Dpreveiw.com settles the MP debate for good

If only Bayer pics were usable out of camera without 3-500% USM, you'd have
a minor point.

Truth is, Canon has the heaviest post processing requirements of all the
DSLRs, but all Bayers need post process sharpening. And yes, JPEG is out of
the question for serious work, and never, ever sharpen a JPEG, my God have
mercy on the poor image.

The other thing JPEG shooters usually don't "get" is that prints are not the
be all and end all of photography, negatives, however, are. Most pics I
take never get printed, sad to say, either digitally or on paper. JPEG'ing
everything is nothing a pure waste of bandwidth at the expensive of having a
negative if you do like the shot. The worst of all worlds.

 

What?

That doesn't make any sense at all. I think that all of photography can be
broken down into one of two things that sometimes overlap:

o To get an image for display, either for printing or electronically
o To enjoy the process of procurring the image

Negatives, whether physical film negatives or raw files, are just an
intermediate step towards getting a displayable image. They have no other
reason to exist.

If you enjoy the process of taking pictures and fiddling with your camera
and other gear, that can be a perfectly valid reason to be into photography
(everyone needs a hobby!), but if you don't intend to process the images
for display it's not the negatives that's the "be all and end all" - it's
the process itself.

 

pay attention, george, you are still holding up the class.

"As with the SD9 the SD10 only supports RAW format output"
not tiff,
not jpr,
not anything but raw files.

Fuji, nikon
all output jpg files, all output tiff files, right?
canon outputs jpg files

all to any program written by almost anyone.

( yes or no answer required george)

all the jpgs are useable by anyone without special software.

foveon outputs only foveon raw files,
and requires a special software program
to transform them into anything usable.

 

It that supposed to be a response?

Thats called a "professional" camera. RAW is the only option for consistent
pro quality work. JPEG is suitable for quick snapshots and newpapers.

No. No camera supports 16-bit TIF, which is the only acceptable alternative
to RAW, since ultimately that is what RAW produces. So you have to shoot
RAW, regardless of body choice. Shooting JPEG is saying, "my photos will
never amount to anything." No one good would do such a thing.

The reason many "pros" (using the term loosely) don't shoot RAW is because
most DSLR RAW software is unusably slow and weak, and the extra steps and
money involved to fix it (time being counted as money) then becomes
untennable. Canon's RAW implementation is clearly unusable, even the most
religious Canonites won't say otherwise.

That's no excuse to rip off clients. You should sit there, spend the time,
and suck up the money lost while chalking it up to your own bad judgement.
Don't trash your clients negatives because you didn't know enough about
digital to make an informed camera decision, or because you thought you were
more likely to get a job in the first place with "Canon" printed on your
equipment. The general public doesn't understand the value of RAW in
preserving their memories, that is no excuse to gut them financially and
intentionally provide low end work. Sheeze, how rude, and negligent. Sit
down, suffer through the few minutes of pain to process/optimize each
picture, properly, that's properly, and every 3 seconds of that time realize
that if you had the good sense to buy 10.3MP for 1/3rd the price you'd have
just finished by now. And the end result wouldn't be so blurry that you
have to reload it elsewhere for still more work. Sorry, "pro" photographers
don't use the 1-hour Photomat to save money, with good reason.

Anyone "pro" that shoots potential keepsakes in JPEG is not a professional,
but rather a peddler. There is a difference. Don't even think about
showing up to shoot an event I'm paying for with your JPEG junk and a sob
story.

 

Right, so just accept a 1-hour photomat produced 4x6print in lieu of a
negative.

 

no, just pointing out that you are behaving childishly.

not so, untrue, blatently ignorant response.

IT ONLY SUPPORTS RAW.
you need software to make jpg files
you need software to make tiff files.
foveonfixerupper software.

 

So your childish behavior is supposed to help your problem how again?

No, your response is ignorant.

Yelling doesn't help your ignorant, childish behavior.

So do you, 16-bit is the only professional option. You too are stuck with
RAW.

Only if you call professional work "fixed up." JPEG certainly doesn't
qualitfy as acceptable by even the lowest quality standards, and especially
not with a heavy sharpening requirement, my God what could be worse?

And yes, JPEG is ok for 4x6 snapshots, which is why Foveon supports JPEG
output too.

 

Perfect size for web viewing. You are an idiot.

The sensor is great - I have stunning prints from mine.

Listen to George at your peril! Look what his camera has done to him!

 

You really are just a wanker aren't you George.

Except of course that you can choose your sharpening, contrast, saturation
settings in the camera and get excellent results in jpeg. Something that is
impossible with the Sigma cameras.

What you don't get is that for alot of people, prints ARE the be all and end
all. So they buy a camera that can produce good prints, like a 10D, D100, S2
Pro, 300D, E1.

The 3.4 MP Sigma cameras output is best suited to producing photos for
viewing on PC or the web, where the hideous pixellation is masked by the
display medium.

 

You sound like a broken record, linking to the same flawed demonstration
over and over and over.

 

Unless you actually look at it. Where's the focal point?

 

When did you start calling yourself "images"...

 

George, are you a professional photographer?

Well STFU about what is acceptable for pros and what isn't.

RAW will give you the best quality but at the cost of post processing time.
You can choose to do it or not with every DSLR EXCEPT the Sigmas. Thats is a
fact.

I fully expect you will spout some more bull now about blurry sensors etc.
Go ahead. Spout it. it STILL WON'T BE TRUE.

Bayer is the current standard, and thousands of professionals and millions
of consumers are using Bayer cameras to make excellent images TODAY. Foveon
based camera are a small minority and will remain that way unless the
problems with colour reproduction, alias artefacts and low pixel count for
the cost of the chip (ooh an opportunity to post your lies about cost per
sonsor here George... can you resist it?) can be solved.

 

From an article on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/magazine/3409155.stm
How do the professionals get that exceptional shot? Sometimes, it's a case
of just keeping a finger on the shutter button and seeing what comes out.
That's an expensive exercise with film, but the "wipe clean and start again"
nature of digital photography means it costs nothing.


"Professionals often don't know what they're doing," says photographer
Daniel Meadows, "they'll just blast off up to 10 frames a second, and later
look to see which works."

At National Geographic - to some, the pinnacle of magazine photography -
snappers average 350 rolls of film per story. That's almost 12,600
individual pictures, of which about 10 make it to press

 

Is that supposed to justify the massive sharpening requirements of blurry
Bayer. You even wrote software to try and rescue Bayer images from the
recycle bin. Unacceptable.

 

Hi Betty.

 

Pbase makes previews for you, if you upload downsized pics there is only one
reason, the camera failed to produce a large usable image. Canon is
notorious for downsizing requirements, hardly anyone is getting more than
1MP usable on pbase. And the few images posted full size are terribly
blurry.

 

Yes.

 

Riiiiiiiight.

 

RAW mode is the only pro option, continuous drive doesn't change that. You
seem very confused. Continous drive is something completely different that
selecting image format/quality. OMG.