Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comming to terms with Canon Digital 350D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 9:19:02 AM

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

Saturday, I spent from 8am until 9pm, hour off for lunch, and Sunday
from 6am until 12noon (British Summer Time) working out how to handle
and operate my new Canon 350D. This is a personal experience and it
may not be of interest to anyone else.

I am sitting here typing with two fingers. I have blisters on both
hands. My right hand, I have a cracker on the finger next to my little
one, on the inner aspect. On my left I have a blister on the finger
next to my pointing finger. Due to how I have to hold the camera
because of its size. Anyone any suggestions. However, it is a well
balanced camera. (I'm satisfied with this cameras performance.)

The other grump I've got relates to this size and position of the
control buttons. They are too small and close together, for my digits
that is. I am finding it difficult to get the right one without
touching others. Not exactly a major problem unless I am in a hurry.

I'm told that the size was determined by a need to appeal to female
photographers! I'm not that convinced on the accuracy of that opinion.

Angus
:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Interested in the UK Republican Movement?

Visit ---> http://www.republic.org.uk <---

:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 9:19:03 AM

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

"Angus" <macdonald@1692.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hmj1c1dcc6s7j33p0bui9l9btjbq3pk2nr@4ax.com...
>
> Saturday, I spent from 8am until 9pm, hour off for lunch, and Sunday
> from 6am until 12noon (British Summer Time) working out how to handle
> and operate my new Canon 350D. This is a personal experience and it
> may not be of interest to anyone else.
>
> I am sitting here typing with two fingers. I have blisters on both
> hands. My right hand, I have a cracker on the finger next to my little
> one, on the inner aspect. On my left I have a blister on the finger
> next to my pointing finger. Due to how I have to hold the camera
> because of its size. Anyone any suggestions. However, it is a well
> balanced camera. (I'm satisfied with this cameras performance.)

I've gotten used to mine but it is small. You may want to try the battery
grip, it will add length to the grip. One thing it won't do is increase the
diameter of the grip which still bothers me a little. It seems I can only
grip the camera with my fingertips.

>
> The other grump I've got relates to this size and position of the
> control buttons. They are too small and close together, for my digits
> that is. I am finding it difficult to get the right one without
> touching others.

My fingers are fairly slim so I haven't run into that.

Greg
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 9:19:03 AM

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

>I've gotten used to mine but it is small.

This is the reason I ever looked at the 20D in the first place. Then,
after playing with it a while, I realized the value of the info that's
available at a glance justified the price. That was that, never had
the slightest regret for going with the more expensive camera body.

The real sticker shock in the Canon system is in the lenses anyway.

I know this doesn't help you, but I like to encourage others to look at
the 20D even if they rule it out initially.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 3:08:02 PM

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

"Angus" <macdonald@1692.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hmj1c1dcc6s7j33p0bui9l9btjbq3pk2nr@4ax.com...
> I'm told that the size was determined by a need to appeal to female
> photographers! I'm not that convinced on the accuracy of that opinion.
>

There is a place in the world for small DSLR's.. If the 350D had been
available when I bought my 20D, I'd have considered it... yes I would have
given up features, but it would have been small enough to come hiking with
me as an extra gadget, as opposed to the main feature of any Hikes I take it
on... Now I mostly take my Nikon Coolpix camera on the rough stuff.

I also have small hands for a guy and wouldn't mind using a small camera...
I used Pentax ME cameras for years.

I'd have to say you should have tried it before buying.. there are lots of
larger DSLR's available.

Al...
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 4:47:44 PM

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

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:35:48 -0700, G.T. wrote:

> I've gotten used to mine but it is small. You may want to try the battery
> grip, it will add length to the grip. One thing it won't do is increase
> the diameter of the grip which still bothers me a little. It seems I can
> only grip the camera with my fingertips.

This is a built-in Canon feature. It was so designed to increase the
chances of dropping the camera, thus necessitating the purchase of a new
Canon DSLR when the next incarnation comes around.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 6:07:36 PM

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

On the Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:08:02 +0200, "Alan Adrian"
<ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>I'd have to say you should have tried it before buying.. there are lots of
>larger DSLR's available.

