But isn't that why you would compare? I have both, I know the differences pretty well myself. They're both useful cameras. Practically it would be useful for some to know what to expect when going from an F717 to a 10D, but then you can't really compare the experience, just final output. I've always maintained that it's more what you could possibly capture with each camera, more than analyzing what you did actually manage to capture. Many shots can be had with the 10D that simply can't be brought to bear with the F717. If you were to take images at ISO 1600 with the 10D and someone used it to analyze the potential from a 10D, it wouldn't be very valid. Comparing an image that you could get under very dark conditions and then having an underexposed or blurry image next to it, from an F717, might give others an idea of the conditions under which it is possible to shoot. Lots of people here don't really understand this way of thinking (I have come to realise) due to teh staged nature of their DPC shoots. There's a fundamental difference between the possibility of creating a very good image with a point-and-shoot or prosumer vs. NEEDING to get a shot and doing it as well as possible. This is where the DSLR shines, and often is under a condition where a lot of DPCers don't seem to shoot. I didn't buy my 10D for DPC applications!
Originally posted by paganini:
Even then....
Comparing the 717 and 10D requires some careful thought -- where is the glass' BEST part, where is the glass' worst part (in terms of F numbers). And you need to be careful about DOF, as 717 has infinite DOF (nearly) at F8, but 10D will not have that even at F32.
Much easier to compare against a Nikon D100 (just use a 50 mm prime for both).
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
The most valid and closest comparison might be against the 28-135 in a number of conditions. The most apparent difference would be the DOF (at a given subject distance, focal length and aperture), the colour and the noise at given ISO values.
Originally posted by paganini:
Might not be against that cheap 28-200 mm lens.
Originally posted by Nazgul:
no need for that we know that the 10D is better;) |
|
|
|
Message edited by author 2003-09-05 16:43:43. |
