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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 2, 2002, 9:20 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Klaus DK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,216
Default

to NHL:

You wrote:
Quote:
Can we all just go off and enjoy the pictures instead of looking for 'NOISE'?
As I stated ealier, I'm deciding these weeks if I should buy the 7hi instead of my CP5700. That's why this discussion is interresting for me to follow and participate. As well as we have discussed all the minor good things about the CP5700, just as well we must discuss the 7hi to the very end - where that might be. Noise or no noise. It's a pretty important discussion to me, since I got the "less noise" CP5700. Should I buy a camera that produce less qualityphotos ? I got to find out!
Klaus DK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 10:03 AM   #32
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Klaus

I wouldn't buy a D7Hi if I have a 5700: There's not enough difference between the picture quality to justify a $1000. Save that for the DCS-14N or the next Nikon wonder... Unless you of course want an improve operating speed/AF response, manual focus, as well as the other fancy feature like real-time histogram.

If anyone want the D7's noise detail then one can shoot in raw, or the D7's owner that want to have the characteristics pictures of the 5700 (or the F717).
http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...327&highlight=

Like I have said before regarding the desirable BSS, and the 3:2 mode of the Nikon. The manufacturers should get together and make something desirable for everyone. Hopefully on the next go around!!!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 11:12 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Klaus DK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,216
Default

Żou know I agree on that - we all want the best digicam available NOW.

I maybe will spend a $1000, but after that I got to sell my CP5700, which will help on the financing. I figure the shift will emty my wallet for about $200. However I have to think hard about this - I've had three digicams within the 1½ year the 990, 5000 and now 5700. I still miss the cp990 - funny huh...

I don't think I'll buy the 7hi this time ...unless ofcourse the right offer comes along...it did three time before!


I've read your comment in the attatched link. Unfortunately it's not that easy; shoot raw - use a nikonplugin... There's also issues like the lens, pincussion, barrel, colors absorted by the lens, coating, flash-position- you name it....
Klaus DK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 1:16 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 163
Default

NHL, it may well be that most people don't look closely at the details of a photo, and such people have no reason to spend a thousand dollars on a camera. But as I've pointed out already, noise isn't just a problem when a photo is viewed in the usual ways, it's a particular problem when you want to crop or print at large size. It significantly limits your options. It's not something you can just ignore, it's an important issue of image quality. Why do you continually vaunt the virtues of the textural detail of the camera and then deny that people do or should look at such small things?

Just what did you expect Phil to follow through on in regard to the Minolta and noise? People's unproved theories about how it could be avoided without significantly harming image quality? Where's the evidence? Phil is under no obligation to accept people's unproved opinions, especially when they aren't especially plausible. In fact, his obligation is to stick to things he has evidence for. You come up with the objective evidence for your claims, and then people will have reason to take them seriously.

By the way, the most likely explanation of why some owners notice the noise and others don't has to do with the owners, not their photos. In this forum some owners seem to think that a 1:4 view of a photo is a good test of whether there's noise in it. Some claim that they can't see the noise in Phil's very plain 1:1 examples. Doesn't mean it's not obviously there.

sjms, again, the topic isn't whether you are pleased with your camera. The topic is whether there is an unusually high amount of noise, relative to similar cameras. Even though that doesn't matter to you, it does affect image quality and does matter to many people who might be interested in a $1000 camera. Again, I'm glad you enjoy your camera, and I hope you'll enjoy your new one just as much. I'm jealous, to be sure.
Sanpete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 2:49 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

no reason to be jealous. this is what i've been waiting for to finally use the lenses i already have. i can finally get back to having a sore shoulder again carrying all that lovely glass around again.

is there noise? yes. does it have an affect on my printing? not so far. a little cleaning here and there and i pop out an 8x10 with no issues at all.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 3:06 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
KCan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanpete
The camera has a problem with noise, more than others in its class. You and a couple others basically denied this,
I won't agree with this , each manufacturer have it's own approach regarding the on board processing. It's a design choice

http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...er=asc&start=0
(I like to point to the minolta letter)

Of course, you don't have any other choice to choose the whole package ( camera + it's on board processing approach) , but it's not an issue, it's a processing characteristic , did I answer your point?
KCan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 3:40 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCan
did I answer your point?
Not quite, you basically repeated part of what I've already responded to. There's a theory among some in Minolta forums that the amount of noise represents a trade-off for greater textural detail and accuracy than that available in similar cameras that don't show so much noise. I've seen lots of verbiage about that, but no evidence. Instead, from what I've seen, the noise most decidedly corrupts detail and adds texture that doesn't exist in the actual subject (such as the bright blue sky). The competing cameras that show less noise also show as much or more accurate detail and texture, it appears to me. As far as I can tell, the "noise for texture" theory is mythology. So it's a problem, not just a choice. If it weren't a problem, I feel like Phil Askey, that it would be hard to recommend any other camera in its class.
Sanpete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 11:16 PM   #38
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Klaus

I don't know too much about Nikon, but there's several 'freebie' plug-in for the D7 that you can open directly from Photoshop. The rest through the automate or actions in Photoshop you can pretty much mechanize the whole process after the first one! I agree with you on the CP990 (and I've paid double for it over the D7!). My teenage son has it now and I still marvel @ it each time he came for help

BTW I always like to comment on the excellent pictures on you websites, nice work! I've studied and spent most of my youth over europe as well, in fact my son just came back from France, Spain, and Switzerland with his grand parents, with the CP990 of course!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2002, 11:25 PM   #39
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Sanpete

1. Can you see noise on the pictures that Steve Z posted at the beginning of the thread? A perfect beginner with a D7hi, None of us can.

2. Can you see noise in the thousand's of pictures posted on the Photosig site by the numerous D7's owners that I posted earlier?
http://www3.photosig.comhttp//www.ph...p?cameraId=329

3. In certain condition you can find noise, just like I can find other defects in certain condition from any other camera!

4. There are several adjustments on the camera that can be made so that the so called noise go away (I must like noise, since I leave them at the default)

5. One can shoot in raw and bypassing the Minolta algorithm, and make of the outputs anything one likes. All the mentioned cameras use the same 5Mp CCD (except for Sony where you can't get raw) therefore with this type of output, the lenses should be the only difference! (ie the CCD noise in theory should be identical in all cameras)

6.
Quote:
CCD noise comes in two parts, luminance noise and chroma noise. Luminance noise makes an image look grainy on screen, but is usually not visible when printed. Chroma noise is visible as random red and blue pixels and is usually less obvious both on screen and printed.
7.
Quote:
2002 DIMA Award

A total of 12 digital cameras (including the Minolta DiMAGE 7 and DiMAGE 5) out of 51 digital camera entries were named winners of the 6th annual 2002 DIMA Digital Camera Shoot-Out during PMA 2002. The Point-and-Shoot cameras and the Prosumer/Professional cameras captured images in two live-model studios. The digital cameras that produced the best final printed image with the colors that best matched the original studio scene were selected as winners in their price range/categories.
8. May be all the above professionals attending the 2002 DIMA and voting for the D7 are bias as well, but in the end I really think the D7's is not for you. You will never be happy with it, IMO you'll be much better off getting some other camera. I hope you do... really!

As for Phil, you can be as gullible as you like. Do us a favor, just step one year back when most of us had to decide between the CP5000 and the D7 back then. Go ahead and read the two DPreviews. From the tone of the CP5000 he reviewed, one would be crazy if not dumb to get the D7 from his writings what if not for the battery problem then for the non-standard flat but wider color space. Guess what? It would have been a mistake for us thinking about it now, if we went the Coolpix way... (@ least for me, and other owners can voice their opinion).
Do you see any color problem with the above 1000's of shots from the various original D7 owners? Should Minolta know more about battery as well since they have spec'ed both the D7 and the newer D7i exactly the same? Well my friends and I have confirmed Minolta numbers. Phil still have about an hour difference between the two models on his website! Could it be that he had used sub-par batteries/charger... or may be another innocent mistake?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2002, 8:24 AM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 12
Default Noise and other perceived flaws

I'm sorry, but all this discussion about noise is driving me crazy. I personally take pictures for the content not the flawlessness of the image. No one viewing your pictures gives a rat's a** about minor imperfections in your pictures and 999 out of a thousand times won't even notice them unless you point them out.
Of course, I'm just a picture taker, not a photographer.
lobomayo 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 12:49 PM.