Canon vs. Nikon ---> Picture quality
Smoothy
In the following text, I'm talking about:
Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
&
Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less noisy/less
grainy" than the ones
taken with Nikon.
(only considering daylight outdoor shots, not low-light and indoor
conditions)
Saying that, I have two questions:
1. Am I right about this?
And have you felt or experienced the same thing?
(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the online
reviews I've read,
notes and replies from you in these newsgroups, and sample pictures I've
seen)
2. What is the reason for this?
Lens? CCD? automatic settings? in-camera processing? ... ?
Thanks for your comments and help. :)
Tore Lund
> Hi guys,
>
> In the following text, I'm talking about:
> Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
> &
> Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
>
> I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less noisy/less
> grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> (I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the
> online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
> newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind. I draw very different
conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation, and I
do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO and all
the missing controls. I just think the 3100 takes better pictures with
more natural colors than the A70. But I am quite willing to be
convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the superiority
of the A70.
--
Tore
Smoothy
> Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
> Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being much
smaller and
lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like battery
charger or
Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality. ;)
Consider these two pictures:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
or these two:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0001.JPG
Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement, and I
don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
or these ones:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics, but even in
same situations
it's like this.
I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear your
opinins about this.
Thanks for your reply.
--
"Tore Lund" <tl...@next.online.no> wrote in message
news:bcnp8t$l156a$1...@ID-124507.news.dfncis.de...
Tore Lund
>> You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
>> Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
>> Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
>
> There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being much
> smaller and
> lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like battery
> charger or
> Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
> You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality. ;)
Exactly, and some confuse manual controls with quality - reviewers in
particular.
First of all, I am not much interested in the Nikon 2100. It has a
smaller sensor than the other cameras under consideration, so there is
reason to expect a somewhat shabbier quality.
> Consider these two pictures:
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
> Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
Sorry, I don't have much of an eye for "grain" or "noise", and the two
images are so different that I find them hard to compare.
While we're on the topic of "Sail Honeymoon", what do you think about
the sharpness of the writing on that board in this image:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/a70/samples/IMG_8565.JPG
> or these two:
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0001.JPG
> Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
>
> (the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement,
and I
> don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
It seems to me that the Nikon image is blurred all over. Whether that's
due to Steve shaking the camera or some autofocus bug, it does not
appear to be a typical trait of this camera. There are some really
clear images by the 2100 at Imaging Resource (especially the "far" shots
of the house).
Moreover, the chimney in the Canon shot is seriously bent. This is also
the case in the corresponding image by the A300.
> or these ones:
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
> Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
Honestly, I am surprised that you find them so different. What I do see
is the characteristic softness of the A70, but even this could simply be
due to less in-camera sharpening.
Bed time here, so I leave this reply somewhat unfinished. I'll think
more about it in the morning. What I had hoped to find is that one or
the other camera is definitely superior for landscape shots, but I have
seen little conclusive proof one way or the other so far.
--
Tore
Tesselator
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0001.JPG
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
JPegs... ;) You're trying to compare the imaging quality of two
cameras using jepegged images? Hehehehe...
Ummm...
Actually I think there are no online resources for you to compare for
yourself. You would need someone (who knew what they were doing) to
set up the cameras with the "as same as possible" settings and fire
off at almost exactly the same time at exactly the same subject and
then post clippings of the two resulting images. I say clippings cuz
uncompressed images as you know, are huge.
Anyway, you really won't be able to tell anything from jpegs. Well,
other than how badly the compression messed up the image. There might
be a difference in how well a manufacturer implemented the codec but
I doubt it. JPEG has been around for a long long time. It's very well
known.
As fas as which of those cameras produce "clearer, crisper" images I'm
willing to bet that it's so close the human eye will have trouble detecting
the differences. Color sat. and bal. etc. are a different story tho.
Given that the/any two cameras have a similar CCD size I would think
that you would be able learn more by looking at thier respective lens
designs.
This is one reason reviewers spend most of thier time on the feature set,
CCD type and size, Lens construction, and then just point out any
shortcommings or advantages. It's really difficult to compare the
"sharpness" (if there is such a thing) between any two similar cammera
models.
Online JPEGs aren't the answer for sure!
Steve
> Exactly, and some confuse manual controls with quality - reviewers in
> particular.
Tore:
I could not agree with you any more. Manual controls do not equal quality,
and reviewers in particular confuse the two. If you have followed some of
my earlier threads about my bad experience with a defective A series Canon,
you will know what I think about the current sad state of quality control in
the Canon A60/70 cameras. While the A60/70 has lots of great features (Av,
Tv, Manual and such), Canon has a serious problem with quality control in
the production of these cameras with more reports of defective ones in
various internet forums than any other camera. When one starts hearing about
misaligned viewfinders, tilted CCD's, lines across LCDs, stuck or crooked
lenses, stuck pixels, one starts to wonder about how a company with Canon's
reputation can let this problem continue to happen.
Then there is the Canon A series soft image problem which translates into
loss of detail that may never be recovered with sharpening.
I replaced my defective A series Canon with an Nikon Coolpix 3100 and I am
very pleased with both the decision to do so and the resulting pics of the
CP3100.
While is does not have all of the features (and manual controls confused
with quality), the resulting pics are quite good. They do not suffer from
the soft image problem of the A series Canons, and after over a 1000 pics, I
have found that the dynamic ISO has never gone over 150, resulting in very
little noise compared to what the the reviewers had to say. The "scene
modes" may not have the control of Av, Tv, and Manual, but they cover most
of the my needs. The "portrait mode", opens up the f/stop to reduce the
depth of field (DOF) and the "landscape mode" shuts down the f/stop to
increase the DOF. The "sports mode" increases the shutter speed while the
"museum mode" decreases the shutter speed. In an experiment, I found that
the "museum mode" was good for shooting waterfalls.
For an experienced photographer, one has to learn how to think outside the
traditional photography box of f/stops and shutter speeds. For a beginner
the "scene modes" are a great help.
To answer your comment, about which is better for landscape shots, I have
found the CP3100 to be far superior to my former A series Canon. With the
short focal length lenses of digicams, DOF is rarely an issue so Av or
Manual modes are not that important. The Ev can easily be used for any
required exposure adjustments for difficult shots. The soft image problem
of the A series Canons blurs detail that may never be recovered. The
sharper pics of the CP3100, maintain this detail. Finally, I have never
found the CP3100's dynamic ISO to go too high as to result in noisy pics.
The Best Shot Selector on the CP3100 is a very useful feature for low-light
condtions too.
Steve.
PeptoP
"Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcop9u$i9s$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
Smoothy
explanations
from some photography professional guys! ;)
Now I'm somehow more convinced about my CP2100.
I think I've always been looking at its pics with some "grainy" bias!
Thanks to Tore and Tesselator for their replies.
--
"Smoothy" <bigvahid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1GHa.4008$ca4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Smoothy
--
"Tore Lund" <tl...@next.online.no> wrote in message
news:bco5tu$lgh0n$1...@ID-124507.news.dfncis.de...
Smoothy
My CP2100 doesn't have an uncopressed mode, and I think this is the case
with A60/A70
too.
And if there is no way, so why at all should we be talking about
uncompressed images of these cameras?
--
"Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcop9u$i9s$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
>
Tiger
"Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcop9u$i9s$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
Tore Lund
> Canon has a serious problem with quality control in
> the production of these cameras with more reports of defective ones in
> various internet forums than any other camera. When one starts hearing about
> misaligned viewfinders, tilted CCD's, lines across LCDs, stuck or crooked
> lenses, stuck pixels, one starts to wonder about how a company with Canon's
> reputation can let this problem continue to happen.
