Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Noisy sensors -myth explored

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
our purchase decisions on?

How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
two extremes which no one told you about?

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.

Douglas
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Ryadia babbles like a moron:

> Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
> well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
> conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
> FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

Absolutely no way to reproduce any of their results. They don't even
provide their raw images for independent analysis. Even worse, the
exposure data at that page is:

FZ20: ISO 200 f/2.8 @ 0.17s
20D: ISO 400 f/8 @ 0.20s

Equivalent 20D exposure for ISO 200:

20D: ISO 200 f/5.6 @ 0.20s

ie, the FZ20 was given two stops more light. When the author(s)
thereafter write that "these P&S cameras are pulling light from
nowhere" (or somesuch) they are clearly joking.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
> I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
> too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
> about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
> difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
> deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
> our purchase decisions on?
>
> How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
> serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
> use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
> shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
> masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
> two extremes which no one told you about?
>
> Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
> well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
> conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
> FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
>
> How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
> mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
> 20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
> film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.
>
> Douglas

I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
two.

Scott
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> Ryadia wrote:
> > So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
> > I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
> > too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
> > about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
> > difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
> > deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
> > our purchase decisions on?
> >
> > How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
> > serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
> > use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
> > shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
> > masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
> > two extremes which no one told you about?
> >
> > Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
> > well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
> > conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
> > FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
> >
> > How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
> > mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
> > 20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
> > film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.
> >
> > Douglas
>
> I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
> higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
> is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
> compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
> two.
>
> Scott

Correction the FZ20 got 3 stops more light not 4, still a big
difference.

Scott
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article 42cc6354$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Ryadia"
<just@the.group> wrote:

> So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
> I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
> too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
> about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
> difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
> deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
> our purchase decisions on?
>
> How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
> serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
> use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
> shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
> masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
> two extremes which no one told you about?
>
> Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
> well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
> conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
> FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
>
> How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
> mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
> 20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
> film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.
>
> Douglas

The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made with
several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
Chuck W.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

doug wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >>I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
> >>higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
> >>is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
> >>compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
> >>two.
> >>
> >>Scott
> >
> >
> > Correction the FZ20 got 3 stops more light not 4, still a big
> > difference.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> Prey tell Scott...
> How many stops of additional exposure lattitude is claimed to be
> available for a 20D by shooting RAW and decoding the image in Photoshop
> or similar?
>
> As I understand the banter in these groups; If you shoot RAW you
> effectively get exposure latitude which allows you to correct under or
> over exposure during decoding of the raw data. If your statement is to
> have any merit, you have no exposure lattitude at all with RAW files.
> Which is it Scott?
>
> If there is any truth in the fable: "shoot raw and have a two stops of
> adjustment up your sleeve", the difference in EI of the 2 cameras should
> not matter and should be correctable with Adobe Camera Raw or whatever
> decoder you use. In any event the Canon sensor should have captured
> data. Unfortunately it didn't capture enough data to carry out any
> exposure compensation during decoding. That image is all there is.
>
> The Panasonic has no RAW data capture facilities, and only captured
> highly compressed JPG data (expect blown highlights this way) yet still
> had all the shadow information in an otherwise blacked out region. The
> Canon image should have had clear data where there is none at all.
>
> Douglas

I can easily shoot 2 stop under and still get a good photo, what is
harder is shooting two stop under and then trying to pull out shadow
detail, as this test did. That is why it is a pretty good idea to have
reviewer who tests under controlled conditions, so you can get an
apples to apple comparision.

Scott
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

What kind of dumbass test is this? A DSLR versus a non DSLR. It's like
comparing gas milage of a moped versus a SUV. Lies, damned lies and
statistics. Most photographers will expose correctly.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

TAFKAB wrote:

>Can't blame him. Got to wonder just what he was thinking
> when a pack of morons like us can tear it to shreds so quickly.

Yet you have uninformed people, like the original poster, that do not
have the critical thinking skills to understand bogus stuff like this.
How many other people read a website like that and actually believe it?
July 7, 2005 1:03:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BEF1EA7B.2E983%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
> On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article 42cc6354$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Ryadia"
> <just@the.group> wrote:
>
>> So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
>> I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
>> too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
>> about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
>> difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
>> deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
>> our purchase decisions on?
>>
>> How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
>> serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
>> use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
>> shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
>> masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
>> two extremes which no one told you about?
>>
>> Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
>> well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
>> conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
>> FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
>>
>> How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
>> mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
>> 20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
>> film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.
>>
>> Douglas
>
> The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made
> with
> several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
> I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
> conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
> Chuck W.
>
I dislike stupid, flawed tests and sloppy methodology...
July 7, 2005 1:03:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Scott W wrote:

>That is why it is a pretty good idea to have
> reviewer who tests under controlled conditions, so you can get an
> apples to apple comparision.
>


Don't you mean a reviewer who is paid by Canon so your brand gets a shining
review so you can feel good about your camera purchase?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:11:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
>

>>
>>I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
>>higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
>>is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
>>compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
>>two.
>>
>>Scott
>
>
> Correction the FZ20 got 3 stops more light not 4, still a big
> difference.
>
> Scott
>
Prey tell Scott...
How many stops of additional exposure lattitude is claimed to be
available for a 20D by shooting RAW and decoding the image in Photoshop
or similar?

As I understand the banter in these groups; If you shoot RAW you
effectively get exposure latitude which allows you to correct under or
over exposure during decoding of the raw data. If your statement is to
have any merit, you have no exposure lattitude at all with RAW files.
Which is it Scott?

