 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Sony Alpha versus Canon 30D
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=18901044 Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the Sony looks better. It doesn't. > Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the > Sony looks better. It doesn't. Not entirely true, see http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm It may not be all his, but most is. > > Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the > > Sony looks better. It doesn't. > > Not entirely true, see http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm > > It may not be all his, but most is. The only shots in the gallery that aren't mine are the terrorist arrests. The shooter did not want his name published since he happens to live right near them. But, if you think any specific other shots are someone else's, please point them out. >>> Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the >>> Sony looks better. It doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But, if you think any specific other shots are someone else's, please > point them out. How many times have you been hit in the head with a puck? > >>> Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the > >>> Sony looks better. It doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > How many times have you been hit in the head with a puck? How often does you nose grow? >>>>> Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the >>>>> Sony looks better. It doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How often does you nose grow? Never, sadly the same cannot be said about you. :( > >>>>> Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the > >>>>> Sony looks better. It doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Never, sadly the same cannot be said about you. :( And still the B.S. artist won't be specific. You are like a rag tabloid. >>>>>>> Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the >>>>>>> Sony looks better. It doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > And still the B.S. artist won't be specific. You are like a rag > tabloid. Have you any clue of which you speak? You didn't answer the question, I did. And as far as pointing out which other photos are not yours? Well I didn't bother going back over the pictures to see if you had deleted or modified whatever was on your page in the first place. Easy for you to do after the fact, eh? At least this time you admitted to a couple pics not being yours. > Having no working knowledge of photography, you probably think that the > Sony looks better. It doesn't. Hey I didn't say anything. Another Freudian slip there Ainsworth??? > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=18901044 womans face canon seem to put more red in. At least my 300D does and to a lesser extent the 20D. The canon printers i have owned also seem to have a slightly boosted red. Whereas the sony is obviously more red. Perhaps my recent acquisition of a spyder 2 may be affecting things cos or the 30D has finally cracked it. There is also the method of white balance used. Were they both set to auto? closeup of glass building The sky looks a little smoggy in the picture, the sony looks like the same shot may have had a polariser, though i doubt this is the case. The building itself looks a more dirty grey where as the sony picture has more white and the darker areas seem to reflect the blue sky instead of looking in need of a cleaning. I'm not ruling out that the canon may be more accurate in colour or that as in the following pictures it does look like the canon is under exposing compared to the sony. Bridge individually each photo looks acceptable. Together the sony looks lighter. noise levels look aceptable in both. bridge iso 800 again the sony lighter. Also slightly more noise. If exposed darker would this mask the noise better to match the canon? iso 1600 grain very prominent in sony. the darker exposure of the canon has allowed better detail of the bridge arch. I'd like to know the price difference of the two cameras before passing final judgement. Also the lenses used. Sony results seem acceptable for an entry level based camera. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.