If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
per wrote:
Here are other comparisons between those: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page8.asp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page9.asp Yes, and the ISO 400 shots show how the noise reduction algorithms differ between the two cameras, with the Panasonic retaining sharpness, while perhaps the Canon has lower noise! Plenty to choose from..... David |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Are you saying that this is not an honest comparison and one should not
rely on it? David J Taylor wrote: measekite wrote: What is your take on the rest of the images. It seems that the color of the Canon, especially in the portraits, are more realistic (at least on the screen. I eventually will run them throught photoshop auto.xxx and print them) and that the Canon prints result in more pleasing color. It also appears even on the house image that the Canon colors appeared true. Maybe I do not know what to look for. The only one where colour struck me was the flash photo, where the Canon (at least on the thumbnail) was wildly different on the background between the with and without flash. Apart from that, every digital camera will produce a slightly different colour rendition and this, coupled with differences in printers, probably means that no camera and printer will produce an accurate colour rendition, so all will need adjustment one way or another. Given that the images of the house were taken over two months apart (look at the EXIF information on the JPEGs), how can one expect the colours to be the same? Actually, there's some critical point I'm missing here - given that the images were taken two months apart, how can the angle of the sun be exactly the same? These aren't images of real objects, but images of other images! No way can you compare the colour rendition unless you are buying a camera to photograph other photographs. Cheers, David |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" writes:
It completely invalidates any colour comparison. Not exactly. The spectrum of light emitted from the "grass" on a photograph or print will differ completely from the spectrum from real grass - consider the near IR reflected from the chlorophyll for example, or the reflectivity in near-UV of some flowers. The camera's RGB, CMY or RGBC sensors will react differently to artificial colours than real ones. The purpose of those photos is to compare different cameras taking a photo of the same subject. The fact that the grass isn't real doesn't mean you can't compare the FZ photo of the photo to the S2 photo of the same photo. Obviously you can't use the photos to predict how the cameras will capture a different-but-similar real scene, for the reasons you stated above. -Dave |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Does it also invalidate the portrait in sunlight of the woman. It seems
that the color and also the exposure of the FZ5 are not as pleasing. I was also thinking of something else. Eventually I am planning on buying a DRXT or a 20D (if someone does not talk me into getting a Nikon D70s. Would the Canon S2 results and the Canon DSLR results look closer since they are both from the Canon family or does that not make a difference.? David J Taylor wrote: Dave Sill wrote: "David J Taylor" writes: Given that the images of the house were taken over two months apart (look at the EXIF information on the JPEGs), how can one expect the colours to be the same? Actually, there's some critical point I'm missing here - given that the images were taken two months apart, how can the angle of the sun be exactly the same? These aren't images of real objects, but images of other images! No way can you compare the colour rendition unless you are buying a camera to photograph other photographs. Yes, the house images are photographs of photographs. But that doesn't invalidate the comparison: the camera has no way of telling that the photons it sees are reflected from paper rather than real grass/trees/house. -Dave It completely invalidates any colour comparison. The spectrum of light emitted from the "grass" on a photograph or print will differ completely from the spectrum from real grass - consider the near IR reflected from the chlorophyll for example, or the reflectivity in near-UV of some flowers. The camera's RGB, CMY or RGBC sensors will react differently to artificial colours than real ones. David |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
David J Taylor wrote: per wrote: Here are other comparisons between those: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page8.asp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page9.asp Yes, and the ISO 400 shots show how the noise reduction algorithms differ between the two cameras, with the Panasonic retaining sharpness, while perhaps the Canon has lower noise! Plenty to choose from..... David The only conclusive statement that I can make at the present time is that they are differences and they are noticeable. However, I cannot tell if one is considered better quality over the other. I am not even sure which I like better and when I can express a preference it does not always point to the same camera. The only thing that I can categorically state is. Favor Panasonic - Black Body, Lens Hood and Filter Ring, smaller and lighter, currently cheaper Favor Canon - Leader in making digital cameras, swiveling lcd, better movie mode |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
Are you saying that this is not an honest comparison and one should not rely on it? In terms of photographing real objects, taking photographs of photgraphs is, in my opnion, completely useless. I'm not saying it's dishonest, simply that the results will not be representative of photographing actual grass, trees, houses etc.. Cheers, David |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
Does it also invalidate the portrait in sunlight of the woman. It seems that the color and also the exposure of the FZ5 are not as pleasing. I don't know. It that a photograph of a photograph again? I was also thinking of something else. Eventually I am planning on buying a DRXT or a 20D (if someone does not talk me into getting a Nikon D70s. Would the Canon S2 results and the Canon DSLR results look closer since they are both from the Canon family or does that not make a difference.? David J Taylor wrote: I don't know, but I would suspect that it's two different design teams, certainly two different sensors, aimed at two different markets. My guess is "no". Perhaps there's someone who owns both cameras who can comment? David |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Sill wrote:
