No way is it equivalent to the L series lenses. Those lenses are so nice. My boss has all L series lenses and when I use them the results are unreal. pahlease...
I want to play with a Mark II, but my budget won't permit it, and I don't think my source for testing cams will be getting one any time soon either. It could be a good wedding cam for candids, but an SLR/n or EOS 1Ds will serve better. They still shoot a lot of medium format and scan it, perhaps one of those new leaf 22MP untethered backs would be best. But since they pass the cost of film on to the client, the current shoot and scan method serves quite well. Anyway, I digress.
Eugene, I think the Pro1 has an ISO 50 setting, that might contribute to the improvement.
I've only looked at the resolution test chart from the C8080 for comparison to the 828, curiously, it too looked better than the 828.
One way to use these cameras would be to shoot them at ISO 100 RAW, and then digitally push process them. Not ideal in some situations, but the examples I've seen around the web look better than shooting at the ISO 400 settings that the cameras provide.
I've only looked at the resolution test chart from the C8080 for comparison to the 828, curiously, it too looked better than the 828.
I wonder if it's the "emerald" color filters at fault. Reds for contrast, greens for detail, and blue for what? I don't remember. Our vision is much less sensitive to blue, so why swap the green for blue-green?
The Sonys really don't have the best lenses, which I think contributes greatly to things like chromatic aberration, especially at normal zoom ranges. The Nikons and Minoltas have the best lenses, and least problems with that sort of issue. I bet the Canon lenses will still be better than Sony one, but the Konica-Minolta A2 probably has the best lens out of the 8MP pack, though Pentax might have something to say about that.
I was surprised by how much noise there was in the 828 though simply because Sony is the worst offender at in-camera processing. They usually do way too much, and aren't SLR-like at all smoothing out areas, sharpening edges, boosting contrast and saturation especially. Canons are again second in this regard except for the digital rebel and up. Minolta is maybe even too conservative with their in-camera processing and their jpeg conversion is relatively poor (size and artifacts are fine but a slight loss in apparent resolution). Nikon and Pentax strike a good balance in general.
Of course the problem is that people expect a $1000 camera to take better pictures than a $500 camera out of the box, and traditionally and SLR type camera takes accurate pictures that are ready for post-process fine tuning by the user later. while point-and-shoot models take that out of the user's hands for the most part. You can see tons of threads at dpreview.com that boil down to this issue -- people claiming that their 3Mp Canon P&S takes better pictures than their new digital rebel and such.
Be somewhat wary of DP Review though. The site's author is fairly Canon-centric which can be frustrating to people who are used to other brands. He uses them as the benchmark when looking at other cameras, and that pint of view can sometimes lead to erroneous expectations and conclusions. The forums are quite segregated and it's pretty hard to get a balanced assessment out of them. That's especially true in the Canon and Nikon forums. On the other hand, the info and data there is top notch. Now Phil Askey just has to get back to doing more reviews again.
The only camera of the 8Mp group to me that has some serious upside over the 5Mp group is the KM A2 simply because its EVF is super-high res and can do DOF preview. Everything else, including the A2 actually, just has incremental improvements or extra perks from its 5Mp progenitor.
Be somewhat wary of DP Review though. The site's author is fairly Canon-centric which can be frustrating to people who are used to other brands. He uses them as the benchmark when looking at other cameras, and that pint of view can sometimes lead to erroneous expectations and conclusions. The forums are quite segregated and it's pretty hard to get a balanced assessment out of them. That's especially true in the Canon and Nikon forums. On the other hand, the info and data there is top notch. Now Phil Askey just has to get back to doing more reviews again.
Canon-centric? Not quite. He's gaga for the Nikon D2H and one of his favorite cameras ever is Fuji's S2 Pro. All review sites are "Canon-centric" since Canon has become the veritable Microsoft of the digital camera industry. They're very diligent about getting hardware into the hands of reviewers, and they've always got a massive presence at all major media events (see this year's Super Bowl).
