Reading mode: Light Dark

New Sony - D7 competition?

Go to last post
Most of them are crap, so my use of the example was purely theoretical. I have limited personal experience with WA convs. Any Conv is a major PIA in general. Period. Some are OK for specialized shoots, but for normal photography while in the field or travelling. Bah!! I have used both of the WA ones Nikon make ffor there 9xx series, and the most expensive one is decent, but it still of course magnifies the distortion of the native lens and exacerbates the CA.

I have used Sony WA adaptors, and in general they have been mediocre quality, but knowing Sony, and given the lens design of the 707, I have to believe that they will soon have a convertor ready to sell you--and I suspect it may be of better quality than in the past, but the price will also be better--knowing Sony (I have had lots of Sony stuff in my day).

In the end you are probably right that it is very hard to meet my theoretical standard of a WA that won't degrade the image some at least.

If anyone has a good one out there it is probably Oly--and there might be one that will work on that 58 mm Sony, but it will not have been designed to optimize the optical connection to the native lens, so it would be a miracle if it wan't problematical.

dh
Scotty said:
I've been questioning whether it's even possible to put a converter
on the front of a very good lens without degrading the quality.
What I've experienced so far says "no", but certainly haven't tried
them all. Ergonomics and added cost aside, it's hard to imagine
that there wouldn't be a significant loss in optical quality with
any converter. What's been your experience?

Anyone else had positive results using wide-angle converters with
their digicams?

Regards,
Scotty
papatrout said:
But I would choose the D7 over the Sony for the differtial cost of
a WA convertor that did not degrade the Sony glass and had at least
as good optical quality as the D7--and I still have until next
Monday to return it, so it is not posturing on my part. I don't
know quite what dollar value to put on the pure PIA of having to
contend with a convertor for WA, but I suppose that should be added
to the differential as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Does the reported too strong reds and greenish tint on the photos correlate with a release date just in time for Halloween:-)
Will Smith said:
This is a pic of the new sony DSCF-707 which will be announced soon
at the IFA. Those holding off buying a D7 might want to see how the
707 compares (Like i'm going too). :)

Click to expand...
 
You've pretty much echoed my sentiments.

For me, the WA is a big deal. Don't think I'm alone either, judging from the number of posts from other WA enthusiasts. A lot of us with photo journalism tendencies (oops, can we say that in a public forum??) grew up with wide angle lenses as a vital tool. Not to even mention interiors, landscapes, etc. So to have to live without a real quality wide angle solution is hard to take. Yes, I know you can stitch more than one photo together. That's certainly a great technique and has it's place, but the perspective isn't the same. It still won't take the place of a good wide lens.

Before the D7 came along, roughly 35mm equilvalent on the wide end has been the norm for consumer/prosumer (hate those terms!!) digicams, so in a sense the WA issue was moot. If the D7 has done nothing else, it may have changed the focal-length landscape with digicams forever. I'm hoping Minolta has started a trend towards wider zooms so we can do away with this WA converter crap as much as possible.
papatrout said:
I have used Sony WA adaptors, and in general they have been
mediocre quality, but knowing Sony, and given the lens design of
the 707, I have to believe that they will soon have a convertor
ready to sell you--and I suspect it may be of better quality than
in the past, but the price will also be better--knowing Sony (I
have had lots of Sony stuff in my day).

In the end you are probably right that it is very hard to meet my
theoretical standard of a WA that won't degrade the image some at
least.

If anyone has a good one out there it is probably Oly--and there
might be one that will work on that 58 mm Sony, but it will not
have been designed to optimize the optical connection to the native
lens, so it would be a miracle if it wan't problematical.

dh
Scotty said:
I've been questioning whether it's even possible to put a converter
on the front of a very good lens without degrading the quality.
What I've experienced so far says "no", but certainly haven't tried
them all. Ergonomics and added cost aside, it's hard to imagine
that there wouldn't be a significant loss in optical quality with
any converter. What's been your experience?

Anyone else had positive results using wide-angle converters with
their digicams?