If there is any truth in the fable: "shoot raw and have a two stops of
adjustment up your sleeve", the difference in EI of the 2 cameras should
not matter and should be correctable with Adobe Camera Raw or whatever
decoder you use. In any event the Canon sensor should have captured
data. Unfortunately it didn't capture enough data to carry out any
exposure compensation during decoding. That image is all there is.

The Panasonic has no RAW data capture facilities, and only captured
highly compressed JPG data (expect blown highlights this way) yet still
had all the shadow information in an otherwise blacked out region. The
Canon image should have had clear data where there is none at all.

Douglas
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:45:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> MarkH wrote:
>
> >
> > I have never heard it said that it makes no difference if you under expose
> > by a stop or two when you shoot RAW, where the hell did you get that idea
> > from?
> >
>
> When you have Canon fans like Scott W posting things like there is no
> quality lost shooting at ISO 1600 rather than ISO 100 you wonder how BS
> like this gets around? He was talking about shooting 7 stops under and
> pulling an image out of it the otherday! Where were you when that sort of
> BS was being posted?
> --
>
> Stacey

The photo I posted that was shot 7 stop under was to show that the 20D
clearly had a dynamic range of over 7 stops, not that the resulting
photo was good. There were people claiming that the 20D had closer to 5
stops of range. And yes I did pull and image out of it and in fact
here it is
http://www.sewcon.com/photos/IMG_8209.jpg
And I posted the raw file for this image in case anyone wanted to play
with it,
and here that is.
IMG_8209.CR2

The funny thing is I have never attack any one else's camera, well ok
maybe Sigma. When I posted the 20D shots it was to show what a good
DSLR could do compared to film, not to knock other DSLRs, they are all
good and I have always said that.

Stacey just seems to hate anyone who owns a Canon camera and he really
hates them if they have the nerve to say they like their cameras.

Scott
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 4:00:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> "C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
> news:BEF1EA7B.2E983%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
>
>>On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article 42cc6354$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Ryadia"
>><just@the.group> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
>>>I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
>>>too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
>>>about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
>>>difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
>>>deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
>>>our purchase decisions on?
>>>
>>>How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
>>>serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
>>>use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
>>>shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
>>>masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
>>>two extremes which no one told you about?
>>>
>>>Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
>>>well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
>>>conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
>>>FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
>>>
>>>How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
>>>mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
>>>20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
>>>film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.
>>>
>>>Douglas
>>
>>The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made
>>with
>>several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
>>I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
>>conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
>>Chuck W.
>>
>
> I dislike stupid, flawed tests and sloppy methodology...
>
>
>

I'll spell it out for you Darell.
The myth about Canon DLSRs is that when you shoot RAW, you get a couple
of stops of exposure latitude you can apply during decoding the data to
an image.

Any exposure difference between these two cameras is a non event if that
fable is true... Which it is not because the sensor didn't capture
enough data for it to be true.

The Panasonic on the other hand has certainly blown the highlights but
it has also recorded data in a area of the picture which is the same
density as the Canon deep shadow area.

If this were film, the negatives would read both the same density on a
densometer but one would have detail and the other not. What is so
different about digital capture in your mind? The page is about
photogrpahy, not digital specifications. The question that page poses is
why can the Panasonic capture detail in an area of equal density to one
which the Canon cannot?

Douglas
July 7, 2005 4:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"doug" <nospam@this.com> wrote in message
news:42cc8cd5$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Darrell wrote:
>> "C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:BEF1EA7B.2E983%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
>>
>>>On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article 42cc6354$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Ryadia"
>>><just@the.group> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
>>>>I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
>>>>too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
>>>>about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
>>>>difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
>>>>deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
>>>>our purchase decisions on?
>>>>
>>>>How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
>>>>serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
>>>>use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
>>>>shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
>>>>masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
>>>>two extremes which no one told you about?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
>>>>well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
>>>>conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
>>>>FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
>>>>
>>>>How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
>>>>mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
>>>>20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
>>>>film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.
>>>>
>>>>Douglas
>>>
>>>The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made
>>>with
>>>several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
>>>I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
>>>conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
>>>Chuck W.
>>>
>>
>> I dislike stupid, flawed tests and sloppy methodology...
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'll spell it out for you Darell.
> The myth about Canon DLSRs is that when you shoot RAW, you get a couple of
> stops of exposure latitude you can apply during decoding the data to an
> image.
>
Actually that is the myth everyone thinks of RAW. A grossly overexposed or
grossly underexposed RAW image is still bad. Tou are also comparing a 1/2.5"
(10.2mm) CCD with a 15x22.5mm CMOS. The exposure was different, regardless
of RAW. It would have been more accurate to compare a Canon S2 IS to a
Panasonic FZ-20

> Any exposure difference between these two cameras is a non event if that
> fable is true... Which it is not because the sensor didn't capture enough
> data for it to be true.
>
The myth was false, but spread by pseudo-experts who don't have a clue.

> The Panasonic on the other hand has certainly blown the highlights but it
> has also recorded data in a area of the picture which is the same density
> as the Canon deep shadow area.
>
The Panasonic and Canon also have vastly different processors Venus vs.
Digic2.

> If this were film, the negatives would read both the same density on a
> densometer but one would have detail and the other not. What is so
> different about digital capture in your mind? The page is about
> photogrpahy, not digital specifications. The question that page poses is
> why can the Panasonic capture detail in an area of equal density to one
> which the Canon cannot?
>
Film exposed at those vastly different exposures certainly would not have
the same density. We are also comparing sub-110 format to APS format in
sizes.
July 7, 2005 4:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

doug <nospam@this.com> wrote in news:42cc8cd5$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

>> I dislike stupid, flawed tests and sloppy methodology...
>
> I'll spell it out for you Darell.
> The myth about Canon DLSRs is that when you shoot RAW, you get a
> couple of stops of exposure latitude you can apply during decoding the
> data to an image.

Well, if you misunderstand the advantages of RAW, then maybe you could
think that.

> Any exposure difference between these two cameras is a non event if
> that fable is true... Which it is not because the sensor didn't
> capture enough data for it to be true.

I have never heard it said that it makes no difference if you under expose
by a stop or two when you shoot RAW, where the hell did you get that idea
from?

> The Panasonic on the other hand has certainly blown the highlights but
> it has also recorded data in a area of the picture which is the same
> density as the Canon deep shadow area.

Of course it did, the camera had 3 EV more to work with.

> If this were film, the negatives would read both the same density on a
> densometer but one would have detail and the other not. What is so
> different about digital capture in your mind? The page is about
> photogrpahy, not digital specifications. The question that page poses
> is why can the Panasonic capture detail in an area of equal density to
> one which the Canon cannot?

Jeez, what a tool! Do you deliberately come out with lies or are you a
little ignorant?

How do you know that the Canon cannot capture the detail? We certainly
don't see an equivalent picture from the Canon to compare to the Panasonic.

This is one of the stupidest tests I have seen and proves nothing beyond
the fact that exposing a shot correctly makes a difference regardless of
which camera you use.


--
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
July 7, 2005 4:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <42cc8cd5$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, doug <nospam@this.com> wrote:
>Darrell wrote:
>> "C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:BEF1EA7B.2E983%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...

[ ... ]

>>>The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made
>>>with
>>>several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
>>>I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
>>>conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
>>>Chuck W.
>>>
>>
>> I dislike stupid, flawed tests and sloppy methodology...

[ ... ]

>I'll spell it out for you Darell.
>The myth about Canon DLSRs is that when you shoot RAW, you get a couple
>of stops of exposure latitude you can apply during decoding the data to
>an image.

I don't see any signs that the person who set up that page even
*tried* to use RAW format, let alone knew *how* to use it properly. If
you let the camera write as .jpg directly, there is no chance to recover
information beyond the eight bits per color which JPEG can handle.

>Any exposure difference between these two cameras is a non event if that
>fable is true... Which it is not because the sensor didn't capture
>enough data for it to be true.

The Cannon apparently tried to minimize blown highlights, thus
forcing the darker areas into cutoff (for JPEG), but allowing it to
recover more detail if RAW had been used. The P&S didn't care about
preventing blown highlights, so it used a much higher exposure,
preserving detail in the sky, and allowing the preserving and recovery
of the detail at the low end -- *only* if RAW were being used, and
properly processed. (Taking the defaults in whatever program would
probably give something like what we saw.) RAW has to be used
intelligently. It is not at all clear that *either* camera was used
intelligently, and each made different choices about what to preserve.

>The Panasonic on the other hand has certainly blown the highlights but
>it has also recorded data in a area of the picture which is the same
>density as the Canon deep shadow area.
>
>If this were film, the negatives would read both the same density on a
>densometer but one would have detail and the other not.

*Where* would they have read the same, given the different
exposures? I doubt whether as much as 5% of the area of the negatives
would have read nearly the same. Certainly neither the highlights nor
the shadow areas would have read the same on both negatives.

> What is so
>different about digital capture in your mind? The page is about
>photogrpahy, not digital specifications. The question that page poses is
>why can the Panasonic capture detail in an area of equal density to one
>which the Canon cannot?

By sacrificing detail in another area.

I'm not a Cannon user, but *any* camera has to be used with an
understanding of what it does and how. A *lot* of that photo was sky,
and the Cannon (lacking instructions to use narrower metering) tried to
average the whole scene, and as a result exposed for the sky (the
largest part of the image). The P&S probably had its AE sensors more
tuned towards the lower central area, and ignored the bright sky.

I believe that the Cannon could be told to use a particular area
for its auto exposure calculations. Certainly my Nikon D70 can be told
to do that.

The original photographer probably did not bother looking at the
histogram in either camera (presuming that the P&S even offered one).
If you're going to be shooting images for calendar pages, you *should*
know how to use your tools, and how to interpret what they tell you.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
July 7, 2005 4:00:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

MarkH wrote:

>
> I have never heard it said that it makes no difference if you under expose
> by a stop or two when you shoot RAW, where the hell did you get that idea
> from?
>

When you have Canon fans like Scott W posting things like there is no
quality lost shooting at ISO 1600 rather than ISO 100 you wonder how BS
like this gets around? He was talking about shooting 7 stops under and
pulling an image out of it the otherday! Where were you when that sort of
BS was being posted?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 4:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120747878.903589.316580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> TAFKAB wrote:
>
>>Can't blame him. Got to wonder just what he was thinking
>> when a pack of morons like us can tear it to shreds so quickly.
>
> Yet you have uninformed people, like the original poster, that do not
> have the critical thinking skills to understand bogus stuff like this.
> How many other people read a website like that and actually believe it?

Tons. And you can add sites like CNN, ABC News, etc to the list. Trouble is,
there's so many variables it's not so easy to spot the BS sometimes.

Well, I'm off to complete my own test comparing scanned 6x7 chromes with
the 20D. I'll post the results in the near future. In the meantime, I'll
continue to repeat the age-old mantra: "when data does not conform to
theory, it must be disposed of."

>
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:27:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Scott W wrote:
>
>>That is why it is a pretty good idea to have
>> reviewer who tests under controlled conditions, so you can get an
>> apples to apple comparision.
>>
>
>
>Don't you mean a reviewer who is paid by Canon so your brand gets a shining
>review so you can feel good about your camera purchase?


That's it, exactly.

No feeling of "buyer's remorse" means the review was good.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 6:01:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Scott W wrote:

>Stacey just seems to hate anyone who owns a Canon camera and he
> really hates them if they have the nerve to say they like their cameras.

It seems that recently there's been an outbreak of Canon bashing. The
post by Ryadia (which appears now to be yet another George Preddy
alias) was amusing in its lameness, but there are others that appear
to be extremely upset at Canon's success in the market.

While I wouldn't go as far as you, and state that all other DSLRs are
good, the 6-8 megapixel models from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta
are all pretty good. Only Olympus and Sigma haveconsumer models that
should be avoided completely.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:33:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey napisał(a):
> Don't you mean a reviewer who is paid by Canon so your brand gets a shining
> review so you can feel good about your camera purchase?
TROLL WARNING...

pls do not feed him!

--
..........Marek Mollin "rogus".........
...http://rogus.atspace.com/da/ad.jpg..
.............coming soon...............
...............Pozdrawiam..............
July 7, 2005 7:33:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Marek M. "rogus" wrote:

> Stacey napisa?(a):
>> Don't you mean a reviewer who is paid by Canon so your brand gets a
>> shining review so you can feel good about your camera purchase?


> TROLL WARNING...


LOL now THAT is funny!

So ANYONE who doesn't bow down and praise the Canon God is a troll? You
really believe all the reviewers are totally unbiased in their reports? I
guess there are still people who are this naive....

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 8:29:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
>
> >
> > The funny thing is I have never attack any one else's camera,
>
> More BS...
> --
>
> Stacey

Can you show where I have.

Scott
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:39:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

frederick wrote:
> http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
> "Placeholder page"
> (email here)

It'll be back soon enough Fredrick.
I just need to make the Canon pictures look a little worse and the
Panasonic ones look a little better so the deciples of EOS will have
something worth ranting about!!

Seriously, the pic which was posted from the Canon is the top one of a
pair of 2. Top one correct for sky, bottom one correct for ground, blend
together in Photoshop and get the tonally correct image. This one is for
the calendar and therefore not to be on the 'net.

I posted the wrong pic, Oh, slap my wrist! I just need to find the time
to go through the disc and get the right one and the page will be back
for all to see. Maybe sometime late tonight or early tomorrow. (GMT +10)

Those who claim they could somehow get the exposure correct in one shot
might consider their statements before posting again. Any suggestion of
reading the histogram at 4:00 am in almost total darkness on a winter
morning with the camera mounted on a seven feet high tripod could only
have come from someone who has never gotten out of bed at 2:30 AM to go
and take some photographs - maybe 99.76% of the group's regular posters?
Certainly the ones with "photographic and digital camera advice"!!

Patience is a virtue often found in women, seldom found in men... So
goes the rhyme...

Douglas
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:39:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

The sensors in DSLRs do not have the capacity to gradually and smoothly
cope with highlight information. In the real world this means that the
brightest areas of the scene can all too easily retain no information
at all - no image data is present, just pure white. The sensor
abruptly blows it.

This means that DSLR photographers, especially those who shoot
landscapes, for example, will need to do all they can to accommodate
the highlights, referring constantly to the histogram. Digital
techniques and/or a grey graduated filter is often essential to balance
the brightness of the sky with the land below. If you are new to DSLR
photography, try experimenting with the RAW format so that you can
exercise more control over highlight detail. When the image is
converted, you can fine-tune the image by using levels and curves (the
latter especially useful and powerful) in image-editing software.

Generally speaking, the DSLR photographer should take care not to blow
the brightest parts of the image, although smaller blown highlights do
not take away from the overall appearance of the shot, and are
sometimes unavoidable. Contrast Masking* and Digital Blending
techniques can be used when there are highlight areas within the scene
that need to be balanced with shadow detail to extend the dynamic range
of the print. Digital blending - a very flexible method - can be
used with two or more images. The conscientious digital photographer
will need to learn how to use good image-editing software. (Highlights
are less of a concern when using negative film. Try to hold detail in
the shadows and if necessary use a graduated filter. Always meter off a
mid-tone, and bear in mind that it can be useful to overexpose negative
film slightly.)

"Meter a medium-toned area as medium and the whites will be white,
and the blacks, black" is not particularly good advice for the DSLR
photographer learning to cope with the demands of electronic sensors.
Also, as often as possible it's helpful to push the exposure to the
point where the histogram shows more information to the right of the
display, without the severe abrupt peaks that indicate blown
highlights.

DSLR sensors share slide film's highlight responses but will get more
from the shadows. Shadow retention will be particularly good if the
exposure is routinely pushed just short of blown and unprocessed and
uncompressed data (RAW) is captured rather than JPEG. If this isn't
possible and the subject being photographed allows for it, two or more
images can be used to substantially expand the range, as mentioned
above. Sensor pixels, or light receptors, wrestle with bright light
because their response to it is not gradual. Instead they peak quite
quickly, totally losing highlight data. Digital camera manufacturers
are working on this problem but the application of their technological
advances has been less than ideal. It's certainly an irritating
problem that makes some digital exposures quite tricky, like shooting
slide film, and it's likely to be an integral part of DSLR technology
for quite some time to come.


