A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Noisy sensors -myth explored



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #471  
Old July 15th 05, 09:29 AM
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Studio of Foto Ryadia" wrote in message
...


My computer shows just the letter G in brackets G
So anyway... This is one of the first pictures I shot with a 20D. Using
the "crappy" kit lens. Backlit and without fill flash or lens hood. I
didn't decode it with DxO either. Seriously Skip, could you say with any
certainty this was not shot with a "L" series lens?
http://www.ryadia.com/mans-bf.htm


That image is 800x534 pixels.
A shot of water, which is without any particular form or shape...or any
predictable color or shadow...
Could you please choose a WORSE image for scrutiny and comparison?


BTW--Did that guy catch the bird with his hook?
I caught a pelican a couple of times while fishing...
We'd pull fish up on our lines, and as soon as the fish was just below the
surface, the danged bird would dive-bomb into the water and snatch
them...hook and all. This one pelican I caught beat the living CRAP out of
me with his huge wings while I fought to remove the hook! It's amazing how
big these birds seem when they're literally in your face fighting with
you... I actually had to reach INSIDE his "bag" to retrieve it...all the
while my buddy was laughing at me.



  #472  
Old July 15th 05, 02:21 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The Studio of Foto Ryadia" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

Tut to you too, that's why the "G"


My computer shows just the letter G in brackets G
So anyway... This is one of the first pictures I shot with a 20D. Using
the "crappy" kit lens. Backlit and without fill flash or lens hood. I
didn't decode it with DxO either. Seriously Skip, could you say with any
certainty this was not shot with a "L" series lens?
http://www.ryadia.com/mans-bf.htm


--
Message authored by Douglas Who has Zero Care Factor
about negative responses from anonymous posters.
If you intend to post a controversial reply to my post,
Read this first: http://www.ryadia.com/disclaimer.htm



At that size, no. And it does seem over sharpened, a fault I found myself
prone to when I first got the 24-70L, it doesn't need as much sharpening as
my 28-135 IS. So, in this case, I'd say that the EF-S lens gave the same
results as the L would (Elwood? Blues?) but in a larger image, less
downsized, I'm not so sure.
Remember, Douglas, that I'm one of the guys who's been advocating the EF-S
lens as not being as bad as Stacey and Tony Polson have been saying. Tony,
who shows little sign of actually using a camera of any sort.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #473  
Old July 15th 05, 04:09 PM
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sander Vesik wrote:
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm SMS wrote:

You guys need to do three things. First, stop lying about the quality of
the 18-55 kit lenses. Second, stop lying about the cost of the 17-85 IS



What - he claimed it didn't form an image? I seriously doubt that. Other
than that, its an utter crap of a lens, an there isn't really much to
say or lie about it beyond that.


I think the problem is that the Canon kit lens, while not L quality, is
a good starter lens, and it adds only $70 to the body-only price. This
infuriates the Canon bashers, since one of the only things that they
have to attack Canon, is that the $70 optional kit lens for Canon D-SLRs
is not as good as the $300 kit lens that is optional with the Nikon D70.
Of course the $600 kit lens for the 20D is far better than the Nikon kit
lens, but as we all know, paying more for a better kit lens is only
acceptable if it's for a Nikon body!

You guys need to get a life.
  #474  
Old July 15th 05, 05:02 PM
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
In message ,
Stacey wrote:


frederick wrote:



That gives your photos the same DOF composition, and that is the
difference between taking photos of test charts and photography.



I'm not sure any of these guys argueing this stuff actually do anything
other than shoot test charts and calculate specs..



You have no ability to comprehend the fact that this is a
technology-oriented newgroup. It is none of your business what people
do with their cameras, nor does what anyone chooses to do with their
camera have any bearing on the relevance of their comments in the
on-topic discussions here.


This reminds me of the endless arguments that my group at work used to
have with our design groups. Every time a customer (notebook computer
manufacturers) found a problem with the product, either in performance
or features, and we relayed it to the the design teams, the response was
invariably "well but not many people ever use that/do that in real
life." But of course there were end-users that did care about specific
features, and the manufacturer knew that they could not accept
compromises, even if only a small percentage of customers would actually
notice, especially since our competitiors did not have the same issues.
So we always forced the issue and forced through the fix.