Regards,
Scotty
papatrout said:
But I would choose the D7 over the Sony for the differtial cost of
a WA convertor that did not degrade the Sony glass and had at least
as good optical quality as the D7--and I still have until next
Monday to return it, so it is not posturing on my part. I don't
know quite what dollar value to put on the pure PIA of having to
contend with a convertor for WA, but I suppose that should be added
to the differential as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jp said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the maker of the ratings, finds.
jp52637 said:
jp52637 said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
jp52637 said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
jp52637 said:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9
Click to expand...
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
jp52637 said:
jp52637 said:
I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.
Click to expand...
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
jp52637 said:
jp52637 said:
It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a movie?
jp52637 said:
Kindest regards

Jean Paul
Click to expand...
 
Gonzo, you have finally bubbled over. Compare the E-10 to
the D1????? In your dreams!!!
Dr. Gonzo said:
jp said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the
maker of the ratings, finds.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
Dr. Gonzo said:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9
Click to expand...
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in
its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other
camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.
Click to expand...
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a movie?
Dr. Gonzo said:
Kindest regards

Jean Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gonzo, are you attributing the E10 to the same class as the D30,D1? Or are you attributing that to Phil.

Whichever, and no disrespect to the E10 intended, but that on the surface is simply not a reasonable comparison, or at least one that will need some careful elucidation to stand up.

Just what do you see as comparable?

dh
Dr. Gonzo said:
jp said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the
maker of the ratings, finds.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
Dr. Gonzo said:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9
Click to expand...
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in
its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other
camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.
Click to expand...
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a movie?
Dr. Gonzo said:
Kindest regards

Jean Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gonzo likes to make generalizations without backing them up with specifics...

Joo
papatrout said:
Whichever, and no disrespect to the E10 intended, but that on the
surface is simply not a reasonable comparison, or at least one that
will need some careful elucidation to stand up.

Just what do you see as comparable?

dh
Dr. Gonzo said:
jp said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the
maker of the ratings, finds.
abc said:
abc said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
abc said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
abc said:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9
Click to expand...
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in
its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other
camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
abc said:
abc said:
I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.
Click to expand...
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
abc said:
abc said:
It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a movie?
abc said:
Kindest regards

Jean Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
What I'm not getting about this: as many (most? all?) of the expensive Canon/Nikon/Contax (etc.) lenses pre-date the introduction of digital cameras and have been manufactured for 35mm film cameras to begin with, how would these company attitudes have developed before the advent of digital imaging systems (at 'consumer' prices)? I wonder if the thing to remark on is not that the 'pro' lenses are so expensive but that the digital cameras, incorporating all kinds of hardware and software engineering wizardry, and pretty good lenses, are so IN_expensive compared with certain 35mm lenses alone.

How much of the pricing is based on companies' guessing how much pro or advanced-amateur photographers are willing to pay for lenses, I don't know. By the same token, how can we know to what extent manufacturers of digital cameras make decisions about MSRP based partly on assumptions about the price-points at which customers will balk at buying digital camera systems?

Surely the manufacturing costs must be higher for, say, high-quality Canon "L" lenses with USM and image stabilization, than they would be for 'prosumer' digital camera lenses containing considerably less glass, much slower (non-USM) focusing mechanisms, and no image stabilization.

What I also don't know is: do the lenses in digital cameras, with their smaller sensors, have to be built every bit as well as 35mm cameras' lenses? Are they easier to design? Can the QC be less stringent? Meaning: are the costs to design and build digital cameras' lenses generally lower?
Bob Williams said:
Just good guessing Mike. Go to B&H and price the nikon and
canon pro lenses. They have too many pro customers that
pay those prices for their lenses to build something as good
as the D-7 lens and sell it cheap. Their pro customers would
scream bloody murder. No inside info, just good guessing
and watching the trends. Answer me this. Who has the best
shot right now of producing a 4 or 5 mp consumer SLR for
under 2000$ with a real SLR AF? Think about it.
Click to expand...
Member said:
Member said:
Bob Williams said:
I posted this months ago. Canon thinks a lens they make that
would compare with the lens on the D-7 is worth more than the
D-7 costs, just for the lens. Nikon is the same. Oly doesn't even
in this game, especially since they partnered up with Kodak. Nikon
thinks any lens they make that is as good as the D-7's lens is
worth twice what the D-7 is going for.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Joo,

I was preparing a long and detailed response to your post (which I really shouldn't need to post, if you had ever done any shooting with both cameras), but my computer crashed and I lost most of it. I may post it up again later when I have some time, but I'm not sure I want go go through the effort again since you are quite fixated with the D7 being superior to everything else in the world.

