-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A700 JPGs convince me there is a problem..
- Thread starter Ken_5D
- Start date
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Well 6mp does fine for that print size..most dont view a photo 6 inches away from it.
The issue is not with compression, it is with the jpeg engine and or NR processing too.
Um Ken, grasp what is going on here. Its not jpeg sharpening in camera, its not compression, its NR processing (or so it would appear). I have tried every form of sharpening there is. Sure the jpegs sharpen a bit better, but get nowhere near the RAW file quality.
Its very noticable.
--
Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
No Ken, you are in denial. I am right, IR Dave is right, phil will say the same. Its not a conspiracy, its just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!WRONG BUCKO!!!I am all about the truth, I shot both a RAW version
of that scence and a Fine JPEG with only + 2 sharpening...
Well you aint made a RAW and JPEG available yet!
Matches what? The cat is ok, but its far from gritty sharp uber details. I think we know that RAW is loads better, least those who have bothered to try them.
No contest as it is, we know the story anyway..but fire away. And yet again we will see the big difference there is. Just accept it, move on..and shoot RAW!
--
Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
C
ck3
Guest
Not according to imaging-resource: From their KM5D review: "Good print quality, good color, good-looking prints to 11x14 inches, and 13x19s are entirely suitable for wall display. ISO 1600 images are rough at 8x10, good at 5x7. ISO 3200 images are only acceptable at 4x6."
If you accept his verdict regarding the print quality of the A700 you have to accept his verdict regarding the print quality of the 5D as well, don't you?
Carsten
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Guess what? I put my 13x19" shots on the wall! lol
ISO 1600 is printable more than that..by a long way. ISO 3200 I have used for wedding albums 8x10".
Course its all subjective..but ahem, did you not read the IR page..see the huge jpeg v RAW difference. I did..
Sure I dont agree with Dave on everything. But on this one, its rather noticable dont you agree?
--
Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
Krako
Well-known member
Here's a 100% crop of a cat, which I shot quite a while ago whith the 7mp Sony DSC P150. Ok, that camera almost marked the peak of P&S-camera image quality in terms of sensor size, lens sharpness etc, but nonetheless I find the A700 jpgs disappoint in direct comparison.
liquid stereo
Veteran Member
The same settings produced superior results on the Minolta D7D.
Direct your eye right inward, and you'll find a thousand
regions in your mind yet undiscovered. Travel them, and
be expert in home-cosmography.
-H.D. Thoreau
--
Direct your eye right inward, and you'll find a thousand
regions in your mind yet undiscovered. Travel them, and
be expert in home-cosmography.
-H.D. Thoreau
C
ck3
Guest
Yes, I agree that the jpegs leave something to be desired. But the point remains: if you believe Dave that the A700 jpegs only print good until 13X19, I think you'll have to believe him that the 5D jpegs don't.
And if you think he's wrong in his assessment of the 5D, if you think that you can print larger, why do you think he's right with the A700? Maybe you can print A700 jpegs larger as well...
Carsten
José B
Forum Pro
Ken, I don't have the A700 but since you were looking for unprocessed jpeg pics of other sub-$2000 DSLRs here are some from the 40D.
Just some info: Canon 40D large jpegs are 3.50 MB in size. Jpeg image shown here used customized Portrait Picture Style setting. Sharpening is +3 (default setting is +2, maximum is +7). Although there is in-camera sharpening I am ecstatic at the details I am getting with this camera so much so that I will revert to jpeg shooting and will only use RAW for difficult lighting conditions and if I need more details i.e. close up beauty shots.
Cropped jpeg bigger file (as is, No PP/USM)
Finished product (with PP...the works)
From RAW
From jpeg (I airbrushed this a bit using Digital GEM Pro Air Brush)
Cheers,
José
--
Recent work:
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/kim_m_40d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/sasha_40d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/michelle_iii
Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/40d_30d_and_20d_portraiture
Just some info: Canon 40D large jpegs are
Cropped jpeg bigger file (as is, No PP/USM)
Finished product (with PP...the works)
From RAW
From jpeg (I airbrushed this a bit using Digital GEM Pro Air Brush)
Cheers,
José
--
Recent work:
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/kim_m_40d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/sasha_40d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/michelle_iii
Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/40d_30d_and_20d_portraiture
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Why? I do real photography. I have not had any complaints from my ISO 3200 prints. I think we all know you wont get poster sized prints that are any good at that ISO speed.
I dont just take his word for it. I found out for myself. I tried A700 RAW and jpegs, and was not able to match the excellent quality of the RAW with the jpegs.
Pretty damn weak arguments flying about here..look go try it for yourself. I expected better on the jpeg front on the A700, but its not a deal breaker in itself, just shoot RAW
--
Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
David_London
Well-known member
You're kidding, right?
There is an awful lot more fine hair detail in Ken's example, along with depth in the eyes - you can almost see the retinas! Your shot has a great deal of black (which won't show much detail anyway) amd there are no individual hairs delineated on the nose at all. On the OP's you can make out fine hairs right down to the velvety little nose.
This stuff is all very subjective, but I know which image to my eye has the more detail.
Regards,
David.
