Another mag describes 30Ds pictures as less than clear

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, May 31, 2006.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    "What Digital Photography" (British) says the shots come out looking
    "milky." Since we have control of contrast in PS and other post-image
    programs, it shouldn't make that much of a difference.
    RichA, May 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. What would make a difference is if you actually owned a camera.
    Randall Ainsworth, May 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Thanks Pavlov.
    RichA, May 31, 2006
  4. RichA

    Dmac Guest

    So... Randall Anusworth has found another target, eh?
    What happened to Sigma Randall? Realize they do make some decent lenses
    perhaps? Get a life man, you are starting to look pathetic.

    Dmac, May 31, 2006
  5. Ya know, Mac, dontcha, that not posting back to those you dislike is an
    option, huh?

    One you could exercise with a bit of determination?

    John McWilliams, Jun 1, 2006
  6. RichA is a regular troll whose practical knowledge of photography is
    pretty close to zero.

    As for Sigma, if that's what you want to waste your money on, they'll
    gladly take it.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 1, 2006
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Not my comments, genius.
    Here is what the magazine says:

    "For the most part the EOS 30D is capable of some extremely fine
    images, and generally exposure and colour are very good. The camera
    does suffer from Canon's standard flat image look though, and I feel
    most images could do with a slight tweak in contrast to getrid of a
    slight milky look that faintly cover the images. View alone this is
    barely noticeable but compared to an image from another camera, or
    viewed before and after correction, you can see it quite clearly. This
    is noticeable in JPEG images as well as RAW. In terms of noise, the
    30D performs very well, even at high ISO settings.
    ISO 1000 is about the highest I would recommend for comfortable images;
    any higher and I would be concerned about how the noise will show in
    the final images.
    Finally a word about the lenses. Several images I shot were less
    sharp than I'd hoped because of the quality of some of the cheaper
    Canon lenses. So it's worth investing in a decent lens, at least as a
    day-to-day standard, unless you want to see unsharp images
    and a higher incidence of fringing.
    Generally though, I can't see many people complaining about the
    images they might get from the Canon EOS 30D.
    RichA, Jun 2, 2006
  8. RichA

    Dmac Guest

    I do know that John and yes, I posses the determination to do as you
    suggest. Unfortunately this cretin has made a pastime of attacking those
    whose posts annoy him for some considerable time. In this instance, I
    felt the need to express my opinion of him.

    Randall has been in my troll list and his posts missing from the groups
    I frequent. Unfortunately this does not have any effect when someone not
    in my black hole responds to one of them.

    Trust me John,
    I'll be more vigilant in the future.

    Dmac, Jun 2, 2006
  9. RichA

    Dmac Guest

    I'm one of the first to tell people about Canon "crap" and the God awful
    quality control of their "consumer DSLRs" but fair is fair. Along with
    this rightly deserved complaining must come defense of Canon's better
    points too.

    So Rich... This "flat" or "milky" look is actually an appearance
    preferred by traditional portrait and wedding photographers, not
    something I feel any desire to correct by reducing or compressing the
    contrast range which blows out the highlights.

    Considering I do a lot of work where the bride is in white and the groom
    in dark blue or black, It is quite important to retain detail in the
    highlights and still have some in the shadows too. The Gamut of a Canon
    sensor is only equaled by the dual sensors in Fuji DSLRs and almost by
    the CMOS sensor in the Nikon D2X.

    I doubt the text you have shown has been written by anyone with any real
    knowledge of what they are doing. Since the 20D was released, I have
    owned 4 of them and I now own a 30D. I draw your attention to one of my
    photos taken with my first 20D and it's "kit" lens here:

    The next pic in the Gallery is a 100% crop of the original image taken
    with sharpening set at it's lowest. I applied 200% @ 0.2 pixel radius
    unsharp mask to it after developing the RAW image in Photoshop. No other
    action was taken.

    I bought a 30D earlier this week and although I don't have it's "Kit"
    lens (bought only the body) I can attest to the fact it is pretty much
    identical to a 20D except for a few things which don't have any impact
    on it's image taking ability.

    What I'm saying here is that the article is bullshit. Either the author
    got one of the cameras with a back focus error and isn't astute enough
    to recognize the problem or he plain and simply doesn't know what he is
    doing. I shot at ISO 1600 last night at the Brisbane City hall, after
    dark, in a tungsten lit environment with both the 20D and the 30D. The
    only problem with those images is the auto white balance and we all know
    about that one.

    I don't normally publish any wedding photos without password protecting
    them but the bride here is a socialite and her site will be public so
    I'll give you a peek at one ISO 1600 image of the reception. Just click
    the image to get a larger one. Taken with a
    Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 EX, DG, Macro lens.

    Dmac, Jun 2, 2006
  10. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    As usual, Dougie posts a shot that tells us absolutely nothing. It is
    just another mediocre snapshot that could have been taken with a 2 MP
    camera phone.