Dr. G.
Joo said:
Gonzo likes to make generalizations without backing them up with
specifics...

Joo
Click to expand...
 
They are harder to design and implement, and the quality of
the optics has to be higher. This is from reports here from
people that know, not personal knowledge. Look at the CA
problem, and I think you can agree tho.
MikeA said:
How much of the pricing is based on companies' guessing how much
pro or advanced-amateur photographers are willing to pay for
lenses, I don't know. By the same token, how can we know to what
extent manufacturers of digital cameras make decisions about MSRP
based partly on assumptions about the price-points at which
customers will balk at buying digital camera systems?

Surely the manufacturing costs must be higher for, say,
high-quality Canon "L" lenses with USM and image stabilization,
than they would be for 'prosumer' digital camera lenses containing
considerably less glass, much slower (non-USM) focusing
mechanisms, and no image stabilization.

What I also don't know is: do the lenses in digital cameras, with
their smaller sensors, have to be built every bit as well as 35mm
cameras' lenses? Are they easier to design? Can the QC be less
stringent? Meaning: are the costs to design and build digital
cameras' lenses generally lower?
Bob Williams said:
Just good guessing Mike. Go to B&H and price the nikon and
canon pro lenses. They have too many pro customers that
pay those prices for their lenses to build something as good
as the D-7 lens and sell it cheap. Their pro customers would
scream bloody murder. No inside info, just good guessing
and watching the trends. Answer me this. Who has the best
shot right now of producing a 4 or 5 mp consumer SLR for
under 2000$ with a real SLR AF? Think about it.
Click to expand...
MikeA said:
MikeA said:
Bob Williams said:
I posted this months ago. Canon thinks a lens they make that
would compare with the lens on the D-7 is worth more than the
D-7 costs, just for the lens. Nikon is the same. Oly doesn't even
in this game, especially since they partnered up with Kodak. Nikon
thinks any lens they make that is as good as the D-7's lens is
worth twice what the D-7 is going for.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It would be interesting to read comments about this by lens designers. I do remember hearing that designing a lens specifically for digital systems is more challenging. If ever you run across something like that on the web, I hope you'll mention where you saw it.

If it's that more difficult then again I wonder how these complete camera systems, with non-interchangeable lenses having moderately long zoom ranges, can be priced so much less than certain individual 35mm camera lenses (like Canon's 50/1.4).

The color-fringing problem...well, people go back and forth about what causes it. What does cause it? Chromatic aberration of the kind you see when using an inexpensive close-up lens seems to fill the entire image with subtle aberrations. But the kind of "artifact" often referred to in these forums as "CA" seems to occur at a much more "gross" level than that--bright purple or blue stripes at the boundaries between light and dark. Is it caused by inferior lens design, or by some problem occurring as light strikes the imaging chip? Or both?
Bob Williams said:
They are harder to design and implement, and the quality of
the optics has to be higher. This is from reports here from
people that know, not personal knowledge. Look at the CA
problem, and I think you can agree tho.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the
maker of the ratings, finds.
Click to expand...
A some people seem to disagree with that meanwhile, but we will have to wait until other reviews appear.

Anyway, I think I will be ordering a 707 for my girlfriend (great excuse, don't you think so?), love the nightshot mode and the neat laser. At that time, I can decide for myself which one is superior on what point, but I will defenitely keep both of them.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
Click to expand...
Quote-must be the nightshot mode that did it-unquote

Anyway, D7 has a tiltable viewfinder, somtimes handier (bright sun) sometimes useless (overhead shot)
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Dr. Gonzo said:
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
Click to expand...
Yes, and D7 minus D1 is 6.

"throw in the 8 obligatory 128Mb fish sticks, a spare lion and a why tangle convertor and you are in the same ballpark as the D7
must be the nice eyecup that did it."
And YOUR response to the above was....? missing too.
Dr. Gonzo said:
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in
its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other
camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
Click to expand...
Yes you are absolutely right
Dr. Gonzo said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Now if I had your sense of humor I would probably say: "thank you for the compliment"
Dr. Gonzo said:
Wasn't that a movie?
Click to expand...
Yes, an MPEG movie, the kind you can not record with the E10
(just kidding, don't bother responding to that)

BTW, made any new enemies here lately? Would love to share you with them.
 
When it was plainly purple, I called it CA. Now that it is blue,
I have been using CA/blooming, because it seems to be some
of both. It may be more of a blooming problem, but it may also
be the weakness in the lenses/coatings being used with the
newer tightly packed ccd's. If you go to Steve's Digicam site,
the across the water night shot taken with the G-1 and the
OLY 4040 both show a clear separation in the color spectrum.
The G-2 shows a sensitivity to producing blues at any little excuse
in the same image, but none of the separation effect. I am
waiting to see how the 4000 fares on the same shot.
MikeA said:
If it's that more difficult then again I wonder how these complete
camera systems, with non-interchangeable lenses having moderately
long zoom ranges, can be priced so much less than certain
individual 35mm camera lenses (like Canon's 50/1.4).

The color-fringing problem...well, people go back and forth about
what causes it. What does cause it? Chromatic aberration of the
kind you see when using an inexpensive close-up lens seems to fill
the entire image with subtle aberrations. But the kind of
"artifact" often referred to in these forums as "CA" seems to occur
at a much more "gross" level than that--bright purple or blue
stripes at the boundaries between light and dark. Is it caused by
inferior lens design, or by some problem occurring as light strikes
the imaging chip? Or both?
Bob Williams said:
They are harder to design and implement, and the quality of
the optics has to be higher. This is from reports here from
people that know, not personal knowledge. Look at the CA
problem, and I think you can agree tho.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gonzo,

There you go again with more generalizations without backing them up with any specifics. At least it wasn't the dog that ate your paper.

Joo
Dr. Gonzo said:
I was preparing a long and detailed response to your post (which I
really shouldn't need to post, if you had ever done any shooting
with both cameras), but my computer crashed and I lost most of it.
I may post it up again later when I have some time, but I'm not
sure I want go go through the effort again since you are quite
fixated with the D7 being superior to everything else in the world.

Dr. G.
Joo said:
Gonzo likes to make generalizations without backing them up with
specifics...

Joo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The E-10 has comparable or slightly better sharpness (Phil's test) to the D1 and D30. The E-10 has greater absolute dynamic range (Phils's test) than the D30 and D1 (although the D1 is slightly better at higher ISOs). The E-10 has better out of the camera color than the D1 or D30. E-10 has a faster zoom lens and accessory lenses that are as fast as the D1 and D30's most expensive lenses. The E-10 has an LCD preview. The E-10 does not have mirror shake. The ergonomics of the E-10 are equal to or better than the D1 and D30. The E-10 build quality is at least as good as the D30. The E-10 has more pixels than either the D30 or the D1. The E-10 has greater inherent depth of field. The E-10 does not have a dust problem.

The main advantages that the D1 and D30 have over the E-10 are less noise, interchangeable lenses and higher ISO s and with the D1, somewhat better focus.

Yes the E-10 compares well with the D1 and the D30. Phil, in his comparisons with the E-10 uses the D1, D30 and S1 Pro, not prosumer cameras. In his conclusions, he categorizes the E-10 as a "4 megapixel professional digital SLR" and rates it as "Highly Recommended".

Frank B
Bob Williams said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
jp said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the
maker of the ratings, finds.
Member said:
Member said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
Member said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
Member said:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9
Click to expand...
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in
its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other
camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
Member said:
Member said:
I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.
Click to expand...
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
Member said:
Member said:
It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a movie?
Member said:
Kindest regards

Jean Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Well, isn't that impressive. A pro in Japan just recommended the
D-7 as a backup for the D1x. Another site just compared the
707 to the D1x as far as resolution and image quality. Do either
of these opinions mean anything? No! Neither do Phil's. The
fact is that other than build quality, maybe, the E-10 is a weak
sister to any of the cameras you mention, and nothing you hang
on the end of the lens will change that. Phil also rated a camera
that will not photograph a red rose as Highly recommended.
He rated at least one camera that was easily able to do so
above average. He complains and praises cameras according to
how well they fit him and his style, which has nothing to do
with how I would rate them. Take your E-10 with you and go
play with the big boys. Humm, the one pro I know of that
does use it states quite openly that editors have started calling
his files "dirty". The 990 is used by a lot of "pros". Does that
make it a pro camera? No. The D-7 will be used by a lot of pros.
Does that make it a pro camera? No! It is a lot closer than the
E-10 tho. The 707 will be used by "pros". Does that make it
a pro camera? No! Jeeze, take your E-10 flag waving back to
the Oly forum and tell the poor suckers that bought the 4040
how much better it is. In that case, you will be right.
Frank B said:
The main advantages that the D1 and D30 have over the E-10 are less
noise, interchangeable lenses and higher ISO s and with the D1,
somewhat better focus.

Yes the E-10 compares well with the D1 and the D30. Phil, in his
comparisons with the E-10 uses the D1, D30 and S1 Pro, not prosumer
cameras. In his conclusions, he categorizes the E-10 as a "4
megapixel professional digital SLR" and rates it as "Highly
Recommended".

Frank B
Bob Williams said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
jp said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the
maker of the ratings, finds.
Frank B said:
Frank B said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
Frank B said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
Frank B said:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9
Click to expand...
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in
its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other
camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
Frank B said:
Frank B said:
I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.
Click to expand...
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
Frank B said:
Frank B said:
It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a movie?
Frank B said:
Kindest regards

Jean Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Somewhere there must be at least a high-level discussion of the primary cause of this problem (high-level, I hope, because if it were highly technical I wouldn't understand it). The problem irritated the hell out of me for a while, but I realized it's possible to minimize it, using Photoshop. Not that I want to have to spend time doing this, but it's do-able (with the "replace color" command, among others -- though if the color you're trying to replace exists elsewhere in the image, that's not a good choice of command).
Bob Williams said:
When it was plainly purple, I called it CA. Now that it is blue,
I have been using CA/blooming, because it seems to be some
of both. It may be more of a blooming problem, but it may also
be the weakness in the lenses/coatings being used with the
newer tightly packed ccd's. If you go to Steve's Digicam site,
the across the water night shot taken with the G-1 and the
OLY 4040 both show a clear separation in the color spectrum.
The G-2 shows a sensitivity to producing blues at any little excuse
in the same image, but none of the separation effect. I am
waiting to see how the 4000 fares on the same shot.
Click to expand...
 
Bob, you said in the post I responded to "Compare the E-10 to

the D1????? In your dreams!!!". I understand that you were responding to Gonzo, but I have every right to respond to any post that mentions the E-10 in this forum.

Most of what I said about the E-10, D1 and D30 is based on specifications, test results or backed by many posts involving each camera. Only the last paragraph involved Phil's opinion. I did not attack the D7 and yet you attack the E-10 and me for responding to your post on the E-10. You even quote an E-10 owner who reports that some of his pictures submitted to a magazine were too "dirty" while not disclosing his recently posted highly negative opinion on the D7. I assume, as you respect his opinion so much, that you also accept his opinion.

I said nothing about pros using the E-10 so I'm not sure why you brought this up. Your comment that the D7 is closer to a pro camera then the E-10 is not worth responding to as your post demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the E-10.

Respond as you will. I won't bother to reply unless, of course, you continue to post comments on the E-10.

Frank B
Bob Williams said:
Frank B said:
The main advantages that the D1 and D30 have over the E-10 are less
noise, interchangeable lenses and higher ISO s and with the D1,
somewhat better focus.

Yes the E-10 compares well with the D1 and the D30. Phil, in his
comparisons with the E-10 uses the D1, D30 and S1 Pro, not prosumer
cameras. In his conclusions, he categorizes the E-10 as a "4
megapixel professional digital SLR" and rates it as "Highly
Recommended".

Frank B
Bob Williams said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
jp said:
What better image quality ?
Click to expand...
The better image quality Phil, the writer of the review, and the
maker of the ratings, finds.
Member said:
Member said:
Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And your response to the above was....? missing.
Member said:
Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
Click to expand...
prosumer and consumer are synonymous.
Member said:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9
Click to expand...
the E-10 scored an 8 compared to the D30 and D1, other cameras in
its class. The Sony scored a 9 compared to the D7, the only other
camera in its class. I don't really understand your point here.
Member said:
Member said:
I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.
Click to expand...
Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough
to understand the sarcastic undertone.
Click to expand...
Sure, believe that if you wish, clever deliverer of sarcasm.
Member said:
Member said:
It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a movie?
Member said:
Kindest regards

Jean Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top