I did and the D350D was the best for what I want to do. I'm more than
satisfied with its performance. Just its size and difficulty in
holding it.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 6:07:37 PM

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

Angus wrote:
> On the Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:08:02 +0200, "Alan Adrian"
> <ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> I'd have to say you should have tried it before buying.. there are
>> lots of larger DSLR's available.
>
> I did and the D350D was the best for what I want to do. I'm more
> than
> satisfied with its performance. Just its size and difficulty in
> holding it.

The battery/grip does make a bit of difference, Seems to me it changes
the center of mass in a way that makes the assembly more appropriately
or comfortably responsive.

You might try the Canon hand strap. It won't work without the grip,
but with adjustment and familiarization there are added fulcrums that
may be useful to you.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 6:07:37 PM

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:07:36 +0100, Angus <macdonald@1692.co.uk>
wrote:

>On the Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:08:02 +0200, "Alan Adrian"
><ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>I'd have to say you should have tried it before buying.. there are lots of
>>larger DSLR's available.
>
>I did and the D350D was the best for what I want to do. I'm more than
>satisfied with its performance. Just its size and difficulty in
>holding it.
>

Canon must have thought the same dunces who buy smaller and smaller
cell phones were the ones buying their cheap DSLRs.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 11:15:33 PM

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:17:42 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Canon must have thought the same dunces who buy smaller and smaller
>cell phones were the ones buying their cheap DSLRs.

I did suspect that at first. I am told that it is aimed primarily at
the female bit of the market.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Interested in the UK Republican Movement?

Visit ---> http://www.republic.org.uk <---

:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 2:47:10 AM

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:15:33 +0100, Angus <macdonald@1692.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:17:42 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Canon must have thought the same dunces who buy smaller and smaller
>>cell phones were the ones buying their cheap DSLRs.
>
>I did suspect that at first. I am told that it is aimed primarily at
>the female bit of the market.

A long as they don't try to work them while they're in traffic.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 2:49:03 AM

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

"Alan Adrian" <ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> I also have small hands for a guy and wouldn't mind using a small
> camera... I used Pentax ME cameras for years.
> I'd have to say you should have tried it before buying.. there are lots
> of larger DSLR's available.

And a smaller DSLR as handy as your Pentax ME, namely the Pentax *ist-DS.
The only bad thing about this Pentax is that nobody knows how to pronounce
its name :^(

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 10:29:30 AM

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

Angus wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:17:42 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> >Canon must have thought the same dunces who buy smaller and smaller
> >cell phones were the ones buying their cheap DSLRs.
>
> I did suspect that at first. I am told that it is aimed primarily at
> the female bit of the market.
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::

Sorry I don't buy that for a minute. I suspect alot of egotistical
gearheads probably think its 'feminine' since its small, compact, and
efficient. I wouldn't listen to the biases of behind-the-counter
salesmen.

I am definitely an amatuer at SLR photographer, but when purchasing I
was at first very hesitant to go with the 350D...i figured I'd end up
getting the Nikon D70 like everyone else I know. However after
comparing the D70, 300D, 350D, and 20D I picked the 350D on the basis
that its size and weight would lead to me taking more photos, not less.


As for it not being durable, I believe that 'myth' has been dealt with
in this newsgroup...the plastic used is very resiliant and actually
dampens blows to the body (e.g. droping it) more effectively than a
metal case. The lense mount is still metal which is the important part.

