Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 6

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <4lgb919bhru3n0lfreuerr2p3qi6dibea2@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>I don't doubt the superiority of 120 over 35mm. I use 120 film most
>days, plus I shoot 4x5" sheet film several days in an average month,
>so I know what "superior image quality" really means. But 35mm is
>more than good enough for 90% of film photography, just as Four Thirds
>is more than good enough for 90% of digital.

You seem to feel that I should be arguing against this. This suggests that I
was right - you really haven't been reading what I've written.

>The main thrust of your post is that you are a hypocrite. You
>criticise Four Thirds yet you use a Canon 10D, which in terms of image
>quality is inferior to either of the Olympus Four Thirds bodies.

I think that's probably extremely debatable, but nevertheless, this is yet
more evidence that you haven't actually read my posts - I'm already on
record as saying that the 10D is what I use when I want convinience, not
quality.

>You are arguing only for the point of arguing,

Well duh! This is Usenet. If you're investing any more than casual interest
in this thread, then you're probably wasting your effort.

>and repeating your
>arguments over and over again (and again, and again some more) proves
>only that you are repeatedly a hypocrite.

Repetition of the actual point I've been making stands to reason when your
responses indicate that you keep thinking I'm arguing for something that I'm
not actually arguing for. You're still doing it, so we'll try again:

120 had a quality advantage over 35mm at inception. It still has it.

This quality advantage comes from the capture area.

Increased capture area, for a given capture technology, will (within reason)
always give you better image quality.

35mm cameras sold on factors such as convinience, not image quality.

4/3 has the smallest capture area in its market segment (digital SLRs), and
so will struggle to match its competitors for image quality.

Unlike 120 vs 35mm, the 4/3 systems on sale don't really have a compelling
advantage analogous to the increased convinience of 35mm cameras over 120
cameras.

The market segment they play in is, in many ways, the "medium format" of the
digital world - it's a segment that provides relatively bulky, inconvinient
cameras, and for this you get image quality.

Lagging in image quality, and missing a compelling advantage in convinience,
size, price, etc., 4/3 may well struggle to remain viable.

That's it - simply that. At no point have I suggested that 4/3 can't produce
images that aren't "good enough", it demonstrably can. Where it deserves
criticism is in its marketing and conception. In a lot of ways, it probably
seemed like a good idea at the time - it *was* supposed to have a compelling
advantage over the other DSLR systems, namely size and the whole "designed
for digital" lens range thing, but in the time since then and 4/3 systems
becoming available on the market in significant numbers, events have rather
overtaken it, and the compelling advantages disappeared when the other guys
proved they could do it all too, but with bigger sensors and their existing
lens mounts. That's a shame, but it's a tough world.

Maybe 4/3 can carve out a niche for itself and remain viable long-term.
remains to be seen, but if you were going to compete in the digital SLR
market, you wouldn't want to start from here, unless you're some kind of
moron.

>No doubt you will argue some more, so welcome to my kill file, and
>have a nice day.

There's not much point in you seeing my posts if you're just going to use
them as a launchpad for tilting against imagined windmills anyway. If it
helps you to see me as some kind of sworn-enemy of the 4/3 system and all
its works, then feel free to do so. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

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

In article <d74p1j$5va$2@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>
>> I'll wager that Canon, Nikon, Pentax et al are selling far more lenses as a
>> result of their DSLR business than Olympus are.
>
>Maybe not on a camera by camera basis ... you must buy their lenses!
>Most of the other DSLR buyers are using their existing lens sets.

Certainly many of them are, but ISTM that there are a *lot* of people who
are getting into SLR photography for the first time with digital, and
apparently they're mostly buying Canons.

And then there are all those people who bought a DSLR and ended up expanding
their lens collection to get their favourite field of view back. If you
liked shooting with a 50mm lens before, and you bought a 20D, you;re now
going to be lusting after a nice fast 35mm lens.

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

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <d74p1j$5va$2@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Maybe not on a camera by camera basis ... you must buy their lenses!
>>Most of the other DSLR buyers are using their existing lens sets.
>
>
> Certainly many of them are, but ISTM that there are a *lot* of people who
> are getting into SLR photography for the first time with digital, and
> apparently they're mostly buying Canons.

Canon is being rewarded for their boldness in digital as well as the
development assets to make it happen.

>
> And then there are all those people who bought a DSLR and ended up expanding
> their lens collection to get their favourite field of view back. If you
> liked shooting with a 50mm lens before, and you bought a 20D, you;re now
> going to be lusting after a nice fast 35mm lens.

Me. Or rather I'm wondering if Minolta will do a 12 or 14mm... Oh well,
wide angle looks better on slide anyway. Right?

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <d74ni5$1kn$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>It's remarkable, that given the slightly increased density that the
>>noise is only so-slightly higher in the 20D (V 10D). But it is higher.
>
>
> Not in my experience.

Per the dpreview measurements.

> The 20D has less noise, although, if conditions
> are ripe for banding, then the 20D may show the noise more, but the
> total noise is actually lower.

That would be dependant on how one samples for the S/N computations. In
the end, 10D v 20D the noise difference is probably not perceptible in
most images.

Any links to images with the 'banding' issue?

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

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

George Preddy (aka Scharf, Steven) wrote:

> I've been hearing plenty of great things about a soon-to-be released
> Four Thirds 20D-Killer body by Sigma. The sensor is supposed to be
> an improved version of the Foveon, manufactured by a licensed
> third-party company. The announcement will probably happen before
> the end of this summer, for a November or December shipping date.
> No wonder Sigma has been so quiet. This DSLR is going to be HOT.

Sigma is out of digital SLR development indefinitely. SD10 sales will
continue.

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

<george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117143118.172121.11070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> George Preddy (aka Scharf, Steven) wrote:
>
>
> Sigma is out of digital SLR development indefinitely. SD10 sales will
> continue.
>
I don't see the point of sales continuing. What good will that one sale per
month do them?
They should give up while they're behind.
H.

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <d75fhd$3fg$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sigma is out of digital SLR development indefinitely. SD10 sales will
>>>continue to stagnate, choke and die.
>
>
> It is totally unethical to change what someone said, and attribute it to
> them, no matter who that person is.

I agree. However, Preddy is nothing but a troll. He is not "someone".

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Lourens Smak wrote:
>
>> In article <d71usg$itg$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I get a less noisy image at ISO 800 from my 6 mpix camera than the 5
>>>mpix pro E-1 gets at ISO 200.
>>
>>
>> Please post something, I could use a good laugh.
>
> I don't have an E-1 handy, so sorry.
>


He meant something you've shot with ANY camera..

--

Stacey

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
> Here's a great example of E300 image quality vs a 10D.
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] e=13639123
> Anyone who thinks the lower image has higher "image quality" needs their
> head examined..

I think the upper image shows the texture of the leaves and petals
better but that may just be an issue of focus and exposure. You can
easily all the little water droplets on the flower. The lower one has
weird looking OOF highlights and generally doesn't look as "real".
Some of the difference probably comes from different in-camera
processing and/or from the lens. I'd like to see the exact same shot
taken with both cameras.

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

Chris Brown wrote:

>
> Increased capture area, for a given capture technology, will (within
> reason) always give you better image quality.

The problem is that digital camera brands never use the same "capture
technology" so this doesn't work exactly the same way as it did with film.
And you surely must agree at some point enough is enough for a given print
size or else everyone would be shooting the same size film as they wanted
to print it? Sure for huge prints 4/3 might be at a disadvantage at some
point but for 11X14 and under I can't imagine it ever being an issue.



>
> 4/3 has the smallest capture area in its market segment (digital SLRs),
> and so will struggle to match its competitors for image quality.
>

Then again it does has some advantages being smaller like more DOF at a
given f stop, longer lenses are smaller and cheaper for the same FOV etc.
The sensor technology is here that will allow -really- good prints to be
made from this format, probably 16X20 or larger from the newest version of
the E1 and that's all I'd ever want from any camera. If someone is looking
to make HUGE noise free prints, then another "full frame" system probably
does make more sense. Since I'd never make prints that large, I can't see
this system being a "dead end" for me.
--

Stacey

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> The saving grace of digital transition is the instant feedback. For
>> tricky lighting, a couple test shots, and you know you're taking away the
>> images. Film forces unnecessary bracketing.
>
> I bracket less with film. With film, I spot meter the subject, place it
> where I want it and shoot. Maybe I check the shadows/highlights. With the
> dSLR, I don't have the foggiest clue in which direction the meter is going
> to miss*.

Why aren't you spot metering then? Or using a handheld meter if the camera
meter isn't consistant? I'm not having these kinds of exposure problems,
there seems to be plenty of latitude on the RAW files from the E300.



