10d image compared to 828 - hmmm.

And my experience tells me to NEVER use the 828 for the important shots. The for sale prints. I just use it for informal family shooting, Tee-Ball, and maybe a few bugs & flowers. But the 10D is the cat's meow and out performs the 828 in every single area except for the 828's laser focus assist light and night shooting (whatever that's for). Maybe when the 20D is ready and fully patched, I'll get one.

I also have a Panasonic FZ20 and a Canon G6, JFYI. And I've owned & used a Canon S10, S300, S500, Nikon 880, Canon G1, G2, D30, 1D, and a Sony V1, so perhaps I speak from "authority", imo.

Image quality rank for what I now own: 10D, G6, V1, 828, FZ20, G2. The 828 and FZ20 are really a tie. FZ20 has less noise, as you would expect for a 5mp sensor, & has more zoom and IS, but poorer color and less accurate focus at full zoom (almost useless autofocus at full zoom). The 828 does just fine with a little Noise Ninja and is good to ISO 400, with ISO 800 ok for some shots.

My wife now owns the G2 & V1, and the G2 lags behind the G6 by a mile, but the V1 is close to the G6 in quality. One of the best P&S cameras I've used, imo.

But to compare the 828 and the 10D is almost blasphemy! ;^) There is just no comparison between these two cameras. You just have to work with the 10D images, especially if you shoot raw.

Yer Bud,

Ted

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams (1735 - 1826)

TJB



My Websites: http://svphoto.us
http://www.virginiaimpressions.com

Just re-read your post. The problem is most likely the lens. Borrow a 100mm macro lens and re-do the test.

--

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams (1735 - 1826)

TJB



My Websites: http://svphoto.us
http://www.virginiaimpressions.com

It's biggest weakness, but easily corrected.

Philip Smith said:

Canon



Sony

I think that expailns a lot. Now, will it be the 10d body at fault,
or the Sigma lens?
I'll do some more test shots to see if it's a consistent problem.

Hawkman said:

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Gene - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams (1735 - 1826)

TJB



My Websites: http://svphoto.us
http://www.virginiaimpressions.com

The 828 has a lens that is sharp wide open, in my experience, but most low-end, non-L lenses for Canon SLRs are not.

Ted

one way to start is with the Canon 50mm F1.8. It is not expensive and it is very sharp. Also try not to use your lens wide open. This is extremely either out of focus or has camera shake, not sure which but if your Sigma lens produce this result in good light, I woudl exchange it or simply return it.

I use a Canon 80-200 F2.8 L lens and it is really sharp. I don't trust Sigma much anymore as I got bad experience with their lenses so now I buy Canon and I try to stick with L lenses but some non L lenses are very sharp too.

I had to go through 3 copy of the Sigma 70-300 APO to get a decent one. I ordered a 100-300 F4 Sigma and it was extremely soft so I returned it for a refound. I did not want to pay the shipping for going through 3 more exchanges.

Philip Smith said:

Daniella said:

I get much sharper and more detailed photos with my 300d and the
20d than what you get with the Sony and much much less noisy.

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Here is a 100% crop from my 300d and the 80-200 F2.8 L with a 2x teleconverter. this is straight out of the camera, no external post processing. shot in .jpg with sharpening set to 0 and contrast to -2.



and this is the lens wide open at F2.8 with the 2x tc.

Just about the neatest little critters I ever saw!

Ted

Daniella said:

Here is a 100% crop from my 300d and the 80-200 F2.8 L with a 2x
teleconverter. this is straight out of the camera, no external
post processing. shot in .jpg with sharpening set to 0 and
contrast to -2.



and this is the lens wide open at F2.8 with the 2x tc.

Click to expand...

--

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams (1735 - 1826)

TJB



My Websites: http://svphoto.us
http://www.virginiaimpressions.com

Ted B. said:

It's biggest weakness, but easily corrected.

Click to expand...

Very unlikely that it's blooming if experiments w/D60 given any insight:

http://www.pbase.com/parr/pfringe

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

I think that's one of the drawbacks for me. I do tend to get quite a few shots that are out while the lock has been confirmed. I use the centre point only, and always assume it's dead in the centre, but I can never tell, certainly at distance, whether it's got what I want. THe other problem seems to be I shoot a lot in lower light (I live in the UK, and even summer can be somewhat gloomy), so I'm constantly struggling to get my shutter speed up. I remember reading the Sigma lens is better at about F.8 or higher, but that constantly knocks my shutter down. Oh, the trials and tribulations.

