mixed bag

Andy · March 24, 2004

hi guys...here are some of the first shots from my canon rebel i bought over the weekend.

the brooklyn bridge

light and shadow play - grand central terminal

mystery woman, bryant park

pathfinder · March 24, 2004

andy wrote:

hi guys...here are some of the first shots from my canon rebel i bought over the weekend.

the brooklyn bridge

light and shadow play - grand central terminal

mystery woman, bryant park

Nice shots Andy - I asked previously, now that you have a Sony 828 8 Mgpx and a Canon 300D 6Mgpx, how does the image quality of them compare. OR could you post a identical image shot with each camera for comparison?
I use a 10D but as I said earlier, the IR ability of the 828 is very interesting and the Zeiss lens and compact size compared to a full bore digital SLR is also interesting. Come on now - give us some opinions here, Pleeese!?

cletus · March 24, 2004

andy,

I'm considering putting you on my ignore list so I wont have to see your pictures and realize how crappy my pictures are.

lynnma · March 24, 2004

andy wrote:

hi guys...here are some of the first shots from my canon rebel i bought over the weekend.

the brooklyn bridge

light and shadow play - grand central terminal

mystery woman, bryant park

Funny thing.... my digital rebel doesn't take pictures like that....

Andy · March 24, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

Nice shots Andy - I asked previously, now that you have a Sony 828 8 Mgpx and a Canon 300D 6Mgpx, how does the image quality of them compare. OR could you post a identical image shot with each camera for comparison?
I use a 10D but as I said earlier, the IR ability of the 828 is very interesting and the Zeiss lens and compact size compared to a full bore digital SLR is also interesting. Come on now - give us some opinions here, Pleeese!?

i'm sorry i missed your previous question

anyhow - as to quality. the sony 828 has outstanding image quality, i've made some really good images from it! i print them big, too. 16x20 and a few postersize as well. the quality is just fantastic. so is the canon rebel. the cmos has a different feel to it, more creamy, more fuji-velvia like i would say. the rebel does things (high iso with low noise) that the 828 can't do.

i'm not comparing shots for you - sorry - i don't do that. i can tell you that the quality is great from both of my cameras and i'm glad i have both. the 828 for the swivel body, take anywhere no fuss etc and infrared, and the rebel for everything else that i can do with my 50mm f/1.4 lens (indoors, very low light shots with no flash

) my 28-135 image stabilizer lens, and my soon to get 300mm telephoto.

i have images from my 828 that fool the canon folk all the time

they're different cameras

pathfinder · March 24, 2004

andy wrote:

i'm sorry i missed your previous question

anyhow - as to quality. the sony 828 has outstanding image quality, i've made some really good images from it! i print them big, too. 16x20 and a few postersize as well. the quality is just fantastic. so is the canon rebel. the cmos has a different feel to it, more creamy, more fuji-velvia like i would say. the rebel does things (high iso with low noise) that the 828 can't do.

i'm not comparing shots for you - sorry - i don't do that. i can tell you that the quality is great from both of my cameras and i'm glad i have both. the 828 for the swivel body, take anywhere no fuss etc and infrared, and the rebel for everything else that i can do with my 50mm f/1.4 lens (indoors, very low light shots with no flash ) my 28-135 image stabilizer lens, and my soon to get 300mm telephoto.

i have images from my 828 that fool the canon folk all the time

they're different cameras

Thanks for your answer, Andy - that helps me decide- I have been considering the 828 for just the reasons you mentioned, but have held off because of image quality concerns, 8 Mgpixels or not. If you are making 16x20 that is good enough for me. I think I may have to sell my G5 to make the switch......

Which 300 mm lens are you considering? Good long glass can be an addiction, you know?

Andy · March 24, 2004

cletus !

cletus wrote:

andy,

I'm considering putting you on my ignore list so I wont have to see your pictures and realize how crappy my pictures are.

aww now dont' do that

jimf · March 24, 2004

lynnma wrote:

Funny thing.... my digital rebel doesn't take pictures like that....

Yours must be defective, I'd go talk to the shop:

IMG_0582_RJ.sized.jpg

pathfinder · March 24, 2004

jimf wrote:

Yours must be defective, I'd go talk to the shop:

gus · March 25, 2004

cletus wrote:

andy,

I'm considering putting you on my ignore list so I wont have to see your pictures and realize how crappy my pictures are.

Lets just be thankful he hasnt started on our weekly theme !

rutt · March 26, 2004

andy wrote:

i'm sorry i missed your previous question

anyhow - as to quality. the sony 828 has outstanding image quality, i've made some really good images from it! i print them big, too. 16x20 and a few postersize as well. the quality is just fantastic. so is the canon rebel. the cmos has a different feel to it, more creamy, more fuji-velvia like i would say. the rebel does things (high iso with low noise) that the 828 can't do.

they're different cameras

I've had both a prosumer ZLRs (Oly) and a DSLR (10D) and I think there is another huge difference to keep in mind. The prosumer cameras have much smaller sensors which means that they will have much greater depth of field at all apertures. Think of it this way -- the lens can be smaller; it only needs r to cast an image on a smaller area. As the lens diameter gets smaller, even when it is completely open, it approaches a pinhole and as we all know everything is in focus then.

So when you want to be able to blur the background, you don't want one of these. On the other hand when you want huge depth of field (particularly for macro shots) these cameras are great.

One thing I don't understand -- what exactly do the aperture numbers (e.g., f2.8) mean? How is it that you can use f2.8 on a lens with a much smaller lens that also opens up to f2.8? I guess it isn't just a measurement of the radius of the opening?

One thing worth considering -- Canon has a 8mp prosummer coming next month. It is based on the Sony sensor, but uses the same Canon processor that is in the 10D and 300D. So it might be more responsive than the Sony. I don't know how good the Sony is in terms of shutter lag and time between shots. Andy, can you compare 300D to f828 in this regard?

wxwax · March 26, 2004

Good stuff. Is the f-stop on a consumer cam an equivalent measure, not a matching measure, of an SLR's?

As for the incoming Canon Powershot Pro1, it will have to answer the same question that's facing Sony: can it handle 8 megapixels without introducing a lot of noise at even medium ISO's? As I understand it, the f828 starts making increasing and inordinate amounts of noise at anything above the minimum ISO of 65.

Luminous Landscape dude said it didn't bother him 'cause he used Noise Ninja to clear it up, a skill and a software that not everyone has.

rutt · March 28, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Good stuff. Is the f-stop on a consumer cam an equivalent measure, not a matching measure, of an SLR's?

As for the incoming Canon Powershot Pro1, it will have to answer the same question that's facing Sony: can it handle 8 megapixels without introducing a lot of noise at even medium ISO's? As I understand it, the f828 starts making increasing and inordinate amounts of noise at anything above the minimum ISO of 65.

Luminous Landscape dude said it didn't bother him 'cause he used Noise Ninja to clear it up, a skill and a software that not everyone has.

I found an explanation of f-stops on the web:

It all makes sense. The focal lenghts of cameras with smaller sensors are actually much smaller than their 35mm equivalents. To get the same field of view with a smaller sensor, you need a wider angle lens. Since f-stops are a ratio between aperture and focal length, you can have a smaller opening with smaller sensor and it's the same f-stop.

lynnma · March 28, 2004

rutt wrote:

I found an explanation of f-stops on the web:

It all makes sense. The focal lenghts of cameras with smaller sensors are actually much smaller than their 35mm equivalents. To get the same field of view with a smaller sensor, you need a wider angle lens. Since f-stops are a ratio between aperture and focal length, you can have a smaller opening with smaller sensor and it's the same f-stop.

Thanks for that link to f-stops... I'm printing it out to put in the bathroom, beside my bed, in the truck, and in my camera bag..

Lynn

wxwax · March 28, 2004

rutt wrote:

I found an explanation of f-stops on the web:

It all makes sense. The focal lenghts of cameras with smaller sensors are actually much smaller than their 35mm equivalents. To get the same field of view with a smaller sensor, you need a wider angle lens. Since f-stops are a ratio between aperture and focal length, you can have a smaller opening with smaller sensor and it's the same f-stop.

Ah, good one.

. Now that you say it, I do remember reading about it. So f-stop is an absolute measure. Wonder if the same is true of ISO?

fish · March 28, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Ah, good one. . Now that you say it, I do remember reading about it. So f-stop is an absolute measure. Wonder if the same is true of ISO?

Theoretically, ISO should be an absolute measure, since ISO stands for International Standards Organization. There are 132 ISO standards associated with photography. I'm not sure which one is applicable to digital still cameras...might be ISO 12232:1998

zero-zero · March 30, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Ah, good one. . Now that you say it, I do remember reading about it. So f-stop is an absolute measure. Wonder if the same is true of ISO?

Actually , waxy, f-stop should be an absolute measure, but is not completely. Say, for instance, f5.6 could be slightly different on your 50mm prime than on your 28-200 multi-element lens set at 50mm, albeit the difference is certainly small. In cinematography, f-stop is often substituted for t-stop, a measure that does take into account falloff and other circumstances inside the lens and makes it totally dependable. These are more expensive, but the money at stake in a Hollywood production makes them worthwhile. Not so for regular still photographers, so you can confidently classify this post as useless trivia.

damonff · March 31, 2004

Blurry Motion
Shanghai motion...

wxwax · March 31, 2004

zero-zero wrote:

Actually , waxy, f-stop should be an absolute measure, but is not completely. Say, for instance, f5.6 could be slightly different on your 50mm prime than on your 28-200 multi-element lens set at 50mm, albeit the difference is certainly small. In cinematography, f-stop is often substituted for t-stop, a measure that does take into account falloff and other circumstances inside the lens and makes it totally dependable. These are more expensive, but the money at stake in a Hollywood production makes them worthwhile. Not so for regular still photographers, so you can confidently classify this post as useless trivia.

Oh no, not at all, thanks for the education.

mixed bag

Comments