Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Has anybody compared 350D to 20D?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:40:55 PM

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

I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
the two cameras? Does anybody know?

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.

More about : compared 350d 20d

September 18, 2005 5:40:56 PM

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

Pix on Canvas wrote:
> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
> images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
> difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
> the two cameras? Does anybody know?
>


The shutterbugs? (just a guess)

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:40:56 PM

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

If you mean technical specs, you can do this on the Canon website. If you
mean review, try:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digita...

Mike Bernstein

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:432ce1c9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his images
> from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of difference in
> them and I wondered... What actually is different about the two cameras?
> Does anybody know?
>
> --
> Douglas...
> Have gun will travel... Said his card.
> I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
> 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:40:56 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:40:55 +1000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Pix on
Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
>images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
>difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
>the two cameras? Does anybody know?

Another question is what was different about the in camera settings and/or
raw workflow?
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:40:56 PM

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

Pix on Canvas Wrote:
> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
> images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
> difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
> the two cameras? Does anybody know?
>
> Douglas

Hi Douglas,

Apparently, the sensors are different. 20D (8.2MP); 350D (8MP).

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon


--
Conrad
September 18, 2005 5:40:57 PM

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

Jer wrote:

> Pix on Canvas wrote:
>> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
>> images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
>> difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
>> the two cameras? Does anybody know?
>>
>
>
> The shutterbugs? (just a guess)
>

My guess as well.

To the OP, why not lend him your camera as well and see what he does with
it? I can look at a roll of film shot with my moms P&S camera and it easy
to see what shots I took with it and which ones she did and that one
doesn't even have any adjustments on it!
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:40:57 PM

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

I have one of each, and aside from the physical shape and size, and
the less-convenient controls of the 350D/RebXT, my moderately expert
eye can't easily discern significant differences between them or their
output.

>> Douglas...
>> Have gun will travel... Said his card.
>> I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
>> 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.

I actually did shoot him:
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/turn_7.htm


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:01:00 AM

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

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:432ce1c9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his images
> from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of difference in
> them and I wondered... What actually is different about the two cameras?
> Does anybody know?
>

A friend of mine had a 10D, wanted a better camera so he bought a 350D,
could not get used to the scungy feeling so took it back and got a 20D, the
difference in the handling is huge, for not much more the 20D is much
better.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:01:01 AM

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

In article <0IjXe.55275$FA3.29594@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Pete D
<no@email.com> wrote:

> A friend of mine had a 10D, wanted a better camera so he bought a 350D,
> could not get used to the scungy feeling so took it back and got a 20D, the
> difference in the handling is huge, for not much more the 20D is much
> better.

Going from a 10D to a 350D would be going sideways and backwards. But a
350D to a 20D would be a definite step up.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:07:29 PM

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

Ed Ruf wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:40:55 +1000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Pix on
> Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>>ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
>>images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
>>difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
>>the two cameras? Does anybody know?
>
>
> Another question is what was different about the in camera settings and/or
> raw workflow?
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

The only difference I can detect in the cameras themselves is the life
of the shutter. The 350D has only 60% of the shutter life expectancy of
the 20D.

The image difference is another thing altogether. The sensors are
(marginally) a different size so in theory the 350D should make noisier
images. It doesn't.

After using the 350D for a few hours I can guess that the shutter
vibrations and mirror slap are significantly less of an issue than with
the 20D. Much closer to the vibration suppression in a 10D.

There is no difference in the work flow Ed. I developed the raw images
with rawshooter which does not handle under exposed image as well as ACR
and this is where I found noticeable image quality differences.

Either the 2, 20Ds I have, both have faulty sensors of the 350D sensor
is an (improved) development on the one in the 20D. I can interpolate a
350D image to the same size (600x900 mm) as a 20D one and see a
technical difference in the result although visually they are not much
different.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:14:16 PM

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

Does the 350D hava a banding issue? or has there been any lockup problems.

