Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 26, 2003, 9:41 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

here ia an iso 1000 image cleaned up with NI:

http://www.pbase.com/image/18747451
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2003, 10:36 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Something else to consider...

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/


Gayle....taken with a Olympus C2100UZI 2yrs ago & the 8x10 is great!
  Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2003, 11:27 PM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default Re: Something else to consider...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalypso
I miss my Dimage 7i...sigh
Yep -- I almost bought a D7i a few months ago..... Love that 28-200mm lens range (despite the slightly higher noise levels compared to the competition). But, I decided on a new "pocketabe camera" instead (with an even smaller sensor of course -- oh well, so much for lower noise).

But, I'll admit that I've got my eye on the new DiMAGE A1..... Lower noise levels than the 7/7i/7Hi --- also better color and dynamic range (although, I think the original DiMAGE 7 had it right -- despite the need to convert the color space using the Viewer software for best results).

See Phil's comments and sample images here (some of the downsized photos were converted from Adobe RGB to sRGB):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0309/03...ltaa1samps.asp

Even though the lens is rated at 28-200m (35 mm equivalent) at F2.8/F3.5; the new sensor stablization system is designed to give you up to 3 extra stops (A HUGE IMPROVEMENT). It does this by letting you shoot at much slower shutter speeds without blur due to camera shake. So, this len's focal range/light gathering ability (especially in such a compact design), would be extremely hard to duplicate (read: impossible) in larger dSLR type cameras -- since allowing slower shutter speeds (for all practical purposes), is just like have a faster lens.

The larger sensors in dSLR's would require a very large lens to have this kind of range and performance (thanks in part to the stabilization system allowing slower shutter speeds). Of course, you could also find a stablized lens for the EF Mount Canon SLR's too -- but not with this kind of range in a compact lens design.

Now -- if we could only shoot at ISO 1600 like the dSLR's -- with the wider apertures at longer zooms like you can get in compact lens designs.

So, I've got my eye on it. Phil Askey seems impressed (and he's hard to impress). See his recent comments (and sample images) here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0309/03...ltaa1samps.asp
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2003, 6:45 AM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I've tried Neat Image but gave up since it's too difficult to use properly on varying scenes... Beside changing the sharpness (-) on the D7's camera is a lot more effectrive, and there's also the contrast settings!

Here's an example taken with the old D7 with no noise reduction! IMO the D7s have gotten a lot of bad rap from dpReview, but it looks like his tone tone is now changing on the A1... Unlike Kalypso I can't part with my D7. It's incredible for nightshot on manual with its WYSIWYG and real-time histogram... It also does infrared too which my 10D can't. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's all relative.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2003, 12:07 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I find that neat image works quite well to build a noise profile for the different ISO levels. I don't worry about shutter speed. Seems to produce good results for me. Takes a little while (even on my 1.8Ghz machine) but I love the results.

What do you find hard about it? I've heard others say that it takes some experience and skill to get great results. I'm wondering if my definition of "great" is lower than others...

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2003, 2:11 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

it's not much faster under a 2.8mhz machine and doesn't support HT either at this point.

also the dynamic range of currently all digital cameras is about 5 stops roughly. the 7 series had all that. it hasen't change on that point. my last 7 series camera the 7Hi has pretty much the same range as my 1Ds.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...stograms.shtml
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2003, 1:27 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 9
Default Thanks. So which camera?

Hi all,

Thanks for the great responses. So from what I'm hearing, the G5 will be worse in terms of noise. The 5700 might be equivalent to the 990. And if I really want to get rid of noise, buy a DSLR, and/or use Neat Image. (I'm on a Mac so Neat Image won't work for me unless I run Virtual PC.)

Well, at this point I can't afford a DSLR, nor do I want its bulk. I like the size/feel of the 5700. Someone mentioned the Dimage A1. It looks good to me, but all the images I've downloaded from dpreview and Steve's look like they've been run through the "Despeckle" filter (or Median Blur) in Photoshop. Not all that crisp.

Hmm. Shall I go with the Nikon 5700? Or are there others that I should look at?
lunarboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2003, 2:33 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

Hi Lunarboy,

Personally, I am happy with the 5700. Apart from 2 major things I have found with the type of shooting I do.

1. Manual focus ring. Because the 5700 doesn't have one I simply keep it in auto focus all the time.

2. RAW write speed. About 16 secs before another shot can be taken. Although, if you have NR off and Quick Shutter on then you can get 3 RAW photos in a row before the internal buffer fills up. On that note you then have to wait about 45 secs for the entire buffer to clear. CF Card speed does not matter, I tried with a 4x and a 40x and there is no difference. The internal buffer* pipeline is the bottleneck on the 5700.
* If I could trade 5x off the zoom for a much faster buffer I would!

The noise issue is not an issue if you shoot at ISO 100 or 200.

Action photos vary and it depends on the action. Jetskiers, planes, cars...no problem. I have never tried sports shots like soccer, hockey, etc. but I hear the 5700 lacks speed in that area.

If you want to check out some scaled down photos I have taken with the 5700 go to the following URLs. All PS has done to most of them is Unsharpen Mask 0.8 @ 50% or 100%. No color or contrast editing.

http://juetts.com/photos/
or
http://juetts.com/pixett/
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2003, 6:33 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Someone mentioned the Dimage A1. It looks good to me, but all the images I've downloaded from dpreview and Steve's look like they've been run through the "Despeckle" filter (or Median Blur) in Photoshop. Not all that crisp.
Most images are soft directly out of the camera, including my 10D. This is done in purpose so that it allows you some level of sharpening afterward... doing it internally to the camera is irreversible and takes away your control over sharpness! (Beside this is one of the camera user's customable setting) :P

IMO the 5700 may be good two years ago (even though I think a D7Hi/i is far superior in features and usability), but this camera is getting long in the tooth and newer/better competitor like the A1(or the F828) is already here... I doubt that another replacement from Nikon is that far behind.

Regarding Noise... Do most people zoom in 200-400x to look for it or judge the quality of a picture by stepping back and look @ its composition and lighting? Neat image is a good tool when used in moderation (ISO pushing for example), but using it for every single shot is ludicrous! Beside I have seen countless of bad examples with that plastic look that'll need to be run through the 'Add Noise' filter to make the images have more texture and film like! :lol: :lol: :lol:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2003, 9:31 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

lunarboy

I doubt you'd go for this, but for the $75 version, you get a plugin for photoshop which I thought worked on any OS that has photoshop.

Of course, I could be way off there, as I know nothing about photoshop plugins. Anyone? Are plugins OS dependent (which would be really annoying!!! And dumb.)

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 12:08 PM.