--

Stacey

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
> to print it? Sure for huge prints 4/3 might be at a disadvantage at some
> point but for 11X14 and under I can't imagine it ever being an issue.

4/3 was a very promising idea when first announced, but DX seems to
have taken the lead and will probably keep it, unless the 4/3 crowd
gets its act together in ways that don't seem likely.

> If someone is looking to make HUGE noise free prints, then another
> "full frame" system probably does make more sense. Since I'd never
> make prints that large, I can't see this system being a "dead end" for me.

Besides large prints, large high res systems also let you zoom very close
on-screen. And the megapixel marketroids have probably done 4/3 a big
disservice in spending the past several years spewing the myth that
you need 5+ MP to make good prints of anything (that would sure surprise
a lot of Nikon D1 users). 4/3 probably works best at around 4 MP.

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fn4o0F8ocaaU2@individual.net...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>>> 100 f/2.8 macro: sharpest 35mm lens v. Canon, Nikon (photodo).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How did I know you'd rate lenses reading photodo?
>>
>> It's the only neutral site for MTF tests that I know of.
>
> LOL
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Why do you find that worthy of laughter? It's the only one I've found,
besides Photozone, which also has the limitations that Alan mentions. But
it's more up to date than Photodo, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

please note the final word in the Subject: line is "rumour"

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

Tony Polson wrote:

>
> The 20D noise is lower because of Canon's more aggressive noise
> reduction, which unfortunately blunts the increased sharpness that
> would have been expected of the additional 2 MP over the 10D.
>


Then again it's a larger file so you have smoother color graduations which
improve image quality. I think as the image file size increases, the
sharpness per pixel isn't going to be as important unless your whole goal
is only to make equally sharp larger prints. Personally I never make prints
larger than 11X14 and most are 8X10 so the present cameras are already
plenty sharp to cover these sizes.
--

Stacey

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
> My point was that the color just doesn't look right on the canon shot.

I'm not sure which shot was which, and my laptop screen is probably
not very color accurate. But the top shot of that pair seemed to
show more color gradation. Was that the Olympus shot?

> I do get tired of people proclaiming that the canon's image quality
> is =SO= superior when many times it isn't. By only using high ISO
> noise looking at 100% crops as the sole factor in image quality you
> are ignoring a multitude of other factors like tonal separation,
> color bleeding, the ability to record highly saturated colors
> without blowing them into just a blob of color etc. --

Yes, the obvious cure may be more sensor area per pixel and more
pixels.

I notice that even at low resolution (laptop screen), these DSLR shots
look much better than anything I've taken with my pocket digicam. And
scanned MF or LF film, again at low resolution, may again look better
than anything a DSLR can do. MF has always looked better to me even
on small prints than 35mm. I'm not sure what the reason for this is.

The classic low-tech lens resolution test for 35mm was to tape a
double page of newspaper to the wall, shoot from a tripod, and see if
you can read all the text on the negative. Even some cheap cameras
like my garage sale Canonet QL17 G-III could pass this test. But I
don't think a current 4/3 or DX format DSLR could do it regardless of
the number of pixels.

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

On Thu, 26 May 2005 17:11:58 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
>news:7JydnQ1MbcduowvfRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
>>
>> "George Preddy" <george.preddy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Photodo's tests are very simple and not very credible among real
>>> professionals.
>>
>> What the hell would YOU, of all people, know about professionals?
>>
>> I know not one single professional photographer using any one single item
>> of
>> Sigma equipment, so I think this fact, and your insanely single minded
>> defence of Sigma equipment, place you firmly where you belong: nowhere. Go
>> away.
>>
>> Hannah.
>> A real, and very successful, professional photographer and confirmed Canon
>> user
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I do know of a couple of starting out pros who use some Sigma lenses, since
>they can't afford the Canon equivalent. But, generally, I don't know of any
>established pros who shoot with anything besides Canon or Nikon. Not to say
>there aren't any, but I don't know them, if there are...