The Nikons and Minoltas have the best lenses, and least problems with that sort of issue.... Nikon and Pentax strike a good balance in general.
* * * * *
Be somewhat wary of DP Review though. The site's author is fairly Canon-centric which can be frustrating to people who are used to other brands.
Like people who are "Nikon-centric," BuonRotto? Contrast the two quotes above to realize that nobody is completely neutral and unbiased.
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
All review sites are "Canon-centric" since Canon has become the veritable Microsoft of the digital camera industry.
That's a good point. Canon has amassed disproportionately large mindshare in the digital camera arena. Maybe this relates to my point below, that the vast majority of users want pleasant pictures out of the camera (without post-processing), and Canon delivers on that.
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Of course the problem is that people expect a $1000 camera to take better pictures than a $500 camera out of the box, and traditionally and SLR type camera takes accurate pictures that are ready for post-process fine tuning by the user later.
I think BuonRotto hits the nail right on the head with this analysis. The vast majority of photographers (digital and film, myself included) have little or no clue about post-processing. And they do not want to be bothered with it. That's why Canon is getting rich off inexpensive cameras that produce great ready-to-print images rather than high-detail professional shots that require post-processing.
I have to admit though that I am being reactionary. My bias, or rather my own frustration stems from my impression that people think Canon is the end-all be-all of computer peripherals. My experience with Canons has been average at best: scanners, printers and digital cameras.
Let's not forget with all this megapixel hype that a 3Mp camera can take a good 8x10 picture. 8MP is really overkill unless you're planning on printing murals.
Let's not forget with all this megapixel hype that a 3Mp camera can take a good 8x10 picture. 8MP is really overkill unless you're planning on printing murals.
Well, if you shoot at high ISO a lot, you have to get the noise down by downscaling the image. There's also the issue of being able to perform some drastic crops.
What does an 828 image look like at 2MP? I would guess that nothing can rescue the ISO 800 performance, though, nor do much for ISO 400.
The best solution may be to shoot at ISO 100, even low light, shoot RAW, and fix it up later. Not ideal for every situation.
Olympus claims to have better noise performance. Could be a reference to a lot of things: agressive in-camera processing, or some dark frams subtraction method (only good for static subjects), or worst of all, a somewhat less than ambitious ISO rating (ie, such that ISO 400/200/100 markings are in actual fact closer to ISO 320/160/64.)
So what's your flavor of today, BuonRotto? I like small and simple tools, like my 12" iBook. In the camera arena, Pentax has always given me the perfect compromise between simplicity and performance. If the Pentax *ist D were not 50% more expensive than the Digital Rebel (even more expensive with a lens), I would probably already have fallen for it.
Quote:
Let's not forget with all this megapixel hype that a 3Mp camera can take a good 8x10 picture.
As I said above, I've been perfectly satisfied with my close to 3 year-old 2MP PowerShot A20. I'm terribly tempted to upgrade to a DSLR, or at least a high end prosumer camera like the Coolpix 5700 or PowerShot Pro 1. But I'm just as likely to stick with a tried-and-true 3MP PowerShot A70 (now A75) or 4MP A80, and that not just for price reasons.
Nonetheless, Eugene (and others before him) has a good point about scaling down to reduce noise and cropping. I clearly remember high school art classes, when the cutting table was an invaluable (post-) photographic tool.
1) For that cost, you're better off getting a DSLR which can take other Canon (if you prefer Canon) lenses. The quality of your images will be demonstrably higher due to the better metering mechanism and lens quality (at the very least... other factors are improved as well).
2) The actual resolving power of that lens (which has a huge focal length ratio) is probably not even good enough to capture a clean 8MP image at the extremes. I would almost guarantee the lens itself will cause chromatic abberations at very wide angles and some geometric distortion as well.
In short, if the reviews say it "is a great (not just good)" camera, then maybe go your local retailer and ask to test it out for a bit (even in the parking lot if you have to). But I definitely would look into this camera closely before buying. Whereas with some of the other Canon PAS cameras like the A75 or A80, you can be reasonably assured "you're getting your money's worth".
For anyone looking at the Nikon 8700, I believe that camera uses the same chip as the Sony 828. IOW, don't buy it.
Well, DCResource just posted their (his) review of the PowerShot Pro1. Conclusion, it's a nice camera, but the images are a bit noisy and exhibit purple fringing, plus there's vignetting. Maybe a bit better than the Sony 828, but not worth US$1000.
Bottom line: Matsu was right. 8MP ultrazoom prosumer cameras are for people with more money than sense.
My thoughts: I wish Canon and others would offer these cameras with sensors that have half the MP. I imagine a Pro1 with a 4-5MP sensor would produce much better images for "prosumers" that don't want to post-process every shot they take with Photoshop.
Comments
Eugene, I think the Pro1 has an ISO 50 setting, that might contribute to the improvement.
I've only looked at the resolution test chart from the C8080 for comparison to the 828, curiously, it too looked better than the 828.
One way to use these cameras would be to shoot them at ISO 100 RAW, and then digitally push process them. Not ideal in some situations, but the examples I've seen around the web look better than shooting at the ISO 400 settings that the cameras provide.
dpreview.com
Very good site which compares all types of digital cameras.
Originally posted by Matsu
I've only looked at the resolution test chart from the C8080 for comparison to the 828, curiously, it too looked better than the 828.
I wonder if it's the "emerald" color filters at fault. Reds for contrast, greens for detail, and blue for what? I don't remember. Our vision is much less sensitive to blue, so why swap the green for blue-green?
I was surprised by how much noise there was in the 828 though simply because Sony is the worst offender at in-camera processing. They usually do way too much, and aren't SLR-like at all smoothing out areas, sharpening edges, boosting contrast and saturation especially. Canons are again second in this regard except for the digital rebel and up. Minolta is maybe even too conservative with their in-camera processing and their jpeg conversion is relatively poor (size and artifacts are fine but a slight loss in apparent resolution). Nikon and Pentax strike a good balance in general.
Of course the problem is that people expect a $1000 camera to take better pictures than a $500 camera out of the box, and traditionally and SLR type camera takes accurate pictures that are ready for post-process fine tuning by the user later. while point-and-shoot models take that out of the user's hands for the most part. You can see tons of threads at dpreview.com that boil down to this issue -- people claiming that their 3Mp Canon P&S takes better pictures than their new digital rebel and such.
Be somewhat wary of DP Review though. The site's author is fairly Canon-centric which can be frustrating to people who are used to other brands. He uses them as the benchmark when looking at other cameras, and that pint of view can sometimes lead to erroneous expectations and conclusions. The forums are quite segregated and it's pretty hard to get a balanced assessment out of them. That's especially true in the Canon and Nikon forums. On the other hand, the info and data there is top notch. Now Phil Askey just has to get back to doing more reviews again.
The only camera of the 8Mp group to me that has some serious upside over the 5Mp group is the KM A2 simply because its EVF is super-high res and can do DOF preview. Everything else, including the A2 actually, just has incremental improvements or extra perks from its 5Mp progenitor.
Be somewhat wary of DP Review though. The site's author is fairly Canon-centric which can be frustrating to people who are used to other brands. He uses them as the benchmark when looking at other cameras, and that pint of view can sometimes lead to erroneous expectations and conclusions. The forums are quite segregated and it's pretty hard to get a balanced assessment out of them. That's especially true in the Canon and Nikon forums. On the other hand, the info and data there is top notch. Now Phil Askey just has to get back to doing more reviews again.
Canon-centric? Not quite. He's gaga for the Nikon D2H and one of his favorite cameras ever is Fuji's S2 Pro. All review sites are "Canon-centric" since Canon has become the veritable Microsoft of the digital camera industry. They're very diligent about getting hardware into the hands of reviewers, and they've always got a massive presence at all major media events (see this year's Super Bowl).
What are the top three 4MP cameras out there?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The Nikons and Minoltas have the best lenses, and least problems with that sort of issue.... Nikon and Pentax strike a good balance in general.