Not sure why you have blisters on your hand unless you're taking a
ridiculous number of photos...i take 200-300 at a time and never had a
problem. I use the neckstrap, photo mode dial + select dial with my
index finger, thumb for the menu arrows on the back when i need to be
more specific with my settings.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 4:26:13 PM

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

In article <1120051770.909923.303560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
burnsdavidj@yahoo.com wrote:

> Angus wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:17:42 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Canon must have thought the same dunces who buy smaller and smaller
> > >cell phones were the ones buying their cheap DSLRs.
> >
> > I did suspect that at first. I am told that it is aimed primarily at
> > the female bit of the market.
> > :::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
> Sorry I don't buy that for a minute. I suspect alot of egotistical
> gearheads probably think its 'feminine' since its small, compact, and
> efficient. I wouldn't listen to the biases of behind-the-counter
> salesmen.
>
> I am definitely an amatuer at SLR photographer, but when purchasing I
> was at first very hesitant to go with the 350D...i figured I'd end up
> getting the Nikon D70 like everyone else I know. However after
> comparing the D70, 300D, 350D, and 20D I picked the 350D on the basis
> that its size and weight would lead to me taking more photos, not less.
>
>
> As for it not being durable, I believe that 'myth' has been dealt with
> in this newsgroup...the plastic used is very resiliant and actually
> dampens blows to the body (e.g. droping it) more effectively than a
> metal case. The lense mount is still metal which is the important part.
>
> Not sure why you have blisters on your hand unless you're taking a
> ridiculous number of photos...i take 200-300 at a time and never had a
> problem. I use the neckstrap, photo mode dial + select dial with my
> index finger, thumb for the menu arrows on the back when i need to be
> more specific with my settings.

I think the objections to the size and weight of the 350D mostly come
from 'old timers' in the SLR world, who expect SLRs to be big and heavy.
But people who are used to digital point and shoot cameras expect
cameras to be small and light, not big and heavy. I suspect Canon was
very deliberate in making the 350D as small and light as possible to
appeal to those p&s users. And of course, looks can be deceiving - the
350D has a metal frame under its plastic exterior, while the D70 doesn't.

Bob B.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 9:34:30 PM

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

"Bob B." <bobb@sphinx.com> wrote in message
news:bobb-E28B86.12261329062005@news.charter.net...
> In article <1120051770.909923.303560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> burnsdavidj@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Angus wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:17:42 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Canon must have thought the same dunces who buy smaller and smaller
> > > >cell phones were the ones buying their cheap DSLRs.
> > >
> > > I did suspect that at first. I am told that it is aimed primarily at
> > > the female bit of the market.
> > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::
> >
> > Sorry I don't buy that for a minute. I suspect alot of egotistical
> > gearheads probably think its 'feminine' since its small, compact, and
> > efficient. I wouldn't listen to the biases of behind-the-counter
> > salesmen.
> >
> > I am definitely an amatuer at SLR photographer, but when purchasing I
> > was at first very hesitant to go with the 350D...i figured I'd end up
> > getting the Nikon D70 like everyone else I know. However after
> > comparing the D70, 300D, 350D, and 20D I picked the 350D on the basis
> > that its size and weight would lead to me taking more photos, not less.
> >
> >
> > As for it not being durable, I believe that 'myth' has been dealt with
> > in this newsgroup...the plastic used is very resiliant and actually
> > dampens blows to the body (e.g. droping it) more effectively than a
> > metal case. The lense mount is still metal which is the important part.
> >
> > Not sure why you have blisters on your hand unless you're taking a
> > ridiculous number of photos...i take 200-300 at a time and never had a
> > problem. I use the neckstrap, photo mode dial + select dial with my
> > index finger, thumb for the menu arrows on the back when i need to be
> > more specific with my settings.
>
> I think the objections to the size and weight of the 350D mostly come
> from 'old timers' in the SLR world, who expect SLRs to be big and heavy.

That's what I was thinking after picking up a Minolta 7D the other day. It
was gigantic even without a battery grip.

Greg
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 1:15:28 AM

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

James Of Tucson wrote:

> > I've gotten used to mine but it is small.
>
> This is the reason I ever looked at the 20D in the first place. Then,
> after playing with it a while, I realized the value of the info that's
> available at a glance justified the price. That was that, never had
> the slightest regret for going with the more expensive camera body.
>
> The real sticker shock in the Canon system is in the lenses anyway.
>
> I know this doesn't help you, but I like to encourage others to look
> at the 20D even if they rule it out initially.