* In software, a desaturated and inverted (negative) black and white
copy of an image can be blended with the original to expand the tonal
range. The increased density of the b&w inverted copy will be added to
the original. To learn more about this method and other techniques that
control the contrast range, search the Web for Digital Blending and
Contrast Masking (originally a conventional darkroom technique).
Mastering image-editing software is essential for the dedicated
enthusiast who wants to get the very best from his or her DSLR, or
scanned film.

http://www.theimageplane.net/slrs.htm#lose
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:39:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

[rec...slr-systems restored]

Gordon Moat wrote:
> Good morning Douglas,
>
> doug wrote:
>
>
>>frederick wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm
>>>"Placeholder page"

> I have yet to be convinced that small JPEGs on the internet will really
> show much. There is such a limit on images shown on computer monitors,
> especially at small screen sizes, that it makes drawing conclusions
> tougher. My suggestion is to post the Histograms, instead of the EXIF data,
> since that might indicate more. You can capture screen grabs of the
> Histograms.

I feel that Doug is so anti-Canonical <heh!> that, while trying to
produce illustrations of the 20D's shortcomings in a fair way, anything
at all that confirms this view will be said or put on the Net.

>
> I understand your trying to disprove the "shoot RAW, and you can be several
> stops off in exposure", but anyone with a little common sense should know
> that is true. I think Brett Douglas was the only person I have ever heard
> make such a claim. In reality, I think your technical skills could be put
> to much better usage than disproving a "myth" held by very few people.


The correct exposure is the correct exposure. However, when I am off, I
am glad for those times I shoot in RAW. I'm making corrections in the
equivalent of 16 bits, for starters.

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:45:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2005 14:01:18 -0700, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Scott W wrote:
> >
> >>Stacey just seems to hate anyone who owns a Canon camera and he
> >> really hates them if they have the nerve to say they like their cameras.
> >
> >It seems that recently there's been an outbreak of Canon bashing. The
> >post by Ryadia (which appears now to be yet another George Preddy
> >alias) was amusing in its lameness, but there are others that appear
> >to be extremely upset at Canon's success in the market.
> >
> >While I wouldn't go as far as you, and state that all other DSLRs are
> >good, the 6-8 megapixel models from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta
> >are all pretty good. Only Olympus and Sigma haveconsumer models that
> >should be avoided completely.
>
> Is this condemnation based solely on high noise levels at high ISOs
> that you see in the Olympus?

Hey, this is not my quote, I never said anything about avoiding the
Olympus, I did say to avoid the Sigma.

Scott
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:50:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:

>TAFKAB wrote:
>
>>Can't blame him. Got to wonder just what he was thinking
>> when a pack of morons like us can tear it to shreds so quickly.
>
>Yet you have uninformed people, like the original poster, that do not
>have the critical thinking skills to understand bogus stuff like this.
>How many other people read a website like that and actually believe it?


There must be some people who read *your*
DSLR website and actually believe it.

God help them.
July 7, 2005 11:08:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Scott W wrote:

>
> The funny thing is I have never attack any one else's camera,

More BS...
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:17:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So ANYONE who doesn't bow down and praise the Canon God is a troll?

You've been around here long enough to know *that*. I mean, it's as
self-evident as the indisputable fact that all serious photographers
always shoot everything with super-wide-angle lenses at ISO 1600 or
higher -- or whatever thing it is that Canon does better, I keep
forgetting because it always seems to be something I've never done,
but then, we all know I'm not a serious photographer since we all
know all serious photographers are using a Canon 1Ds2, since nothing
else could ever be adequate.

(Man, the mindless Canon cheerleading squad has reduced my opinion of
Canon about as much as George Preddy has done for Sigma. It's sad,
really; when I'm out and about, and I see someone with a Canon, my
first thought is, oh look, another equipment collector, I wonder if
he'll come over and start bragging about the size of the sensor in
some other camera of the same brand he'll never actually buy...)

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
July 8, 2005 12:17:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:


>
> (Man, the mindless Canon cheerleading squad has reduced my opinion of
> Canon about as much as George Preddy has done for Sigma.

It's convinced me to never buy one...


--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:49:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 7 Jul 2005 14:01:18 -0700, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Scott W wrote:
>
>>Stacey just seems to hate anyone who owns a Canon camera and he
>> really hates them if they have the nerve to say they like their cameras.
>
>It seems that recently there's been an outbreak of Canon bashing. The
>post by Ryadia (which appears now to be yet another George Preddy
>alias) was amusing in its lameness, but there are others that appear
>to be extremely upset at Canon's success in the market.
>
>While I wouldn't go as far as you, and state that all other DSLRs are
>good, the 6-8 megapixel models from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta
>are all pretty good. Only Olympus and Sigma haveconsumer models that
>should be avoided completely.

Is this condemnation based solely on high noise levels at high ISOs
that you see in the Olympus?
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:03:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1120787151.047993.6210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Scott
W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hey, this is not my quote, I never said anything about avoiding the
> Olympus, I did say to avoid the Sigma.