Right now I am mainly looking for a "stopgap camera" to use this summer
while I wait for new Nikons, or maybe the Fuji F700. I thought that a
Canon A300 would serve this purpose well - no zoom, but 3 MP, some
controls and a very low price. However, pictures were blurred around
the edges - left side in particular - leaving not more than 2 MP of
usable image. So I returned it. I find it rather exasperating that a
camera from a reputable manufacturer is delivered with defects that are
steady and measurable. (A sudden failure in some component is another
matter entirely - that sort of thing is hard to test at the assembly line.)
> For an experienced photographer, one has to learn how to think outside the
> traditional photography box of f/stops and shutter speeds.
I really hope this will work as well as you say, because it looks like
scenes and similar mechanisms is what we will be offered in cheap, small
cameras from now on.
--
Tore
Tore Lund
> Tore, what's the effect of a smaller CCD sensor size?
I am no expert, but there seems to be agreement that pixel size is a
crucial parameter. Greater pixels mean less noise and a greater dynamic
range. Dividing sensor size by pixel count, it seems that the 2100 has
slightly greater pixels than the 3100, but the Canon A60 has even
greater ones.
You really fooled me into thinking you preferred the Canons. I am
tempted to save some money and buy 2100 myself. The pictures by the
2100 at Imaging Resource look very good. 2 MP feels rather threadbare
when you have tried cameras with 3 and 4 MP, but I wonder how much
reality there is to it. I have recently seen some very good images shot
at 1280x960 (by a Fuji 2800). There's more to quality than pixel count.
--
Tore
Tesselator
Indeed, How can we talk about the "sharpness" of a _camera_ when its own file format
frags the image integrity and quality way beyond what any lens aboration or poor
imaging system usually does?
Hmmm, so maybe it does boil down to the best implimentation of the jpeg codec then(?).
So it all about DIGIC then?
BTW, I thought the A70 could do uncompressed using "RemoteCapture" and
"wrote" jpegs to the card. Is that wrong? I'm not sure.
Anyway I still think it's impossible or difficult at best to discuss the
image "sharpness" of a camera when all you have is JPEG to deal with.
Well, unless something else is very wrong with the camera.
--
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. Noone needs to get upset.
This is a "discussion" group after all. Right?
> Tesselator, how can I get uncompressed images out of these cameras?
> My CP2100 doesn't have an uncopressed mode, and I think this is the case
> with A60/A70
> too.
> And if there is no way, so why at all should we be talking about
> uncompressed images of these cameras?
>
> >
> > JPegs... ;) You're trying to compare the imaging quality of two
> > cameras using jepegged images?
> >
> > --snip
Tesselator
"Tiger" <nor...@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:vbTHa.3596$Mc4.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> What's "online" got to do with it? Do you know what you're talking about?
>
Yes. And don't be cute!
Steve
> Right now I am mainly looking for a "stopgap camera" to use this
> summer
> while I wait for new Nikons, or maybe the Fuji F700. I thought that a
> Canon A300 would serve this purpose well - no zoom, but 3 MP, some
> controls and a very low price. However, pictures were blurred around
> the edges - left side in particular - leaving not more than 2 MP of
> usable image. So I returned it. I find it rather exasperating that a
> camera from a reputable manufacturer is delivered with defects that
> are steady and measurable. (A sudden failure in some component is
> another
> matter entirely - that sort of thing is hard to test at the assembly
> line.)
>
Yeah, you had a misaligned CCD! Canon really needs to get it's act together
for better quality control with their A series digicams. They are really
damaging the good Canon reputation with all of these defective A series
digicams.
> I really hope this will work as well as you say, because it looks like
> scenes and similar mechanisms is what we will be offered in cheap,
> small cameras from now on.
It actually works quite well. The hardest part is learning to think outside
the box of traditional f/stops and shutter speeds. Once you can do that,
you can accept that the inexpensive digicams use "scene modes" that really
do a good job.