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:432de523$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ed Ruf wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:40:55 +1000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Pix
>> on
>> Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>>>ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his images
>>>from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of difference in
>>>them and I wondered... What actually is different about the two cameras?
>>>Does anybody know?
>>
>>
>> Another question is what was different about the in camera settings
>> and/or
>> raw workflow?
>> ----------
>> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
>> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
>> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
>
> The only difference I can detect in the cameras themselves is the life of
> the shutter. The 350D has only 60% of the shutter life expectancy of the
> 20D.
>
> The image difference is another thing altogether. The sensors are
> (marginally) a different size so in theory the 350D should make noisier
> images. It doesn't.
>
> After using the 350D for a few hours I can guess that the shutter
> vibrations and mirror slap are significantly less of an issue than with
> the 20D. Much closer to the vibration suppression in a 10D.
>
> There is no difference in the work flow Ed. I developed the raw images
> with rawshooter which does not handle under exposed image as well as ACR
> and this is where I found noticeable image quality differences.
>
> Either the 2, 20Ds I have, both have faulty sensors of the 350D sensor is
> an (improved) development on the one in the 20D. I can interpolate a 350D
> image to the same size (600x900 mm) as a 20D one and see a technical
> difference in the result although visually they are not much different.
>
> --
> Douglas...
> Have gun will travel... Said his card.
> I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
> 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:26:50 PM

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:180920051315162314%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <0IjXe.55275$FA3.29594@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Pete D
> <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> A friend of mine had a 10D, wanted a better camera so he bought a 350D,
>> could not get used to the scungy feeling so took it back and got a 20D,
>> the
>> difference in the handling is huge, for not much more the 20D is much
>> better.
>
> Going from a 10D to a 350D would be going sideways and backwards. But a
> 350D to a 20D would be a definite step up.

Going from a 10D to a 350D would be a nice step up if you want resolution
and startup speed, most other things equal, for 30% less weight. For
walkabout shooters on a budget, I can see this possible path.

But generally, I think it's not worth making that switch - you may as well
put in a few more bucks and get a 20D.

Dave
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 10:33:07 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:40:55 +1000, Pix on Canvas
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
>images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
>difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
>the two cameras? Does anybody know?

I think this needs rer-posting. I'm just back from a highly profitable
photo stint in France.

-------------------------------------------------
I started photography in the 70s earning a crust here and there doing
this and that for a variety of customers but also a fair bit for
myself. I do not regard myself a professional. I'm new to the digital
world and only after being badgered into trying it by a couple of
co-workers. The Canon 350D, with that notorious kit lens, was chosen
because I did not want to commit myself to investing too much in a
branch of photography which I might decide was not for me. But I also
wanted a bit of kit which would perform to a high and reliable
standard and would still have a place in my bag if I decided to go
down that road with more expensive "professional cameras".

The only problem I had was the size. I had difficulty in gripping it
and using the controls, solved by the addition of a Battery Grip!
I gave it a good run out the week I got it. I tried out all of the
combinations which I would normally use on a job.I ended up with
blisters on my fingers but also some fine 'photos.

I took the camera out with me on a 5 day "pot boiler" doing factory
and landscapes. The lens performed just as I expected. Very well.
All of the shots were usable. As for "noise", according to the two who
pushed me down this road, even at 400 negligible to non existent at
100. I was quite impressed. This is a very good entry level camera.
There is a place for this one. I can take dozens of exposures and
check practically there and then. This was money well spent. Of
course, this is only the opinion of someone who earns an extra crust
using a camera. Unfortunately, I'm not an armchair theoretician who
has the time to sit back and consider this that and the next thing. I
don't care if the kit is not a perfect reflection of some platonic
artifact in heaven. If a bit of kit cuts the mustard its in if not
its out.

I suspect that most critics of this model and the kit lens have either
none or little practical experience of either. What they may be giving
out is a rehash of magazine articles and bar chat stripped of nearly
all positive comment. We have this in the UK. There is a guy on TV a
bit of celebrity,( in other words well known), who reviews motor
vehicles. He rips it out of all makes except Ford. But he is thought
to be a bit of a tube. The vast majority of folk don't listens to him
those who do take the piss. I suspect it is much the same in this
group.

Of course the above is only my personal opinion. Use it at your own
risk!

Angus.

---------------------
Remember Glencoe.
Visit:
http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/glencoe.html
---------------------
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:20:01 AM

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

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:432ce1c9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
> images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
> difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
> the two cameras? Does anybody know?

