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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Comparative Results - Canon S2 vs Pan FZ5
The following link:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP allows a usefull side by side comparison between the Canon S2 and the Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and print them out to further compare them. I am curious to find out how others interpret each of the different classes of result. ie sunlight, indoors etc. I was surprised to see such dramatic differences. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
The following link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP allows a usefull side by side comparison between the Canon S2 and the Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and print them out to further compare them. "The page you were looking for was not found. The link may be outdated, or you may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly." Do you have the correct URL, or instructions to see the side-by-side comparison? Thanks, David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 7/7/05 3:01 AM, in article
, "David J Taylor" wrote: measekite wrote: The following link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP allows a usefull side by side comparison between the Canon S2 and the Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and print them out to further compare them. "The page you were looking for was not found. The link may be outdated, or you may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly." Do you have the correct URL, or instructions to see the side-by-side comparison? Thanks, David The correct URL is: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM Very useful page. NB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
The following link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP allows a usefull side by side comparison between the Canon S2 and the Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and print them out to further compare them. I am curious to find out how others interpret each of the different classes of result. ie sunlight, indoors etc. I was surprised to see such dramatic differences. Thanks to Nelly Bly for the URL. I just looked at the house image, but it's really surprising that despite the greater file size of the Canon image, it shows more effects of JPEG compression! Yuck. And look at the horizontal edges (for example, near the top of the central brick portion of the House exterior). Just look how rough the Canon edges are compared to the Panasonic. As you say, dramatic differences. I am surprised the Canon is quite so bad. Cheers, David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This link might be more direct.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM measekite wrote: The following link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP allows a usefull side by side comparison between the Canon S2 and the Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and print them out to further compare them. I am curious to find out how others interpret each of the different classes of result. ie sunlight, indoors etc. I was surprised to see such dramatic differences. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This link is more direct.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM David J Taylor wrote: measekite wrote: The following link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP allows a usefull side by side comparison between the Canon S2 and the Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and print them out to further compare them. "The page you were looking for was not found. The link may be outdated, or you may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly." Do you have the correct URL, or instructions to see the side-by-side comparison? Thanks, David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
What is your take on the rest of the images. It seems that the color of the Canon, especially in the portraits, are more realistic (at least on the screen. I eventually will run them throught photoshop auto.xxx and print them) and that the Canon prints result in more pleasing color. It also appears even on the house image that the Canon colors appeared true. Maybe I do not know what to look for. The only one where colour struck me was the flash photo, where the Canon (at least on the thumbnail) was wildly different on the background between the with and without flash. Apart from that, every digital camera will produce a slightly different colour rendition and this, coupled with differences in printers, probably means that no camera and printer will produce an accurate colour rendition, so all will need adjustment one way or another. Given that the images of the house were taken over two months apart (look at the EXIF information on the JPEGs), how can one expect the colours to be the same? Actually, there's some critical point I'm missing here - given that the images were taken two months apart, how can the angle of the sun be exactly the same? These aren't images of real objects, but images of other images! No way can you compare the colour rendition unless you are buying a camera to photograph other photographs. Cheers, David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Here are other comparisons between those:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page8.asp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page9.asp |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" writes:
Given that the images of the house were taken over two months apart (look at the EXIF information on the JPEGs), how can one expect the colours to be the same? Actually, there's some critical point I'm missing here - given that the images were taken two months apart, how can the angle of the sun be exactly the same? These aren't images of real objects, but images of other images! No way can you compare the colour rendition unless you are buying a camera to photograph other photographs. Yes, the house images are photographs of photographs. But that doesn't invalidate the comparison: the camera has no way of telling that the photons it sees are reflected from paper rather than real grass/trees/house. -Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Sill wrote:
"David J Taylor" writes: Given that the images of the house were taken over two months apart (look at the EXIF information on the JPEGs), how can one expect the colours to be the same? Actually, there's some critical point I'm missing here - given that the images were taken two months apart, how can the angle of the sun be exactly the same? These aren't images of real objects, but images of other images! No way can you compare the colour rendition unless you are buying a camera to photograph other photographs. Yes, the house images are photographs of photographs. But that doesn't invalidate the comparison: the camera has no way of telling that the photons it sees are reflected from paper rather than real grass/trees/house. -Dave It completely invalidates any colour comparison. The spectrum of light emitted from the "grass" on a photograph or print will differ completely from the spectrum from real grass - consider the near IR reflected from the chlorophyll for example, or the reflectivity in near-UV of some flowers. The camera's RGB, CMY or RGBC sensors will react differently to artificial colours than real ones. 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 09:47 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 06:17 AM |
FS: Cameras For Parts | Jerry Dycus | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 5 | September 27th 03 12:51 PM |