Rick said:

Philip Smith said:

You're right. I just did a test shot (posted above) on maual focus.
I'll try some more shots tomorrow with auto focus, see how it
fares).

Click to expand...

Assuming you know, each lens has a different minimum focusing
distance. If you shoot closer than that you will get blurry shots.
It may be hard to see in the viewfinder and you may still get focus
confirmation in AF.

--
Rick A. Diaz
http://www.mcjournalist.com
The image is everything.
See my profile for equipment list.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Thanks for the help, Ron. Always appreciate input and insight.

Ron Parr said:

Philip Smith said:

Thanks for that. I thought I'd read somehwere that the zooming
trick didn;t work. on the canon. I'll have to try it out now and
see. Have you any suggestions re sweetspot for the 18-125? I'd
heard zoomed in a little and around F8, though I don;t know if
that's true or not.

Click to expand...

Lenses that retain their focus as you zoom are called, "parfocal."
My understanding is that while the 18-125 is not advertised as
being parfocal, many have tried this technique with success. I've
also heard that a few have claimed failure, so it's most likely
something you'll need to test for yourself. In the few tests I've
done, it seems to help a little.

I'm afraid I don't know for sure what the sweet spot(s) for the
lens is (are). I only did comparison shots through f/8, which
always seemed to be a least as good as the wider apertures, so I
would guess that the sweet spot is at f/8 or smaller and probably
not smaller than f/13 or so, since diffraction is likely to be a
factor for such small apertures.

I'm sorry I can't be more definite.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Those are very nice shots. Congrats. Thanks for the input re my lens. I'm going to do some testing to see, but I have a suspicion it might have to go back. We'll see.
Again, thanks.

Daniella said:

Here is a 100% crop from my 300d and the 80-200 F2.8 L with a 2x
teleconverter. this is straight out of the camera, no external
post processing. shot in .jpg with sharpening set to 0 and
contrast to -2.



and this is the lens wide open at F2.8 with the 2x tc.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Its probably the lens. I posted a note earlier saying that the Sigma 18-125 has a known fault and that Sigma are sending out instructions at the end of this month.

Look here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10994145

Alan

Philip Smith said:

You're right, I just did a manual focus test shot (well, the Sony
was on auto, but the Canon was on manual). Look at this.

I think that expailns a lot. Now, will it be the 10d body at fault,
or the Sigma lens?
I'll do some more test shots to see if it's a consistent problem.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the help. I think you hit the nail on the head, really. A lot of my photography is not pre-planned. It is often candid or street photography, and quite often relies on me relying on the camera to grab focus really quickly so I don;t miss the moment. With my Canon (my 10d and my old 300d), I did seem to spend most of my time rejecting shots because they were too far gone, or trying to find creative ways around images that were either too soft or just a bit out. Of course, I've shot with both a Sony 717 and an 828, and while the images are usually really well focused, certainly in poorer light, I'm then struggling to get around noise, and as such, often loose some sharpness in the denoising process.

The problem with my Sigma lens, I think, boils down to this. It's got a great range on it, just right for me, but either it's out a bit, or I'll just have to be a lot more careful with it. I could carry better, sharper lenses to cover the range of my Sigma, but I'm always cautious about changing lenses in the street. It takes too long, and I've already had some dust problems.

I'll have a go at trying to find the sweet spot, and try some well lit, tripod shots, and see if it's me or the lens.
Again, thanks for the help.

kramerica said:

The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that the Sony has
a much smaller sensor and therefore has a much shorter lens to
provide a similar field of view as the SLR. Since the lenses are so
short their depth of field is much greater at an equivalent field
of view. Therefore, aim the sony and the 10D at the same scene and
compose exactly the same with the same fstop and shutter speed, the
sony will appear sharper since more of the scene will be in focus.
However, if you get out a tripod, stop your SLR down to about f16
and your shutter speed accordingly, you will find that the there is
no comparison since the sony's smaller sensor also makes it far
less sensitive to light than the 10D's.

In the real world, however, this is something that is appealing
about the small digicams and why I have not gotten rid of my G3
even though it doesn't have near the performance of my 10D. A
quality prosumer camera will have a lens that can be as good as the
best SLR lenses, and it will be in many instances easier to get
great shots with than an SLR. Even though your Sony may have
artifacts, if it gives a sharp image to the 10D's blurry one, then
its still gives a better picture.