Aftermarket lenses exist to serve a market that does not want to
spend the extra $'s on better original equipment maker lenses.
Obviously, pros wouldn't use them, provided they had the means
to buy original. There is also the issue of
servicing of equipment and a pro would likely go to a specialist
that dealt with one or two major brands, for speed reasons.
There have been very few cases of aftermarket lenses being superior to
name brand lenses. Questar Corporation used to make a reflex mirror
lens that was better than any camera maker offering, but offhand, I
can't think if any others. There have been other cases of "lenses"
that worked better than Canon, Nikon and Leica, but they weren't
specifically made for cameras and pros tend to be conservative and
they stick with what they can understand and readily use.
-Rich

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

Skip M wrote:

> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> LOL
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stacey
>
> Why do you find that worthy of laughter? It's the only one I've found,
> besides Photozone, which also has the limitations that Alan mentions. But
> it's more up to date than Photodo, too.
>


Because many of their tests don't mirror actual users real world
experiences, i.e. they have rated some lense higher than others which in
actually use aren't any better or even as good. Look at how high all the
consumer grade canon zooms are rated compared to some of the high end zuiko
primes and ask yourself if something isn't fishy? There isn't a canon zoom
rated as low as the 28F2 zuiko which is an AMAZING piece of glass. You
really think the canon kit zoom that came with the old rebel is better than
that prime lens is?

Another one I find comical, they rate two EXACT same lenses made by the
same company on the same line (150mm tele zenar in rollei and exakta 66
mount) only the mounts are different yet they are rated massively
different, 3.2 vs 3.9. Anyone I've talked to that have used both say they
can't see ANY difference between them and there shouldn't be any. What's up
with that? They also rate the 60mm curtagon very low at 2.9 yet people who
have used it vs the hassleblad 50mm (rated at 3.9) say the curtagon is the
sharper/contrastier lens. Interesting there is lots of hassleblad ads on
this site?

Even if sample variation can be to blame (not likely with a high end
schneider lens), how can you take any of these tests seriously if they are
only testing one sample? I can't believe anyone would take that site
seriously..

--

Stacey

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

In message <3fnaqpF8mesfU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>My point was that the color just doesn't look right on the canon shot. It
>might do a great job recording a color chart accuratly but IMHO it has a
>hard time dealing with highly saturated colors and blowing out reds etc.

Come on now, do you really think the camera has anything to do with this
in RAW mode? RAW data is very simple; three sets of filters, and about
3900 levels for each pixel. If the camera's JPEGs or the Canon
converters clip saturated colors, that does not stop you from converting
them in such a way as to avoid the clipping. In fact, simply setting
the cameras contrast to -2 usually avoids that, and does not result in
flat, "low contrast" JPEGs.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

On 26 May 2005 18:47:39 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:


>The classic low-tech lens resolution test for 35mm was to tape a
>double page of newspaper to the wall, shoot from a tripod, and see if
>you can read all the text on the negative. Even some cheap cameras
>like my garage sale Canonet QL17 G-III could pass this test. But I
>don't think a current 4/3 or DX format DSLR could do it regardless of
>the number of pixels.


This is true, I think. It's borne out by
Fernando Carello's comparison on my scan
snippets site -- where he compares 35 mm
Velvia scan against a Canon 10D, using the
same lens. The 35 mm scan really makes
mincemeat of the 10D capture.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
snippets site:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
(scroll to bottom for cited film/digital comparison)

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:

>>It's the only neutral site for MTF tests that I know of.
>
>
> LOL
>

Why do you find that funny? The site has done tests on lenses from
about 25 or so different manufacturers, covering a range of lenses from
each manufacturer. (eg 72 lenses Mamiya, 121 Nikkor, 35 Olympus, etc.)

So either they are not neutral (and you should prove it) or there are
other neutral sites (please provide links), or you're just posting
"LOL"'s on your retreat from a losing position.

Manufacturer's MTF charts are _marketing_ material and you don't know
what assumptions, hedges, "lab darling lenses", etc. are used, not to
mention different measuring equipment, procedures, etc. which render
comparisons, company to company a bit difficult to compare.

Photodo used the same measuring equipment and procedure for all of the
lenses tested. Any equipment or procedure bias is the same for all
lenses tested. They are therefore very comparable tests.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

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

Stacey wrote:

> So why bother to send more? You're just going to bash them as well.. Now if
> you didn't have this "thing" against 4/3 and could be objective about the
> total image quality, might be a different story..

Well, your red flower shot was a good start, so the whole thing would be
nice to see.

>
>
>>I'd rather see the entire, 100% image of the red flower with the bug on
>>it, for example. Please e-mail it (RAW preferably)
>
>
> Why would I send you a RAW file? So you can butcher it in ACR? I have to
> assume you don't own Olympus studio 1.3 which is the only good RAW
> converter IMHO for these files..

That may be so, but I doubt that ACR would be bad. All I typically do
in ACR is adjust the light temperature (if needed) and the exposure to
bring the highlihts down/up. I usually set the sharpness to 0, and then
that's the starting point.


>
>
>>You said you would.
>
>
> And that was before you started being a jerk about all of this.

Qui, moi? You're the one who keeps up the indefensible regarding the
limitations of the 4/3 format.

>
>
>>>And in responce you posted a picture of a dollar bill, interesting
>>>composition Alan..
>>
>>That was immediately after buying the DSLR and only for the purpose of
>>demonstrating the resolution and contrast.
>>
>
>
> Then show us the resolution and contrast in a 100% crop, shot with a equiv
> 300mm lens hand held one stop from wide open at infinity like my shot was,
> oh yea and upsample it so it would print at 300DPI on 8X10 before you cut
> the crop out! :-) Maybe then we can compare "image quality"?
>
> I have yet to see anything you've shot that isn't claimed as being a "test
> shot" or "not my best" or some other lame excuse...

You haven't looked very hard. I've posted several macros and other
shots over the past couple months. Shots made for the shot and nothing
else.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> It's the only neutral site for MTF tests that I know of.
>>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>
> Why do you find that funny? The site has done tests on lenses from
> about 25 or so different manufacturers, covering a range of lenses
> from each manufacturer. (eg 72 lenses Mamiya, 121 Nikkor, 35
> Olympus, etc.)
> So either they are not neutral (and you should prove it) or there
> are
> other neutral sites (please provide links), or you're just posting
> "LOL"'s on your retreat from a losing position.
>
> Manufacturer's MTF charts are _marketing_ material and you don't
> know
> what assumptions, hedges, "lab darling lenses", etc. are used, not
> to
> mention different measuring equipment, procedures, etc. which render
> comparisons, company to company a bit difficult to compare.
>
> Photodo used the same measuring equipment and procedure for all of
> the lenses tested. Any equipment or procedure bias is the same for
> all lenses tested. They are therefore very comparable tests.
>

Any word on the likelihood of photodo coming into the recent arena?
When was the last new test? Have there been no significant changes in
the lens population since then? I'd like to see what their methods
would show about newer equipment.

--
Frank ess

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

Paul Rubin wrote:

>Also, the feathers on the
> small ducks aren't so sharp,


Because they don't have any feathers yet? The "fuzz" can be easily seen in
an 11X14 print.


And again the other shots on that web site were all done with an old flatbed
from prints, not put up to display "technical quality"..Interesting no
coment on composition etc but only technical points? I think this is a
great image but of course it doesn't look great if your only interested in
the technical details?

http://stephe_2.tripod.com/newpics2.htm
--

Stacey

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:

>>
>> Why would I send you a RAW file? So you can butcher it in ACR? I have to
>> assume you don't own Olympus studio 1.3 which is the only good RAW
>> converter IMHO for these files..
>
> That may be so, but I doubt that ACR would be bad.

Why? Another guess about something you know nothing about? And yes the
colors from ACR are bland at best..


> All I typically do
> in ACR is adjust the light temperature (if needed) and the exposure to
> bring the highlihts down/up. I usually set the sharpness to 0, and then
> that's the starting point.

And you've compared olympus RAW files in both to know this? Here's a novel
idea, listen to someone who has first hand experience rather than guessing.


>>
>>
>> Then show us the resolution and contrast in a 100% crop, shot with a
>> equiv 300mm lens hand held one stop from wide open at infinity like my
>> shot was, oh yea and upsample it so it would print at 300DPI on 8X10
>> before you cut
>> the crop out! :-) Maybe then we can compare "image quality"?
>>

And???


>> I have yet to see anything you've shot that isn't claimed as being a
>> "test
>> shot" or "not my best" or some other lame excuse...
>
> You haven't looked very hard. I've posted several macros and other
> shots over the past couple months. Shots made for the shot and nothing
> else.

Where are the links? They sure aren't on your web site. How am I supposed to
find them? I've asked several times to see "Your best" and you've yet to
show me anything..

--

Stacey

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Part of the problem is white balance. Even in white light, most
> > digitals are much more sensitive to green than they are to red, such
> > that the red channel is always exposed a stop below the green, making it
> > noisier and more posterized.
>
> How do you "check" this problem on a specific camera model? Would you see it
> in a RGB histogram in a RAW converter? What type of "target" would you
> shoot to check this?

Huh? Shoot a grey card in sunlight and look at the RGB histogram.