Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 10, 2007, 3:13 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I think its about the lens myself (and of course the settings)

These two are jpegs from RAW



settings were F8 1/500 ISO 650 No flash and through perspex/plastic window. Its worth bumping up the ISO and stopping down to get the image to sharpen up in my opinion. These are with a 70-200 L lens and have had identical PP apart from one not being put through noise reduction. I used to shoot jpeg and as long as you apply the NR properly the photos seem fine



first shot is without noise reduction





and with noise reduction (neat image)








aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 3:38 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
ripmcmanus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Default

Thanks - I will definitely check into DXO.The 14mb referred to the total of the RAW and the JPEG captured at the same time. You're right that RAW alone would be smaller, although the 2 test shots I took were 10.2 and 9.8 mb respectively.

I've also attached reduced copies of both of the original source photos. Yes, they're different settings and poses, but both were taken indoors at night with little useful ambient light. As you can probably tell, the crops are from very near the center of each picture.

I'm using the EFS 17-85 IS lens on the Rebel XT (the 18-55 kit lens was awful), and usually have IS on when shooting indoors. There's no doubt in my mind that, as you point out,the L glass on the Pro 1 is better and makes a difference in image quality, but I get generally better results with my G2 and A620, too. I understand the DOF considerations, and they probably apply to the G2 and A620 as well, but I ought to get the clarity I'm looking for somewhere in a picture that includes a continuum of objects both inside and outside the DOF, and what I see instead simply looks overprocessed. See "RAW too much NR" on a previous reply for a very exaggerated rendition of what the XT's images look like to me!
Attached Images
 
ripmcmanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 3:40 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
ripmcmanus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Default

Neat pics - I'm very interested in how you were able to process one without noise reduction? It doesn't seem to be an option in Zoombrowser EX, but I don't know the RAW conversion tool very well. Plus, L glass - like my Pro 1, but on a much grander scale!
ripmcmanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 3:53 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Ive probably got confused here. But anyway, the shot was RAW, converted to jpeg in digital pro (preferences set to low noise reduction) so i guess there is probably some noise reduction applied in the conversion (I am not sure about that). after they were converted, one was put though noise reduction, neat image. I feel that image looks sharper and more defined but I may be wrong.



I generally shoot in RAW these days, It gives me more control over my shots. I go jpeg if Im just taking snaps, say of a building to show my friend online or something to be emailed where it does not matter how it looks artistically
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2007, 4:31 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 49
Default

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I see the the image that you applied neat image to as being blotchier or softer, whichever word you prefer.

The original poster's claim of noise control versus detail sharpness has always been a suspicion of mine, though I am not technologically literate enough to present a case as he has. Before I purchased my dslr, I researched all the reviews and samples and forums of the rebel xti, the sony a100, the Nikon sub $1000. dslr's, the Pentax d100 and d10, and the Olympus e series. This was a long drawn out experience over a year in length, it was also an educational journey.

Gradually I began to notice that cameras with the best high iso images were getting the most user complaints about either soft images or focus issues. I finally decided that high iso performance was not going to be a criteria when selecting my sub $1000.00 dslr. Instead, I went for resolution, dynamic range, and jpeg tonal curve and color. Also I wanted a camera that produced lossless raw files. I realized that the I could best control noise on my own in post process for images that required high iso and would be enlarged as prints.

My selection criteria turned out to be a good one for me and I eventually did not buy the Canon Rebel xti. Though I still feel the Rebel xti gets beautiful pictures, for my purposes another brand was more relevant.

Regards,
ChaCha
chacha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2007, 11:36 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Michi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 176
Default

After reading this whole thread now - a little late - for the first time including all replies, it sure seems that ripmcmanushas either a bad lens, or a camera which is backfocusing or a similar problem like that.

I have the Rebel XT andgranted, the camera is not perfect, and yes, compared to point & shoots you have to work a little harder to get a great shot, but when you try, the difference should not be as drastic as ripmcmanus's samples are.


Michi is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 PM.