| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2004 06:50:25 AM · #1 |
I may consider upgrading my camera sometime soon but I think a great feature to aid this process would be to assess the quality of out of camera shots.
Perhaps there could be some additional space for Members only to view images direct from each model of camera (no processing at all) so that we could gauge the quality more easily.
Even a 'Hall of Fame' original gallery (containing original shots from challenges) would be a useful benchmark too. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:04:30 AM · #2 |
I could send you some shots if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:11:15 AM · #3 |
Thanks jonr - I haven't started looking in earnest yet which is why this idea would be useful for lots of people to use rather than request originals from people individually.
How do you find your camera and what convinced you that it was best for you? |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:59:12 AM · #4 |
On a slightly related note, until a few months ago it was possible to browse ALL shots taken by a particular camera, not just challenge photos. It was suddenly deemed to be a 'bug', and not a 'feature' and removed swiftly. I really liked this feature, and am irked that it's not there any more.
Can we have it back soon please? |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:01:46 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I may consider upgrading my camera sometime soon but I think a great feature to aid this process would be to assess the quality of out of camera shots.
Perhaps there could be some additional space for Members only to view images direct from each model of camera (no processing at all) so that we could gauge the quality more easily.
Even a 'Hall of Fame' original gallery (containing original shots from challenges) would be a useful benchmark too. |
I think there are loads of people out there who would flock to DPC if this feature was available. It really would draw in a lot of traffic, and therefore sales. Just look at all the camera forums dedicated to people bickering about the exact quality of out-of-the-camera shots. I hope this is one that gets taken seriously and possibly implemented. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:10:09 AM · #6 |
| If you go to a number of camera rating websites, such as //www.steves-digicams.com or //www.dcresource.com - they have sample photographs, both in a reduced and full-sized format, as well as in-depth critiques of the cameras. Those two sites, I know, are fairly extensive in what cameras they review, and are wonderful resources when it comes to camera shopping. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:17:09 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by w24x192:
If you go to a number of camera rating websites, such as //www.steves-digicams.com or //www.dcresource.com - they have sample photographs, both in a reduced and full-sized format, as well as in-depth critiques of the cameras. Those two sites, I know, are fairly extensive in what cameras they review, and are wonderful resources when it comes to camera shopping. |
Don't forget //www.dpreview.com
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:18:11 AM · #8 |
| //www.dpreview.com is also a good site to check out of camera quality. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:23:32 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by jlhudson:
//www.dpreview.com is also a good site to check out of camera quality. |
beat you to it
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:24:13 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:25:27 AM · #11 |
Bob, I think you're right about the customer draw. This is a big community and would present a huge cross-section of photographers from which to benchmark the hardware.
I'm aware of DPReview and Steve'sDigicams. Both have their merits, but when it comes to image examples we have to rely on just one individual's abilities/settings/conditions, etc.
With an image pool of the potential size offered by DPC members, one would would very quickly build a picture (no pun intended) of what a camera is capable of.
Message edited by author 2004-10-12 08:26:26. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 08:37:27 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Thanks jonr - I haven't started looking in earnest yet which is why this idea would be useful for lots of people to use rather than request originals from people individually.
How do you find your camera and what convinced you that it was best for you? |
It was not an easy choice. ALL DSLR today deliver very good photos. My four finalists (E-1, S2, D100, 10D) are very capable cameras, and all (except E-1 at the time) have amazing choice of lenses. In the end I went for camera with (IMHO) the best colours, build and features.
Pluses and minuses, ordered by elimination:
D100 +: Lenses, great handling and speed.
D100 -: Not so good colours, lousy compatibility with older lenses, expensive DX lenses.
10D +: EOS lenses. (This should not be underestimated)
10D -: Tacky colours, no spot meter, iffy focus, no weather sealing. (Canon, where is the 3D?)
S2 +: Lenses, fantastic colours, dynamic range.
S2 -: So-and-so body, stupid double battery system, expensive DX lenses.
E-1 +: Great colours, good WB, good flash metering, good dynamic range, fantastic handling, weather sealing (already saved my once), accurate metering, F100/EOS-3 style body.