I'd agree with that.
July 8, 2005 2:29:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

After some time looking in to the whole palava (sp?) on sensor size,
noise etc, I have come to the conclusion that most people do not
understand that for example:
f4 on a 4/3 sensor camera gives the same DOF as _f8_ on a 35mm, or
_f5.6_ on an APS-C sized sensor at the same equivalent focal length.
To reduce the noise from the sensor for the same DOF at the same focal
length (equiv) as that f-stop for a larger sensor camera, then open up
the aperture appropriately and lower the iso, and then for the purposes
of photography (taking photos - remember that?) all is the same.
So posting an iso 400 "test shot" for a E1 which looks bad against an
ISO 400 shot from a D70 is bastardised logic. The ISO 400 shot from a
D70 should be compared with an ISO 200 shot from the E1.
That's why Olympus now make a 4/3 150mm (300mm equiv) f2, and other fast
lenses. Do people think that Olympus are crazy or something?
I've never even seen a reviewer from any of the sites so often
referenced in here mention this. It is relevent, and the same
principles apply to P&S cameras - but which are limited by the fact that
the widest apertures just aren't wide enough, and with some extreme
examples now available - 8mp with tiny sensors - resolution loss from
diffraction almost overlaps the widest aperture, meaning that they are
both effectively useless for any photography where control of DOF is
required, and most unlikely to ever produce pictures that resolve
anywhere near the detail implied by the pixel count. They sometimes get
great reviews - if the reviewer has half a clue, he'll take a photo of a
test chart using Aperture Priority mode, set the f-stop at the optimum
(below where diffraction loss takes it's inevitable toll), and take a
picture that he proclaims as proof that a $500 P&S is as good as a dslr.

For anyone who thinks that Canon has a clear and unassailable lead on
dslr sensor noise, please look at:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:29:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

frederick wrote:
>
Massive snip
>
> For anyone who thinks that Canon has a clear and unassailable lead on
> dslr sensor noise, please look at:
> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...

While looking through several hundred images for the one I shot
specifically for the page I earlier took down, I came across dozens of
really poor quality images shot that very morning with the exact same
20D camera. http://www.technoaussie.com/horror.htm is one of them.

I will concede that the 1D MkII images are marginally better with these
errors but neither are the equal to an EOS 5 we had along as a backup
using Agfa 'Optima' 400 ISO film which incidently produced highly
acceptable images.

The images from the little Panasonic FZ20 which were not directly into
the rising sun, are technically better than most of the 20D's images
like the one in the link above.

The bit I'm disappointed about is not so much the poor performance of
the 20D as the fact that the EOS5 as well as Panasonic and Olympus P&S
cameras all produced more consistent, better quality pictures than the
20D or 1D MkII were able to record. For the cost of these things you'd
expect better or at least closer results.

A Nikon D2X is arriving in the morning for evaluation. If this bugger
can take a picture with as much shadow detail as either the Olympus C760
or FZ20 Panasonic while working at the extreme of it's sensor's
capability, I'll jump ship and dump the Canon gear. I'm not holding my
breath waiting. I think there is plenty of life left for film!

Douglas
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:29:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>>
>> For anyone who thinks that Canon has a clear and unassailable lead on
>> dslr sensor noise, please look at:
>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>
> While looking through several hundred images for the one I shot
> specifically for the page I earlier took down, I came across dozens of
> really poor quality images shot that very morning with the exact same
> 20D camera. http://www.technoaussie.com/horror.htm is one of them.

Looks like a focus problem, plus jpg artifacting to me. I'm not sure
how this is supposed to be a 20D problem unless you were *intending*
to focus on the bird, got a focus feedback indicator on top of the
bird, and it still came out that way, in which case I'd check into
whether you were backfocused or frontfocused on your camera.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
July 8, 2005 4:00:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3j59hoFohq1vU1@individual.net:

> Exactly. Yet this guy is constantly posting his -pro Canon- matra to
> the pleasure of other Canon users. Like I said, no one seems to mind
> when this sort of total BS boosterism is posted but if someone even
> thinks there might be another valid choice of camera or that another
> choice might be better at a specific task, they are called a troll?

When the pro Canon people post that a Nikon is no good and only Canon will
do, there are always going to be replies from the pro Nikon people
disagreeing.

When the anti Canon people post that a Panasonic P&S has captured detail
that a Canon 20D could not (despite the supposed evidence being obviously
bullshit), then why is it inappropriate to call them a troll?

There will always be idiots that will make claims about what a brand they
don't like is incapable of, or in what ways it is inadequate. It doesn't
make them correct and I see no reason to chastise those that can see the
bullshit and take the trouble to correct the inaccuracies.



--
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
July 8, 2005 4:15:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
news:slrndcqlag.lu5.zed@resonant.org...
SNIP
> Looks like a focus problem, plus jpg artifacting to me.

I spent some time testing this hypothesis, and I agree with the
(in-camera) JPEG effects.

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 or)
3
highest ISO settings, Raws are unaffected.

Noise reduction software effects of course depend 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
July 8, 2005 4:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:



>
> 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!!!

I'm not surprised.



> 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.

Again, I can see this looking at in camera jpegs shot with these cameras. No
big shock as to why they are "noise free" at these ISO's, the details are
being smeared to reduce the noise. The canon cheerleaders will claim there
is zero NR processing going on and some even claim there is zero difference
between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 at all?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:22:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3j5raqFok862U1@individual.net...
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> 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!!!
>
> I'm not surprised.

I was, as I expected 'some' loss at higher ISO settings caused by the
Digic 2 processing, but none was detected in my tests, don't know
about yours (if any).