"David J Taylor" writes: It completely invalidates any colour comparison. Not exactly. The spectrum of light emitted from the "grass" on a photograph or print will differ completely from the spectrum from real grass - consider the near IR reflected from the chlorophyll for example, or the reflectivity in near-UV of some flowers. The camera's RGB, CMY or RGBC sensors will react differently to artificial colours than real ones. The purpose of those photos is to compare different cameras taking a photo of the same subject. The fact that the grass isn't real doesn't mean you can't compare the FZ photo of the photo to the S2 photo of the same photo. Obviously you can't use the photos to predict how the cameras will capture a different-but-similar real scene, for the reasons you stated above. -Dave Yes, but the difference is critical. Of course you can compare, and indeed see the much worse JPEG compression artefacts and other errors on the Canon images. But someone is already comparing these images as if they were images of actual objects, and I feel they are being misled. You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl objects with any degree of accuracy. Cheers, David |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
[] The only conclusive statement that I can make at the present time is that they are differences and they are noticeable. However, I cannot tell if one is considered better quality over the other. I am not even sure which I like better and when I can express a preference it does not always point to the same camera. The only thing that I can categorically state is. Favor Panasonic - Black Body, Lens Hood and Filter Ring, smaller and lighter, currently cheaper Favor Canon - Leader in making digital cameras, swiveling lcd, better movie mode I'd modify that slightly: - Canon leads in some aspects of digital cameras but not all. - from the samples presented, the images from the Canon are noticeably worse than those from the FZ5 You now have to decide whether the other factors you listed are more important, perhaps making up some sort of weighted comparison chart and see which camera score the most points for your weighting of the factors. What is perhaps more important is to handle both cameras and see which you prefer. I don't think you would go wrong with either. Cheers, David |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" writes:
Yes, but the difference is critical. Of course you can compare, and indeed see the much worse JPEG compression artefacts and other errors on the Canon images. But someone is already comparing these images as if they were images of actual objects, and I feel they are being misled. If you click on any of the sample images, there's a link at the top to: http://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/TESTS/TESTS.HTM which explains each test photo and the rationale behind it. E.g., for the house photo: The "House" Poster This is another studio poster shot, created mainly to stress the detail-resolving power of the cameras. The original was shot on 35mm Kodak Royal Gold 25 color-negative film, perhaps the sharpest and finest-grained color emulsion on the market today. It was scanned to a 72 megabyte RGB file via PhotoCD Pro, then cropped, converted to the CMYK color space, and printed on a large-format poster machine. You'll find the best areas for evaluating detail are in the center and top of the image: The bricks, details in the windows, and the fine patterns of leaves, sticks, and pine needles against the sky are all good subjects for seeing detail in the cameras. The subtle gradations of gray in the shingles on the house's roof also turn out to be a excellent indicator of how well cameras do in preserving subtle tonal variations in the face of the JPEG image-compression most cameras use. Overall, the detail in this poster is quite fine, and should work well for evaluating cameras up to about 2.5-3 megapixels. (At that point, we'll need to make a new poster, perhaps starting with medium-format film, and output on one of the new 1440-dpi high-resolution large-format inkjet printers.) A couple of deficiencies in this poster are important to note though, one having to do with the lens used to capture the original shot, and one with the reproduction process itself. Sharp eyes looking at pictures taken with higher-resolution cameras will note a "softness" in the corners of the picture, most evident as a lack of texture in the grass at lower left. This is an artifact of the camera lens used, a Nikkor 35-85 mm f4.5-5.6 zoom set at about a 40-45mm focal length, mounted on a Nikon 6006 camera. We didn't realize until after the poster was made that this lens loses some resolution in the corners, resulting in the lack of fine texture in the grass at lower left. The other issue with this image is that the amount of "unsharp masking" applied to the image was slightly high for the printing process, with the result that there are very thin, but noticeable "halos" around the fine branches silhouetted against the sky. While these halos themselves are a feature that can test camera resolution, they can also aggravate the effects of in-camera image sharpening. Neither of these issues is a "killer" in our view, but they do somewhat restrict the usefulness of images from this target. (For instance, we can't very well use it to evaluate corner sharpness of the cameras we test!) You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl objects with any degree of accuracy. No, I agree completely and said as much in my previous message. -Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Canon EOS Digital Rebel 6.3 Megapixel Used | Anonymous | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 27th 04 08:47 AM |
Canon 10d or Nikon D70. | Dmanfish | Digital Photography | 102 | August 18th 04 12:26 PM |
WTT: Canon EOS Lenses for Nikon AFD Lenses | Frank Malloway | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | June 26th 04 12:53 AM |
FS: Canon Powershot S45 (4 MP) Digital camera + extras... | basjan | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 2nd 04 05:17 AM |
FS: Cameras For Parts | Jerry Dycus | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 5 | September 27th 03 12:51 PM |