Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 6, 2006, 2:54 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
I'm confused or missing something..... you didn't look at the Canons but are considering buying one because you saw one recently and it looked much nicer than on the internet.
You know, I have studied the images from the Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi), and they are the best I have ever seen amongthe competitors! Yet, the Canon EOS 400D was not fitted with a high quality lens during those times; I can clearly expect it to be muchbetter with a higher quality lens. You are also right, I have seenthe Canon EOS 400Din real, and it looked so much better thanon the INTERNET.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 4:15 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

For anyone who is interested: Do check out the high ISO performance of the Canon EOS 400D without N.R. below >>> (I say it wins the competitions hands down!!)

Plenty ofdetails and very crisp! >>> (Don't care what the reviewer is saying, just see the crops yourself)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page18.asp

Even then, it's JPEG high ISO performance is also the bestamongit's competitorsas far as I can see >>>

Impressive details and lower noise than the Sony Alpha A100. The Nikon D80 is already starting to look N.R. (Noise reduction) infected from ISO 400 on wards, compared to the competition. >>> (Once again, ignore the re-viewer's text; just see the results hands on)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page17.asp

The Canon EOS 400D is impressive!!

The way I would state it (Above the way the reviewer had stated):

The Nikon D80 employs more chroma N.R., not better chroma N.R.

They didn't dared to say that the EOS 400D maintains more image details at higher ISO levels; instead, they said sharper. (That's only partly true)

They keep keep on saying that the EOS 400D have more chroma noise,when actually it is only having slightly more of it. They already said that the D80 employs more chroma N.R.. (I mean, it is already understood isn't it?)

BTW, don't botherabout themmentioning that the D80's high ISO images are very film like and cleaner;the D80just employs too much N.R.toit's images that they are all soft and have visible detail lost. The Pentax *ist DS also pose rather film like high ISO images, butthe exact same reviewer hadjust passed it off as noisy and poor. (Last time)









BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 5:08 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Regarding the image quality in the bright (No more high ISO performance), the EOS 400D is also slightly better than the competitions from what I can see. (It even wins the Sony Alpha A100!)

The prove is here >>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page22.asp (You can then move on to the right to see comparisons with theother dSLR[s]etc...)

BTW once again, ignore the reviewer's words. (Seems like he got this whole thing confused)

He said that the image quality of the 8 MP EOS 350D is more per-pixel-sharp than the EOS 400D's, when I couldn't even see the substance in that. (I had looked so hard at the images...)

I meant, IF he could say that the EOS 350D's imagesCAN be having BETTER per-pixel-sharpness THAN the EOS 400D's, THEN I think he should be able to see EASILY that the image of the EOS 400D is looking more per-pixel-sharp than the Nikon D80's!! :shock::shock:AT FIRST, I was looking at the EOS 400D vs the Nikon D80 at the first image comparison page; I already noticed that the Nikon D80's imageswas already looking softer and slightly less detailed. However, I though that was no big deal UNTIL I came to the EOS 400D vs the EOS 350D page, and the comparison between the two Canon(s) was even more narrow...yet the reviewer could say one was more PER-PIXEL-SHARP! (Give me a break!) :lol:If objectivity should take it's place here, thenthe reviewer CANNOT say that the image quality of the EOS 400D & the Nikon D80 are the SAME! OR it could be the other way:He could remain sayingthat the Nikon D80 = the EOS 400D, but just DON'T say that the EOS 350D is having better per-pixel-sharpness! (By saying that the EOS 350D is more per-pixel-sharp than the EOS 400D, he is neglecting the fact that the EOS 400D is more per-pixel-sharp than the Nikon D80)

Reviewers need to be consistent.

Regards.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 5:30 PM   #44
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
BTW once again, ignore the reviewer's words. (Seems like he got this whole thing confused)
It's nice to see that our resident expert (that's still trying to decide what DSLR to buy) knows more than the respected professional reviewers that have actually used the cameras (and probably printed photos from them, too). ;-)

Ben, I'll let you in on a secret... You really can't accurately judge how well a camera is going to perform in "real world" conditions by looking at those tests.

You've got metering differences (and even a small difference in exposure can mean a big difference in noise), lighting intensity and temperature differences (and that can have a big impact on the quality you get from a noise perspective), subject differences (noise may not be bad with one subject type versus another) and more.

These tests are useful as a yardstick to see how models compare on a broader scale. But, don't assume that you'll see the same level of noise in photos you take with these cameras in real world conditions where you're going to be using them at higher ISO speeds. Ditto for how the images look in print. I've seen some pretty grainy looking images that printed just fine at 8x10" size.