Bart
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:56:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cvqdnYaIeN5QLFDfRVn-

> This reminds me of the "medical statistic" that over 60,000 people die
from
> second hand cigarette smoke every year. This ridiculous (and bogus)
figure
> used to be 50,000. It's interesting that during the years that
cigarette
> usage in this country went down by 20%, the number of deaths from
second
> hand smoke went up by the same percentage

There is no inconcistency here - it could simply be a matter of getting
better at identifying this particualr cause of death. In any case, if
you want to be taken seriously in your claim that the figures are
"bogus", it would behoove you to provide have evidence at least as
compelling. Pointing out non-existent inconsistencies doesn't count.

Not that this has any relevance to the discussion, of course.

--------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:56:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:11cscj65p39pr99@corp.supernews.com...
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cvqdnYaIeN5QLFDfRVn-
>
>> This reminds me of the "medical statistic" that over 60,000 people die
> from
>> second hand cigarette smoke every year. This ridiculous (and bogus)
> figure
>> used to be 50,000. It's interesting that during the years that
> cigarette
>> usage in this country went down by 20%, the number of deaths from
> second
>> hand smoke went up by the same percentage
>
> There is no inconcistency here - it could simply be a matter of getting
> better at identifying this particualr cause of death.

Oh, I see.....There's nothing inconsistent, we were just wrong then, but you
should believe us now.......Are you kidding, or what?
If you can tell me exactly how you (or they) could possibly know how
many deaths could be attributed to "second hand smoke", that would go a long
way toward getting me into your fold. I mean, just who would you study, and
how would you study them? How would you tell exactly, or even approximately,
just how much "second hand smoke" any particular subject was subjected to,
and for how long? (Much less a whole population)
If I had to come up with such a statistic, here is how I would go about
it. First off, I would find out how many people die from first hand smoke.
Then I would translate the percentage of smoke they inhale per day into
man-minutes (or seconds) of life loss. Then I would measure the percentage
of smoke in an average room containing smokers, and assume some percentage
of non-smokers time (on the average) that such people spend in those kinds
of rooms. Then I would project this time into a percentage of smoke in the
average non-smokers breath. and assume that they will suffer that percentage
of life loss that smokers experience in the before mentioned study, and that
would be the best possible statistic I could get. IOW, (for example) If the
average smoker loses one minute of life for every 100,000 smoke particles he
breathes in, then I would assume that non-smokers lose the same amount of
life for every 100,000 smoke particles that they breathe in too, and that
would be the basis of my figure. Not accurate? - Of course not, but it's a
hell of a lot better than what they did do, which was just hazard a wild ass
guess...........The point is creditability. They have none with me. All
their dumb ass statistics do is dumb down a population of people who have
already been dumbed down by the TV over my lifetime by an incredible amount.
And it shows, too. Just watch Jay Leno's show for a few weeks.....:^)
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:13:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:

<At the end of yet another hysterical, ageing-induced rant>

> All their dumb ass
> statistics do is dumb down a population of people who have already
> been dumbed down by the TV over my lifetime by an incredible amount.
> And it shows, too. Just watch Jay Leno's show for a few
> weeks.....:^)

Just watch the folks who watch Jay Leno ...

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:56:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

doug wrote:
> 7 stops under exposed, eh?.
> I just tried that with all my DSLRs and came to the conclusion your are
> full of bullshit Scott. Simply can't happen with any of my gear. You
> must have gotten a 2030 model Canon camera for yours or done your maths
> backwards.
>
> Douglas

Here is a test that Roger Clark did, not his test scene had a range of
10.6
stops.

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

Seems to me he is seeing detail well past 7 stops, don't you think?

Scott
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:10:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>>(Man, the mindless Canon cheerleading squad has reduced my opinion of
>>Canon about as much as George Preddy has done for Sigma.
>
> It's convinced me to never buy one...

Mindless cheerleading is only slightly less obnoxious than mindless
bashing.

--
John McWilliams
July 8, 2005 2:36:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Scharf-DCA wrote:

> Scott W wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey just seems to hate anyone who owns a Canon camera and he
>>really hates them if they have the nerve to say they like their cameras.
>
>
> It seems that recently there's been an outbreak of Canon bashing. The
> post by Ryadia (which appears now to be yet another George Preddy
> alias) was amusing in its lameness, but there are others that appear
> to be extremely upset at Canon's success in the market.
>
> While I wouldn't go as far as you, and state that all other DSLRs are
> good, the 6-8 megapixel models from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta
> are all pretty good. Only Olympus and Sigma haveconsumer models that
> should be avoided completely.
>
I completely disagree about Olympus.
I have no doubt that they know exactly what they are doing with 4/3
format, that they will release *stunning* 4/3 format equipment in the
forseeable future, and that the often quoted criticisms of the limits of
the 4/3 format based on diffraction limited resolution etc indicate a
lack of understanding of the principles behind it. Sensors and noise
reduction will improve, and at 8mp they are not near the limits of this
format. That time will come, but cameras like the Mamiya ZD are already
appearing to satisfy the needs for extreme resolution that may be needed
for very large prints - at an extreme monetary cost - and cost of
convenience.
And no - I don't use Olympus. (Nikon)
July 8, 2005 2:36:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

frederick <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in news:1120775704.215906@ftpsrv1:

> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>
>> Scott W wrote:
>>
>> While I wouldn't go as far as you, and state that all other DSLRs are
>> good, the 6-8 megapixel models from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta
>> are all pretty good. Only Olympus and Sigma haveconsumer models that
>> should be avoided completely.
>>
> I completely disagree about Olympus.
> I have no doubt that they know exactly what they are doing with 4/3
> format, that they will release *stunning* 4/3 format equipment in the
> forseeable future, and that the often quoted criticisms of the limits
> of the 4/3 format based on diffraction limited resolution etc indicate
> a lack of understanding of the principles behind it. Sensors and
> noise reduction will improve, and at 8mp they are not near the limits
> of this format. That time will come, but cameras like the Mamiya ZD
> are already appearing to satisfy the needs for extreme resolution that
> may be needed for very large prints - at an extreme monetary cost -
> and cost of convenience.
> And no - I don't use Olympus. (Nikon)

I partially disagree with you about Olympus.
If they release *stunning* 4/3 equipment in the foreseeable future then
that is good, but I don't like the idea of praising anyone on what they
will/might do in the future. I prefer to concentrate on what is real
today.

It is interesting that no one can praise Canon or point out any positive
features without some idiots calling them zealots. Yet many of us have
bought Canon equipment after reading several different reviews and
carefully studying the differences between Canon and other brands.

Three years ago I was trying to decide between a Canon D60 and a Nikon
D100, they both seemed quite good and met my criteria for what I wanted.
I was quite undecided because there were pros and cons either way. I
was swayed towards Canon on the release of the 10D (my current camera)
as it had improved features and better pricing. Had I bought a Nikon
D100 or purchased later and bought a D70 then I would have been pretty
happy too. I am a little unsure of the other brands though, mainly
because of the mounts used and the limitation on available lenses -
especially with the 4/3 system as it stands today (if and when a much
wider range of lenses are available I will feel free to change my mind).

I would advise anyone wishing to enter into the digital SLR game today
to buy the camera that best suits their needs/wants. If they have some
good Nikon glass then they should look at the Nikon D70, if they have
some good Canon glass then they should look at the Canon 350D or 20D
depending on the size and comfort of the two. If they have no glass
then I would personally recommend the Canon cameras, but a friend had a
preference for the Nikon brand and got a D70. I am sure my friend will
be happy with his Nikon, even though I personally would have made a
different purchase. But I would not buy Canon if I thought that the
Nikon system offered more advantages, I base my opinions on what I
believe about the available equipment, not on any warm and fuzzy
feelings about any brand.

I like Canon and Nikon because of the amount of lenses in their mounts,
not because I want to put down any other brands. I prefer Canon for
their sensors and image quality - I do think their lenses are a little
better in some focal lengths, but not enough to make a huge difference
over Nikon (Nikon have enough good lenses to ensure their customers have
no regrets on that score).


--
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"
July 8, 2005 2:36:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1120775704.215906@ftpsrv1>, nomail@nomail.com says...
> I completely disagree about Olympus.
> I have no doubt that they know exactly what they are doing with 4/3
> format, that they will release *stunning* 4/3 format equipment in the
> forseeable future, and that the often quoted criticisms of the limits of
> the 4/3 format based on diffraction limited resolution etc indicate a
> lack of understanding of the principles behind it. Sensors and noise
> reduction will improve, and at 8mp they are not near the limits of this
> format. That time will come, but cameras like the Mamiya ZD are already
> appearing to satisfy the needs for extreme resolution that may be needed
> for very large prints - at an extreme monetary cost - and cost of
> convenience.
> And no - I don't use Olympus. (Nikon)
>


I think anybody who discounts the Olympus as a "bogus" or useless camera
hasnt tried it.

It takes nice pictures, and my reasons for passing on it was simply the
"locking in" of a lens type not usable with any other camera.

I bought a Canon Rebel simply because any glass I buy for it will be useable
on many digital bodies, and some film bodies (except for kit lens).

The E-volt is a well designed, and well built camera with its ONLY limitation
being the lens requirements NOT the sensor size per-se.

The noise performance may or may not be better or worse than a Canon or
Nikon, but as far as I can tell, the noise performance of ALL the current
DSLR cameras (other than the Sigma which isnt really current) is better than
most film at equivalent ISO.

If I didn't fear the abandonment of the 4/3 cameras, I might well have bought
it.

Maybe with Panasonic joining the fray the 4/3 format will take off and fly..
I, for one, would be happy to see it.

I've benn shooting since 1959, and I try to do my best. I've sold 900 prints
in the last 3 months, so I must be doing something right.

Being a camera snob is not attractive no matter WHAT brand/model you use.

Hell, a good portion of the prints Ive sold this year (and last year) were
shot with a Sony F-828, and thats a camera a LOT of people discount as a poor
performer. Used within its limitations it can take phenominal pictures.

Buy what you like
Use what you have
MAKE IT WORK!

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:36:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:Vgjze.180638$3V6.173405@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>
> I partially disagree with you about Olympus.
> If they release *stunning* 4/3 equipment in the foreseeable future then
> that is good, but I don't like the idea of praising anyone on what they
> will/might do in the future. I prefer to concentrate on what is real
> today.

I dunno, f2 zooms and 8mm fisheye lenses seem pretty good...

>
> It is interesting that no one can praise Canon or point out any positive
> features without some idiots calling them zealots. Yet many of us have
> bought Canon equipment after reading several different reviews and
> carefully studying the differences between Canon and other brands.

There are a few on here that take any defense of a brand, Canon in
particular, to be an assault on their own personal cameras, and, by
extension, on themselves...
This is true to a lesser degree of other brands, too, but, interestingly,
not Minolta...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    • 1 / 9
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!