If you want to get the best images possible, take a tripod and
spend more time dialing in your 10D's settings. If you want to be
able to take shots quickly without thinking about them (as many
times I do) and not carry around equipment, then the Sony might be
the camera to take.

Eric

Daniella said:

I get much sharper and more detailed photos with my 300d and the
20d than what you get with the Sony and much much less noisy.

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

--
http://www.ekramerphoto.com/nature

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Thanks for the help. Wasn't meaning to be blasphemous , just shocked when I saw the first results. I'm going to retest the SIgma under better sonditions and see what that tells me.
Again, thanks for the help.

Ted B. said:

Just re-read your post. The problem is most likely the lens.
Borrow a 100mm macro lens and re-do the test.

--
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice,
ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of
our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is
designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate for any other.
John Adams (1735 - 1826)

TJB



My Websites: http://svphoto.us
http://www.virginiaimpressions.com

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Isn't it funny, despite all the bell & whistle feature superiorities of the 10/20D (or Dslr in general for that matter), I've never read a post from a digicam owner stating "back/front" focusing issues. Most DSLR owners would state DOF as an asset, but I see it also as a liability (with my 10D). You "can" get better pics from the DSLR but you have to work harder to do it.
--
Fat Matt

I'm looking at your test, and I'm trying to figure out what that is.

What is it? Is it part of a book or a newspaper?

Frankly, I can't tell if you didn't get focus lock, or you were too close, or it's bad light?

Also, what f-stop, what kind of shutter speed, and what ISO were you using? If you're shooting wide open with that $200 lens, I'll bet it's not sharp. You might want to stop down to f8 or f11 and see what you get first. Most lenses are sharp at f8 or f11. If you suspect the lens, that would be the first thing I'd try. Frankly, you might not have had focus lock. Were you too close? I can't tell. It's a bad test. Were you on a tripod or handheld?

If you want ideas for test shots, read Phil's reviews for the 10D and/or the 20D. He uses a few very nice tests, easily duplicated by anyone else in the world. Remember to include pertinent info about the shot. Phil includes the info about the shot, and it allows the viewer to get a better idea of what's going on. I'm talking F-stop, ISO, shutter speed, distance to subject, lighting, focal length. "A little zoomed in" isn't helpful. Get the EXIF data, it'll tell you exactly where you were.

Next time you post a test, put some effort into it. Think about what you want to accomplish. Do you have a hypothesis? What would you like to do to prove/disprove your hypothesis?

I have a 10D myself. I've not any experience with a Sigma 18-125, but if you spent $200 on it, I think maybe you might need to compare it to another $200 lens, and not to your 828. If you want to compare your 10D to your 828, try stopping down to f8. Then, open up to f5.6, and then go wide open. Post the results and what you think you proved.

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--

' We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. '

• George Orwell

Fat Matt said:

Isn't it funny, despite all the bell & whistle feature
superiorities of the 10/20D (or Dslr in general for that matter),
I've never read a post from a digicam owner stating "back/front"
focusing issues. Most DSLR owners would state DOF as an asset, but
I see it also as a liability (with my 10D). You "can" get better
pics from the DSLR but you have to work harder to do it.
--
Fat Matt

Click to expand...

Good point there. I've never had any camera/lens problem till I got my first SLR. (had several p&s before that).

But then again, when was the last time you heard someone complaining about their Skoda? Has anyone ever told you they had a bad meal at McDonald's?

I myself, pay a great deal for my camera and lenses and thus expect perfection. Fortunately I paid nothing for my photographic skills, and in any case, my mother has refused to give me a refund.

...when I took a Formula 1 race car downtown shopping and then took my Toyota Corolla on the same trip. I found that the race car had no stereo, the seats weren't heated and it was impossible to back up into my parking spots. This proved to me that the $2.5 million dollar race car was a piece of junk compared to my Totota and that all those race car drivers are idiots.

sigh...

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
A

Philip Smith106453 said:

I think that expailns a lot. Now, will it be the 10d body at fault,
or the Sigma lens?

Click to expand...

The test procedure is faulty.

Neither the camera or the lens is responsible for the strongly overexposed highlight. The first image does not contain the same strong highlight. So you can be sure that in some situations the second configuration will show som chromatic aberration, but you have no idea what the situation will be in the first configuration.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com