Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-21/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 82450] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon/80447-recovered-thread-82450-a.html)

mchnz Feb 9, 2006 3:03 AM

Shot 78 images today, about 75 worked out like these, and there was a bit of shake in the remaining few (it was windy - I got pushed around). More examples coming.

Note: I included pixel-peeper inserts to show full res detail (compares well with any other x12 you care to name).

57mm, f/4.0, 1/1000 sec, EV -1/3, ISO 50.
(Full exif at http://www.MichealH.S2ISReference.PhotoShare.co.nz )
I fixed the perspective on this image.

http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoSha...nserts5583.jpg



81mm, f/5.6, 1/200, EV -1/3, ISO 50.
(Full exif at http://www.MichealH.S2ISReference.PhotoShare.co.nz )

http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoSha...nserts8284.jpg

vwmom Feb 9, 2006 11:26 AM

Nice photos.

mchnz Feb 9, 2006 12:42 PM

169mm, f/5.6, 1/200 sec, ISO 50, EV -2/3.
(full exif at http://www.MichealH.S2ISReference.PhotoShare.co.nz )

Dialed back the gamma to 0.95 to darken the trees, reduced to 1024x768.
It was a cool day, so no problem with heat-haze. Wind was a bit of problem, but not too bad. Chaffers Marina is about 500m from the camera, and the hillside is about 1000m.

http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoSha...inserts488.jpg

mchnz Feb 9, 2006 1:39 PM

Getting darker - weather starting to pack up.
111mm, f/4.5, 1/200 sec, EV -1/3, IS0 50
(Full exif at http://www.MichealH.S2ISReference.PhotoShare.co.nz )

http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoSha...24x7689040.jpg

mchnz Feb 9, 2006 1:58 PM

Almost forgot this one - shows how using a small aperture results in very good depth of field - everything from foreground to background is in focus.

79mm, f/8, 1/125, EV -1/3, ISO 50.
(full exif at http://www.MichealH.S2ISReference.PhotoShare.co.nz )
Over exposed to keep detail and reduce noise in the shadows (tried several shots) - detail inserts are at the original exposure level.
Dialed back the exposure a bit by adjusting gamma, reduced to 1024x768.

http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoSha...nserts6411.jpg

kdjoergensen Feb 10, 2006 5:57 PM

Looks great.. Very nice composition, too. Nice!

Can't wait for mine to get here...

videosilva Feb 10, 2006 9:16 PM

Ok I can NO longer help my self. If you can not see it you need a new moniter. If you have a good moniter and still are unable to see it then............ you are happy and that is all that matters.

mchnz Feb 11, 2006 5:53 AM

We'll just have to agree to differ.

I've looked at pbase images similar to mine from the S2, H1, and the FZ5 and they all seem quite similar to anything I've produced here.

There is even a one to one comparison at

http://www.dcresource.com/specials/S2_vs_H1/index.shtml

And if you download the images, you'll find the exposure level is the biggest variation.

Post-processing doesn't make evaluations any easier at pbase or even at review sites. Not everyone documents what they've done. For example, I was looking at samples at dpreview, and I noticed if I downloaded one of their original images and used my software to reduce it to the same size as their dpreview displayed image, then their reduced version was sharper than I can produce via a resize using picassa or the Gimp. Maybe I have to find some better post-processing software or change my jpeg settings. I can get close to their result by applying a USM - I wouldn't think they would use a USM on images being reduced for sample purposes.

mrcoons Feb 11, 2006 6:56 AM

I am an S2 owner myself and I am as happy with it as I was my S1. Does it take great pictures in all circumstances - no. But what point & shoot does?

My S2 is my backup to my Rebel XT and I probably use it 40% of the time and occasionally will use the movie mode.

As long as I don't need the flash my S2 takes pretty good shot. The last photo I've included was with a flash and I did not care for it. I went back in the house and got my Rebel & external flash and re-shot this one.



http://mrcoons.smugmug.com/photos/55843493-M.jpg

This next picture was shot thru a not so clean door, so it looks a trifle off but that's not the cameras fault.

http://mrcoons.smugmug.com/photos/50656638-M.jpg

http://mrcoons.smugmug.com/photos/51437904-M.jpg

http://mrcoons.smugmug.com/photos/51437905-M.jpg

I'm sure that the H1 and the FZ5 are fine cameras but I've always leaned towards Canon's after earlier experimentation with other brands.






JockScott Feb 11, 2006 10:36 AM

videosilva wrote:
Quote:

Ok I can NO longer help my self. If you can not see it you need a new moniter. If you have a good moniter and still are unable to see it then............ you are happy and that is all that matters.

I have a good monitor and these pictures appear sharp to me! Have you had your eyes checked recently?:roll:

airedaleman Feb 11, 2006 1:29 PM

I have an S2IS and have no problem with the picture quality.I think that after reading all the comments that videosilva makes about this camera in this and other threads,nothing will convince him differently. I say let videosilva think what he likes. We all know what the S2IS is cabable of in the right hands, and that's what really matters.



videosilva Feb 11, 2006 5:12 PM

JockScott wrote:
Quote:

videosilva wrote:
Quote:

Ok I can NO longer help my self. If you can not see it you need a new moniter. If you have a good moniter and still are unable to see it then............ you are happy and that is all that matters.

I have a good monitor and these pictures appear sharp to me! Have you had your eyes checked recently?:roll:

20/20 vision.

Possiby my high end Sony moniter does not like Canon :)

mchnz Feb 11, 2006 7:05 PM

Just for the record: according to all the replies over at dpreview, if I downsize an image from any camera, as a final step I should sharpen it or it won't look as sharp as larger versions. I guess that makes post-processing almost manditory if you want to display smaller images. ( If I do apply a USM, my image's sharpness looks much like 1280x1024 sized images.)

Downsided images without USM should be compared relative to other similarly processed images.

And maybe ignore review sites downsized images in favour of their full sized original ones.

Good to see some other images posted - otherwise were just discussing things blind - with no means for comparison.

Tullio Feb 11, 2006 11:18 PM

These are nice photos indeed. The colors look well saturated and warm. I really like it but at the same time, I must agree with videosilva (and I do not need glasses nor a replacement for my IBM monitor) about the softness of these images. They are not really blurred, they simply lack a tiny bit of definition (nothing that Picasa can't take care of!). Now, this could very well be more of a personal taste rather than a real problem. I just bought an H1, which hasn't arrived yet but I was split between the two (and still am). Good job,mchnz!!!

wisely_foolish Feb 11, 2006 11:46 PM

what about turning the in camera sharpness and saturation? will that mimick then the H1?

Tullio Feb 11, 2006 11:57 PM

Well, that's a great suggestion, wisely. I do not have an S2 but if I did, I would certainly try changing the camera sharpness (I think the saturation is just fine, the colors look very nice and natural). I'm not sure the S2 can mimick the H1 because from what I've seen, the end results between the two cameras appear to be quite different, with the S2 producing warner but softer images while the H1 pictures are cooler but sharper. I prefer the S2 color tones but I quite like the H1 clarity.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2