* * * * *
Be somewhat wary of DP Review though. The site's author is fairly Canon-centric which can be frustrating to people who are used to other brands.
Like people who are "Nikon-centric," BuonRotto?
Originally posted by Eugene
All review sites are "Canon-centric" since Canon has become the veritable Microsoft of the digital camera industry.
That's a good point. Canon has amassed disproportionately large mindshare in the digital camera arena. Maybe this relates to my point below, that the vast majority of users want pleasant pictures out of the camera (without post-processing), and Canon delivers on that.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Of course the problem is that people expect a $1000 camera to take better pictures than a $500 camera out of the box, and traditionally and SLR type camera takes accurate pictures that are ready for post-process fine tuning by the user later.
I think BuonRotto hits the nail right on the head with this analysis. The vast majority of photographers (digital and film, myself included) have little or no clue about post-processing. And they do not want to be bothered with it. That's why Canon is getting rich off inexpensive cameras that produce great ready-to-print images rather than high-detail professional shots that require post-processing.
Escher
I have to admit though that I am being reactionary. My bias, or rather my own frustration stems from my impression that people think Canon is the end-all be-all of computer peripherals. My experience with Canons has been average at best: scanners, printers and digital cameras.
Let's not forget with all this megapixel hype that a 3Mp camera can take a good 8x10 picture. 8MP is really overkill unless you're planning on printing murals.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Let's not forget with all this megapixel hype that a 3Mp camera can take a good 8x10 picture. 8MP is really overkill unless you're planning on printing murals.
Well, if you shoot at high ISO a lot, you have to get the noise down by downscaling the image.
The best solution may be to shoot at ISO 100, even low light, shoot RAW, and fix it up later. Not ideal for every situation.
Olympus claims to have better noise performance. Could be a reference to a lot of things: agressive in-camera processing, or some dark frams subtraction method (only good for static subjects), or worst of all, a somewhat less than ambitious ISO rating (ie, such that ISO 400/200/100 markings are in actual fact closer to ISO 320/160/64.)
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I'll have you know that I'm an ex-Nikon user.
So what's your flavor of today, BuonRotto?
Let's not forget with all this megapixel hype that a 3Mp camera can take a good 8x10 picture.
As I said above, I've been perfectly satisfied with my close to 3 year-old 2MP PowerShot A20. I'm terribly tempted to upgrade to a DSLR, or at least a high end prosumer camera like the Coolpix 5700 or PowerShot Pro 1. But I'm just as likely to stick with a tried-and-true 3MP PowerShot A70 (now A75) or 4MP A80, and that not just for price reasons.
Nonetheless, Eugene (and others before him) has a good point about scaling down to reduce noise and cropping. I clearly remember high school art classes, when the cutting table was an invaluable (post-) photographic tool.
Escher
1) For that cost, you're better off getting a DSLR which can take other Canon (if you prefer Canon) lenses. The quality of your images will be demonstrably higher due to the better metering mechanism and lens quality (at the very least... other factors are improved as well).
2) The actual resolving power of that lens (which has a huge focal length ratio) is probably not even good enough to capture a clean 8MP image at the extremes. I would almost guarantee the lens itself will cause chromatic abberations at very wide angles and some geometric distortion as well.
In short, if the reviews say it "is a great (not just good)" camera, then maybe go your local retailer and ask to test it out for a bit (even in the parking lot if you have to). But I definitely would look into this camera closely before buying. Whereas with some of the other Canon PAS cameras like the A75 or A80, you can be reasonably assured "you're getting your money's worth".
For anyone looking at the Nikon 8700, I believe that camera uses the same chip as the Sony 828. IOW, don't buy it.
Bottom line: Matsu was right. 8MP ultrazoom prosumer cameras are for people with more money than sense.
My thoughts: I wish Canon and others would offer these cameras with sensors that have half the MP. I imagine a Pro1 with a 4-5MP sensor would produce much better images for "prosumers" that don't want to post-process every shot they take with Photoshop.
Escher