    Elsewhere in his highly amusing little "portfolio" is this shot which
    shows Dougie's composition skills at their very best:

    Tony Polson, Jun 2, 2006
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    This is the second article I've read in a week that has described the
    30D as having
    this quality about its pictures. You've already agreed by stating the
    flat look is what
    some camera users want and that they get it from Canon. The wedding
    picture looks "fine" but then I'm looking at a 533x800 shot at 72dpi on
    a webpage. I have no idea how
    another brand of camera would have rendered it or how it will look
    RichA, Jun 2, 2006
  12. RichA

    Dmac Guest

    Yep... 200 year old heritage listed tree and the heritage listed
    lighthouse all in one shot. Was the cover shot for the 2005 Redlands
    calendar. A sellout edition. I'm really proud of that one. The proceeds
    from it paid for my 5D and it's 70 -200 F2.8, IS lens and the change
    went a long way towards buying my second Designjet canvas printer.

    Not quite up to your remarkable train shot, is it Tony?... You know the
    one? laughing stock of Usenet? The one someone always manages to dig up
    whenever you make out you have some sort of photographic ability?

    I'll dig up the link and post it if you like. It won't matter if it a
    dead link. I liked it so much I followed your example with my pictures
    and downloaded it just so I could present it when you tried this sort of
    stunt again. Really exemplifies your photographic ability and
    demonstrates your clear talent all in one picture. Brilliant stuff mate,
    got any more we can get a laugh from?

    While I'm here... Tell us about the cover shots you did for that French
    Magazine, the Editors of which have no knowledge of you. Your
    explanation of that lot of bullshit will justify my cost of finding out
    you really are the biggest bullshit artist these groups have spawned.
    Right up there with or Mark_thomas as he last called himself.

    You remember him, don't you? He's the one who teamed up with you to make
    out I'd posted a blurry image of a 98 year old fellow in historic dress
    at the re-enactment of Cook's landing in Moreton Bay. Remember? Sort of
    made both of you look a bit stupid when I posted the original (very
    sharp) pic, didn't it?

    You really are a funny man, Tony. Everyone's been laughing at you for
    years. Why don't you just keep to subjects you actually have some
    knowledge about and leave your critic of composition to people who know
    what they are talking about.

    You see... You've made an idiot out of yourself again here. When the
    text and header is added to the picture you pointed out, the whole cover
    comes together. This one: looks even odder but
    it too became complete when the text was over layed. I'll get permission
    to publish the finished covers from the new copyright owner tomorrow.
    I'm sure a few readers here will find the subject interesting, even if
    you only seek to get entertainment from them in the poorest attempt at
    humor you seem so gifted at.

    Dmac, Jun 2, 2006
  13. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Only *part* of the lighthouse, Dougie. You only needed to move
    2 metres to the left to get the lighthouse in shot. That was
    obviously too much effort for you.

    Still, people could use their imagination to visualise how good the
    shot might have been with a more competent photographer holding the
    camera. There must be millions of people in Australia who could have
    made that shot work, just by standing a little further to the left.

    Maybe you were tired after standing all day on your market stall.

    Tony Polson, Jun 2, 2006
  14. You guys wanna get a room or something?
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 2, 2006
  15. RichA

    Dmac Guest

    Rich, this is why people get into you for some of your posts. You simply
    can't judge a photograph when it's a picture on a web page. You've read
    2 articles. Great. You can judge even less, a picture by reading about
    it. I've taken over 30,000 pictures with 20Ds. I own a wide format
    printing business and until last year, owned a camera store as well as
    maintain a Pro Studio.

    When I read an article about a camera I have intimate knowledge of, I
    expect it be consistent, follow a course of testing and contain
    information about everything that comes with the camera. So far, no
    mention of how to adjust your camera for the image type you want. You
    get the results you program into the camera. Custom functions are just
    that... Customizing the way your pictures turn out.

    One of my cameras runs tethered and has the contrast and sharpness
    cranked up so it can capture in JPEG and print a high contrast picture
    directly as it is taken. Another is set with the lowest contrast and
    sharpness. I make all the adjustments during development of the RAW
    files with this one. One works at events and the other I use for
    Weddings... Why do you suppose I use totally different setting on these?

    You really have to look at the whole package Canon provide with the
    Camera to realize what is going on. Canon give out an application called
    "Digital Photo Professional" with their DSLRs. The latest version
    (upgradeable off the net) of this application has a facility to use
    during development of RAW images which allows you to select the type of
    rendering the picture will have. Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral,
    faithful or B&W.

    The software develops RAW files to these picture types and it alters the
    curves of each colour channel and the contrast of the picture to arrive
    at the "type" of picture you choose. Expert individuals can do this in
    Photoshop with JPEG images but for those who like to shoot, develop and
    print, it is essential to use RAW capture and DPP or produce a
    customized set of functions in the camera for your desired results.

    The way the article you reproduced reads, the guy has no idea of how to
    get the results "HE" wants to have. Instead he is criticizing the camera
    for not having ISP into his brain. That is probably in next year's model!
    Dmac, Jun 2, 2006
  16. RichA

    G.T. Guest

    There are a lot of funny men on Usenet but you are by far the funniest.

    G.T., Jun 2, 2006
  17. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Yet you, of all people, expect people to draw firm conclusions from
    your pictures posted on web pages.

    So you are a hypocrite as well as an idiot.

    Tony Polson, Jun 2, 2006
  18. RichA

    Dmac Guest

    Where's your web site Tony?
    Show us your pics, mate!
    Dmac, Jun 2, 2006
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    How about in the Bates Motel, Norman?
    RichA, Jun 2, 2006
  20. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Didn't you know, Doug? That "you simply can't judge a photograph when
    it's a picture on a web page"?

    They are your own words, after all!

    Tony Polson, Jun 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.