E-1 -: few lenses (but pretty decent and not too expensive). New and untested system.
Hope this helps, your preferences might be totally different.
P.S. Phil's dpreview has straight-from-the camera images of all reviewed cameras.
Message edited by author 2004-10-12 08:38:47.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 11:30:48 AM · #13 |
Put it this way - have you seen images from your camera on this site that have surprised you at its capability? I've read threads before now where people are ready to give up on their technology unaware that it has great features and versatility. If you have a mass of images to scan the research of the hardware becomes much easier.
While there are other sites on the web there are many Members here who make DPC their main port of call. Having access to a such a large mass of reference in one place would surely be attractive. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 12:38:04 PM · #14 |
I'd like to see the same thing for lenses.
I don't give a crap that L lenses "simply have to be" better than other Canon lenses.
Show me actual OOC shots from different lenses so I don't have to take your word for it!
So, yes I like the idea a lot! |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 12:52:43 PM · #15 |
(This is karmat the member, not karmat the SC speaking)
It does sound like a useful feature. The problem that immediately came to my mind, though, is that some people are hesitant to upload an original for the SC to view/validate. Are lots of people really going to be willing to upload an original for "everyone" to see?
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 01:23:07 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
On a slightly related note, until a few months ago it was possible to browse ALL shots taken by a particular camera, not just challenge photos. It was suddenly deemed to be a 'bug', and not a 'feature' and removed swiftly. I really liked this feature, and am irked that it's not there any more.
Can we have it back soon please? |
You can easily do this on Pbase
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 01:30:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I don't give a crap that L lenses "simply have to be" better than other Canon lenses.
Show me actual OOC shots from different lenses so I don't have to take your word for it!
|
They are, but don't take my word for it - go try some. Any decent camera store will let you shoot with them. The other thing you'll then find out that a significant part of the quality of the lenses is in features that you don't see in the final image.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 01:35:38 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I don't give a crap that L lenses "simply have to be" better than other Canon lenses.
Show me actual OOC shots from different lenses so I don't have to take your word for it!
|
They are, but don't take my word for it - go try some. Any decent camera store will let you shoot with them. The other thing you'll then find out that a significant part of the quality of the lenses is in features that you don't see in the final image. |
Good point... |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 01:38:01 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Perhaps there could be some additional space for Members only to view images direct from each model of camera (no processing at all) so that we could gauge the quality more easily.
|
Not to totally disagree with this idea, in fact I think it has some merit, but there are a lot of factors that come in to play - most notably the quality of the photographer using the camera. I've seen a lot of pretty dreadful images from extremely expensive equipment and some stunning images from almost disposable gear.
The other part of this comes in how the camera is used - I know in my case that I deliberately set the camera up to give me not very good images straight from the camera. I intentially set it up to have lowish contrast, to capture the most detail in the range, lower saturation, very soft sharpening etc. My 'orginals' as a result, often look washed out, anemic and soft. Anything from a camera setup to produce good final results would look a lot better in comparision.
Lenses are also a huge variable in this, particular for DSLRs - the immediate qualitative difference in a picture from a cheap zoom vs. a high quality prime is pretty apparent, straight from the same camera.
The site //www.imaging-resource.com is quite good at providing full resolution images from different cameras, shot under as close to similar conditions as can be reproduced. When I picked a camera, I downloaded the samples from the cameras I was interested in, then printed them all on the same printer, on the same paper, and put them away for a week, with a note on the back saying which camera they came from. After a week to dissasociate from the images, I put them all out on a table and picked my favourite ones.
Probably almost more important than image quality is how the camera works in your hand too. If you hate the interface, it doesn't matter if it takes wonderful pictures, because you'll never use it. First time I bought a camera, I spent a lot of time comparing samples, printing output etc, and decided upon a nikon coolpix 995. Then I went to a shop and actually tried to use that horrible, unergonomic little toy of a camera and on the spot decided to buy a Canon G2 instead. The 995 just didn't work for me. I'm sure some people love them. Many take stunning pictures with them. I just found it horrible.
Nothing beats a hands-on test.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 12:24:53 PM EDT.