Steve
Smoothy
Not great shots, but maybe helpful. : )
http://www.ece.concordia.ca/~v_afrakh/
I don't have enough Web space to upload more.
--
"Tore Lund" <tl...@next.online.no> wrote in message
news:bcp4e8$m1kmj$2...@ID-124507.news.dfncis.de...
lil T
<jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
>> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
>
>> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
>> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0001.JPG
>
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
>
>JPegs... ;) You're trying to compare the imaging quality of two
>cameras using jepegged images? Hehehehe...
>
>Ummm...
>
>Actually I think there are no online resources for you to compare for
>yourself. You would need someone (who knew what they were doing) to
>set up the cameras with the "as same as possible" settings and fire
>off at almost exactly the same time at exactly the same subject and
>then post clippings of the two resulting images. I say clippings cuz
>uncompressed images as you know, are huge.
>
>Anyway, you really won't be able to tell anything from jpegs. Well,
>other than how badly the compression messed up the image. There might
>be a difference in how well a manufacturer implemented the codec but
>I doubt it. JPEG has been around for a long long time. It's very well
>known.
>
-------- snip --------------
I will assume your post was not a joke.
Both of these cameras output jpg files. If you want to compare the
two then that is all there is. How do you propose to compare image
quality with out using pictures produced by the cameras?
You may have heard in the past that resaving jpgs can reduce the
quality. Several years ago I saw a post by someone who heard this and
thought that every time he viewed a jpg id would lose quality and
eventualy "wear out".
You need have no fear about the files wearing out. When one copies
the file to a website and downloads it there is no added loss in
quality. The file one downloads is the same as the one produced by
the camera, no loss in quality.
Tesselator
> I will assume your post was not a joke.
Thank you. :)
Ya, no not a joke. Maybe I sould qualify myself a bit at the risk
of seeming bold. After my CS degree and a few government contracts
I wrote games (all aspects music, gfx, skews, etc.) on the Commodore64
and Vic20. The Amiga was released and I wrote a game on it. Discovered
the money and fun available in doing video graphics and related software
was better so I got into that along with building up what later became
a huge Amiga distribution network for central Japan. The Newtek Toaster
came along and I got very much into broadcast video post production,
editing, and camera work. Many TV commercials and a few TV Shows later
I was headhunted by the university system here in Japan where I have
been teaching VFX, CG Techniques, and the specific operation of Maya
LightWave, Digital Fusion, and etc. for the last 5 or 6 years. I still
do as much CG on the side as time permitts.
> Both of these cameras output jpg files. If you want to compare the
> two then that is all there is. How do you propose to compare image
> quality with out using pictures produced by the cameras?
Well, I don't really know. I think if you are stuck with a camera
that can only do JPEG then you can't. At least not on a hardware level.
The subject of "noise" or "grain" becomes obserdly moot. In a different
place in this thread someone asked "what do you think of the sharpness
of the text on the sighboard" (paraphrased). I went there to look and
the first thing that was obvious /to me/ was that it had been smooshed
by jepeg error. I wanted to jump in and say so but all I got from
my initial post were smerks so I held off.
But there are other aspects of "Image Quality" besides noise and grain
that are still perfeclty compareable and discussable.
> You may have heard in the past that resaving jpgs can reduce the
> quality. Several years ago I saw a post by someone who heard this and
> thought that every time he viewed a jpg id would lose quality and
> eventualy "wear out".
>
> You need have no fear about the files wearing out. When one copies
> the file to a website and downloads it there is no added loss in
> quality. The file one downloads is the same as the one produced by
> the camera, no loss in quality.
Yes when I made the comment about "online jpegs" I wasn't referring
to generational loss caused by software that decompress to a raster
port of some type and then recompresses durring a save operation.
You're right iExplorer /mostly/ "copies" an image from it's server
location to you local drive with no recompression (that I know of)
ocurring in the process. What I was considering was the quality
of the decompression system used. To exemplify this define your
desk top as big as it'll go still maintaining 32bit color. Hopefully
you have at _least_ 1600x1200 preferbly higher. Now open Photoshop,
your web browser, and something like ACDSEE (image viewer) and display
one of those OnLine example photos in all three applications. Tile
the display so that you can compare in a strip-test like across your
monitor. You /should/ be floored by the differences. Especailly in
terms of how much noise and grain is "aparrent" in the three renderings.
Photoshop /should/ be the best by far. Now maximise Photoshop, zoom
the image to about 200% or 300% and select "save as". Select the file
type for Jpeg and click "OK". You should be presented with an option
box with quality settings from 1 to 10 and a preview checkbox. With
the preview checkbox checked, slide the quality settings from 1 to 10
and wait each time for the preview to update in the window. Every image
will be a little different but in most cases you'll notice that /extra/
grain and noise won't disappear until the quality setting is at 8 or 9.
Try the same thing with an uncompressed photo if you can get access to
one and you'll be surprised at how much /more/ of a difference there is
as you slide the quality setting gadget across. Make sure photoshop
is not set to display using "Difusion Dither" for these tests.
From examining most jpeged images from <$600msrp cameras it /seems/ to me
by the appearence and the "compression ratio" of the image, that they
are applying about the same as a photoshop quality setting of 5 or maybe
6 on some better models. Well, golly! That introduces so much noise
and grain that there is really no way you could tell the difference
between two cameras given the same CCD size, about the same lens design,
and similar setting in thier respective firmware. Well, as far as noise
and grain are conserned anyway. I do believe the original poster
specified "noise" and "grain" as issues of comparrison right?
My comment was and still is: Hmmm, no, I don't think you can... Not
with JPeg images anyway.
Besides all that there are the issues of focus, camera shake, DOF, and
any preprocessing done by the camera itself. This brings comparring
cameras via online images to an ironic level of obserdity IMO. As I
pointed out in my last post I believe this is why reviewers spend most
of thier time in a camera review discussing the hardware/firmware
specifications followed by handeling, /cool/ features and a little
impressionistic feeling.
I could be wrong though... What do you think? Does that sound about
right to you?
Kong
reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On the
http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face pictures
of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be let down,
I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100. It's
without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed out. Some
said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't makes
sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp? For point
& shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the Fuji Finpix
A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That camera seems
to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then the 3100.
But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight going into
the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
"Smoothy" <bigvahid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DoLHa.4256$ca4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Kong
sharper image. Some say there's are differences whereas others say they are
all the same. So I pop down to the photo shop and asked for the A70 and 3100
and with everything set to Auto. Took 2 pictures of a friend in the shop
using the same Compact Flash card I borrowed from a friend and ask the shop
to develop it on the spot. Guess what? It's very easy to tell that the 3100
gives sharper pictures then the A70. My friend wasn't too happy with the
3100 because his pimple are all showing and he liked the A70 which gives him
a smoother face :)
"Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcop9u$i9s$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
>
Tore Lund
> The subject of "noise" or "grain" becomes obserdly moot. In a different
> place in this thread someone asked "what do you think of the sharpness
> of the text on the sighboard" (paraphrased). I went there to look and
> the first thing that was obvious /to me/ was that it had been smooshed
> by jepeg error.
If it was due to JPEG error, why aren't all JPEG images affected? Have
a look at this pair:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/a70/samples/IMG_8565.JPG
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_p72/samples/DSC00032.JPG
They are taken at the same place at the same time with the same
resolution, same composition and same subject distance. The writing is
considerably clearer in the Sony P72 image.
So what's wrong with the A70 image? Camera shake? Focusing problems?
Some trick by Canon's infamous DIGIC processor? At any rate, both
images are JPEG, so this does not explain it.
--
Tore
Tesselator
> > The subject of "noise" or "grain" becomes obserdly moot. In a different
> > place in this thread someone asked "what do you think of the sharpness
> > of the text on the sighboard" (paraphrased). I went there to look and
> > the first thing that was obvious /to me/ was that it had been smooshed
> > by jepeg error.
> If it was due to JPEG error, why aren't all JPEG images affected? Have
> a look at this pair:
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/a70/samples/IMG_8565.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_p72/samples/DSC00032.JPG
>
> They are taken at the same place at the same time with the same
> resolution, same composition and same subject distance. The writing is
> considerably clearer in the Sony P72 image.
Well I just looked at both of them and they both look so bad to me
I can't even /consider/ a constructive comment. Both are bloched
terribly with Jpeg error everywhere. The Sony one is by far the
worst but there's way too much compression error to say why.
The color saturation and contrast of the sony one are also very
very bad. Looks like the wht.bal. is off a bit too.
> So what's wrong with the A70 image? Camera shake? Focusing problems?
Well although I think you got it backwards. And I think I could prove it
to you (about which is the "better photo" between the two) we will never
know what's wrong with them because they were both overly compressed.
[Just ask and I'll try to prove my case for the which is the "better shot"]
Is it a slight camer-shake caused by wind and/or an unsteady hand?
Doesn't look like it to me. It could be with the sony one as there
is a very bad halo on the sighboard text, all left leading edges
apear to be "rubbed" into the photo, and there is a drastic blue color
shift on all right leading edges. But jpeg error can be responsible
for some of those things too. More than likely tho I'd say that in this
case it's the sign of a poorly manufactured lens. Yet another identical
model (P72) may or may not display the same behavior.
Is it a focusing problem?
Can't really tell cuz there's too much compression error but the
Sony might have been slightly defocused for that shot. It's difficult
to say. If it were a raw uncompressed image I could tell more but
still there /may be/ very little difference between the artifacts caused
by certain kinds of lens aborations and the camera not being perfectly
focused.
> Some trick by Canon's infamous DIGIC processor?
Maybe, maybe not. Did the site say what the respective settings were in
each cam at the time? How do we know the Sony's light sensor wasn't slightly
affected by a small glint of light off that blue pontoon in front causing
it to shut down the apature or increase the shutter speed and thus took
a darker muddier pic? Well, we don't. This is the problem with judging
a camera from a small sampling of shots taken by someone else. And someone
who may or may not have docummented the settings he took it with. It
could also be that movement of the clouds caused the difference in exposure.
If you'll notice, the Sony shot has more white cloud content in the sky.
If you've ever played with a professional light meter you'll know this
causes big differences in the amount of light measured. Since it /is/
the amount of light measured and present interplaying against the camera's
settings at the time of the exposure which is responsible in large part
for wheather or not it "took a good picture", this very well could be the
cause of some of the issues I have with /that/ shot.
> At any rate, both images are JPEG, so this does not explain it.
To me, what that /does/ explain is why they are both so noisy, blochy,
and lacking in detail. Of this I am certian.
--
If my camera consistantly took pictures like the sample in:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_p72/samples/DSC00032.JPG
I would want my money back or try to sell it as soon as I could.
--
I feel like the guy who's watching TV with a friend one day when an ad
comes on for another kind of TV set. The ad says Brighter crisper images
and shows examples of it RIGHT THERE. My firend says: Yup, look at that!
Brighter and crisper! You should buy /that/ TV and sell this one. I just
smile realizing that the "picture" of the TV in the ad can never be better
than the TV we're viewing the ad on. Kinda makes it pointless to advertize
TVs on TV don't it?
Oh well, I don't expect they'll stop showing sample shots of TVs in TV ads
anytime soon. Hehehe, I wonder what the brightness/contrast/Color settings
were when they filmed it? LOL, ...and around and around we go.
Smoothy
Sony one.
Focus/color/sharpness/detail/noise and grain/... are all better in the A70
pic.
--
"Tore Lund" <tl...@next.online.no> wrote in message
news:bcrpuu$m3vf4$1...@ID-124507.news.dfncis.de...
