Could it be due to the color noise reduction? The blue and green components looked too noisy so it did away with them? Maybe a new and diffferent RGBG mask is being applied to the 5meg CCD?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
G2 and F707 sample images (comparison)
- Thread starter softtower
- Start date
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
... on whose bridge? ;-)))
U
Ulysses
Guest
No, no, no...
That's "trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap". That's not the same thing at all.
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Of course ... I was allowing that maybe you'd "got rhythm"
Randy44818
Well-known member
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 0
I am going to try what you did and play around with that same picture and when you work with that picture do you always get the original or could you try it on the 800 X 600?
Randy
Softtower,
It's a great comparison! Thank you!!!!! - Ochen xoroshee sravnenie dvux functsionalno raznix fotoapparatov.
These two very different cameras produce very similar images. The 707 images have a bit more contrast and saturation. But it depends on someone taste. Adjusting 707 images contrast and saturation I was able to receive to almost identically colored images. My computer setup includes two video PCI cards and two monitors. Win98 is capable to increase the desktop space. The monitors and the video card are identical. The monitors adjustment is also identical.
The Sony images retain color in high lights better (may be 14 bits per color helps) and the resolution is noticeably higher.
Several messages stated that these two cameras are very similar cameras and suggested happy photography with either one. It depends. These two cameras are very different and Sony represents with its 707 the next step in the development of the digital cameras. The 707 superiority will not last long also it will be another better one soon. The only negatives for 707 from my point of view are - Price, x5 only Zoom, size, no image stabilization. With these features improved the 707 will be the ideal camera for me (at least for some time) and I will accept the higher price.
I would select the Sony 707 over G2because: x5 zoom, 14 bits, contained CZ (must for a few microns pixel), low light capability and functionality (assume that $$$ is not a problem).
Leo
It's a great comparison! Thank you!!!!! - Ochen xoroshee sravnenie dvux functsionalno raznix fotoapparatov.
These two very different cameras produce very similar images. The 707 images have a bit more contrast and saturation. But it depends on someone taste. Adjusting 707 images contrast and saturation I was able to receive to almost identically colored images. My computer setup includes two video PCI cards and two monitors. Win98 is capable to increase the desktop space. The monitors and the video card are identical. The monitors adjustment is also identical.
The Sony images retain color in high lights better (may be 14 bits per color helps) and the resolution is noticeably higher.
Several messages stated that these two cameras are very similar cameras and suggested happy photography with either one. It depends. These two cameras are very different and Sony represents with its 707 the next step in the development of the digital cameras. The 707 superiority will not last long also it will be another better one soon. The only negatives for 707 from my point of view are - Price, x5 only Zoom, size, no image stabilization. With these features improved the 707 will be the ideal camera for me (at least for some time) and I will accept the higher price.
I would select the Sony 707 over G2because: x5 zoom, 14 bits, contained CZ (must for a few microns pixel), low light capability and functionality (assume that $$$ is not a problem).
Leo
dave37420
Active member
Hey Eugueny
Thanks for the great job on these. Was an excellent follow up to our earlier discussions about "does image quality matter?" It's a big help for me (amateur) to see a real-life comparison like this. And appreciate your keeping your decision private to help facilitate a more balanced discussion.
Not to be a pig, but would love to see a couple of other shots
1) night time with auto white balance. The sony nightime preset was very yellow. But the auto WB is a quick solution?
2) indoor flash - especially with models. So many of us schmucks would also use the camera for family parties and such.
Ok, so i am a pig!
Also, was great to see that the portrait shots did not show nearly as much of the red cheeks as I had feared on the sony. So many previous shot's i'd seen exhibited a real flush look.
In any case, whether or not you're looking to add to the comparison gallery, this was a big help. If anything, it got me more comfortable with the idea of the f707. Now if I can be comfortable with it in my hands. (Any thoughts on tactility
Looking a gift horse directly in the mouth,
dave
Thanks for the great job on these. Was an excellent follow up to our earlier discussions about "does image quality matter?" It's a big help for me (amateur) to see a real-life comparison like this. And appreciate your keeping your decision private to help facilitate a more balanced discussion.
Not to be a pig, but would love to see a couple of other shots
1) night time with auto white balance. The sony nightime preset was very yellow. But the auto WB is a quick solution?
2) indoor flash - especially with models. So many of us schmucks would also use the camera for family parties and such.
Ok, so i am a pig!
Also, was great to see that the portrait shots did not show nearly as much of the red cheeks as I had feared on the sony. So many previous shot's i'd seen exhibited a real flush look.
In any case, whether or not you're looking to add to the comparison gallery, this was a big help. If anything, it got me more comfortable with the idea of the f707. Now if I can be comfortable with it in my hands. (Any thoughts on tactility
Looking a gift horse directly in the mouth,
dave
Martin Eager56124
Senior Member
Except we're not. Quite the opposite in fact. One of the main issues that some people have with some of the G2 is that there is a lack of shadow detail. I have attempted to point out that this is largely down to the metering mode and had evaluative metering been used on the G2 shots I'm confident we'd have seen more shadow detail. This is not based on conjecture, but on ownership of a G2.
