Digital Rebel II - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/06/2004 03:05:57 PM · #51

Originally posted by EddyG:

If your shot at ISO 500 really is "buttery smooth" and want to show that, post a 100% crop (go into your editor and at 100% magnification, select a 400x300 pixel area and crop to that, removing 95% of the pixels captured) and upload without any other editing / resizing / etc.

Here is a full-size image taken at ISO 250, 200mm, 1/3200msec.

like Buddah.

P

edit: your browser will probably try to resize this. it's 3008x2000 pixels, so if it fits your screen, it's been resized. make sure you look at it full. NOTHING has been done to the image; no sharpening, noise reduction, even levels...it's straight out of the box.

Message edited by author 2004-08-06 15:07:40.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/06/2004 03:23:38 PM · #52

Originally posted by Pedro:

is a full-size image taken at ISO 250, 200mm, 1/3200msec.

But do you have anything at ISO 400 or 1600? 250 is just a hair above the minimum ISO of the D70. The 10D/DRebel can go a full stop lower in ISO... but the point is that even at ISO 400 on those cameras, they are still essentially noise free. I didn't get that impression from Mehmet's ant picture at all.

No need to post full-size files, just 100% crops (1 camera pixel = 1 screen pixel, 1:1) like PaulMdx and drnick did.

Message edited by author 2004-08-06 15:25:13.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/06/2004 03:50:45 PM · #53

ISO 800. Not noise-free, but at 1/20th at ISO 800 I wouldn't expect it to be either. I've had both Canon's CMOS sensor and Nikon's CCD, and I stuck with Nikon because the image quality was virtually identical (trade-offs - they each excel in their own areas), and I like the feature-set better on the D70 over the dRebel.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/06/2004 04:02:34 PM · #54

Originally posted by Pedro:

ISO 800. Not noise-free, but at 1/20th at ISO 800 I wouldn't expect it to be either.

Just to clarify, that is a 100% crop (1 pixel on the screen = 1 pixel of the camera sensor, no resizing involved)?

wingy

08/06/2004 04:05:38 PM · #55

For the record, here's an actual pixels crop of my sign shot.

again, iso500, 1/800 sec
And yes, I know it's a little underexposed.

08/06/2004 04:33:29 PM · #56

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by Pedro:
ISO 800. Not noise-free, but at 1/20th at ISO 800 I wouldn't expect it to be either.

Just to clarify, that is a 100% crop (1 pixel on the screen = 1 pixel of the camera sensor, no resizing involved)?

correct.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

08/06/2004 05:04:23 PM · #57

What an interesting, weird, and schizo thread. It goes all over the place ;) Someone mentioned earlier about the large size of the Digital Rebel compared to it's film counterpart. I have the film Rebel and I remember clearly that when it was introduced Canon emphasized the small size and light weight of it. It was a big selling point that emphasized portability. It wasn't a pro camera in regards to ruggedness and full features but it could still be used for serious photography. I was real excited about the Digital Rebel but was turned off by the relatively large size of it. I could probably get used to it but so far I haven't found it to be that comfortable in my hands while checking it out in the store. Maybe the next model will be considerably smaller and more comfortable, we'll see.

Perfectly clean images are desirable in most cases but I also hold a certain amount of reservation towards straight-from-the camera images that appear too clean. This is because I am wondering how much of the cleanness is straight from the sensor and how much is from in-camera processing that may, at the same time, be over-smoothing (I think I am making up some new words here) the precious details in the images. I'm questioning whether this latest hot issue of noise-free images is helping to produce images that may be overprocessed. The buttery smooth images from the Canon DSLRs are really nice in a lot of cases but there are quality aspects, like possibly more detail, in the Nikon D70 images that I actually like better. Not all details can be brought back out of an image if they are smoothed away too much. I would have to study a lot more images from the different cameras to make a conclusive decision on this issue. It is pretty safe to say that all of the DSLR's have superb quality and maybe it just comes down to the specific feature sets of each camera and how they are going to be used.

T

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/06/2004 05:12:34 PM · #58

that's a good point Tim. One of the things that I found with the D70, is I don't have to/can't sharpen as much as i did with the dRebel. I tried the gamut of in-camera settings with both, and even the smoothest d70 shot was sharper than the sharpest 300d setting. It was not an issue because USM works wonderfully with the 300d images, but i actually had to change my typical workflow when I made the switch.

I'm not arguing for Nikon or against Canon...I loved them both. I just get tired of people trying to identify a discernable difference between the image quality of the two. One's sharper, one has better colour rendering, one has better detail, one has less noise blah blah blah. They both make fantastic 8"x10" prints that will look virtually identical in the end.

Why can't it be left at that?

Message edited by author 2004-08-06 17:12:53.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

08/06/2004 05:16:44 PM · #59

Originally posted by timj351:

Perfectly clean images are desirable in most cases but I also hold a certain amount of reservation towards straight-from-the camera images that appear too clean. This is because I am wondering how much of the cleanness is straight from the sensor and how much is from in-camera processing that may, at the same time, be over-smoothing (I think I am making up some new words here) the precious details in the images. I'm questioning whether this latest hot issue of noise-free images is helping to produce images that may be overprocessed. The buttery smooth images from the Canon DSLRs are really nice in a lot of cases but there are quality aspects, like possibly more detail, in the Nikon D70 images that I actually like better. Not all details can be brought back out of an image if they are smoothed away too much. I would have to study a lot more images from the different cameras to make a conclusive decision on this issue. It is pretty safe to say that all of the DSLR's have superb quality and maybe it just comes down to the specific feature sets of each camera and how they are going to be used.

T

That's an interesting point. How much is smoothed by the camera?

Perhaps we could perform an unscientific test. If there are a few DPC'ers nearby eachother with a D70 and a 300D they could go out and perform a test along the following lines...

Use a similar prime or zoom lense.

Shoot at the 'same' level JPG or RAW.

Setup a tripod and shot with one camera, switch and then shoot with the other. Then post the 'raw' results up to DPC and see what it looks like.

Is it possible that some of the 'review' sites could be showing a Canon JPG Capture and a Nikon RAW Image or vice-versa?

Personally, I don't recall any of the comparison images described as much other then ISO, f-top and shutterspeed settings. What about file-type and initial capture type?

Just a thought.

Maverick