We also learned which manufacturers did very little testing of their
products, and which ones did extremely extensive testing. It helped
influence which products we chose for our own personal use.
  #475  
Old July 15th 05, 09:23 PM
RichA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:09:37 GMT, SMS
wrote:

Sander Vesik wrote:
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm SMS wrote:

You guys need to do three things. First, stop lying about the quality of
the 18-55 kit lenses. Second, stop lying about the cost of the 17-85 IS



What - he claimed it didn't form an image? I seriously doubt that. Other
than that, its an utter crap of a lens, an there isn't really much to
say or lie about it beyond that.


I think the problem is that the Canon kit lens, while not L quality, is
a good starter lens, and it adds only $70 to the body-only price.


How low can you go? If it were $50 and even worse in terms of
quality, you could make the same statement. However, it's not
a good lens and seriously compromises the capability of the sensor.
It's unfortunate that it is so competitive (or is it? How much of the
market does Canon control?) that Canon felt the need to provide
such a piece of junk. Whereas Olympus somehow managed to provide
a similar priced "entry lens" that is much better, as did Pentax
and probably Minolta with their new D5.
-Rich
  #476  
Old July 15th 05, 10:22 PM
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RichA wrote:

How low can you go? If it were $50 and even worse in terms of
quality, you could make the same statement. However, it's not
a good lens and seriously compromises the capability of the sensor.


It's optional, get over it. If a buyer doesn't want it then they can
choose to get the body only, and buy a different lens, or opt for the
other kit lens.

It's unfortunate that it is so competitive (or is it? How much of the
market does Canon control?)


About 65% of the D-SLR market.

that Canon felt the need to provide such a piece of junk.


Canon wanted to give buyers more choices. No lens at all, a basic lens
that is adequate to get started, or a higher end image stabilized kit
lens. It would be nice if they had a $300 kit lens that omitted the
image stabilization of their high end kit lens.

Whereas Olympus somehow managed to provide
a similar priced "entry lens" that is much better, as did Pentax
and probably Minolta with their new D5.


They chose to do this in an effort to make their products more
competitive. I think that they hope that unsophisticated buyers will
make their decision on what to buy based mainly on the kit lens. They
think that it's good marketing, but most buyers see through it.

Unfortunately for them, most buyers of D-SLRs are sophisticated enough
to understand that the lenses that are sold in kits should not be the
deciding factor in their purchase decision, unless the bodies are so
close that this is the only deciding factor--which hasn't been the case
thus far. I don't believe that anyone posting the stuff about the kit
lenses actually believes their own tripe, they are simply desperately
looking for something, anything, to attach Canon, and their isn't
anything much else that they can think of.

It's not like the kits are much cheaper than buying the lens and body
separately. In fact you can buy a D70s body with the 18-70m lens
separately, for $15 less than the kit price (for the imported lens) or
for $40 more for the U.S. lens.

This reminds me of people that decide which car to buy based on the
quality of the included tires.
  #477  
Old July 16th 05, 04:28 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm SMS wrote:
I think the problem is that the Canon kit lens, while not L quality, is
a good starter lens, and it adds only $70 to the body-only price. This
infuriates the Canon bashers, since one of the only things that they
have to attack Canon, is that the $70 optional kit lens for Canon D-SLRs
is not as good as the $300 kit lens that is optional with the Nikon D70.
Of course the $600 kit lens for the 20D is far better than the Nikon kit
lens, but as we all know, paying more for a better kit lens is only
acceptable if it's for a Nikon body!


Infuriates? why would I care what the lens cost ? as long as crap is called
crap i have no objections. Its a pity canon bothers to make such - and it
doesn't really reflect well on their credibility - but other than that...

Its not as if I care what kit lens Nikon or Pentax or Olympus DSLR-s are
sold with.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:08 PM
The Adolescent RebelliHOWES Stage - FACT, FICTION, MYTH Or The PREDICTABLE RESULT OF MISHANDLING? I Am 35mm Photo Equipment 2 February 15th 05 08:08 PM
Digital Camera Pricing measekite Digital Photography 75 February 7th 05 11:23 AM
Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years? Matt Digital Photography 52 November 22nd 04 03:25 AM
Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ? Alfred Molon Digital Photography 133 September 8th 04 07:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.