Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Canon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 1, 2006, 12:43 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
vwmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default

I can't personally forsee any major differences.. but no one will know till it's actually out. The issue I see.. that Canon is bragging about the new ISO levels.. IF they could back up their claim.. WHY on earth don't they show an exaomple online?
vwmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 4:31 PM   #42
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

vwmom wrote:
Quote:
I can't personally forsee any major differences.. but no one will know till it's actually out. The issue I see.. that Canon is bragging about the new ISO levels.. IF they could back up their claim.. WHY on earth don't they show an exaomple online?
Propably because it's PR BS.

And here's example how "colourful" already ISO400 of one new 6MP Sony ultrazoom is. (and they tout camera as ISO1000 capable)
http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/not..._H2_ISO400.jpg

Remember also that high ISO capability of that new Pana is about pure PR BS and it's done with "detail free" processing.
And what's worse, magazines and such swallow these excrements of BS departments and publish those directly.

So in the end that goes through because common people are like sheeps in butcher's line.


"If advertisers spent the same amount of money on improving their products as they do on advertising then they wouldn't have to advertise them."
-Will Rogers

"Advertising is legalized lying."
-H. G. Wells
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 6:06 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 448
Default

@E.T:
I would say your Sony H2 example did surprise me. The quality of this picture is remarkably good for iso 400 and such a small 1/2.5 CCD. The S3 has the same CCD, but nobody controls noise better than Sony.
kassandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 10:53 AM   #44
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

Well, I just happen to have camera whose sensor was critisized by reviewers as noisy.
Incamera processing of that camera isn't very good, especially there isn't much noise removing... now ISO400 + little PP with Noise Ninja gives much less noisier images than that.

And here's ISO1000:
http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/not...H2_ISO1000.jpg
How much there's colors left? Colors are mostly gone but there's still blotchy chroma noise. And you can't get that anymore better in PP because it has been processed so heavily.
Compared to this ISO800 JPEG from my (claimed to be noisy by reviewers) camera processed with Noise Ninja is very good.

So there appears to be guite heavy double standards here... If big BS budget maker toutes some camera as low noise high ISO capable it doesn't matter that it really isn't such and that there's other cameras from "less noisy makers" with better capability.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 5:48 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

S2 prices are already plunging. Less than two weeks ago, the cheapest I could find was $390. Today it's going for as low as$349 (check out link below).

http://www.justdiscounted.com/live_t...FUUfGAod7VLueg
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2006, 2:26 AM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5
Default

vwmom wrote:
Quote:
I can't personally forsee any major differences.. but no one will know till it's actually out. The issue I see.. that Canon is bragging about the new ISO levels.. IF they could back up their claim.. WHY on earth don't they show an exaomple online?

I agree completely. . . but I guess we can all just hope theirs some truth to the press release.

"The successor to the five megapixel PowerShot S2 IS digital camera, the PowerShot S3 IS enhancements begin with Canon's newly designed six-megapixel image sensor that together with Canon's proprietary DIGIC II image processor dramatically reduces "noise" for better image quality and achieves ISO equivalent speed ratings ranging from 80 to 800."



I've been wanting to replace my dead HP945 for a while now, but the noise issue on the S2, along with the 1.8" LCD kept turing me away. I hope the S3is "the one" for me. Don't get me wrong, I've seen a lot of great photos come from the S2, but I'm an amateur and want great "straight out of the camera" pictures like my HP945 gave.. . imo, that is.
Hip2u77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2006, 3:34 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 448
Default

@E.T:
I would still say that 1000 iso is usable. Clearly the colors look washed out, but they always do if it is dark. Of course Noise Ninja will give better results. In camera processing is quite limited - even for Sony.
kassandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2006, 2:24 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
atlantagreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 243
Default

brianhare wrote:
Quote:
800 ISO unless on a dslr is going to have enough noise that the pics are going to suffer greatly...my other camera (not the S2 of course) ,has ISO 800,and it`s basically useless ,,but can get you a low light shot if you absolutely have to get it,,but at a great cost,,,lots of noise..


Brian

Fuji has managed to control noise a good bit, though. Even their older E550 model does pretty decent iso 800 shots, although it bumps them down to a 3MP size at that setting. Still, they make excellent 4x6 prints and if you use the right noise reduction settings during post processing, you can push it a bit higher.

Canon has always had superior overall image quality and movie modes, as well as overall features, but their noise control seems to be lagging behind.
atlantagreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2006, 4:58 AM   #49
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

Hip2u77 wrote:
Quote:
I've been wanting to replace my dead HP945 for a while now, but the noise issue on the S2, along with the 1.8" LCD kept turing me away.* I hope the S3*is "the one" for me.* Don't get me wrong, I've seen a lot of great photos come from the S2, but I'm an amateur and want great "straight out of the camera" pictures like my HP945 gave.*. .
If you mean (over)saturated/contrasty Disneyland look that can be achieved from about every camera, it's just question of changing couple settings so I wouldn't put so much weight of heavy processing at defaults.


kassandro wrote:
Quote:
@E.T:
I would still say that 1000 iso is usable. Clearly the colors look washed out, but they always do if it is dark. Of course Noise Ninja will give better results.
Sure usable for small prints... without need for colors.
It isn't dark which has destroyed colors... Those are gone because grossly exceeding sensors capabilities and very agressive incamera processing trying to keep excessive noise in bay when marketing clowns try to take out way more than to what sensor is capable.
http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/not..._H2_ISO400.jpg (same strongly filtered noise level, but much better colours)

Post processing can't restore information destroyed by incamera processing. Really better results requires data hasn't been corrupted by heavy processing. (or that it isn't badly distorted at start)


As example here's ISO800 shot from camera critisized as noisy by reviewers:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...458_iso800.jpg
Now same shot after quick Noise Ninja processsing: (self-extracting RAR, includes ISO400 shot)
http://rapidshare.de/files/14515406/...essed.exe.html
Just try to do same for that Sony's shot.
So much much better results can be achieved easily from noisy shot if sensors capabilities weren't exceeded much and data isn't distorted by heavy processing, but from shot grossly exceeding sensors capabilities and overprocessed and still noisy output that isn't possible.

That should make clear why I'm this "fascistic" about these PR BS claims, now it wouldn't be so bad if reviewers would rate cameras according to solid comparison point and clearly state what's the truth/cameras capabilities but they don't, instead of instantly telling those "high ISO" ads are lies and same/better results can be achieved from other (often less advertised) cameras they bury that fact deeper... and to "politically correct form".



atlantagreg wrote:
Quote:
Fuji has managed to control noise a good bit, though.* Even their older E550 model does pretty decent iso 800 shots, although it bumps them down to a 3MP size at that setting.
That downsizing means sensors capabilities have been exceeded.
Downsizing itself cleans noise quite effectively... noise in ordinary conditions is basically random variation in luminance values so it gets averaged away.
That's how high ISO shots are made in just released Panasonic FZ7... but instead admitting they're grossly exceeding sensors capabilities they interpolate shot back to original size to make cheat look better.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 11:31 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
vwmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default

It's listed on a Canadian photo shop site now.. For preorder.. The price listed is 649.99 Can. Pretty decent compared to the 800 that Canon quoted.
vwmom 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 8:56 AM.