Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/ca [...] ympus_test

3 images each
Equivalent focal lengths
100 ISO
WB = auto on both
JPEG output highest each provides
Focusing done manually
Both cameras tripod mounted
Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
Controlled lighting environment
Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <pn80f154iiatkcgruocmqrje2e2r2mn27l@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/ca [...] ympus_test
>
> 3 images each
> Equivalent focal lengths
> 100 ISO
> WB = auto on both
> JPEG output highest each provides
> Focusing done manually
> Both cameras tripod mounted
> Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
> Controlled lighting environment
> Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings

#1: Your focus is way off on at least two of the Rebel shots.

#2: The shots highlight major differences in DOF, not lens quality.
For example, 7.1mm at f/5.6 on the Oly is going to give a near infinite
depth of field, with objects beyond 2.3 feet being in acceptable
sharpness. Comparatively, 18mm at f/7.1 with the Digital Rebel is going
to have a near sharpness of about 3.5 feet.

This gets worse down the line. At 35mm and f/7.1, the depth of field
will be 2.5 feet TOTAL for the Digital Rebel. At 55mm and f/7.1, you're
less than a foot. The Oly's depth of field at equivalent fields of view
will be 6 feet and 2 feet respectively.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

#3: The Oly has certainly a stronger in camera sharpening regimen. If
it has a "low sharpening" or "no sharpening" mode, please use it when
you repeat the test.

My suggestions to correct this test:

#1: Depth of field variations will ALWAYS occur when you're comparing
point and shoots with HUGE DOFs with dSLRs that have relatively narrow
DOFs. I would set up a test shot that has the camera parallel to a
subject, with most of the scene within about a foot of where you will be
focusing.

My suggestion: set a bunch of random stuff on a table, make sure it is
well lit and more or less parallel with the focal plane of the camera.
Don't let the total distance between the objects and the focal distance
exceed more than six inches in either direction.

#2: Make sure the Oly has it's sharpening set as low as possible, or
turn up the Rebel's to the highest setting (+2).

#3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and
f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses
are really soft wide open, but sharpen very nicely as you stop down.
Additionally, this will make sure that we're not seeing manifestations
of narrow depth of field.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA email me @ vince_j69el@hotmail.com

Vince....



"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
newsn80f154iiatkcgruocmqrje2e2r2mn27l@4ax.com...
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/ca [...] ympus_test

3 images each
Equivalent focal lengths
100 ISO
WB = auto on both
JPEG output highest each provides
Focusing done manually
Both cameras tripod mounted
Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
Controlled lighting environment
Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

>
> #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and
> f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses
> are really soft wide open,

I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lb0j0F11l4erU6@individual.net...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>
> >
> > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and
> > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses
> > are really soft wide open,
>
> I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft.

Blah BLAH BLAH BLAH blah. Blah blah blah BLAH BLAH.

Greg

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
> I don't bash cameras.
> Colin D.

Good approach Colin, I hope a few more follow your lead

Toa

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:
>> That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
>> I don't bash cameras.
>> Colin D.
>
> Good approach Colin, I hope a few more follow your lead


Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)

-Mike

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42F15F79.3CF85F07@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1 says...
> One more point: You'll not fail to note that I have said *nothing* about
> the Oly performance. That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
> I don't bash cameras. Unlike Rich and Stacey.

Same. I don't see anything wrong with the Oly's performance, other than
its results versus the Rebel's results are flawed due to the massive
depth of field differences and in-camera sharpening. And the poor focus
on the part of the user...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)
>
> -Mike

I think I speak for most of us when I say this:

IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.

When Stacey showed up, I was more than willing to let him/her enjoy the
E300 on the merits of them liking the camera and being comfortable with
it. That went out the window fast. Some people...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,

>> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)

> I think I speak for most of us when I say this:
>
> IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you.

Well... It will make me happy when I get some decent glass for it.

-Mike

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42f1b344$0$14607$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
> > IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you.
>
> Well... It will make me happy when I get some decent glass for it.

Ahh... the allure of good glass.

I don't have any cash so I stopped dreaming a long time ago.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mike Murphree wrote:

>
> I just spent over a week with an Oly C-8080 WZ before sending it back.
> It makes little difference how sharp the Oly lens is if the damn camera
> refuses to focus in a normally lit room. Yes, the AF assist light was
> on too and it still would hunt for a few seconds or more if it focused
> at all. Our old Oly C-2020Z runs rings around it indoors when focusing.
> I've considered the Rebel XT, but the handgrip is too small, the kit
> lens is too cheap, and will probably buy a Nikon D50 or D70s with the
> 18-70mm AF-S DX lens instead...
>


Refreshing to see someone doing their own testing rather than -following the
pack-..

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
>> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)
>>
>> -Mike
>
> I think I speak for most of us when I say this:
>
> IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
> biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
> who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.

You actually think I'm going to change YOUR mind? I just hate seeing you and
other preach "Buy a canon kit" and the people end up with this shitty
performing lens in the bargain.


--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 02:54:58 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
>> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)
>>
>> -Mike
>
>I think I speak for most of us when I say this:
>
>IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
>biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
>who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.

I've only mentioned (as I said before) the kit lens and the Rebel's
build quality. Question; Do you own either and if not, how have I
told YOU what that you are doing wrong?
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> I wish this was the case. But RichA and Stacey are both major sources
> of BAD INFORMATION on this board. For those who read, but might not
> post, or those who might THINK of posting stupid stuff, I think we have
> a responsibility to call bullshit when we see it.

I think that you're giving a lot less credit to the average reader, if
there is such a thing, than they deserve.

I doubt that if a single person ever took the "advice," or believed a
single post, written by Steve Gionovella (aka George Preddy, Suzie
Quinn, Don Gentile, etc.), Rich A, or Stacey. They are all pathalogical
liars, and they have made that fact abundantly clear to anyone that
reads this group.

Yes, you are correct that those two individuals are major sources of
incorrect, and bad information, but even a newbie can figure that out.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (