If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"doug" wrote in message ... Darrell wrote: "C Wright" wrote in message . .. On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article , "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 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
doug wrote in :
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" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article , doug wrote:
Darrell wrote: "C Wright" wrote in message . .. [ ... ] 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: | 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 --- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
TAFKAB wrote:
Holy Crap! This is some of the funniest stuff I've seen in a long while! A camera comparison that provides a direct comparison using different ISOs, different exposure values, and different image capture variables. Surprisingly, the results from each camera are, well, different. Funny, funny ****. There are similar examples of such stupidity in almost every debate on any subject you can think of. Medical studies are famous for such crap. I.e., there was one medical study that concluded that caffeine caused miscarriages, then when on to state "the women who had (miscarriages) were significantly older than the control subjects, were more likely to have been born outside the Nordic countries...and were more likely to have had previous pregnancies and previous (miscarriages)." These four huge differences made the entire study completely bogus, but the authors tried to include the differences in the control groups as a mere footnote. Mercifully, the page with the stupidity about noisy sensors has been taken down. I guess that the author was pretty embarassed once the errors were pointed out. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Adolescent RebelliHOWES Stage - FACT, FICTION, MYTH Or The PREDICTABLE RESULT OF MISHANDLING? | I Am | Digital Photography | 2 | February 15th 05 07:08 PM |
The Adolescent RebelliHOWES Stage - FACT, FICTION, MYTH Or The PREDICTABLE RESULT OF MISHANDLING? | I Am | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | February 15th 05 07:08 PM |
Digital Camera Pricing | measekite | Digital Photography | 75 | February 7th 05 10:23 AM |
Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years? | Matt | Digital Photography | 52 | November 22nd 04 02:25 AM |
Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 133 | September 8th 04 07:51 AM |