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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 23, 2004, 10:51 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

As Im looking at buying an SLR ( a digital rebel) Ive looked up what the difference will be between this camera and the G3 I already own.



In some cases the G3 seems to take a better shot. Is this imagined on my part or am I right.



macro shot from the Rebel







and from G3





inside shot no flash rebel





same shot G3





house with the rebel







and with the G3





the last one for me it appears the G3 has taken a better shot.



opinions welcome


aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 23, 2004, 11:02 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

You can adjust the saturation and sharpness settings in the Rebel to suit your tastes, so the comparison isn't always a easy anddirect answer. Additionally, if you shoot in RAW, direct output is subject to your processing. It depends on what you want from your camera. Personally, I shoot in RAW which doesn't use any camera modification to the image and I have control over the process.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2004, 11:11 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

well these are the test shots for the cameras so I believed this would how they look straight from the camera.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 7:58 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

I don't know why Canon set the default parameters on the 10D and dRebel at the settings they did. They could have enriched the saturation and sharpness to match or exceed that of their P&S line as the default and then the casual user would have had fewer comments along the lines that their previous camera made better prints than their new Rebel. Seems rather strange that Canon did that to me. Oh well
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 8:39 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

ohenry-

There might be some historical reasons for expecting highly saturated and 'crispness' to what the casual user expects.

In the ancient days (when you were just a pup) the Kodak Hawkeye, and other 'box' type cameras produced rather soft images. As lens quality increased and costs to mass produce dropped, The camera companies quickly grabbed onto the marketing ploy of 'newer, crisper, highly colored...etc' for the mass market.

They have continued in this vein ever since.Up to now, the general population has unconciously been conditioned to this type of results. The P&S cameras all follow this discipline in order to give the consumer what they are used to viwing. The heavy use of high definition monitors reenforces the concept also.

Pros have known for a long time that oversharpening larger images actually diminish the overall effect of a print. Now that SLR's are affordable, many people are finding their selves in new territory and only have 'snapshots' as a reference.

Just a thought -



Good Shooting
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 8:54 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Set, I understand what you're saying about Pro's wanting more control over sharpening and saturation but the DR is not geared to the pro. Since it's capable to change the amount of saturation and sharpness for the individual's taste and the camera is geared toward the first-time SLR buyer, I would have thought that the default would have been closer to that of their consumer line. I only say this because of the number of complaints I see online from new users who say that their XYZ camera took sharper pictures. I'm not unhappy with the sharpness or saturation of my images, although I do shoot RAW and the camera settings are a moot point.

And I had a Kodak Hawkeye! LOL
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 9:39 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

Hey....seems to me I was using a Brownie Hawkeye not all that long ago!
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 10:10 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Now that is a peice of vintage gear I'd love to have sitting in my den!
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 10:51 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

My G5 took (and still takes with the new owner)extremely saturated andvery sharp pictures at ISO 100 and ISO 50. What ISO were you using here?Remember, life does exist above ISO 100! G3/G5 images right out of the cameraare as sharp or sharper than straight out of the Digital Rebel at ISO 100. I shoot the Rebel in RAW mode and process all images via Capture One, so the final "look" is up to me, where Canon has pumped the perameters up on the G3 andG5 so far it looks great out of the camera. If ISO 50 and 100 are all you need for your work and you do not want to deal with any post-processing at all, the G3 may be where you want to stay.BUT.....

Take those same pictures with your G3 at ISO 200 and ISO 400. Do the same with your Rebel, except in addition to those same two ISO settings go one further and also shoot at ISO 800. There is no comparison at any ISO rating above ISO 100. The Digital Rebel's images will besuperior in every way.At ISO 1600 the Digital Rebel noise levels are about the same or lessas the G5 at ISO 400.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 12:39 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The last picture from the rebel looks like the metering was off a little (under exposed.) Metering is only a best guess by the camera and it can get fooled.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Other than that, I think that the shots compare fairly well. Unfortunately reduced pictures like this are difficult to use 'cause the detail is lost in the reducing. What you really need to post are crops showing exactly 1-to-1 pixles. So its a 100x100 crop (or something) and then post it at 100x100 resolution. Then we can really see the differences.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"And Greg is right. one thing you paid for is the better (less noise) higher ISO shots. And that can be the thing that makes the picture.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Eric
eric s 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 1:59 AM.