@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>>>would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from
>>>TBM...
>>
>>Can't resist the trolls sometimes...
>
>
> Yes, me too.
>
>
>>I don't own one but certainly woldn't mind owning one. For every one post
>>complaining about a problem there are likely hundreds if not thousand of
>>others who have no problems.
>
>
> Actually, I am one among the thousands that does have a problem with a 20D.
> Mine locks up. No big deal, as I am not a professional photographer.
> However, there is DEFINITELY an issue with this camera and Canon seems to be
> in denial. I do not use a battery grip and do have the latest firmware.
> Some 20Ds (perhaps only in combination with some lenses) do lock up.
> Otherwise, the 20D is an awesome camera and most owners are not having the
> lockup problem.


First, tbm doesn't have a 20D. I think he told us he had a 300D and sold
it for the Nikon D70. Nevertheless, the 20D works fine for me. There are
no lock ups. I change lenses frequently too. I wonder why he has to
troll? I think he's jealous that D70s doesn't have much improvement over
D70, not even a 8MP sensor!
July 2, 2005 2:51:07 AM

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

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:uNjxe.15876$eM6.14633@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> First, tbm doesn't have a 20D. I think he told us he had a 300D and sold
> it for the Nikon D70. Nevertheless, the 20D works fine for me. There are
> no lock ups. I change lenses frequently too. I wonder why he has to troll?
> I think he's jealous that D70s doesn't have much improvement over D70, not
> even a 8MP sensor!

How much bigger is an 8 megapixel over a 6.1 megapixel sensor?

3456 x 2304 versus 3008 x 2000 hmmm that's 448 pixels on the long side on a
smaller sensor. Seems like you are trolling too as 448 pixels isn't much to
get worked up over.
July 2, 2005 3:27:38 AM

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

Darrell wrote:

> "l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:uNjxe.15876$eM6.14633@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> First, tbm doesn't have a 20D. I think he told us he had a 300D and sold
>> it for the Nikon D70. Nevertheless, the 20D works fine for me. There are
>> no lock ups. I change lenses frequently too. I wonder why he has to
>> troll? I think he's jealous that D70s doesn't have much improvement over
>> D70, not even a 8MP sensor!
>
> How much bigger is an 8 megapixel over a 6.1 megapixel sensor?
>
> 3456 x 2304 versus 3008 x 2000 hmmm that's 448 pixels on the long side on
> a smaller sensor. Seems like you are trolling too as 448 pixels isn't much
> to get worked up over.

Yea it's only 30% more pixels, that's not going to do anything.. Bet you
can't see any difference between a 4MP and a 6MP camera either.
--

Stacey
July 2, 2005 10:13:45 AM

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

You've outdone yourself this time, lad/lass. That was an (another)
extraordinary example for requiring testing and certification to use
the Internet. Keep up the good work.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:49:01 GMT, "tbm"
<ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from TBM...
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:14:35 AM

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> tbm wrote:
>
>>would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all
>>from TBM...
>
>
> Lots of us, and it appears most of us have never seen any of those
> problems.
>
The fact that they exist in such large quantities should alarm anyone
looking for camera. Pro or private. The total indifference displayed by
Canon has the alarm bells ringing at my studio. So much so, I'm about to
dump $30K worth of Canon gear on the market and change brands.

Way too many people have passed judgement and got it wrong. Canon have
pulled off the biggest deception of the decade with their 20D. The
"Breakthrough DIGIC" technology that allows high ISO photography is
nothing more or less than post capture de noising with software. The
resulting loss of detail in the pictures is the real problem.

Nikon, Sigma and Olympus may produce noise at the same ISO but it too,
is software removable and with better results and more detailed images
out of the camera than Canon's pathetic effort. If you could switch it
off I might have been more forgiving but you can't. "We know what's best
for you" attitude has never won market share before. I guess it's a
measure of the customer's skill that most praise the camera.