Camera settings also play a big role (sharpening, contrast, and more). It's getting to where it's a contest between noise reduction algorithms in camera models anymore.

Your camera settings can also impact the results (i.e., turn up the sharpening, contrast and saturation to try and make up for noise reduction and see more noise).

I'd imagine that these models are all within a stop of each other from a noise perspective, if you exposed exactly the same way, using the same raw converter (and depending on conditions, one may do better compared to another). The Canon may have a slight edge. But, it may not, depending on conditions. I've seen my share of complaints about it's metering already.

Your skill in understanding it's behavior and adjusting it to get it's best is going to be just (if not more) important than how it looks on a chart.

Lately, I'm beginning to wonder if the manufacturers aren't starting to "tune" the image processing algorithms, just for Phil's tests, so that they'll do better in those specific conditions. lol

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 6:06 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
You really can't accurately judge how well a camera is going to perform in "real world" conditions by looking at those tests.

You've got metering differences (and even a small difference in exposure can mean a big difference in noise), lighting intensity and temperature differences (and that can have a big impact on the quality you get from a noise perspective), subject differences (noise may not be bad with one subject type versus another) and more.

These tests are useful as a yardstick to see how models compare on a broader scale. But, don't assume that you'll see the same level of noise in photos you take with these cameras in real world conditions where you're going to be using them at higher ISO speeds. Ditto for how the images look in print. I've seen some pretty grainy looking images that printed just fine at 8x10" size.
I couldn't agree more. These reviews are a great starting point, but as has been noted by many people, the differences between these cameras are quite small. One's skill as a photographer will have a greater influence on noise than equipment. Also, current DSLR's can be tuned and customized a countless number of ways....a user should be able to manipulate camera settings to acheive the look they desire.
Quote:
It's nice to see that our resident expert (that's still trying to decide what DSLR to buy) knows more than the respected professional reviewers that have actually used the cameras (and probably printed photos from them, too). ;-)


I thought the decsion was coming at the end of last month . There will always be new reviews and cameras coming, so he may never end up with a camera.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 2:07 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Code:
I'm confused or missing something..... you didn't look at the Canons but are considering buying one because you saw one recently and it looked much nicer than on the internet.
You know, I have studied the images from the Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi), and they are the best I have ever seen amongthe competitors! Yet, the Canon EOS 400D was not fitted with a high quality lens during those times; I can clearly expect it to be muchbetter with a higher quality lens. You are also right, I have seenthe Canon EOS 400Din real, and it looked so much better thanon the INTERNET.
Great stuff again good reading your latest new posts from yesterday,also looked at the dp- review stuff andyour right i think ,make sense imo , Would you consider the Canon 400d to improve on the R1 even with its kit lens ?then or what lens for everyday walkabout ,If the lens is changed from the kit lens to something as the same range as R1 and it will improve photos from the R1 this D400 ?that could be it the best option what lens thoughTamron Sigma Canon what would be bestdo you think and best value of course? Canon 400 a better bet then in your opinin hmmm! How come your product advisor has not thrown the 400d up me wonders that though.Please advise if you choosethis Canon combo with a better lens than the kit one i should imagine( no one uses that for very long do they only to test it a bit or to sell the camera on with a lens),or if you stumble on somethingbetterto purchase thanksRodo.8)
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 4:50 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Sorry, there is ONE more thing that I really really have to clarify:

This morning, I took a look at the comparisons again; thinking that last night, I might be mistaken. However, it turned out that everything was the same EXCEPT:

I noticed that the Nikon D80's JPEG = the Sony Alpha dSLR-A100's JPEG. (In terms of detail and per-pixel-sharpness) BUT in the Sony A100 vs the EOS 400D's JPEG imagecomparison page, the reviewer stated that the EOS 400D's images have BETTER per-pixel-sharpness! :roll: (Why didn't he also say the same thing in the EOS 400D comparison with the Nikon D80???) :?

I am not trying to stir up anything at all, but I was always given the impression that dpreview reviews are one of the most accurate reviewsaround. However in this particular review, I don't think they have that objectivity and (or) accuracy anymore.

This particular reviewis very misleadingto thenewcomers, especially for people who are seeking to buy their next camera seriously; for people such as me currently.

I would suggestfor anyone reading those reviews above, to use their own eyes to judge the image comparisons; not depending on what the reviewer says. (Because a lot of important informations have been left out)

Regards. (In fact today, the results were even more obvious to me)

BTW, I believed that Phil Askey had planned to buy himself the Nikon D80while he wasreviewingit. (Sometimes he brought the camera that he had reviewed; it has happened before)

At the dpreview forum, he wasn't happy when some readers brought upquestions concerning the review.I remembered that he wasquite protective over the Nikon D80. (& he didn't bothered to answer further questions, andhe wasn't like this before)

In addition,it was mentionedthat Phil Askey wasn'thappy with Canonduring the EOS 400D official announcement period, I don't really know what was the issue about. However, I think that may have got to do with the way he has reviewed the EOS 400D model...(I cannot be so certain though...)





BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 5:12 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
Great stuff again good reading your latest new posts from yesterday,also looked at the dp- review stuff andyour right i think ,make sense imo , Would you consider the Canon 400d to improve on the R1 even with its kit lens ?then or what lens for everyday walkabout ,If the lens is changed from the kit lens to something as the same range as R1 and it will improve photos from the R1 this D400 ?that could be it the best option what lens thoughTamron Sigma Canon what would be bestdo you think and best value of course? Canon 400 a better bet then in your opinin hmmm! How come your product advisor has not thrown the 400d up me wonders that though.Please advise if you choosethis Canon combo with a better lens than the kit one i should imagine( no one uses that for very long do they only to test it a bit or to sell the camera on with a lens ),or if you stumble on somethingbetterto purchase thanksRodo.8)
I don't think that the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II used wide opened on the CANON EOS 400D model will be better than the SONY DSC-R1's lens on it's image sensor.

Maybe you can win the R1 if you fit the CANON EOS 400D with the Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DCzoom lens. But you will get more C.A.(s) and Purple Fringing(s) with that Sigma lens. Nevertheless, you will most likely be able to edge out the R1 in per-pixel-sharpness,image detail, and image definition. (The lens is also a constant aperture zoom lens)
Attached Images
 
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 5:49 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
If the lens is changed from the kit lens to something as the same range as R1 and it will improve photos from the R1 this D400 ? that could be it the best option what lens though Tamron Sigma Canon what would be best do you think and best value of course ?
Hi Rodo. Since you asked, I think the most directly comparable lens to the R1 would be the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5.

The actual focal length of the R1 lens is 14.3-71.5mm lens. So it has a bit more range, but is very similar in focal length. It is also very similar in sharpness, according to MTF test supplied by the manufacturers (with the R1 very slightly sharper at the edges on the short end, and the Sigma likewise on the long end).

I've only found the MTF tests from Sony on the Japanese site, but it's pretty easy to see it's an impressive chart about halfway down the page (though a bit small). The Sigma chart, just under the lens photo, is smaller, but when you click "zoom" it opens a window with a chart you can actually read:

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...-R1/feat2.html
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...mp;navigator=6

Both of these lenses have also been independentl;y tested at SLRgear.com, and those tests pretty much confirms that they are very similar:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM

One thing I like about these tests is that the info is not coming direct from the manufacturer (just in case you think they might cheat). But more important is that it is much more thourough. The MTF tests only test wide open at each extreme. The "blur index" on this site shows performance at every apperture and focal length. For example, if you compare, you will see that once you stop down to about f5.6-11, the Sigma is clearly sharper throughout.

Plus they test other important attributes, showing for example that the Sigma also produces lower CA throughout (likely due to better lens coatings).

But, while the Sigma appears to be a bit better, I doubt you would notice any difference. And you would end up paying about $850 for that and a K100D in order to roughly match the R1 (seeing as it has shake reduction). So unless you really want other benefits of a DSLR, I don't think it makes too much sense to switch now. You really can't beat what the R1 gives you for $650.

Finally, if you wnt to see sample images from actual users, for lenses or cameras, a good way to compare is at pbase:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/17_70_28_45_dc_macro
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sony/dsc_r1

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 5:59 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
How come your product adviser has not thrown the 400d up me wonders that though.Please advise if you choosethis Canon combo with a better lens than the kit one i should imagine( no one uses that for very long do they only to test it a bit or to sell the camera on with a lens ),or if you stumble on somethingbetterto purchase thanksRodo.8)

Therewas a couple of times that I got the CANON EOS 400D at the top of the list at the "My Camera Adviser", so I don't think that it should be a problem. :-) (I only know that they don't have the NIKON D70s dSLR model)

The Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC will be a prettynice lens for the CANON EOS dSLR camera(s). :-)
Attached Images
 
BenjaminXYZ 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 7:09 PM.