Taking Annika1980's advice!

In a thread where I demonstrated an issue with Canon's new cameras and
unexpected shadow noise... Annika1980 (Bret) suggested I should
discard my Canon cameras and use the remarkable Panasonic FZ50 I
frequently praise.

Well, this is what you get when you follow his advice!:
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic-image.htm

The Canon DSLR image I took is he http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/00D-Canon-image.htm

Well I guess there is one consolation... He didn't have to pay for it
to find out it's just a 20D with a bigger, nosier sensor!

Doug

On Sep 22, 12:43 am, D_Mac wrote:

Well, this is what you get when you follow his advice!:http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic-image.htm

The Canon DSLR image I took is hehttp://www.ryadia.com/PFF/00D-Canon-image.htm

Wow, another great test of yours where you compare two images from
different cameras taken with different settings and manipulated after
the fact in different ways. Apples to Basketballs.

Why not just show us the RAW files and let us judge for ourselves?
I'm not buying that noisy "00D" ISO 100 image.

Here is an actual size crop from a 40D file at ISO 1000 (not 100) that
doesn't show anywhere near the amount of noise that your has. Of
course, I haven't post-processed it either. I can provide the RAW file
upon request.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85993896/original

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 22, 12:43 am, D_Mac wrote:

Well, this is what you get when you follow his
advice!:http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic-image.htm

The Canon DSLR image I took is
hehttp://www.ryadia.com/PFF/00D-Canon-image.htm

Wow, another great test of yours where you compare two images from
different cameras taken with different settings and manipulated after
the fact in different ways. Apples to Basketballs.

Why not just show us the RAW files and let us judge for ourselves?
I'm not buying that noisy "00D" ISO 100 image.

Here is an actual size crop from a 40D file at ISO 1000 (not 100) that
doesn't show anywhere near the amount of noise that your has. Of
course, I haven't post-processed it either. I can provide the RAW file
upon request.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85993896/original



You really ought to take a course in reality and self awareness Bret.
Someday soon you'll have to stop fooling yourself like this and face up to
the real world.

You simply can't display a RAW image via a web browser unless you first
develop it. This requires the person doing the developing to make decisions
about how the image will be *POST PROCESSED*. Where ever did you get the
notion you can develop a RAW file into an image and not process it... And
you hve the audacity call me the idiot?

Mirror, mirror on the wall who is biggest idiot of all?
Answer: Why it's your old sparing buddy Bret of course!

As usual you are loaded to the hilt with your own bull****. So much so, you
actually believe it. You are one sick puppy, mate. Get to the vet real soon
and while you're at it, get one of those tattoo's in the ear... Might help
with the attitude issue.

Doug

On Sep 22, 6:39 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:

You simply can't display a RAW image via a web browser unless you first
develop it.

Post it for downloading, dumbass.

I can't believe with all you experience designing websites that you
don't know how to do that.

On Sep 23, 9:13 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Sep 22, 6:39 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:



You simply can't display a RAW image via a web browser unless you first
develop it.

Post it for downloading, dumbass.

I can't believe with all you experience designing websites that you
don't know how to do that.

Well... The language! Tone it down will you? There are children in the
audience.

Here's what I'll do. I'll let you see what prompted this "why are the
Panasonic images technically better than Canon images" thing.

One day out with Margie spotting planes as she loves to do, we stood
side by side and took identical pictures... Here they a
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07

After that lot I developed a process of evaluation for camera.
Couldn't care less about Roger Clark and his graphs to prove his
point. All I am interested in is evaluating gear in a real world
environment and a simulation of what I need the gear for.

The results are that I use different cameras for different situations
based on the best gear for the job. The Canon 1.6 crop cameras are at
a distinct disadvantage as a general purpose camera when deep shadows
and highlights are compared to other cameras in the same or a lower
price range. The 40D I used last week is little better than my best
20D and a long way from being a fix for Canon's image flaws.

On Sep 25, 3:50 am, D_Mac wrote:

Here's what I'll do. I'll let you see what prompted this "why are the
Panasonic images technically better than Canon images" thing.

One day out with Margie spotting planes as she loves to do, we stood
side by side and took identical pictures... Here they ahttp://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07

Got any RAW files or unprocessed full-size crops for us to look at?
Otherwise, another useless comparison.

Check out this one, D-Mac.
Here's two shots comparing a friend's Panasonic to the 20D.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196541

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196551

Gotta love that Leica lens, eh? LOL!

On Sep 25, 11:16 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Check out this one, D-Mac.
Here's two shots comparing a friend's Panasonic to the 20D.

an fz7? try a fz50, its'only got nearly twice the pixels.
that must be good, right?
:-)


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196541

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196551

Gotta love that Leica lens, eh? LOL!

Actually for something taken at f2.8 while you
had to close down all the way to f11, it's not bad at all!
You might try using the same subjectwith the same
lighting next time? At least dmac did, with the planes...

On Sep 25, 9:23 am, Noons wrote:
On Sep 25, 11:16 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Check out this one, D-Mac.
Here's two shots comparing a friend's Panasonic to the 20D.

an fz7? try a fz50, its'only got nearly twice the pixels.
that must be good, right?
:-)



http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196541

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196551

Gotta love that Leica lens, eh? LOL!

Actually for something taken at f2.8 while you
had to close down all the way to f11, it's not bad at all!
You might try using the same subjectwith the same
lighting next time? At least dmac did, with the planes...


Well he did show the same plane at least ... at different exposure
settings. But my point was that his comparison, like mine, was
equally useless. Note the different post-processing he used in his
pics.
Look around the wing on the Pano pic. A clear case of Photoshop's
Shadow/Highlight command being misused.

On Sep 25, 11:45 pm, Annika1980 wrote:


Well he did show the same plane at least ... at different exposure
settings. But my point was that his comparison, like mine, was
equally useless. Note the different post-processing he used in his
pics.

Dood, at those sizes I wouldn't even venture a whiff
when it comes to quality matches...

Look around the wing on the Pano pic. A clear case of Photoshop's
Shadow/Highlight command being misused.

looks to me just like a plain, vanilla gamma correction?
I wouldn't read too much PS into it...

On Sep 25, 9:45 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:23 am, Noons wrote:

On Sep 25, 11:16 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Check out this one, D-Mac.
Here's two shots comparing a friend's Panasonic to the 20D.

an fz7? try a fz50, its'only got nearly twice the pixels.
that must be good, right?
:-)

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196541

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86196551

Gotta love that Leica lens, eh? LOL!

Actually for something taken at f2.8 while you
had to close down all the way to f11, it's not bad at all!
You might try using the same subjectwith the same
lighting next time? At least dmac did, with the planes...

Well he did show the same plane at least ... at different exposure
settings. But my point was that his comparison, like mine, was
equally useless. Note the different post-processing he used in his
pics.
Look around the wing on the Pano pic. A clear case of Photoshop's
Shadow/Highlight command being misused.


Bret, as I've said before, it is totally useless to try to reason with
people like that. We know you are absolutely right, your pics are a
living testament to it. But they, especially D-Mac, is going to keep
knocking you even when it's obvious that he's wrong. His nose is way
out of joint because of that 40D.
When cursed by the devil, one is indeed truly blessed.
Helen