Why don't you post a couple of samples.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 3:14:06 AM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:40:55 +1000, Pix on Canvas
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
>images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
>difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
>the two cameras? Does anybody know?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page23.asp


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 7:28:07 AM

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

In article <432ce1c9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...
> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
> images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
> difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
> the two cameras? Does anybody know?

Your friend is competent?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:31:22 AM

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

Beach Bum wrote:
> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:432ce1c9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>>ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
>>images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
>>difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
>>the two cameras? Does anybody know?
>
>
> Why don't you post a couple of samples.
>

Well I would Mark but the 350D was a client's and I don't have any Canon
cameras of any model anymore. All gone! the (Canon) gear I have left is
up on Ebay (AU site) and soon enough my studio will be a Canon free area!

I print other peoples images and I doubt they'd like their photos all
over the 'net without their knowledge. Good point tho... I might see
what I can do in that area when I get time.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:31:23 AM

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

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

> > Why don't you post a couple of samples.
> >
>
> Well I would Mark but the 350D was a client's and I don't have any Canon
> cameras of any model anymore. All gone! the (Canon) gear I have left is
> up on Ebay (AU site) and soon enough my studio will be a Canon free area!
>
> I print other peoples images and I doubt they'd like their photos all
> over the 'net without their knowledge. Good point tho... I might see
> what I can do in that area when I get time.

Perhaps you can post a crop of two areas of the photos that prompted you to
say "wow, the 350 is blowing my 20D away!" :) 

FWIW, my GF is shooting with the 350 and me with the 20D. I shoot mostly
manual and she shoots on P, AV or TV modes. The only real difference
between our photos is that sometimes mine are poorly exposed because I
forgot to check the exposure before taking the picture. Duh. :) 

Why are you going Canon free? What are you replacing them with?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:31:24 AM

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

In article <lpIXe.92002$xl6.61607@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
e.cartman@southpark.com says...
>
> Why are you going Canon free?

Because he's nutty.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:17:16 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <432ce1c9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
> says...
>
>>I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
>>ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his
>>images from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of
>>difference in them and I wondered... What actually is different about
>>the two cameras? Does anybody know?
>
>
> Your friend is competent?

I'll ignore that remark Brian. I never question the competency of your
friends... Although to know you may well put in question.

John Stovall pointed me to the answer. Less pixels in the sensor. Thanks
John.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:17:17 PM

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

In article <432f8d4f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...
> John Stovall pointed me to the answer. Less pixels in the sensor.

I doubt you could notice a difference of 50 pixels in each direction.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:49:33 PM

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

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

> John Stovall pointed me to the answer. Less pixels in the sensor. Thanks
> John.

Why would less pix on the 350D sensor make your friend's images look better
than yours from the 20d?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:49:54 PM

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

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d994c2db0bbd81f989a47@news.verizon.net...
> In article <lpIXe.92002$xl6.61607@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> >
> > Why are you going Canon free?
>
> Because he's nutty.

<g>

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 9:32:04 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <432f8d4f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
> says...
>
>>John Stovall pointed me to the answer. Less pixels in the sensor.
>
>
> I doubt you could notice a difference of 50 pixels in each direction.

Well that depends on how big you enlarge it, doesn't it Brian?

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 9:32:05 PM

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

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:432fbaf6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>> In article <432f8d4f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au says...
>>
>>>John Stovall pointed me to the answer. Less pixels in the sensor.
>>
>>
>> I doubt you could notice a difference of 50 pixels in each direction.
>
> Well that depends on how big you enlarge it, doesn't it Brian?

Just how stupid an answer could you come up with??
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 2:17:43 AM

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

In article <432fbaf6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...
> > I doubt you could notice a difference of 50 pixels in each direction.
>
> Well that depends on how big you enlarge it, doesn't it Brian?

It's a difference of 1.5%, Doug.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 10:24:08 AM

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

Beach Bum wrote:
> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
>
>>John Stovall pointed me to the answer. Less pixels in the sensor. Thanks
>>John.
>
>
> Why would less pix on the 350D sensor make your friend's images look better
> than yours from the 20d?
>
I have not fathomed that out yet. The camera on the Mars rover was (I
think)only a 2 MP job but had a physically very large sensor. It's
images have been enlarged to sizes no one believed a digital image of
that modest size would go to.

My new printer handles 44" wide prints. I've never before been able to
print this wide so I've never bothered to Interpolate any photos that
large. I'm having significantly better results at 900mm x 1200 mm from
the 350D images than from the 20D ones.

As you interpolate larger and larger, the picture takes on a sort of
watercolour painted look. At 600mm x 900mm a 20D image looks stunning if
edges are clear in the original. At 900 x 1200 leaves, blades of grass
and pebbles start to lose definition. The 350D images I enlarged, have
more detail in difficult areas like this but anything with clearly
defined edges looks the same from both cameras. Portraits look
identical, landscapes are where the difference can be seen.

I could be wrong and it could be just the files I used... Time will tell
but at this point it seems to me that the 350D images will enlarge
cleaner than a 20D's when you push the limits of the technology!

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 10:24:09 AM

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

> My new printer handles 44" wide prints. I've never before been able to
> print this wide so I've never bothered to Interpolate any photos that
> large. I'm having significantly better results at 900mm x 1200 mm from
> the 350D images than from the 20D ones.

Ah.. that's interesting. Well, the 350's sensor is also slightly smaller
than the 20D. AFAIK the sensor pitch is the same, or very near.

> As you interpolate larger and larger, the picture takes on a sort of
> watercolour painted look. At 600mm x 900mm a 20D image looks stunning if
> edges are clear in the original. At 900 x 1200 leaves, blades of grass
> and pebbles start to lose definition. The 350D images I enlarged, have
> more detail in difficult areas like this but anything with clearly
> defined edges looks the same from both cameras. Portraits look
> identical, landscapes are where the difference can be seen.

Could be the contrast or sharpness settings? I'm assuming you're not
printing from JPEGs.

> I could be wrong and it could be just the files I used... Time will tell
> but at this point it seems to me that the 350D images will enlarge
> cleaner than a 20D's when you push the limits of the technology!

I think it is something outside of the cameras - a secondary factor such as
shooting settings. The hint is probably in the EXIF waiting to be
discovered. :) 

> Have gun will travel... Said his card.
> I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
> 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.

Heh heh.. that's funny. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 10:24:09 AM

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

In article <43306fea$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...
> It's
> images have been enlarged to sizes no one believed a digital image of
> that modest size would go to.

Hint: those were mosaics.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
September 21, 2005 10:24:09 AM

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:24:08 +1000, Pix on Canvas
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Beach Bum wrote:
>> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>John Stovall pointed me to the answer. Less pixels in the sensor. Thanks
>>>John.
>>
>>
>> Why would less pix on the 350D sensor make your friend's images look better
>> than yours from the 20d?
>>
>I have not fathomed that out yet. The camera on the Mars rover was (I
>think)only a 2 MP job but had a physically very large sensor. It's
>images have been enlarged to sizes no one believed a digital image of
>that modest size would go to.
>
>My new printer handles 44" wide prints. I've never before been able to
>print this wide so I've never bothered to Interpolate any photos that
>large. I'm having significantly better results at 900mm x 1200 mm from
>the 350D images than from the 20D ones.
>
>As you interpolate larger and larger, the picture takes on a sort of
>watercolour painted look. At 600mm x 900mm a 20D image looks stunning if
>edges are clear in the original. At 900 x 1200 leaves, blades of grass
>and pebbles start to lose definition. The 350D images I enlarged, have
>more detail in difficult areas like this but anything with clearly
>defined edges looks the same from both cameras. Portraits look
>identical, landscapes are where the difference can be seen.
>
>I could be wrong and it could be just the files I used... Time will tell
>but at this point it seems to me that the 350D images will enlarge
>cleaner than a 20D's when you push the limits of the technology!

Try swapping lenses with your friend. The 20D also has less noise
than the Rebel XT so maybe internal noise correction is stronger in
the 20D?
-Rich
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 10:24:10 AM

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

In message <2dd1j1d8k82jufel6oslllma02uqcbi02h@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Try swapping lenses with your friend. The 20D also has less noise
>than the Rebel XT so maybe internal noise correction is stronger in
>the 20D?

Will you stop with this nonsense! The 20D does not have internal noise
correction.

If you're talking about JPEGs, that's a separate issue. The XT JPEGs
are more eye-candied-up.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 3:50:40 PM

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

Rich wrote:
>
>
> Try swapping lenses with your friend. The 20D also has less noise
> than the Rebel XT so maybe internal noise correction is stronger in
> the 20D?
> -Rich

Not much point in that now Rich. He used my 24~70 "L" which I'm now
selling due to having taken the plunge back to Nikon. Canon free zone
here pretty soon. Next time I get a 350D image in to blow up I'll look
more closely at it.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
September 21, 2005 11:23:45 PM

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:49:18 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <2dd1j1d8k82jufel6oslllma02uqcbi02h@4ax.com>,
>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Try swapping lenses with your friend. The 20D also has less noise
>>than the Rebel XT so maybe internal noise correction is stronger in
>>the 20D?
>
>Will you stop with this nonsense! The 20D does not have internal noise
>correction.

I was. Not everyone shoots RAW all the time.
>
>If you're talking about JPEGs, that's a separate issue. The XT JPEGs
>are more eye-candied-up.

I've heard the colours described as "vivid" if that is part of what
you are referring to. The test between it and the Nikon D50 in
"Amateur Photography" clearly illustrated the difference between
the two, the Nikon producing more neutral and more accurate colours
as well as having the correct exposure most of the time.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:06:24 AM

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

In message <43324c93$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Amazing stuff this. A Photographer actually comparing photographs to
>make a call on which was technically better. Hell... Next we'll hear
>from the children of EOS claiming they can shoot sharp pictures at
>1/30th with a 100-400mm IS lens... I'd love to see that one!

Viva la straw man!

But, really, you could do it hand-held with the lens at about 200mm,
with a reasonable percentage. I've accidently left the too low in Av
mode and had long series of 10/fl exposures with the lens at 400mm, and
a small percentage of them will actually come out without much motion.
We don't tremble at constant rates, and a solid grip on the camera with
a heavy lens dampens the internal vibrations considerably (and a good
grip on a long lens limits rotational motion).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:13:47 AM

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

In message <43324c93$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>We'll see soon enough. When I said the Panasonic FZ20 was a better low
>light performer than the 20D, stupid trolls and worshipers of the God;
>EOS, cried FOWL! I'd done the unthinkable... I'd actually compared
>photographs and not the process of obtaining them.

Actually, you forgot to qualify your statement, so only you are to
blame.

Now, tell me this; what good is IS in the camera when the subject itself
is moving? IS only helps the static aspects of the image; it does
nothing for subject motion, so your statement needs to be qualified.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:32:10 AM

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

In message <qmAYe.93115$xl6.61710@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Beach Bum" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:

>Hmm.. I get "wow! nice camera" all the time. The 20D is the best jewlry
>I've ever bought. <g>

I often wish that I were invisible, because of all the unwanted
attention when photographing, and all the stupid questions. People see
me with my 100-400IS fully extended and ask me, "how far does that lens
go?". Not being one to humor ignorance, I ask them what they mean by
that, and it turns out they have no idea. I've told people point blank
that their question doesn't make any sense. My current answer is, "it
depends on how hard I throw it, and which way the wind is blowing".


I want to get a t-shirt that says:



It's none of your business
what I'm taking pictures of!

The lens goes as far as I can
throw it!

I am NOT a Professional
Photographer!

Gee, I won't know how big the
lens is until you told me!


Now, I am not bothered at all by real questions from people really
interested in the things I'm photographing, or my equipment, but the
majority are gapers who are just bored people who think that anyone who
is doing anything they don't do is a public freak show, and that there
is something novel or valuable about hearing their cliched, over-excited
comments.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:32:11 AM

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

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:f2b6j118rb1ohah5df4edimfohgb5ni6ml@4ax.com...
> In message <qmAYe.93115$xl6.61710@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Beach Bum" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm.. I get "wow! nice camera" all the time. The 20D is the best jewlry
>>I've ever bought. <g>
>
> I often wish that I were invisible, because of all the unwanted
> attention when photographing, and all the stupid questions. People see
> me with my 100-400IS fully extended and ask me, "how far does that lens
> go?".

My reply to this one, pertaining to the same lens, was, "Over there." The
questioner is probably still trying to figure that one out...

Not being one to humor ignorance, I ask them what they mean by
> that, and it turns out they have no idea. I've told people point blank
> that their question doesn't make any sense.

I've quit asking that question, since it seems no one can answer it...
Like your t-shirt ideas, though.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:37:06 AM

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

In message <f2b6j118rb1ohah5df4edimfohgb5ni6ml@4ax.com>, I,
JPS@no.komm wrote:

>Gee, I won't know how big the
>lens is until you told me!

That should be "until you tell me".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:41:58 AM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:f2b6j118rb1ohah5df4edimfohgb5ni6ml@4ax.com...
SNIP
> I often wish that I were invisible, because of all the unwanted
> attention when photographing, and all the stupid questions.
SNIP

Ha, haven't we (the ones exposed to) (public photographers)
experienced similar things. The (IMHO (to me anyways) more)
interesting thing being socially determined reaction.

In my environment (The Netherlands) the overwhelming general public
reaction is: "Can I have a copy" (implied, for free ;-)). Obviously,
my response usually is "You wouldn't be able to pay for it", which in
general allows me to, uninterruptedly, continue with the particular
shooting...

Bart
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 10:33:52 AM

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

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:432ce1c9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I'm curious about some image anomalies. Both my 20Ds produce "less than
> ideal" images for my use. Today a Photographer gave me some of his images
> from a 350D, shot with the lens I lent him. Quite a lot of difference in
> them and I wondered... What actually is different about the two cameras?
> Does anybody know?
>

I understand the 350D default settings are for higher color saturation &
contrast. Bump up the settings on the 20D, and you can get the same
results.

Mark
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 8:17:00 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> But, really, you could do it hand-held with the lens at about 200mm,
> with a reasonable percentage. I've accidently left the too low in Av
> mode and had long series of 10/fl exposures with the lens at 400mm, and
> a small percentage of them will actually come out without much motion.
> We don't tremble at constant rates, and a solid grip on the camera with
> a heavy lens dampens the internal vibrations considerably (and a good
> grip on a long lens limits rotational motion).

Sure... I agree entirely. This picture I shot with a 10D and 70~200 2.8
(non IS) was shot wide open at 1/60th.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/28317345

I've never been able to repeat the feat with a 20D due to it's flapping
mirror but I sure as hell can with a 300mm lens on my new Olympus E300.
Now if it just looked like a "real" SLR, people might take me seriously
when I ask if they'll stand back!
--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 8:17:01 PM

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

In article <43339ddd$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Pix on Canvas
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> I've never been able to repeat the feat with a 20D due to it's flapping
> mirror but I sure as hell can with a 300mm lens on my new Olympus E300.
> Now if it just looked like a "real" SLR, people might take me seriously
> when I ask if they'll stand back!

Yeah, if they'd only take those damned mirrors out of the DSLRs.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 8:45:15 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <43324c93$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>We'll see soon enough. When I said the Panasonic FZ20 was a better low
>>light performer than the 20D, stupid trolls and worshipers of the God;
>>EOS, cried FOWL! I'd done the unthinkable... I'd actually compared
>>photographs and not the process of obtaining them.
>
>
> Actually, you forgot to qualify your statement, so only you are to
> blame.
>
> Now, tell me this; what good is IS in the camera when the subject itself
> is moving? IS only helps the static aspects of the image; it does
> nothing for subject motion, so your statement needs to be qualified.
>


It's an unfortunate situation that the human brain has to remain at the
top of the body. I can't see anything to do with it without mirrors,
lenses and image enhancers. I guess My *Digital* photography is much the
same.

Having spent a lifetime making photographs by refracting light onto
emulsified plastic and bathing it in various toxic chemicals, I'm at
odds with those who's grasp on photography centers around *digital*
technology which I have only a shallow understanding of.

When my daughter began to learn to drive, My eldest son (a petrol headed
dragster who lives in a grease pit and drives a car with enough
horsepower to pull a train) insisted she had to understand all about
internal Combustion engines to become a *good* driver. She wouldn't know
a piston from a valve but last year she won an award for the region's
safest and most courteous driver.

A bit like me and photography. I take a fair enough picture but I really
haven't a clue about digital cameras. If they didn't work the same as a
traditional camera, I'd still be using film.

My youngest son who I'll swear was born with a computer chip implant for
a brain, tells me all I need to know about digital technology and computers.

So when I compare a camera to a camera. It's on the basis of purely
photographic concerns. For the Digital side of it I just ask my son and
accept that he has as much trouble putting his knowledge into plain
English I can understand as I do in communicating with him in his realm.

If I neglected to specify that my findings in low light exclude subject
movement then your expectation that I "Should" specify something I am
not considering is as far off target as your belief that Canon are not
using a computer in their cameras to process and remove noise from an
image. They are. Any and all computers need instructions to function and
these instructions are called software.

I respect your knowledge of digital imaging. I also respect my son's
knowledge of the products he repairs and modifies. If it comes to the
wire... I'll back him to the hilt about how a Canon product functions.
So can we have an understanding here that we agree to disagree?

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:49:02 AM

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

In message <4333a47d@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>If I neglected to specify that my findings in low light exclude subject
>movement then your expectation that I "Should" specify something I am
>not considering is as far off target as your belief that Canon are not
>using a computer in their cameras to process and remove noise from an
>image. They are. Any and all computers need instructions to function and
>these instructions are called software.

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/46173328


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 9:24:23 AM

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

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <43339ddd$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Pix on Canvas
> <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>I've never been able to repeat the feat with a 20D due to it's flapping
>>mirror but I sure as hell can with a 300mm lens on my new Olympus E300.
>>Now if it just looked like a "real" SLR, people might take me seriously
>>when I ask if they'll stand back!
>
>
> Yeah, if they'd only take those damned mirrors out of the DSLRs.

LOL...
The Olympus mirror doesn't flap. It swings sideways and provides an
unusual (for a SLR camera) degree of stability.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:03:30 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <4333a47d@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>If I neglected to specify that my findings in low light exclude subject
>>movement then your expectation that I "Should" specify something I am
>>not considering is as far off target as your belief that Canon are not
>>using a computer in their cameras to process and remove noise from an
>>image. They are. Any and all computers need instructions to function and
>>these instructions are called software.
>
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/46173328
>
>
Saturated exposures of bright colours do not go anywhere near the limits
of your camera or your creativity. Take a picture in the reverse and
you'll see. http://www.ryadia.com/images/trans.jpg is a picture shot at
1600 ISO with a 20D. It has considerable noise in every area except the
bride's dress. Why? because it is technically outside the capability of
the camera.

Never the less, I made use of creative lighting control... Nothing any
half way decent photographer couldn't do. It is this type of photography
where digital cameras are absolutely the poor cousins of film.

In 40 years of running a darkroom, don't ever remember seeing a negative
of a creatively produced portrait that you couldn't see through. The
prints from those negatives had large areas that from digital would be
nothing but noise but from film, yielded award winning photographs.

If you intend to limit your photography to brightly lit pictures of
vivid colours that any Digicam could reproduce without much noise,
that's your choice.

My photography produces Portrait that on film are relatively easy to
create but with digital cameras, tax the limits of the technology and
the extremes of camera maker's claims. Under those conditions, I judge
the CCD sensors to be superior to CMOS sensors.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:03:31 PM

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

In message <433497d3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> In message <4333a47d@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If I neglected to specify that my findings in low light exclude subject
>>>movement then your expectation that I "Should" specify something I am
>>>not considering is as far off target as your belief that Canon are not
>>>using a computer in their cameras to process and remove noise from an
>>>image. They are. Any and all computers need instructions to function and
>>>these instructions are called software.
>>
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/46173328

>Saturated exposures of bright colours do not go anywhere near the limits
>of your camera or your creativity.

No, but if they are at ISO 1600 in the camera settings, and there is
detail, then the camera is not reducing detail at ISO 1600, which you
have claimed. You really need to adjust your claim. Perhaps you meant
to say that the camera reduces detail at RAW levels that represent a low
sensor voltage, regardless of ISO setting? That is slightly more
plausible.

>Take a picture in the reverse and
>you'll see. http://www.ryadia.com/images/trans.jpg is a picture shot at
>1600 ISO with a 20D. It has considerable noise in every area except the
>bride's dress. Why? because it is technically outside the capability of
>the camera.

I can't tell doodly-squat from that over-processed thumbnail. It is
either over-sharpened, or downsized with the nearest neighbor algorithm,
which decreases the amount of detail in the image (which most
downsizings do), but at the same time, increases the noise at the
nyquist.

>Never the less, I made use of creative lighting control... Nothing any
>half way decent photographer couldn't do. It is this type of photography
>where digital cameras are absolutely the poor cousins of film.

Film is worse at low-light.

>In 40 years of running a darkroom, don't ever remember seeing a negative
>of a creatively produced portrait that you couldn't see through. The
>prints from those negatives had large areas that from digital would be
>nothing but noise but from film, yielded award winning photographs.

Nonsense.

>If you intend to limit your photography to brightly lit pictures of
>vivid colours that any Digicam could reproduce without much noise,
>that's your choice.

No; not any digicam can produce noise-free images at ISO 1600, even with
optimum exposure. The voltage variation due to noise is too high to
hide in the small window of signal voltages digitized at high ISOs.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 4:30:00 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <433497d3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>>In message <4333a47d@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>>>Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I neglected to specify that my findings in low light exclude subject
>>>>movement then your expectation that I "Should" specify something I am
>>>>not considering is as far off target as your belief that Canon are not
>>>>using a computer in their cameras to process and remove noise from an
>>>>image. They are. Any and all computers need instructions to function and
>>>>these instructions are called software.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/46173328
>
>
>
>>Saturated exposures of bright colours do not go anywhere near the limits
>>of your camera or your creativity.
>
>
> No, but if they are at ISO 1600 in the camera settings, and there is
> detail, then the camera is not reducing detail at ISO 1600, which you
> have claimed. You really need to adjust your claim. Perhaps you meant
> to say that the camera reduces detail at RAW levels that represent a low
> sensor voltage, regardless of ISO setting? That is slightly more
> plausible.
>
>
> I can't tell doodly-squat from that over-processed thumbnail. It is
> either over-sharpened, or downsized with the nearest neighbor algorithm,
> which decreases the amount of detail in the image (which most
> downsizings do), but at the same time, increases the noise at the
> nyquist.
>
>
> Film is worse at low-light.
>
>
> Nonsense.
> No; not any digicam can produce noise-free images at ISO 1600, even with
> optimum exposure. The voltage variation due to noise is too high to
> hide in the small window of signal voltages digitized at high ISOs.
>
>
The divide deepens...
When you print black from a negative, there is no noise because the film
is clear. When you print black from raw data, it's full of noise. Areas
in between with film have various levels of grain to be sure, but never
noise like a sensor produces.

It is pointless for me to post examples because you don't want to see
photographs, you want to see digital data.


--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 5:02:10 PM

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

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
> In article <43339ddd$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Pix on Canvas
> <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I've never been able to repeat the feat with a 20D due to it's flapping
> > mirror but I sure as hell can with a 300mm lens on my new Olympus E300.
> > Now if it just looked like a "real" SLR, people might take me seriously
> > when I ask if they'll stand back!
>
> Yeah, if they'd only take those damned mirrors out of the DSLRs.


How simple would it be for the camera makers to slow the mirror down for
slow exposures? I know the idea is to minimize the blackout period
during exposure, but if you're shooting at 1/10 second, why can't an
option be provided for the mirror to be slowed appropriately? If the
mirror took a similar 1/10 second to lift, would that delay really
affect the shot? Or a 1/2 second to lift for a 1/2 second shot? Return
isn't a problem, since the shot is already complete.

I've always thought that mirror-up capability misses the boat with its
2-second delay. All that's needed is to reduce the mirror reaction, and
taking some fraction of a second to do that would fill the bill.

Colin D.
!