I had all but decided on the 350D until I handled one. It's just too
small. That alone may drive me to the 20D, or if price is an issue,
the D70.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 2:30:58 AM

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

"Albert Nurick" <albert@nurick.com> wrote:

>James Of Tucson wrote:
>
>> > I've gotten used to mine but it is small.
>>
>> This is the reason I ever looked at the 20D in the first place. Then,
>> after playing with it a while, I realized the value of the info that's
>> available at a glance justified the price. That was that, never had
>> the slightest regret for going with the more expensive camera body.
>>
>> The real sticker shock in the Canon system is in the lenses anyway.
>>
>> I know this doesn't help you, but I like to encourage others to look
>> at the 20D even if they rule it out initially.
>
>I had all but decided on the 350D until I handled one. It's just too
>small. That alone may drive me to the 20D, or if price is an issue,
>the D70.


The D70 also produces images with more usable detail than the Canon
EOS 350D (and 20D) and the 18-70mm DX Nikkor is a superb lens - far
better than consumer-grade DSLR 'kit' lenses from Canon and Pentax.
June 30, 2005 4:47:37 AM

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
news:0l46c15mhfdsvue1kpjr3k2e1b6ed6bui3@4ax.com:

> The D70 also produces images with more usable detail than the Canon
> EOS 350D (and 20D)

Can you provide a link? I have read the comparisons on DPReview and they
say the opposite.

In the Canon 20D review scene comparison with the D70 Phil said:
"Resolution wise the 20D takes the advantage (although as mentioned
previously not by any significant margin) it's also noticeably sharper than
the D70."



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 25-June-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:22:00 PM

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

MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
>news:0l46c15mhfdsvue1kpjr3k2e1b6ed6bui3@4ax.com:
>
>> The D70 also produces images with more usable detail than the Canon
>> EOS 350D (and 20D)
>
>Can you provide a link? I have read the comparisons on DPReview and they
>say the opposite.
>
>In the Canon 20D review scene comparison with the D70 Phil said:
>"Resolution wise the 20D takes the advantage (although as mentioned
>previously not by any significant margin) it's also noticeably sharper than
>the D70."


On DPReview, Resolution = Number of Pixels. That's all. No-one
delves any deeper, they just count pixels. More is always better.

Of course that isn't true. It isn't the number of pixels that
matters, it is the detail that is contained in the image. More pixels
should help in capturing more detail, but that is not always the case.

As for sharpness, anyone can add sharpness in Photoshop. But
sharpness is not detail. Using unsharp mask in Photoshop can actually
*reduce* detail in order to gain the appearance of sharpness.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:23:07 PM

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

"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>That's what I was thinking after picking up a Minolta 7D the other day. It
>was gigantic even without a battery grip.


Do you think that is why the Konica Minolta 7D is not selling?
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:23:08 PM

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

In article <dfl7c1hg0v1o552k1m249pva0hs93d580e@4ax.com>, Tony Polson
<tp@nospam.net> wrote:

> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> >That's what I was thinking after picking up a Minolta 7D the other day. It
> >was gigantic even without a battery grip.
>
>
> Do you think that is why the Konica Minolta 7D is not selling?

Maybe the reason is because it's a Minolta? I've never liked anything
they made.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:42:59 PM

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

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <dfl7c1hg0v1o552k1m249pva0hs93d580e@4ax.com>, Tony Polson
><tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >That's what I was thinking after picking up a Minolta 7D the other day. It
>> >was gigantic even without a battery grip.
>>
>>
>> Do you think that is why the Konica Minolta 7D is not selling?
>
>Maybe the reason is because it's a Minolta? I've never liked anything
>they made.


So what would be your opinion of a Sigma lens on a Minolta camera?

;-)
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:35:03 AM

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

In message <6tk7c1tk5ssi2om0mem2ldu1ap36lajgbv@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>Using unsharp mask in Photoshop can actually
>*reduce* detail in order to gain the appearance of sharpness.