David_London
Well-known member
Lovely shot! Can you post us a 100% crop from the right side of the head, showing the eyebrow and hair? Textures tend to show the "damage" more than skin tones, and it would be useful to see the competition's output
Regards,
David.
Russell Ervin
Senior Member
Sonalta is gone, but Barry is starting again... :::sigh::::
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/quietrvr/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/quietrvr/
Sorry that I posted a reply to your great post Ken that provoked a flame from Barry. Notice that he just comes on with one more of his same old repeated claims denegrading the image quality of the jpegs, completely disregarding the kinds of great image quality that we've (you and others) have gotten with simple sharpening.
So I repeat the point that I made at ImagingResource: if the reviewers are willing to apply sharpening to canons traditionally soft images and then make the remark: with a little sharpening they look fine, why won't they do it with the a700. We have and they look fine. Even more than fine.
Barry Fitgerald has lost all credibility with me. He constantly takes over threads by wrecklessly reviving attacks that we long ago settled and are not even issues with us anymore. It's an easy weapon for hurting the a700 reputation to readers who have just come onto the forum. I think his tired and vacuous criticisms are bait for new readers who are unaware that we've already "done a job" his criticisms. I certainly will defer to the patience of persons who are more experienced in forum protocol than I am. But I feel that there's a line that gets crossed with BF acts up. It's flaming to me and some one should post a complaint.
ChaCha
So I repeat the point that I made at ImagingResource: if the reviewers are willing to apply sharpening to canons traditionally soft images and then make the remark: with a little sharpening they look fine, why won't they do it with the a700. We have and they look fine. Even more than fine.
Barry Fitgerald has lost all credibility with me. He constantly takes over threads by wrecklessly reviving attacks that we long ago settled and are not even issues with us anymore. It's an easy weapon for hurting the a700 reputation to readers who have just come onto the forum. I think his tired and vacuous criticisms are bait for new readers who are unaware that we've already "done a job" his criticisms. I certainly will defer to the patience of persons who are more experienced in forum protocol than I am. But I feel that there's a line that gets crossed with BF acts up. It's flaming to me and some one should post a complaint.
ChaCha
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Er no..its called "being honest"
People can bury heads in sand and hope for the best, but reality is jpegs are not as good as they should be. Sorry it that puts a few people's noses out of joint. I can only imagine the response on this forum when phil says the same.
Likely as it was on the pentax SLR forum..angry fanboys going loopy! (as it happens phil was right, though he maybe went a tad OTT on it)
The sony jpegs are far worse than lacking the edge bite of the K10D, prepare yourselves for a hammering at review time!
Still, good job you have RAW eh?
--
Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
jmknights
Senior Member
Ken,
I just shot 750 on Sunday jpegs, sharpness +2 contrast +1 and they are as sharp or sharper than my A100. I shoot almost exclusively drag racing photos. So it is real easy to compare...
eg.
had a little problem with some reflection but that's the idiot that took the photos, early in the morning.
Jim in VT
I just shot 750 on Sunday jpegs, sharpness +2 contrast +1 and they are as sharp or sharper than my A100. I shoot almost exclusively drag racing photos. So it is real easy to compare...
eg.
had a little problem with some reflection but that's the idiot that took the photos, early in the morning.
Jim in VT
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
No. I don't flame people, I just give an honest view.
They look even better in RAW
And I have no respect for you. Also, you keep saying I have no credibility, but IR agrees with me, and I expect DP will be far harder than I have. So pray tell how is that lost credibility?
What I have said is jpegs pale next to RAW, its undeniable, bar only a few die hard fans, who point blank, refuse to accept the evidence slapping them in the face.
But I feel that
Its called an opinion..and we can all have a say
--
Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
Jose, anyone could take that portrait and crop for the left side of the hair in the light or the right side in the shadow or the shoulder in the lower left corner and make an easy case for smudging, loss of detail, softeness. I didn't even have to crop and I see loss of detail and smudging on your own post. Unfair? Well that's exactly what they are doing on this forum with the a700. When I downloaded the fine jpegs from the ImagingResource review of the 40d, I found that it took very little sharpening before it's detail reaked. I did the same with the fine jpegs from the a700 and it took sharpening with much better results. I don't see any advantage in the canon jpeg that you posted.
ChaCha
ChaCha
CM PHoto
Senior Member
I am sorry, but I am looking for that hair in that image that is tact-sharp, but I do not see it. I do not see it in the iris, either.
Which f-stop were you using on which lens?
chad
--
Equipment Brokerage for the Working Pro http://www.chadmarekphoto.com/ta/
My Latest Show - http://www.chadmarekphoto.com/gallery/shows/atcw2007/index.htm
Which f-stop were you using on which lens?
chad
--
Equipment Brokerage for the Working Pro http://www.chadmarekphoto.com/ta/
My Latest Show - http://www.chadmarekphoto.com/gallery/shows/atcw2007/index.htm
Krako
Well-known member
Of course the comparison is totally apples vs. bananas in terms of subject, distance, lens, etc. pp. But don't you think as well that a A700 sample should look dramatically better than a snapshot from a more than three year old, 250€ camera?
(Of course they do when shot RAW, but that's not the focus of the discussion)
(Of course they do when shot RAW, but that's not the focus of the discussion)
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum