 |
 | 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 / October 2006Canon 400D stumbles right out of the blocks....
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 Well, it is official. Rich has trashed this camera, so its sales success is guaranteed. >>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 > > Well, it is official. Rich has trashed this camera, so its sales > success is guaranteed. I have to hand our 400D over to my daughter (it's hers) tomorrow but I have a nice set of pix from trying it. It is not very sharp - considerably less so than the Sony A100, slightly more than the Nikon D80 - and 'faithful' colour is very flat indeed, but Canon's own 'Professional' photo utility recovers some much better choices of colour palette from raw. ISO 100 is excellent. ISO 1600 - isolated speckles of coloured noise against a moderate overall luminance/chrome noise, slightly more than the D80, considerably less than the A100, but the random bright coloured pixels are not like previous Canon raw files when examined without NR. It's clearly challenged them to a degree, and the 1600 is not as clean as 8 megapixel 1600, but that's to be expected. David > >>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > examined without NR. It's clearly challenged them to a degree, and the > 1600 is not as clean as 8 megapixel 1600, but that's to be expected. One thing you have to remember is that the Canon and Nikon are intended for a different consumer, so they do much less in-camera sharpening on their default settings. The same goes for noise reduction. Nikon lenses are famously sharp, so you should get extremely sharp results. One thing about the D80 that is interesting is that DPReview and some other reviewers are saying that the D80 shows that Nikon has caught up with Canon on noise reduction. David Kilpatrick skrev: > I have to hand our 400D over to my daughter (it's hers) tomorrow but I > have a nice set of pix from trying it. It is not very sharp - [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > random bright coloured pixels are not like previous Canon raw files when > examined without NR. The way I enterpret you is that the differences are due to different priorities between sharpness and noise reduction, where Sony have prioritised sharpness over noise, whereas Canon and Nikon have prioritised low noise over sharpness, Nikon a bit more so than Canon. >From what you write, there is no obvious inherent noise advantage of the Canon CMOS sensor here, although the 8MP sensors of the 20/30D and 350D were clearly superior to the 6MP CCD sensors in Nikon or KM DSLR:s. This also makes one wonder how much actual resolution that is gained between the 8MP sensor of 350D and the 10MP sensor of 400D. Is this a fair interpretation? Jan Böhme SNIP > This also makes one wonder how much actual resolution that is > gained between the 8MP sensor of 350D and the 10MP sensor > of 400D. Some 11% potential resolution increase per dimension will be barely noticable, unless the AA-filter characteristics are much different.  SignatureBart Bart van der Wolf skrev: > SNIP > > This also makes one wonder how much actual resolution that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Some 11% potential resolution increase per dimension will be barely > noticable, unless the AA-filter characteristics are much different. Righto. And if noise reduction smears out some potential resolution in the 400D sensor, but not in the 350D sensor, the 400D runs a risk of actually resolving rather less detail than the 350D in practice. But the files will, of course, remain bigger, no matter the edge in resolution. Jan Böhme (30D owner, and quite happy with it) >Righto. And if noise reduction smears out some potential resolution in >the 400D sensor, but not in the 350D sensor, the 400D runs a risk of >actually resolving rather less detail than the 350D in practice. > >But the files will, of course, remain bigger, no matter the edge in >resolution. Or not. In RAW mode, that's true, but fewer details results in a smaller file in jpeg, so if the 400D "smears" noise out, it could potentially result in a smaller file than the 350D. I doubt that will happen, but it could. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Bart van der Wolf skrev: > SNIP > > This also makes one wonder how much actual resolution that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Some 11% potential resolution increase per dimension will be barely > noticable, unless the AA-filter characteristics are much different. Righto. And if noise reduction smears out some potential resolution in the 400D sensor, but not in the 350D sensor, the 400D runs a risk of actually resolving rather less detail than the 350D in practice. But the files will, of course, remain bigger, no matter the edge in resolution. Jan Böhme (30D owner, and quite happy with it) > This also makes one wonder how much actual resolution that is gained > between the 8MP sensor of 350D and the 10MP sensor of 400D. > > Is this a fair interpretation? Using the kit lens, not a lot, but sadly it's all I had - I had forgotten that I had a Tamron 55-200mm new DI lens on test, all packed up to go back, and never used it. The 18-55mm vII is OK but not wonderful, and I must admit I can see little gain over 8 megapixels with this particular glass. My experience with the Nikon D2X, D200 and Sony A100 has been that glass quality begins to make a big difference. With all these I have had a choice between basic kit lenses and some expensive top grade stuff, and also some classic primes. Testing the D80 I've only had the new Silent Wave 18-70mm f3.5-4.5; my impression is that it's just what you would expect, midway between a typical kit lens, and a better design like the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikon (I know some people don't like this lens but I found it very sharp indeed on the D2X and D200 in turn, two different lens samples as well). I don't have any top grade Canon glass, only the kit lens and the earlier 70-300mm USM IS lens which is pretty soft, so I am not really able to see what happens with the 400D when you put serious resolution on to the 10 megapixel sensor. With the kit lens there's a noticeable gain over the 300D on almost all shots, but most 350D users will be disappointed at the losses in high ISO performance and colour quality - I will await other reports, but my impression is that the 400D colour is not as eye-friendly as the 5D or the 350D. My favourite Canon for colour is still the 5D. David Jan B?hme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote: >This also makes one wonder how much actual resolution that is gained >between the 8MP sensor of 350D and the 10MP sensor of 400D. Very little. It goes as the square root of the number of pixels (because they are spread out in a rectangle). So everything else being equal one would get an image that is about 11% larger with the 400D and not the 25% that the pixel counts alone imply. In print size an 8x10 becomes an 8.9 x 11.1. To round it off a bit you'd gain about an inch in each direction. This might or might not make a difference to the photographer. As the pixel wars continue, the real difference gets smaller and smaller. Going from 10 MP to 12 MP is an areal increase of only 1.09 times. ---- Paul J. Gans >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 > > Well, it is official. Rich has trashed this camera, so its sales > success is guaranteed. Indeed. One dolt publishing - or make that 20- a personal account of something like that- a lockup he probably caused- is sure to sink the ship. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > john mcwilliams Yes, it's never Canon's fault, only the user. Even lens aberrations are the fault of the user!! > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 Sounds like a bad memory card to me. If you get a flaky one - no guarantees you'll be able to recreate the problems with any regularity. You can try testing it with some software like: http://www.antontomov.com/web/products/index.php?page=pocket_mechanic&cat=overview Bates.... > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 > > Sounds like a bad memory card to me. If you get a flaky one - no > guarantees you'll be able to recreate the problems with any regularity. > > You can try testing it with some software like: http://www.antontomov.com/web/products/index.php?page=pocket_mechanic&cat=overview > Bates.... I had the same problem with a 2 Gig CF card bought at Costco. I had it tested at a photographic store and sure enough it was bad. I returned it and bought a 1 Gig at another place. Funny thing is that my son had to return his CF card 3 times at Costco before he found one that worked. Marcel Let mom have her computer back now. > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 Is there any means or method or religion or philosophy that could lead you to a meaningful life? Your persistence in negativity predicts an upcoming implosion. Soon. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20287693 > > Is there any means or method or religion or philosophy that could lead you > to a meaningful life? > > Your persistence in negativity predicts an upcoming implosion. Soon. Naw, I could never hold a grudge for 20 years... |
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.