| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2007 03:25:35 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jonr:
100% viewfinder. Those are expensive.
Weather sealing
Top of the line AF
Real 3" instead of upscaled 2.5"
If I were to buy my first DSLR system today, D300 would be close to my wish camera.
Edit:
Seems like Canon and Nikon had very different design philosophy:
Canon: What is the minimum we can offer people to upgrade from the 30D?
(10MP, better shutter, larger screen, faster FPS)
Nikon: Ok, now we have full frame camera (D3), lets make a professonal APS camera too! |
you forgot the 40D now has weather sealing and better noise control :) |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 03:35:39 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bobster:
you forgot the 40D now has weather sealing and better noise control :) |
the battery door is weather sealed. That's not going to help too much. I would still think you'd have to worry about rain or falling into a pond with your six-year-old son... |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 05:48:45 PM · #28 |
there's still a LOT of Christmas lights in those grays. |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 06:15:28 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
there's still a LOT of Christmas lights in those grays. |
I think that's pretty impressive for ISO3200. Neat Image cleaned it up rather well too.
-Chad |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 06:21:58 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by cpurser:
Originally posted by wavelength:
there's still a LOT of Christmas lights in those grays. |
I think that's pretty impressive for ISO3200. Neat Image cleaned it up rather well too.
-Chad |
didn't say it was bad, just not really all that fabulous. nobody has the greatest 3200 results though. I mean 80-90% useable right out of the box. the 5d is pretty good though. |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 06:24:38 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
there's still a LOT of Christmas lights in those grays. |
That is VERY impressive for ISO 3200, and if it was shot in RAW you could easily remove the color noise in Camera RAW and one pass of Noise Ninja. It looks better than ISO 3200 on my 1D II. Canon could probably boost the ISO to 25,600 quite easily with satisfactory noise control. That's more than Nikon has been able to produce so far, I'm still waiting for some high ISO samples from the Nikon D3. |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 06:35:30 PM · #32 |
Dudes, I wasn't knocking on Canon, just saying that it's still not the greatest thing since sliced bread here. Certainly Nikon has not shown anything close to that at 3200, duh. If I had a 40D, I would probably still shy away from 3200 because of the chroma noise is all. The same that I do on my D200 at 1600.
Odds are though, from the rumors that the D300 will be on par with what Canon has. Back to the original point of the thread, IF Nikon/Sony have controlled their noise to competitive levels, is the extra $500 worth it? IMO, the added feature set of the D300 is.
Message edited by author 2007-08-25 18:38:52. |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 06:36:34 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by cpurser:
Originally posted by wavelength:
there's still a LOT of Christmas lights in those grays. |
I think that's pretty impressive for ISO3200. Neat Image cleaned it up rather well too.
-Chad |
didn't say it was bad, just not really all that fabulous. nobody has the greatest 3200 results though. I mean 80-90% useable right out of the box. the 5d is pretty good though. |
And don't forget the S5, very very impressive at 3200. That Canon 40D looks pretty good though, way better than my D200. I have faith that the D3 will be even better. Sorry to boast Fuji but there is nothing out there to beat it on High ISO noise yet that I have seen including the very impressive 40D ... |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 06:42:14 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MAK:
And don't forget the S5, very very impressive at 3200. That Canon 40D looks pretty good though, way better than my D200. I have faith that the D3 will be even better. Sorry to boast Fuji but there is nothing out there to beat it on High ISO noise yet that I have seen including the very impressive 40D ... |
Do you have some other samples of this? because this does not look as good as the 40d, at all.
//dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/fujis5pro_samples/originals/dscf0069.jpg |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 07:21:51 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by MAK:
And don't forget the S5, very very impressive at 3200. That Canon 40D looks pretty good though, way better than my D200. I have faith that the D3 will be even better. Sorry to boast Fuji but there is nothing out there to beat it on High ISO noise yet that I have seen including the very impressive 40D ... |
Do you have some other samples of this? because this does not look as good as the 40d, at all.
//dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/fujis5pro_samples/originals/dscf0069.jpg |
Nothing right now to hand I will shoot something tomorrow and post it right here at 100% crop ISO 3200.
Sorry it's 1AM here right now in UK.
I'll shoot it in JPG too direct from the camera no editing |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 07:44:51 PM · #36 |
OK I just done a 100% crop of the 40D image and then the same with my S5 Mine is a simple 1AM snapshot taken in the kitchen under flurecent lighting, im not sure about the lighting used on the 40D shot but anyway this shows the point I was trying to make clear enough..
 40D @ ISO 3200
 Fujifilm S5 Pro @ ISO 3200 |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:03:13 AM · #37 |
To me it looks as if the S5 is simply doing the same sort of adjustment as noise ninja or neatimage would do during post processing. For me personally i prefer to have as little in camera processing as possible, but i do agree with you MAK that if i was comparing out of camera examples the S5 appears to have less noise.
Do you know which process the s5 uses to take down the noise?
