| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2005 03:11:22 PM · #1 |
I just ran across this site that has sample photos that were taken with different digital cameras. Take a look and and compare your results. See if your getting everything out of your camera or see what a certain camera can do.
//www.dpreview.com/gallery/ |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 03:16:36 PM · #2 |
I've been using this site for years! Well before I heard of DPC even. It's a great site!
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 03:21:39 PM · #3 |
For comparing cameras I like this site better
//www.steves-digicams.com/
He shoots the same shots with each camera and puts them up as full sized photos. |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 03:23:30 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
For comparing cameras I like this site better
//www.steves-digicams.com/
He shoots the same shots with each camera and puts them up as full sized photos. |
That's another one I use. And also, dcresource.com
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 03:29:39 PM · #5 |
Once you get up into the DSLRs comparisons of this nature are all fairly useless. How can you tell by looking at a 150k internet image if the shots from the 300D are as sharp as ones taken with the 1Ds? They all look pretty much the same to me. If they were to blow up details of an image shot at different ISO ratings would the only way to get an idea of what one of these cameras are capable of and then only if the shots were made under fairly controlled conditions.
There is an awful lot of stuff floating around out there on the internet and only a small percentage of that is really worth taking the time to review.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 03:49:30 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Once you get up into the DSLRs comparisons of this nature are all fairly useless. How can you tell by looking at a 150k internet image if the shots from the 300D are as sharp as ones taken with the 1Ds? They all look pretty much the same to me. If they were to blow up details of an image shot at different ISO ratings would the only way to get an idea of what one of these cameras are capable of and then only if the shots were made under fairly controlled conditions.
There is an awful lot of stuff floating around out there on the internet and only a small percentage of that is really worth taking the time to review. |
Take the time to look at this site, then comment on what you find.
//www.steves-digicams.com/ |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 04:11:01 PM · #7 |
Oh, I've been to this site on various occasions. It̢۪s been on my browser favorites list for some time. Quite comprehensive. More in the nature of a good evaluative site. The examples they give are made under much more controlled circumstances and they offer a much more detailed description and evaluation then the first site that was posted.
This is an example of one of the sites I place in that small percentage.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 04:13:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Once you get up into the DSLRs comparisons of this nature are all fairly useless. How can you tell by looking at a 150k internet image if the shots from the 300D are as sharp as ones taken with the 1Ds? They all look pretty much the same to me. If they were to blow up details of an image shot at different ISO ratings would the only way to get an idea of what one of these cameras are capable of and then only if the shots were made under fairly controlled conditions.
|
If you read the full reviews of the cameras themselves you'll find just that.
The compare feature/images is one of the most useless features of dpreview.com, but the full reviews of the dslr's are unbeatable from a technical point of view.
The thing dpreview lacks is a true useability review. How does it really handle when you use it 'out there'. Great if your CMOS resolves 2000lph, the AF locks focus in 0.1s and the shutter lag is the minimal of the minimum. But if that same thing is a dust magnet, takes ages to setup trough the menus, has an illogical button layout and is so heavy and unbalanced that it isn't nice to hold; how useful is it really?
//luminous-landscape.com/ has interesting articles about those aspects.
Message edited by author 2005-02-01 16:18:02.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 04:15:53 PM · #9 |
Most of his reviews are more like an advertisement.
The only thing I find interesting about Steve's are the samples, not what he writes.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 04:21:51 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Most of his reviews are more like an advertisement.
The only thing I find interesting about Steve's are the samples, not what he writes. |
I would agree that on Steves site the samples are about the only thing I look at, but he does a very good job at that, and that is worth a fair bit at least to me. |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 04:42:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Most of his reviews are more like an advertisement.
The only thing I find interesting about Steve's are the samples, not what he writes. |
I'd say that many of the reviews on Steve's site are probably only as objective as one of those lame Shutterbug reviews, but they are more in depth as far as specs and usable features and that is where I find value in them.
(They are adds for the most part. Steve probably makes a fair bit of spending change for linking to the retailers he has listed, just as Shutterbug makes their money from the retailers and manufacturers who advertise in their magazine.)
Message edited by author 2005-02-01 16:51:49.
|
|
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: 08/10/2025 11:44:26 AM EDT.
