Sony Alpha versus Canon 30D

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=18901044

In article .com,
RichA wrote:


Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the
Sony looks better. It doesn't.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article .com,
RichA wrote:


Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the
Sony looks better. It doesn't.

Hey I didn't say anything. Another Freudian slip there Ainsworth???

RW+/- wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:37:29 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article .com,
RichA wrote:

Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the
Sony looks better. It doesn't.

Not entirely true, see http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm

It may not be all his, but most is.

The only shots in the gallery that aren't mine are the terrorist
arrests.
The shooter did not want his name published since he happens
to live right near them.

But, if you think any specific other shots are someone else's, please
point them out.

RW+/- wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 19:37:24 -0700, RichA wrote:

RW+/- wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:37:29 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article .com,
RichA wrote:

Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the
Sony looks better. It doesn't.

Not entirely true, see http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm

It may not be all his, but most is.

The only shots in the gallery that aren't mine are the terrorist
arrests.
The shooter did not want his name published since he happens
to live right near them.

But, if you think any specific other shots are someone else's, please
point them out.

How many times have you been hit in the head with a puck?

How often does you nose grow?

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=18901044

womans face

canon seem to put more red in. At least my 300D does and to a lesser extent
the 20D. The canon printers i have owned also seem to have a slightly
boosted red. Whereas the sony is obviously more red. Perhaps my recent
acquisition of a spyder 2 may be affecting things cos or the 30D has finally
cracked it. There is also the method of white balance used. Were they both
set to auto?

closeup of glass building

The sky looks a little smoggy in the picture, the sony looks like the same
shot may have had a polariser, though i doubt this is the case. The
building itself looks a more dirty grey where as the sony picture has more
white and the darker areas seem to reflect the blue sky instead of looking
in need of a cleaning. I'm not ruling out that the canon may be more
accurate in colour or that as in the following pictures it does look like
the canon is under exposing compared to the sony.

Bridge

individually each photo looks acceptable. Together the sony looks lighter.
noise levels look aceptable in both.

bridge iso 800

again the sony lighter. Also slightly more noise. If exposed darker would
this mask the noise better to match the canon?

iso 1600

grain very prominent in sony. the darker exposure of the canon has allowed
better detail of the bridge arch. I'd like to know the price difference of
the two cameras before passing final judgement. Also the lenses used. Sony
results seem acceptable for an entry level based camera.

RW+/- wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 21:30:54 -0700, RichA wrote:

RW+/- wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 19:37:24 -0700, RichA wrote:

RW+/- wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:37:29 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article .com,
RichA wrote:

Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the
Sony looks better. It doesn't.

Not entirely true, see http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm

It may not be all his, but most is.

The only shots in the gallery that aren't mine are the terrorist
arrests.
The shooter did not want his name published since he happens
to live right near them.

But, if you think any specific other shots are someone else's, please
point them out.

How many times have you been hit in the head with a puck?

How often does you nose grow?

Never, sadly the same cannot be said about you.

And still the B.S. artist won't be specific. You are like a rag
tabloid.