Tesselator
Anyway, I'm posting here again cuz it's dawned on me that all I'm really
saying for all my elaborations is that you can't judge a camera by a
few pictures (which ought to be common sence) especially jpegged ones.
And several times people have asked "Then how then???" and I've kinda
skipped over it. Umm, to answer that I suggest we apply the reverse
of a common axiom "a picture is worth a thousand word" and say "The
written reviews are worth a thousand pictures".
K, I'm done.
O :-)
Prestonzee
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
What color is this woman's blouse? I see it as either bright pink or beige.
It can only be one. How can these almost identical pictures appear to be so
different?
Preston
Rick
Light levels. And white balance isn't set properly in either shot --
look at the wall behind the subject. Even with the red cast the
Canon image has much truer colors.
RickW
Tesselator
"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:bcvntq$nmalg$1...@ID-82690.news.dfncis.de...
Yup. Plus: it almost looks like there might be a colored light source
or a light with a mercury filament -- Or something nearby that is very
red, /reflecting/ light.
Or... O :-)
--
Nikon's auto-white bal. sucks btw, If you have a Nikon that let's you
"Measure" your own white balance "Preset" use it. That's all models
from CoolPix up to the D-series. I have a white swatch hanging off the
camera strap of nearly every camera I own.
Tesselator
"Eric Dreher" <~ericd~@cox.net> wrote in message news:jtb7fv01oas86q6gj...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 06:13:44 +0900, "Tesselator"
> <jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:bcvntq$nmalg$1...@ID-82690.news.dfncis.de...
> >> "Prestonzee" <starbound...@mail.com> wrote in message news:9dJIa.2716$eM5....@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >> > > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What color is this woman's blouse? I see it as either bright pink or beige.
> >> > It can only be one. How can these almost identical pictures appear to be so
> >> > different?
> >>
> >> Light levels. And white balance isn't set properly in either shot --
> >> look at the wall behind the subject. Even with the red cast the
> >> Canon image has much truer colors.
> >>
> >> RickW
> >
> >
> >Yup. Plus: it almost looks like there might be a colored light source
> >or a light with a mercury filament -- Or something nearby that is very
> >red, /reflecting/ light.
> >
> >Or... O :-)
>
> same blouse in both pictures. Note the needle point work on the
> collar in the Canon pic.
>
Wow! Damn good eye there Eric! I totally munched that one!
Fred
> I could not agree with you any more. Manual controls do not equal quality,
> and reviewers in particular confuse the two.
> ...
> Then there is the Canon A series soft image problem which translates into
> loss of detail that may never be recovered with sharpening.
>
Let me add another alternative--the Kodak DX6340. It had the following
features and performance advantages over the A60/A70--
Sharper pictures!
4X zoom (equivalent to 144 mm zoom on a 35mm camera)
Flash power to 19 ft
1.8 inch LCD screen
It has some manual controls such as Aperture or Speed priority, but
not distance setting; doesn't have low-light level autofocus light;
slightly larger than A60/A70; uses more battery power; picture burst
is 4 pictures in about 1.5 sec.
I haven't tried the Nikon, so can't give any comparisons.
If you're looking in this price range for a 3 MP camera, you should
try the Kodak.
Fred
Mad Viking
processing in the A70. The A70 tends to (even when not in low-sharpen
effect mode), not apply very much sharpening to the images. If you take
the image from Steve's digicams site and apply unsharp mask with
photoshop, it sharpens the text and other features to roughly the same
as the Sony P72. Yet another annoying quirk for the A70.
Mad Viking
The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image. Sharpening
is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the
camera before it's stored on the media. With the A70, things will go
much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt to
get them printed out. This can be a royal pain in the neck, but it's
not an insurmountable problem in any way. There is also a low sharpen
mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the
sharpening by the DIGIC processor. I guess it's better in this case to
have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much
sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.