I use USM in only two ways, usually. I use small radii like 0.3 to 0.6
pixels for recovering frequencies below the nyquist attenuated by the AA
filter, or a diffraction-limiting aperture. I also use a radius of 25
with a strength of 25 sometimes just to give a little more snap (a low
frequency contrast boost).

When people use USM to try to correct out-of-focus or motion-blurred
images, I think they look sick, in general.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 4:08:35 AM

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

In article <6tk7c1tk5ssi2om0mem2ldu1ap36lajgbv@4ax.com>, tp@nospam.net
says...
> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
> >Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
> >news:0l46c15mhfdsvue1kpjr3k2e1b6ed6bui3@4ax.com:
> >
> >> The D70 also produces images with more usable detail than the Canon
> >> EOS 350D (and 20D)
> >
> >Can you provide a link? I have read the comparisons on DPReview and they
> >say the opposite.
> >
> >In the Canon 20D review scene comparison with the D70 Phil said:
> >"Resolution wise the 20D takes the advantage (although as mentioned
> >previously not by any significant margin) it's also noticeably sharper than
> >the D70."
>
>
> On DPReview, Resolution = Number of Pixels. That's all. No-one
> delves any deeper, they just count pixels. More is always better.
>

I guess I must have imagined the images of resolution charts used in
their reviews?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page27.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page26.asp
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:21:23 AM

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:26:13 -0700, "Bob B." <bobb@sphinx.com> wrote:

>In article <1120051770.909923.303560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> burnsdavidj@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Angus wrote:
>> > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:17:42 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Canon must have thought the same dunces who buy smaller and smaller
>> > >cell phones were the ones buying their cheap DSLRs.
>> >
>> > I did suspect that at first. I am told that it is aimed primarily at
>> > the female bit of the market.
>> > :::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>
>> Sorry I don't buy that for a minute. I suspect alot of egotistical
>> gearheads probably think its 'feminine' since its small, compact, and
>> efficient. I wouldn't listen to the biases of behind-the-counter
>> salesmen.
>>
>> I am definitely an amatuer at SLR photographer,

So am I.

>> but when purchasing I
>> was at first very hesitant to go with the 350D...i figured I'd end up
>> getting the Nikon D70 like everyone else I know. However after
>> comparing the D70, 300D, 350D, and 20D I picked the 350D on the basis
>> that its size and weight would lead to me taking more photos, not less.

I'm certainly well pleased with both the results and the number of
photos taken. Its suitable for the purpose for which it was bought.

>>
>> As for it not being durable, I believe that 'myth' has been dealt with
>> in this newsgroup...the plastic used is very resiliant and actually
>> dampens blows to the body (e.g. droping it) more effectively than a
>> metal case. The lense mount is still metal which is the important part.

The material used for the body never bothered me. However, the surface
is a bit "rough" and not smooth. This plus the amount of handling may
well have contributed to my blistered fingers. Mind you the grip
problem has been solved. Someone in the thread mentioned the Battery
Grip. It works a treat.

>> Not sure why you have blisters on your hand unless you're taking a
>> ridiculous number of photos...i take 200-300 at a time and never had a
>> problem. I use the neckstrap, photo mode dial + select dial with my
>> index finger, thumb for the menu arrows on the back when i need to be
>> more specific with my settings.

Whilst I will use the M setting for most of the time I took a fair
number of photos using all of the zone mode settings. I am going to be
taking this camera on mountain climbs and hill walks in fairly remote
areas so I really need to know what the beast is capable of.

>I think the objections to the size and weight of the 350D mostly come
>from 'old timers' in the SLR world, who expect SLRs to be big and heavy.
>But people who are used to digital point and shoot cameras expect
>cameras to be small and light, not big and heavy. I suspect Canon was
>very deliberate in making the 350D as small and light as possible to
>appeal to those p&s users. And of course, looks can be deceiving - the
>350D has a metal frame under its plastic exterior, while the D70 doesn't.

You have a point. But weight was one of the attractions its balance
was another. I'm an 'old timer' (not that old!) in the SLR world and I
am definitely looking forward to working with a lighter camera. Its
for me entry level into the digital arena. I hope we get along with
each other.

Thanks

Angus.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:42:44 PM

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

"Graeme Cogger" <gcogger@bigSPAMfoot.com> wrote in message
news:FsidnXpUS6-O5lnfRVnyhg@pipex.net...
> In article <6tk7c1tk5ssi2om0mem2ldu1ap36lajgbv@4ax.com>, tp@nospam.net
> says...
>> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>>
>> >Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
>> >news:0l46c15mhfdsvue1kpjr3k2e1b6ed6bui3@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >> The D70 also produces images with more usable detail than the Canon
>> >> EOS 350D (and 20D)
>> >
>> >Can you provide a link? I have read the comparisons on DPReview and
>> >they
>> >say the opposite.
>> >
>> >In the Canon 20D review scene comparison with the D70 Phil said:
>> >"Resolution wise the 20D takes the advantage (although as mentioned
>> >previously not by any significant margin) it's also noticeably sharper
>> >than
>> >the D70."
>>
>>
>> On DPReview, Resolution = Number of Pixels. That's all. No-one
>> delves any deeper, they just count pixels. More is always better.
>>
>
> I guess I must have imagined the images of resolution charts used in
> their reviews?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page27.asp
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page26.asp
>

Interesting neglecting differences between lenses. I notice there is
significant aliasing on the D70 above 17lp/mm, possibly not a big issue in
normally use?

Seems to be more contrast on the 20D at 10lp/mm but the underexposure on the
Nikon confuses this, also suggests inconsistent technique but still a useful
comparison.

Lester
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:24:25 PM

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

In article <42c7cf35$0$10485$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
nospam@please.co.uk says...
>
> > I guess I must have imagined the images of resolution charts used in
> > their reviews?
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page27.asp
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page26.asp
> >
>
> Interesting neglecting differences between lenses. I notice there is
> significant aliasing on the D70 above 17lp/mm, possibly not a big issue in
> normally use?
>

Good point about the lenses - I guess they could have used the same (3rd
party) lens for all cameras in the test. I wonder if the camera or lens
is the limiting factor?

> Seems to be more contrast on the 20D at 10lp/mm but the underexposure on the
> Nikon confuses this, also suggests inconsistent technique but still a useful
> comparison.
>
> Lester
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:32:31 PM

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

In message <42c7cf35$0$10485$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:

>Interesting neglecting differences between lenses.

Hopefully, in the future, sensors will be tested by lasers, with no
lenses, or with microfiche laid directly on the sensor and illuminated
by a point light-source.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:07:26 AM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:151gc1tlh3qc640t97m721q0k4tkgt4tr2@4ax.com...
> In message <42c7cf35$0$10485$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Interesting neglecting differences between lenses.
>
> Hopefully, in the future, sensors will be tested by lasers, with no
> lenses, or with microfiche laid directly on the sensor and
> illuminated
> by a point light-source.

That's IMHO only useful if one could use that sensor without
restrictions to lens-mounts (swap sensors if budget allows). Since the
lens is an integral part of the imaging chain (lens/AA-filter/sensor),
and most e.g. Nikon lenses can't be used on Canons and vice versa, the
comparison between attainable resolution with a certain class of lens
is useful. But one must always beware of the causes of differences,
because even different lenses on the same camera can make quite a
difference.

In popular tests, the Raw converter or in camera sharpening makes the
biggest difference between cameras of a similar class!

The biggest *real* test differences (measuring unsharpened Raw data)
are caused by lens quality (and focus error), and AA-filter (assuming
the results are plotted as LPPH, which compensates for output
magnification differences). Sharp edged line patterns are not suited
for quantitative tests anyway.
MTF curves tell a lot more about resolution, but not everybody is
skilled in 'reading' them.
And then there are other factors that determine image quality as well,
so one needs a good deal of testing to get a complete picture.

Bart
!