Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 7, 2005, 1:54 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9
Default

What bothers me KSV is the attitude from Phil if anyone dare questions him, it is a review site it is his full time JOB he is not doing it out of kindness, of course people will question him.

And his review just feeds the arrogant Canon fan club with the so called 'stark' difference, in real world shots the difference is far from stark, in fact considering the poor metering on the XT, I prefer the *ist DS pictures.

That leads me to the other problem, it seem the recommendation is based purely on the JPEG quality? that is what I would have to conclude from the last review? The XT suffers from the same blown highlights as the 300d (look at the real world samples) yet this isn't factored into the rating, neither is the "tunnel like" viewfinder! The JPEG quality is perfectly fine from the DS, yes the XT is slightly better but so what it makes less difference to real shots than the blown highlights on the XT or the poor usability thanks to the tiny viewfinder! And to avoid the blown highlights my friends with Canon use RAW, but hey then suddenly Canon hast lost its only advantage and the DS is definately better!
joele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 2:12 AM   #12
KSV
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 248
Default

joele wrote:
Quote:
The XT suffers from the same blown highlights as the 300d
I think this is because CMOS sensor - gain in one area (low noise) but loose in another (small dynamic range). IMHO 350D great camera and some may be incredibly happy with it, but it is not better then (or even superior to as some say :-) )*istDS - it is just another camera with own strengths and weaknesses. Considering price structure in Oz I have no hesitation to recommend *istDS over 350D to anybody. No one camera makes photo - photographer does :-)
KSV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 9:35 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9
Default

Ohh KSV just out of interest if you download some of the test pictures from the comparison section of the 350d review you will notice in the EXIF data they were taken 22 March 2005 a good week before the ist DS review came out, so much for doing the reviews in order of arrival of thehe camera...
joele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 11:08 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

Just look at the date on the watch - 14th - certainly not April which could suggest that some were shot even earlier although the EXIF data suggests 16 March 2005.

Interestingly, the *istDS shots were taken 19 December 2004 - almost 3 months ago but perhaps that was when it was previewed.

Seriously, I don't mind when the shots were taken but the *istDS was IMHO subjected to a harder analysis than the RebelXT.

To describe the XT image quality as 'silky smooth' is just another way of saying 'soft'.

The attached file uses JPEG & RAW from both reviews which have not be reprocessed or altered in any way other than minimal size reduction for publication here.
Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 4:16 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

I am getting confused here, as the time is exactly the same to the second in the photos from both cameras for jpg and RAW.

How could that be, plus they look the same to me for each camera, but then I am on a 12" laptop?

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 4:51 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

I can only assume that the watch has either stopped or that a photograph has been used as the source. That would explain how the RAW & JPEG times were the same - maybe it restarted during the interval between *ist DS & Rebel XT to account for the time difference.

EXIF data is thus:
XT JPEG - 16.03.05 08:53
XT RAW - 29.03.05 12:54

*istDS JPEG - 19.12.04 19:39
*istDS RAW - 21.03.05 13:57 but Adobe CS modified (I guess when the RAW was converted).


Looking at both sets of images there's not too much to choose between them. IMHO the Pentax *istDS is the better of the two.


Hope this helps

Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 6:07 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9
Default

^^^ I agree


P.S, IMO Phil is just a Canon Shill...
joele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 10:18 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

The *stDS photos are obviously the better image, but I am still working with the watch photos being to the second time wise.

Even if the watch was stopped there was a three month gap in the DS photos and one of the XT photos was taken in between. I just don't see how this could happen with the hands being in the same position on each set of images. If they were two different watches that were not running, why is the date the same on both watches.

EXIF data is thus:
XT JPEG - 16.03.05 08:53
XT RAW - 29.03.05 12:54

*istDS JPEG - 19.12.04 19:39
*istDS RAW - 21.03.05 13:57 but Adobe CS modified (I guess when the RAW was converted)

Also where is the review of blown out highlights with the XT, just like with the original Rebel?

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2005, 5:26 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

I share your interest reference the watch time keeping but my soul purpose in presenting these images was to compare the *istDS against the Rebel XT particularly as DPR had gone to such great lengths to criticise the *istDS on its JPEG quality whist describing the Rebel XT as 'silky smooth' & hardy able to tell the difference between JPEG & RAW.

I think that these images, which are those used by DPR, show that this is not the case as they are both very close to each other.

Anyone owning the *istDS should feel that their image quality is not inferior & vise versa.
Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2005, 8:15 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

I agree completely, and I thank your for your input and the time you spent getting the sample photos. My concern is that because of the slanted view put out by Phil, many people that are uninformed will pass on the *istDS and go with the XT.

I know that if I didn't have a DS, I would have felt the Pentax was inferior to the Canon from the review. It is a shame that because of the seemingly biased review some buyers of DSLR's will not have the opportunity to own this wonderful camera.

Tom
ennacac 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 2:05 PM.