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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor"
wrote in . uk... In terms of photographing real objects, taking photographs of photgraphs is, in my opnion, completely useless. I'm not saying it's dishonest, simply that the results will not be representative of photographing actual grass, trees, houses etc.. Cheers, David This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference between taking pictures of posters and real objects: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...19-1100-10.jpg Look at the skin tones of the posters and the real guy. Try to find other samples of portraits from these cameras, for skin color comparison. I believe the Canon has much nicer skin tones than the Panasonic, and if it was not for that, I would go for the Panny. /per |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Sill wrote:
"David J Taylor" writes: [] You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl objects with any degree of accuracy. No, I agree completely and said as much in my previous message. -Dave Thanks, Dave. I hadn't seen the details to which you referred. Cheers, David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
per wrote:
[] This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference between taking pictures of posters and real objects: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...19-1100-10.jpg Look at the skin tones of the posters and the real guy. Try to find other samples of portraits from these cameras, for skin color comparison. I believe the Canon has much nicer skin tones than the Panasonic, and if it was not for that, I would go for the Panny. /per Whereas: - we don't know what the original looks like - to me, all the colours in that image look possibly oversaturated. You could always set the FZ20 to reduce the saturation. - colour is a very personal thing! I suggest you try out both cameras with subjects where you know the colour, and see which you prefer. Cheers, David |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bart Bailey wrote:
In k posted on Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:11:50 GMT, David J Taylor wrote: Begin You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl objects with any degree of accuracy. What about photographs of gray-scales or Munsell wheels, aren't they similar to photographs of photographs? Possibly, although I would suspect that both are produced by a printing process which differs from that used for a photographic print, and uses different dyes etc. I would hope that the grey card, at least, had a measured spectral response which was reasonably flat, even just outside the visible spectrum. How precisely greyscales or colour wheels are calibrated will, I suspect, depend on the cost. However, photographing these charts will provide only a limited guide to how real objects appear, due to the different spectrum of the light coming from real-world objects with real-world illumination. Cheers, David |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
David J Taylor wrote: measekite wrote: [] The only conclusive statement that I can make at the present time is that they are differences and they are noticeable. However, I cannot tell if one is considered better quality over the other. I am not even sure which I like better and when I can express a preference it does not always point to the same camera. The only thing that I can categorically state is. Favor Panasonic - Black Body, Lens Hood and Filter Ring, smaller and lighter, currently cheaper Favor Canon - Leader in making digital cameras, swiveling lcd, better movie mode I'd modify that slightly: - Canon leads in some aspects of digital cameras but not all. - from the samples presented, the images from the Canon are noticeably worse than those from the FZ5 Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo, would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see where they are worse. You now have to decide whether the other factors you listed are more important, perhaps making up some sort of weighted comparison chart and see which camera score the most points for your weighting of the factors. What is perhaps more important is to handle both cameras and see which you prefer. I don't think you would go wrong with either. Cheers, David |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
per wrote: "David J Taylor" wrote in .uk... In terms of photographing real objects, taking photographs of photgraphs is, in my opnion, completely useless. I'm not saying it's dishonest, simply that the results will not be representative of photographing actual grass, trees, houses etc.. Cheers, David This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference between taking pictures of posters and real objects: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...19-1100-10.jpg Look at the skin tones of the posters and the real guy. Try to find other samples of portraits from these cameras, for skin color comparison. I believe the Canon has much nicer skin tones than the Panasonic, and if it was not for that, I would go for the Panny /per Why? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
[] Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo, would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see where they are worse. Well, you could look at the comparison in DPReview where the purple fringing is worse, and the problems I noted included the "roughness on horizontal edges" (which may be an image processing artefact) and the poorer resolution on the grass (possibly a JPEG compression effect) (but that should be retested with real grass....). But it's a close call, and the different facilities on the Canon might outweigh the poorer images. Cheers, David |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong)
you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera. From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling, features, prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera do you think will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And if you have a choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And is that choice based on a large difference or a very small difference. If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and one is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase that one. However, if the differences are so small that one could almost call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like features, menu friendliness, handling etc. I have until Thanksgiving to make my purchase. For now I am using a Sony DSC-P9 (do not like but results are ok) and a Nikon F2A film camera. David J Taylor wrote: measekite wrote: [] Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo, would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see where they are worse. Well, you could look at the comparison in DPReview where the purple fringing is worse, and the problems I noted included the "roughness on horizontal edges" (which may be an image processing artefact) and the poorer resolution on the grass (possibly a JPEG compression effect) (but that should be retested with real grass....). But it's a close call, and the different facilities on the Canon might outweigh the poorer images. Cheers, David |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong) you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera. Yes, I have one and my wife has an FZ20, so I am biased, but trying to be objective. From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling, features, prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera do you think will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And if you have a choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And is that choice based on a large difference or a very small difference. I would expect both cameras to produce consistently good 10 x 8 enlargements. For most of the time, I would expect that it would be difficult to see a difference without using a magnifying glass, but (from the reviews I've seen) the Panasonic FZ5 might be slightly better some of the time. Based on the purple fringing from the lens & sensor and the JPEG artefacts visible in the Canon samples. If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and one is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase that one. However, if the differences are so small that one could almost call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like features, menu friendliness, handling etc. Personally, I would forget the Sony because of the poorer image quality (D P Review) and its use of the memory stick. Between the other two it depends whether the swivel LCD and better movies from the Canon are more important than the marginally better image quality of the FZ5, lower weight, and convenience of the single Li-ion battery. I suspect you would be happy with either, and choosing on features rather than image quality alone. I think that actually handling the cameras is important in case one suits you much better than the other. (Some people find these cameras too small!). Cheers, David |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
David J Taylor wrote: measekite wrote: From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong) you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera. Yes, I have one and my wife has an FZ20, so I am biased, but trying to be objective. From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling, features, prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera do you think will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And if you have a choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And is that choice based on a large difference or a very small difference. I would expect both cameras to produce consistently good 10 x 8 enlargements. For most of the time, I would expect that it would be difficult to see a difference without using a magnifying glass, but (from the reviews I've seen) the Panasonic FZ5 might be slightly better some of the time. Based on the purple fringing from the lens & sensor and the JPEG artefacts visible in the Canon samples. If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and one is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase that one. However, if the differences are so small that one could almost call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like features, menu friendliness, handling etc. Personally, I would forget the Sony because of the poorer image quality (D P Review) and its use of the memory stick. Between the other two it depends whether the swivel LCD and better movies from the Canon are more important than the marginally better image quality of the FZ5, lower weight, and convenience of the single Li-ion battery. I suspect you would be happy with either, and choosing on features rather than image quality alone. If you had no digital camera and was going to choose between these two today, what would you choose and why? I think that actually handling the cameras is important in case one suits you much better than the other. (Some people find these cameras too small!). Cheers, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Canon EOS Digital Rebel 6.3 Megapixel Used | Anonymous | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 27th 04 08:47 AM |
Canon 10d or Nikon D70. | Dmanfish | Digital Photography | 102 | August 18th 04 12:26 PM |
WTT: Canon EOS Lenses for Nikon AFD Lenses | Frank Malloway | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | June 26th 04 12:53 AM |
FS: Canon Powershot S45 (4 MP) Digital camera + extras... | basjan | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 2nd 04 05:17 AM |
FS: Cameras For Parts | Jerry Dycus | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 5 | September 27th 03 12:51 PM |