Canon50D v Samsnung GX20/PentaxK20D

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by hooya, Aug 24, 2008.

  1. hooya

    hooya Guest

    Odd how the specs are so much alike. Canon is playing catch-up. It'll be
    interesting, if the 50D is true and specs as stated, to see a comparison
    review. Interesting too to see what SamPen come up with next...

    I got bored of Canon's incremental upgrades (the cameras were not much
    removed from each other) and so went for something completely different and
    much more exxxxciting - Samsung GX20. Still with the 50D they're not quite
    offering the same - no incamera IS. Nice they've gone for the FF/BF adjust
    and weather seals and hopefully a proper auto ISO. They still though seems
    to be using their name rather than substance as an enticement. This though
    might actually work otu to be a boost for SamPen.
    hooya, Aug 24, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. hooya

    Me Guest

    You expect that a Canon sensor would perform like the Samsung sensor?
    Me, Aug 24, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pentaxians, almost as moron as the Nikonians. At least the latter have 3
    great cameras now.
    Maurice Blanchard, Aug 24, 2008
  4. hooya

    hooya Guest

    Yeah he bought one. :) His views at odds with DPReview's findings too. But
    let's wait and see what Canon manages to do... It's quite easy to smooth out
    noise and kill detail (take a look at the many reviews) and quite brave to
    leave some noise behind with detail intact and give the user the choice...
    Still, cattle tend to follow the herd...
    hooya, Aug 25, 2008
  5. hooya

    hooya Guest

    Well they've been at it for long enough. How many years has it been for them
    to come up with a decent DSLR and a FF one too to compete with Canon? You
    been asleep? Maybe you should give Samsung a little time before pronouncing
    failure. Seems their first CMOS effort is ahead of Canon in many ways as was
    the camera too - Canon 'playing catch-up' was a clue. The morons follow the
    herd not being able to reason too well for themselves. Happy grazing. :)
    hooya, Aug 25, 2008
  6. hooya

    hooya Guest

    The herd won't notice. :)
    hooya, Aug 25, 2008
  7. hooya

    D-Mac Guest

    Educate an idiot and the whole community pays for it.

    What happens here is worse than an ISO boost to get detail. Two shots
    with a Photoshop HDR merge and the problem is gone. *ALL* DSLRs suffer
    the same problem. It's worse when you do it with a Canon 20D or 40D.
    D-Mac, Aug 25, 2008
  8. hooya

    Me Guest

    Two shots with an HDR merge requires - ahem - two shots. That just
    won't work a lot of the time.

    Better to have real DR with one shot - if some "pushing" is required.
    Pushing a stop or two or even three is (IMO) pretty normal PP.
    That's the beauty of something like a D3 - at well above base ISO,
    there's still room to move (OTOH at base ISO, there's little to pick
    between 1D/1ds/40d/D300/D700/D300/5d)

    DPReview take a photo of a step wedge for DR measurement. Now that's
    near enough to a complete waste of time.

    That's why some reviews give the K20d much more credit than is due.

    YMMV - if you don't think that "pushing" in PP is legitimate, the K20d
    might suit your needs - so long as you always nail exposures / shoot low
    Me, Aug 25, 2008
  9. hooya

    D-Mac Guest

    Me wrote:
    I own a D3 and a D300. Certainly they have the ability to lift shadow
    detail, the D3 more so than the D300 but such images are not obtained
    without compromise in other areas.

    There is a difference between "pushing" as you call it and a high ISO
    shot. A base shot at (for example) ISO 100 cannot have the shadows
    pushed to ISO 1600 with as clean results as a shot taken over exposed at
    ISO 1600 and pulled back.

    Reducing the average exposure to accommodate white in a scene beyond the
    dynamic range of a sensor is never going to produce a viable photo -
    with any camera.

    Lifting shadows (pushing in your words) is never going to give results
    as good as a HDR merge. The scene used to produce that particularly bad
    picture and put a K20 in a bad light is absolutely a candidate for HDR.

    But why would you bother when something as simple as a home made foil
    reflector would have lowered the dynamic range and resulted in a usable

    What I'm saying is don't try to make out a K20 is any worse than any
    other camera (including a 40D Canon) by deliberately shooting an out of
    range scene and showing one of the uglier sides of digital photography.
    All digital cameras suffer this problem. It's just that some have a
    greater tolerance for it.
    D-Mac, Aug 25, 2008
  10. hooya

    Doug Jewell Guest

    True - you can't have your cake and eat it too so to speak.
    Yeah, a 4 stop push is a bit extreme. But since I got the
    450D, I have been shooting with the highlight priority mode
    that it offers - I must say it is an improvement over normal
    exposure modes. Essentially it is a 1 stop underexposure and
    then a different curve is applied to get the mids and
    shadows back to where they should be. IMO the slight
    degradation to shadows is more than made up for by the boost
    to the highlights. YMMV of course. It makes the camera
    behave a bit more like what I was used to with film.
    Interesting that with the GX10, I pretty much always used it
    at -1 exposure, and had a custom curve that I applied in
    photoshop to get it back - the 450D does basically the same
    function in camera.
    I guess what this technique is saying - we have (10?) stops
    of Dynamic Range available to us. Lets slide those 10 stops
    upward slightly so that we can gain a bit more of the
    highlights. Yes we will lose shadow, but that is the price
    that has to be paid. This is no different to traditional
    darkroom techniques where printing exposures would be varied
    to get different results out of the negative. The neg would
    normally hold far more range than a print could hope to
    reproduce, so you would vary your printing exposures
    depending on whether shadow or highlights were more
    critical. HDR is kinda like dodging and burning during the
    print process.
    But there are plenty of photos that would be a candidate for
    HDR but where HDR won't be an alternative. All it takes is
    for a major element of the subject to be moving and HDR is
    impossible. Yes HDR would do this example well, but the
    range of subjects where the subject stays stationary long
    enough to get the 2 shots are fairly limited.
    Yes, if possible, correcting extreme contrast is the best
    solution. Reflectors, Fill-Flash, etc.
    Yeah, as much as I like my shiny new 450D I doubt it would
    do much better than the K20. I haven't done much shooting
    with it yet, but the gut feel I have is that it's noise at
    high ISO is a bit worse than my old GX10, so I'd think it's
    probably about on par with the K20. One thing the 450D does
    lack though is noticeable banding on high-ISO shots. That
    was one of the GX10's downfalls.

    Of course, rather than having to use techniques such as HDR,
    or -1 exposure and a different curve, I would prefer it if
    sensor developers focused on getting sensors to handle
    highlights better. Even high contrast slide films like
    velvia can handle a scene with bright highlights better than
    DSLRs. Clipped whites aren't necesarily an evil thing to
    have in a scene, but what is important is the way the scene
    flows over to clipped whites. This is an area where film
    wins hands down with its toe rolling over gradually, rather
    than the harsh highlights delivered by digital.

    It seems that for the most part, sensor development is aimed
    purely at gains in resolution and low-noise at high ISO.
    These are good aims to have, but white handling is just as
    important to overall image quality for many scenes.
    Doug Jewell, Aug 25, 2008
  11. hooya

    SMS Guest

    One problem for Canon is that they're now in an evolutionary mode rather
    than a revolutionary mode because they've been so far ahead of the other
    D-SLR manufacturers for so long.

    No one gets excited about another high-resolution, full-frame camera
    from Canon because they've had them for so long that it's boring just to
    see incremental increases in sensor size. When Nikon and Sony come out
    with a 24 megapixel full frame model, that'll be really big news because
    it's a product that will cause a big jump in sales from all the lens
    owners that have been patiently waiting for Nikon, and to a much lesser
    extent Sony/Minolta, to catch up.

    It's a good thing to have multiple companies offering products in each
    segment. Canon is losing market share, but the market for digital SLRs
    is growing so fast that they're still seeing big increases in sales.
    Hopefully the new high resolution models from Nikon and Sony will cause
    some heavy price competition. Right now Canon has the attitude of the
    oil companies when it comes to professional, high-resolution D-SLRs, "we
    have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the f$%k we want!"
    SMS, Aug 25, 2008
  12. And how should they do that, except arguing for less incoming

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 30, 2008
    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.
Similar Threads