20D Grey Highlights At ISO 1600

"Frank ess" wrote in message
news
Matt Clara wrote:
Hi,
Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
in this group.
Thanks!

What group is that? ----------
Any that mentions Canon.
You ought to know that by now Frank
If you don't have a Leica or shoot on that old stuff which needs chemicals
and environmental permissions, don't post in this group!

Douglas

The question was about exposure - and who better to know about it than film
users?

Duncan.

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,
Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
in this group.
Thanks!

"Frank ess" wrote

Hi,
Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't
belong
in this group.
Thanks!

What group is that?

I don't want to get into the middle of "right group/wrong group" discussion,
but he might get a better (read more helpful) response in
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, especially since the OP was about a potential
problem with the 20d. Of course he got good help here too. Just my $.02

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Matt, you have a valid point.

However, having spent many years on older newsgroups such as
rec.photo.equipment.35mm, I do not want to cut it dead as I know for a fact
that there are some very intelligent people who regularly read this
newsgroup.

If it was a newsgroup which I just picked randomly, then fair enough.
However, I am familiar with the people who visit this newsgroup and just
because I have changed to digital, I am still interested in their opinions.
Furthermore, many of these people are converging and are shooting both film
and digital.

Believe it or not, there isn't really much difference between film and
digital. Even shooting 35mm isn't non-digital, as a lot of people drum scan
the negatives and slides for post processing on the PC.

I apologise it I offended you.


"Matt Clara" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,
Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
in this group.
Thanks!

Matt Clara wrote:

Hi,
Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
in this group.
Thanks!


Perhaps appropriate links such as
news:rec.photo.digital.slr-systems , news:rec.photo.digital and
www.dpreview.com would have been helpful information too.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Perhaps appropriate links such as
news:rec.photo.digital.slr-systems , news:rec.photo.digital and
www.dpreview.com would have been helpful information too.

Cheers,
Alan

I suppose the fact the message was cross posted to rec.photo.digital has
escaped the eagle eye of the Sherrif, has it?

Douglas

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,
Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
in this group.
Thanks!

Your quite right. I would like to talk to you about god and how your lack
of faith blah blah blah blah........

In message ,
"Douglas" wrote:

My experience is that although many people here report the 20D as a fine
camera, the two I bought were not actually as convienient to use and produce
as well exposed and focused results as my earlier 10D did

Well, my 20D focuses much better than my 10D did, and faster.

As far as exposure is concerned, the 10D's metering is false. The 10D,
when set to ISO 100, actually meters for about ISO 64, so the exposures
tend to be more saturated, by default. I keep my 10D at +2/3 EC most of
the time, to get the same level of exposure, but I shoot RAW, and I
think the 10D's implicit +2/3 EC is not a good match for it's
sharp-clipping of JPEG highlights.

and (shock horror)
as sharp a shot as my trusty old SD9 Sigma does!

The SD9 is "sharp" because it is aliased and therefore pixellated.
Sharpness does not equal detail.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

The question was about exposure - and who better to know about it than film
users?

Digital exposure has different concerns than film exposure, and will
even vary from camera to camera.
--


John P Sheehy

Douglas wrote:

I suppose the fact the message was cross posted to rec.photo.digital has
escaped the eagle eye of the Sherrif, has it?

I suppose it did, shaddow. Keep up the good work Dougie.