Well sounds like you've made you mind up in advancel. I can only advise you as a G2 owner that the G2 has a superior metering mode which wasn't used in these shots. Since I have seen direct comparisons of what the G2 can do in center-weighted averaging mode compared to evaluative, I'm sure that the dynamic range of many of the G2 pictures in this comparison shoot could have been improved on to some degree (not that they aren't pretty good on the whole anyway).
What is an advantage to person A is a disadvantage to person B. Personally I find the extra bulk of the F707 an unwelcome trade-off for the undeniably excellent zoom.
Martin
No, no, no!
You've got it all wrong. It's...
"Pocketa-pocketa-queep! Pocketa-queep! As Walter Mitty stared off into the mists and the rising sun..."
-Ed
You've got it all wrong. It's...
"Pocketa-pocketa-queep! Pocketa-queep! As Walter Mitty stared off into the mists and the rising sun..."
-Ed
Ahh... I just dropped off the UPS package with one of the cameras in it. ;-(
Manual white balance was pretty good though, and Sony's manual is very quick to set.
Bryan Siverly is going to receive his both cameras (G2 and F707) soon, I did not have time for the flash testing, but he promised to check how these cams comete in that department.
Eugueny
chpang54803
Active member
Firstly, thanks for the caomparison.
Second, where did you buy the 707 in Austin and how much you paid for it.
Thanks..
Second, where did you buy the 707 in Austin and how much you paid for it.
Thanks..
R
Ron Parr
Guest
I don't follow the reasoning: The metering mode has nothing to do with the dynamic range. Please tell us precisely how you think evaluative metering would have helped. I see two possibilities:
1. More exposure: This would only exacerbate the blown white areas.
2. Less exposure: The dark areas are already about the same exposure as the 707 and about the same detail level, so while less exposure might help the presently overexposed white parts, how do propose that it would avoid underexposing the shadow areas and sacrificing detail there?
Rememer that even if the metering mode is "matrix" or "evaluative" the exposure applies to the entire frame.
Ron Parr
1. More exposure: This would only exacerbate the blown white areas.
2. Less exposure: The dark areas are already about the same exposure as the 707 and about the same detail level, so while less exposure might help the presently overexposed white parts, how do propose that it would avoid underexposing the shadow areas and sacrificing detail there?
Rememer that even if the metering mode is "matrix" or "evaluative" the exposure applies to the entire frame.
Ron Parr
BryanS
Senior Member
Just got the F707, and I was snapping pictures as it charges... so I'm anxious.
Anyway, I'll be happy to do these. The pictures I've taken so far with the F707 and the HVL-F1000 flash were pretty disappointing, so I want to make sure I'm not doing something wrong by reading the manuals. I'm noticing consistent over-exposure and a variable blue-tint (sometimes it appears, sometimes it doesn't on the exact same scene)... it just seems odd.
Anyway, when I'm sure what I'm doing, I'll compare both cameras and let the images speak for themselves.
Softtower, if you don't mind, I'd like to work out how I can send my samples to you and we can keep them on the same page. Would that work somehow? You want to send me an email on your preference?
Thanks!
Bryan
I would like to point out the night shots of the swimming pool. The G2 gives us an otherworldly electric blue, while the F707 renders it an unappetizing green bog. The F707 is closer (at least to most film representations I have seen.
That brings up a point that I don't believe I have seen enough in these discussions. Film isn't all that terriffic at color truth either. One of the things that soured me on film was having umpety-ump brands and grades of film to choose from depending on what you were shooting—and you always had the wrong type in the camera.
Only professionals (who are using someone else's time & money) can afford to put up with that BS. With digital I just pop it, slop it, and drop it.
And anyone who says he is dissappointed that he would have to post process his gigi-pics and uses that as a condemnation of a camera can have my old Kodak Brownie and my best wishes.
-Ed
Martin Eager56124
Senior Member
Of course it does. How do you figure that it doesn't?
The evaluative metering mode gives a more balanced exposure, with less blown highlights and less underexposed shadow. Ergo better dynamic range.
Yes of course, but evaluative / matrix metering makes a better assessment of the picture as a whole and in most cnormal ircumstances gives a more balanced exposure and hence more likelihood of more detail in the shadows and less over exposure in the highlights. Centre-weighted averaging means that unless the centre is well balanced, the exposure will lean towards over exposing some parts, or under exposing others.
Perhaps I cannot explain it that well, so here's a better explanation:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Dynamic_Range_01.htm
Looking at this page, in my experience evaluative metering on the G2 tends to produce pictures closer to the one on the left and centre-weighted averaging closer to pictures like the one on the right.
Martin
R
Ron Parr
Guest
We're talking about the dynamic range of the camera as a sensing device. This is constant. The dynamic range of a scene and the dynamic range that is captured by the camera at a particular setting as a function of the scene are different things.
The argument here is that this photo shows that the G2 does not have the inherent dynamic range as a sensing as evidenced by it's inability to capture as much range in the photo of this particular scene in comparison to the 707.