-Dan
(sorry if there are typos i'm using my cell phone)
Message edited by author 2007-08-26 01:04:19. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:39:37 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by MAK:
OK I just done a 100% crop of the 40D image and then the same with my S5 Mine is a simple 1AM snapshot taken in the kitchen under flurecent lighting, im not sure about the lighting used on the 40D shot but anyway this shows the point I was trying to make clear enough..
40D @ ISO 3200
Fujifilm S5 Pro @ ISO 3200 |
MAK, I hate to say it, but I'm not that impressesed. They traded chroma noise for luminance noise clumping in software, much the way the D200 on highISO-NR mode does. In theory and on simple shots it works, but with humans and complicated compositions they turn to crappola. The loss of detail is pretty hard to miss in the last set of shots here: //www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/page17.asp
The S5 is good for portaits and such, but High-ISO I don't count it as a true contender again the likes of Canon.
Also, I doubt that Phil had any NR turned on for that 40D pic..
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 06:29:17 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Also, I doubt that Phil had any NR turned on for that 40D pic.. |
Neither did I. But also, as I said, it was a snap in a kitchen at 1AM give me a few hours and I'll go shoot something in decent light with decent exposure as I'm sure Phil did.
Im not trying to knock the Canon AT ALL. I think it looks incredible at ISO3200 I'm simply stating that the Fuji, IMHO, does a better job of it, after all, it's 3200 we are talking about. Imagine the image if we were talking about 3200 FILM..... I think digital is amazing. I found another shot in my portfolio here that was taken at ISO3200 in demanding light situation... I'll post a better example later. I do agree that the Fuji has a different took to it and is very good at handling DR compared to the other competition.
 |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 10:35:57 AM · #40 |
| I really should have waited for the 40D to come out :P I got my 30D about a month ago, and if i had waited 2 months or so i could've got the 40D. It's $1649.99 Canadian here, with the 28-135 kit lens. They don't seem to offer a price with the 18-55. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 10:58:44 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by cujee:
I really should have waited for the 40D to come out :P I got my 30D about a month ago, and if i had waited 2 months or so i could've got the 40D. It's $1649.99 Canadian here, with the 28-135 kit lens. They don't seem to offer a price with the 18-55. |
The 30D is also less than $1k Can... ;-) |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 09:49:05 AM · #42 |
oh dear -
14-bit NEF (RAW):uncompressed or compressed RAW. Images are recorded at a bit-depth of 14 bits, producing files roughly 1.3 times larger than 12-bit files but increasing the color data recorded resulting in smoother tones. Maximum frame advance rate decreases to 2.5 fps.
so if you want 14bit from your nikon you have to live with 2.5fps?
14bit from the Canon @ 6.5fps... hmmmm let me think.. |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 09:51:04 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by MAK:
OK I just done a 100% crop of the 40D image and then the same with my S5 Mine is a simple 1AM snapshot taken in the kitchen under flurecent lighting, im not sure about the lighting used on the 40D shot but anyway this shows the point I was trying to make clear enough..
40D @ ISO 3200
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 40D
Image Date: 2007:08:25 12:10:14
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 55.0mm
CCD Width: 3.66mm
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv: 3200
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
Fujifilm S5 Pro @ ISO 3200
Camera Make: FUJIFILM
Camera Model: FinePix S5Pro
Image Date: 2007:08:26 00:28:38
Flash Used: Yes (Manual)
Focal Length: 35.0mm (35mm equivalent: 53mm)
CCD Width: 3.44mm
Exposure Time: 0.0040 s (1/250)
Aperture: f/14.0
ISO equiv: 3200
Exposure Bias: -2.67
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: program (Auto)
|
looks like you had much more light to play with on your shot, and it still looks bad compaired to Canon's, the Canon produces better edges, where as your shot shows signs of bleed
Message edited by author 2007-08-28 09:51:22. |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 10:00:55 AM · #44 |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 10:31:00 AM · #45 |
I'm sure he used some kind of lighting just not the built in flash, I had it set to auto with a pop up flash but anyway yes the Canon looks great at ISO 3200 doesn't it. It's good to see them finally giving good quality to their prosumer level cameras and things can only get better too..
|
|
|
|
08/28/2007 11:31:59 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by silverscreen:
(I think your memory fails you - tri-x is 400 iso. I believe the kodak 125 iso b&w film is called plus-x) |
Your right by Kodak specs, but I shot all my Tri-X at ISO 125 and plus X at ISO 40-100 depending on what I was shooting. |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 03:42:44 PM · #47 |
Holy CRAP! Is that first one with no NR at all? My God, what must the 3D files look like? I'm in loooooove.
Message edited by author 2007-08-28 15:44:29. |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 05:02:23 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Holy CRAP! Is that first one with no NR at all? My God, what must the 3D files look like? I'm in loooooove. |
Me too! |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 05:03:26 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Holy CRAP! Is that first one with no NR at all? My God, what must the 3D files look like? I'm in loooooove. |
Me too! |
And me :) |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 05:51:08 PM · #50 |
|
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: 07/30/2025 02:55:51 AM EDT.