Douglas
July 2, 2005 11:14:36 AM

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

Ryadia wrote:


>
> Way too many people have passed judgement and got it wrong. Canon have
> pulled off the biggest deception of the decade with their 20D. The
> "Breakthrough DIGIC" technology that allows high ISO photography is
> nothing more or less than post capture de noising with software. The
> resulting loss of detail in the pictures is the real problem.
>

You'll never get them to see it though. Then if you say "I can fix the noise
with neat image" they act like that's cheating or something?

--

Stacey
July 2, 2005 11:46:11 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3imftaFm9fk4U5@individual.net...
> Darrell wrote:
>
>> "l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:uNjxe.15876$eM6.14633@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> First, tbm doesn't have a 20D. I think he told us he had a 300D and sold
>>> it for the Nikon D70. Nevertheless, the 20D works fine for me. There are
>>> no lock ups. I change lenses frequently too. I wonder why he has to
>>> troll? I think he's jealous that D70s doesn't have much improvement over
>>> D70, not even a 8MP sensor!
>>
>> How much bigger is an 8 megapixel over a 6.1 megapixel sensor?
>>
>> 3456 x 2304 versus 3008 x 2000 hmmm that's 448 pixels on the long side on
>> a smaller sensor. Seems like you are trolling too as 448 pixels isn't
>> much
>> to get worked up over.
>
> Yea it's only 30% more pixels, that's not going to do anything.. Bet you
> can't see any difference between a 4MP and a 6MP camera either.
>
Hmmm, 448 pixels is only 12.9% linear. I can see that the Nikon D2H with 4
megapixels is very good.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:21:56 PM

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

"tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hmfxe.14831$ZR1.4639@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from
> TBM...

Who in their right mind would believe that all or even a majority of 20D
cameras sold suffer from the problems described? You do understand that
people with problems will complain louder & more frequently than those
without, don't you?

Mark
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:56:25 PM

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

In article <ynixe.26381$Q05.26115@fe08.lga>,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> "tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:hmfxe.14831$ZR1.4639@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from
> > TBM...
>
> Can't resist the trolls sometimes...
>
> I don't own one but certainly woldn't mind owning one. For every one post
> complaining about a problem there are likely hundreds if not thousand of
> others who have no problems.

Well there are a lot of people out "there" (me included) who would like
to go hiking with a camera but don't fancy the weight and bulk of a DSLR
and a couple of lenses. They'd prefer to take water and a boxed lunch
instead.
Then there're the others who can't justify to themselves or their family
the expense of spending around $2000 (for starters) on an amateur hobby.

Of course, we'll always have the "Porsche" brigade who want the most
expensive toy around their necks to prove some sort of point about
virility...

Finally we'll get the small minority who are willing to pay big bucks
for a well-made camera and will use it to snap pictures for pleasure and
profit for the next few years.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:56:26 PM

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

"Stewy" <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anyone4tennis-78D816.11562502072005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp...
> In article <ynixe.26381$Q05.26115@fe08.lga>,
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:hmfxe.14831$ZR1.4639@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> > would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from
>> > TBM...
>>
>> Can't resist the trolls sometimes...
>>
>> I don't own one but certainly woldn't mind owning one. For every one
>> post
>> complaining about a problem there are likely hundreds if not thousand of
>> others who have no problems.
>
> Well there are a lot of people out "there" (me included) who would like
> to go hiking with a camera but don't fancy the weight and bulk of a DSLR
> and a couple of lenses. They'd prefer to take water and a boxed lunch
> instead.
> Then there're the others who can't justify to themselves or their family
> the expense of spending around $2000 (for starters) on an amateur hobby.
>
> Of course, we'll always have the "Porsche" brigade who want the most
> expensive toy around their necks to prove some sort of point about
> virility...
>
> Finally we'll get the small minority who are willing to pay big bucks
> for a well-made camera and will use it to snap pictures for pleasure and
> profit for the next few years.

I have a 911 and could go on and on about the problems that are inherent
with each model of every year. But, the damn thing is so much fun to drive
you kinda forget about the problems as you work around them. I also have
some complaints about my D70, but it's so much better than any point and
shoot I've owned I've learned to work around them and just enjoy the camera.
I do agree that there are times when it's better to have a camera in your
pocket, so I bought a refurbished p&s cheap to cover that. And I ain't
rich. I just like nice things that work well, and had a plethora of 35mm
Nikon lenses when I decided to buy a good digital camera. Not sure why I
bought the Porsche.
July 2, 2005 3:57:20 PM

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

Stacey wrote:


> You'll never get them to see it though. Then if you say "I can fix the noise
> with neat image" they act like that's cheating or something?

Not cheating, just not relevant. Say camera X provides usable results at
ISO 400, and camera Y does so only up to ISO 200, but with neatimage
you can get away with ISO 400 on camera Y. Well then, if you use
neatimage with camera X you can now go to ISO 800. So the one-stop
advantage would still be present.

As for loss of detail at high ISOs, well I can see it at 1600 on the
Canons. But:
It's slight
It's no worse than the other cameras
It looks to me like it's the noise that's obscuring the details, not
processing.

- Len
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 8:48:56 PM

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

but...I read it on the Internet, it must be true!! :) 

IMO this is a side-argument to the film-vs-digital argument all over
again. With digital it is not a camera, it is a computer that
processes whatever image hits it's sensor. The 'camera' part of it is
only the lens, everything (even the sensor) is part of a computer, NOT
part of a camera. Therefore if you can get the same results or better
by playing games with ISO (are you aware that changing the ISO on a
digital camera is merely software games anyway, you are just changing
how much you want to amplifiy the noise to get a brighter picture), and
noise-reducing later, then why not do it?

With digital, unlike film, there ARE many ways to skin a cat. Many
times you can take a digital picture with a small point-shoot camera,
put it into Photoshop, play around with it and have a killer picture,
something (some pros have a hard time admitting) that might be a
better/clear/nicer picture than you could EVER get with a film camera.
Is it cheating to modify the picture in Photoshop? If so, then is it
cheating to have a in-camera software that does the same thing...ohh,
but it's IN THE CAMERA, which is not a computer, as many people
think...but wait, a digital camera IS a computer.

I couldn't care less about what ISO settings anyone shoots at...I look
at the final result, if it's a good picture then the photographer
should be praised, whether it was a picture taken with a 20D, or with a
disposable camera than a CD mailed to them...in either case, a good
picture, is a good picture...
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:47:05 AM

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

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:49:01 GMT, "tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>would purchase a canon 20d? with all it's problems....rgds to all from TBM...

Could be why Canon has lowered the price of it. ;-)
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:54:51 AM

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

fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com wrote:
> but...I read it on the Internet, it must be true!! :) 
>
> IMO this is a side-argument to the film-vs-digital argument all over
> again. With digital it is not a camera, it is a computer that
> processes whatever image hits it's sensor. The 'camera' part of it is
> only the lens, everything (even the sensor) is part of a computer, NOT
> part of a camera. Therefore if you can get the same results or better
> by playing games with ISO (are you aware that changing the ISO on a
> digital camera is merely software games anyway, you are just changing
> how much you want to amplifiy the noise to get a brighter picture), and
> noise-reducing later, then why not do it?
Well it is not all software, changing the ISO mostly changes the gain,
in some cameras as you get to very high ISO the extra gain is just in
software.

> With digital, unlike film, there ARE many ways to skin a cat. Many
> times you can take a digital picture with a small point-shoot camera,
> put it into Photoshop, play around with it and have a killer picture,
> something (some pros have a hard time admitting) that might be a
> better/clear/nicer picture than you could EVER get with a film camera.
> Is it cheating to modify the picture in Photoshop? If so, then is it
> cheating to have a in-camera software that does the same thing...ohh,
> but it's IN THE CAMERA, which is not a computer, as many people
> think...but wait, a digital camera IS a computer.
>
> I couldn't care less about what ISO settings anyone shoots at...I look
> at the final result, if it's a good picture then the photographer
> should be praised, whether it was a picture taken with a 20D, or with a
> disposable camera than a CD mailed to them...in either case, a good
> picture, is a good picture...

There is really not as much difference in the noise levels of DSLRs as
some people would make out. I am delighted to be able to shoot at 800
and not worry about noise but I think just about any of the DSLRs can
pretty much do the same. I did not choose the 20D because of its low
noise or that it was 8 MP, I choose it because I already had a number
of Canon lenses. I think the choice is pretty simple, if you have
Nikon lenses then by a Nikon, if you have Canon lenses then buy a
Canon. If you don't have lenses then read a lot of reviews, look at
a lot of sample photos and ignore about 95% of what you hear on the
news groups.

Scott
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:06:20 PM

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

Leonard wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
>
>
>> You'll never get them to see it though. Then if you say "I can fix the
>> noise
>> with neat image" they act like that's cheating or something?
>
>
> Not cheating, just not relevant. Say camera X provides usable results at
> ISO 400, and camera Y does so only up to ISO 200, but with neatimage
> you can get away with ISO 400 on camera Y. Well then, if you use
> neatimage with camera X you can now go to ISO 800. So the one-stop
> advantage would still be present.
>
> As for loss of detail at high ISOs, well I can see it at 1600 on the
> Canons. But:
> It's slight
> It's no worse than the other cameras
> It looks to me like it's the noise that's obscuring the details, not
> processing.
>
> - Len

You have it wrong Len...
The artificial sharpening of High ISO Canon images loses information
which can never be recovered. De-noising those images results in further
degradation and loss of detail.

Douglas
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:39:45 PM

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

In message <1120348136.241314.185610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com wrote:

>but...I read it on the Internet, it must be true!! :) 

>IMO this is a side-argument to the film-vs-digital argument all over
>again. With digital it is not a camera, it is a computer that
>processes whatever image hits it's sensor. The 'camera' part of it is
>only the lens, everything (even the sensor) is part of a computer, NOT
>part of a camera. Therefore if you can get the same results or better
>by playing games with ISO (are you aware that changing the ISO on a
>digital camera is merely software games anyway, you are just changing
>how much you want to amplifiy the noise to get a brighter picture), and
>noise-reducing later, then why not do it?

Many, if not most digitals vary analog gain before the digitization to
achieve most of their ISO variety. Some offer one or two higest ISOs
that are derived by multiplying the digitized data (when you see ISO
3200, this is usually the case). Usually, the green channel is taken
literally after the amplification and digitization of all three color
channels, and the red and blue are scaled mathematically to match the
green for white-balance purposes, in the conversion to an RGB color
space.

There are probably some point&shoot digitals that have only one analog
gain, and multiply the digitization for all higher ISOs, but this does
not characterize "digitals" in general.

>With digital, unlike film, there ARE many ways to skin a cat. Many
>times you can take a digital picture with a small point-shoot camera,
>put it into Photoshop, play around with it and have a killer picture,
>something (some pros have a hard time admitting) that might be a
>better/clear/nicer picture than you could EVER get with a film camera.
>Is it cheating to modify the picture in Photoshop?

If the image is presented as a retouched image, there are no ethical
questions left.

Personally, I attended a photo club for a while, and was rather annoyed
that highly-processed and repainted images competed in the same category
as relatively RAW photography. Every month, a different judge was
there, and every month, the judge gave a high grade to a guy whose
contribution was a very generic swirl of clouds/sky in photoshop behind
a mountain peak or tall building, or an image turned B&W except for one
object. It's like each of the judges is seeing this stuff for the first
time, and doesn't know how damn easy it is to do this, and the
difference between it being well done (with the attention of an artist,
where everything is inter-related), and a generic application.

>If so, then is it
>cheating to have a in-camera software that does the same thing...ohh,
>but it's IN THE CAMERA, which is not a computer, as many people
>think...but wait, a digital camera IS a computer.

I don't think that pushing the exposure index in-camera or in software
makes the image look artificially better. It looks worse when it is
pushed, but it must be pushed to see it in a usable brightness/contrast
on the display.

>I couldn't care less about what ISO settings anyone shoots at...I look
>at the final result, if it's a good picture then the photographer
>should be praised, whether it was a picture taken with a 20D, or with a
>disposable camera than a CD mailed to them...in either case, a good
>picture, is a good picture...

I think you're imagining an issue that doesn't exist, and then forgiving
it. pushing the exposure index is not in any way "cheating", in terms
of a photographer's integrity; there is a quality cost to working in
lower light, and you can't hide it, without making the image look like a
cartoon or like there is saran wrap over it.

Personally, I usually only reduce color noise to a low saturation, and
leave luminance noise in the image. I find that in printing, luminance
noise is never a problem, and I can see more image detail in a
medium-sized print if the luminance noise is not reduced at all.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
July 3, 2005 9:06:29 PM

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

Ryadia wrote:

> You have it wrong Len...
> The artificial sharpening of High ISO Canon images loses information
> which can never be recovered. De-noising those images results in further
> degradation and loss of detail.

Sharpening invents high frequency content that may or may not appear
realistic. If you find that to be intrusively artificial, don't do it.
Denoising is also a lossy operation. The extent to which noise reduction
should be applied depends entirely on what seems worse in the image -
the noise or the loss of detail resulting from the denoising algorithm.

With only the results from the camera as evidence, I can't conclude that
there is any untoward in-camera processing going on. The higher ISO
images have more noise, that is all. In contrast, some of the compact
cameras exhibit very noticable processing effects at higher ISOs.

- Len
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:41:56 AM

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

Ryadia <just@the.group> writes:

> The fact that they exist in such large quantities should alarm anyone
> looking for camera. Pro or private. The total indifference displayed
> by Canon has the alarm bells ringing at my studio. So much so, I'm
> about to dump $30K worth of Canon gear on the market and change brands.

You got a list?

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 4:02:28 AM

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

"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
news:42c70fde$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
SNIP
> The artificial sharpening of High ISO Canon images loses information
> which can never be recovered.

I spent some time testing this hypothesis, and I don't agree.

I used a 20D and shot at Raw+Large JPEGs (Parameter 2 settings), and
processed the Raws with DPP and RawShooter Essentials 2005 (v1.13
build 15), so the results can be verified independently with free
tools. The DPP conversions were linear Raw (16-b/ch, no sharpening),
and the RSE conversions were as shot, but with Sharpening and Detail
extraction processing bias both set to -50 (my personal preference).

Testing was done with "Imatest", in particular the SFR option because
I wanted to test both the effect on resolution and noise spectrum.

To summarize, for the Raw conversions the 10-90% edge profile *and*
modulation at 50% *and* at Nyquist the resolution is *unaffected* by
the ISO settings (100 - 3200), in other words overall resolution is
NOT compromised!!! This may of course differ between camera
brands/models.
In the JPEGs however, the 20D's 1600 and H (3200) settings show a 32%
to 50% reduction versus lower ISO settings at Nyquist. So for ISO
100 - 400/800 there is NO reduction of resolution, regardless of the
choice of the Bayer CFA reconstruction method, and only in-camera
JPEGs lose resolution at the 800/1600 - 3200 settings.

As I've stated before, there are differences in overall resolution and
suppression of various artifacts between Raw converters. However,
resolution is only compromised in (20D) in-camera JPEGs at the 2/3
highest ISO settings, Raws are unaffected.

> De-noising those images results in further degradation and loss of
> detail.

That of course depends on the actual program and settings used. Given
the fact that resolution is generally unaffected (except for JPEGs at
the highest settings) the efficiency of different Noise Reduction
programs seems to be the limiting factor when NR is applied. My
experiences with NeatImage, which is highly tunable, are very
favorable with regards to keeping the resolution intact.

Bart
!