Ahhh... I think I see how you're thinking about it. It's true that correct exposure will make you less likely to clip bright spots or lose dark spots due to incorrect exposure. However, it can't change the inherent low-high range of the camera. In the picture in question, the two cameras are assigning roughly the same brightness levels to the dark stuff, so the low end of the range is the same. However, the 707 gets more of the high end, so we conclude that it has more range.
Now, assuming that the contrast setings haven't interefered with the test by boosting the G2's high end to the poiint of clipping, this would show that the 707 has a wider range. There really isn't any way you can get around this. Evaluative metering isn't magic.
You might take the contrast argument and this might be a sound line of reasoning. I could counter that a good contrast enhancing function ought not to produce these kinds of results at the default level, i.e., the default level is either too high or it ought to back off if it's blowing out a good part of the picture.
I just don't see where you're going with this. You can't decrease the exposure on the G2 shot without losing detail in the shadow areas. The shadow detail is barely discernable as it is. How the shot is metered simply has nothing to do with this. It's that simple.
Ron Parr
Tom Vickers
Well-known member
Is there half press button to lock focus before shooting? This would help to capture moving squirrel. If it doesn't have a half press button, 707 is probably isn't for me. Tom
Mike K
Veteran Member
I sense this discussion is going 'round and 'round with no resolution in sight. Perhaps I can add a different angle:
We would all like to see cameras compared uner the conditions we expect to use them. If we are a P&S shooter, then the relevant conditions are full auto everything all the time. For the photography enthusiast, we would like to see the camera used under the "optimum" conditions since we would like to all llike to shoot under optimal conditions. This takes considerable experience in understanding the performance of each camera to know what "optimum" looks like for each camera.
I think tha Phil, as does most professional reviewers, tries to strike a balance between full auto and optimum. After all, how many cameras does he review a year, maybe 30? He uses a mix of laboratory set shots and images from wandering about London. Softtower had less than one week with two new cameras, so he had to make some choices and compromises. I thought he did quite well for a first time attempt. Similar comparisons on this forum in the past, like S75 vs G1, were done under full auto conditions, where performance was clearly limited to the default parameters (like sharpeing). Again, this is quite relevant to those who use full auto all the time.
I beleive Martin's point is that evaluative metering would be much closer to optimum utilization of the G-2s dynamic range. My personal view is that anything less than RAW converted to TIFF is not optimum for the G-2, but that is a much more involved comparison. Afterall, if I had a G-2 that's how I would use it, so those conditions are very relevant to my view of "optimum". I think Ron's point is that absolute dynamic range is set by the hardware and invariant of camera adjustments (how well one exposes the shot). Of course what is seen in the comparison photos is dependent upon quite a number of variables, including exposure.
Just to broaden the example base, here is a recent thread about Pro90 settings where one user much preferred a lower contrast setting. He felt it provided more tonal range: it is a wonderful shot
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&page=1&message=1625992
This is one of the reasons why I feel RAW is a useful feature, as one can adjust these camera parameters after the fact to get closer to the "optimum" usage.
The real point here is that these camera comparisons will never be useful to everyone, as there are so many shooting styles, so many versions of "optimum". There is no absolute best camera, its always relative to the photographer using it.
Regards, Mike K
We would all like to see cameras compared uner the conditions we expect to use them. If we are a P&S shooter, then the relevant conditions are full auto everything all the time. For the photography enthusiast, we would like to see the camera used under the "optimum" conditions since we would like to all llike to shoot under optimal conditions. This takes considerable experience in understanding the performance of each camera to know what "optimum" looks like for each camera.
I think tha Phil, as does most professional reviewers, tries to strike a balance between full auto and optimum. After all, how many cameras does he review a year, maybe 30? He uses a mix of laboratory set shots and images from wandering about London. Softtower had less than one week with two new cameras, so he had to make some choices and compromises. I thought he did quite well for a first time attempt. Similar comparisons on this forum in the past, like S75 vs G1, were done under full auto conditions, where performance was clearly limited to the default parameters (like sharpeing). Again, this is quite relevant to those who use full auto all the time.
I beleive Martin's point is that evaluative metering would be much closer to optimum utilization of the G-2s dynamic range. My personal view is that anything less than RAW converted to TIFF is not optimum for the G-2, but that is a much more involved comparison. Afterall, if I had a G-2 that's how I would use it, so those conditions are very relevant to my view of "optimum". I think Ron's point is that absolute dynamic range is set by the hardware and invariant of camera adjustments (how well one exposes the shot). Of course what is seen in the comparison photos is dependent upon quite a number of variables, including exposure.
Just to broaden the example base, here is a recent thread about Pro90 settings where one user much preferred a lower contrast setting. He felt it provided more tonal range: it is a wonderful shot
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&page=1&message=1625992
This is one of the reasons why I feel RAW is a useful feature, as one can adjust these camera parameters after the fact to get closer to the "optimum" usage.
The real point here is that these camera comparisons will never be useful to everyone, as there are so many shooting styles, so many versions of "optimum". There is no absolute best camera, its always relative to the photographer using it.
Regards, Mike K
I just sent you an email on your address in profile.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum