Reading mode: Light Dark

2 main D7i concerns so far. Yes. Noise...

Go to last post
I think if you don't like doctoring stuff later, you might steer clear of the D7i. Because there is extra noise in the photos of the D7i, you might want to remove it, which will create one extra step. With the samples that I've downloaded, I've done a lot of tweaking to get it looking as good as the F707 pictures of the same object/scene.

From what I've seen, the Sony F707 seems to have images that are looking good right out of the camera. For that reason, you might want to consider the 707. I know that appeals to me anyways...

I own an Olympus C3000Z now. C2100 is a great camera. : )

B A H
lharris said:
Between a 707 and 7i. Own a c2100 and d-40. Novice.

602 too large for my hand. I have seen the 7i-really intimitidating
dials and so forth. I will do mostly flash indoor stuff. No extra
lighting. Fun and hobby.
Not great with doctoring stuff later. Love EVF's . Love zoom. I am
a bit unsure of the manual zoom thing-though it was more precise. I
do like to print the photos. (Sorry, I use white paper,,,). 1315
printer. Great PC.
Bought Paint Pro. I like strong but real color. Natural skin color,
resolution,
sharpness, contrast.

What do you think? You sound more qualified. I have really enjoyed
the OLY's. The D-40 mp shots blew me away, but no zoom--tho it is
3x to the 707 5X. I would even consider th Nikon 5700, but the 7i
seems better.

I know whaat noise is, but I have mostly seen it in zoom ins on my
D-40
or enlargement on my c2100. The g2 photos always look great to me,
I just didn't like the feel of the camera. I don't think I will
carry accessories. What I get is what I will take with me.(Except
maybe a mindsstor if I go Sony)
Click to expand...
 
Thoser are all great techniques, but do you do that to every image you take? I took 1200 shots on vacation. There are about 100 of those that I want developed. Would I have to do that to 100 images? First I would convert color space in the Minolta program, then I would remove the noise in Photoshop or another program, then I would tweak the levels, curves, color balance, and then sharpen.... That is just so many steps... : (

B A H
henri said:
I also work on a Mac G4 with PS 6 (as hobby)
henri
Major C Henderson said:
henri56123 said:
Major, go to;
http://www.neatimage.com This even corrects 800 asa, this
helps make the D-7 even more perfect!

Clifford
http://www.imageevent.com/cdbrown
Click to expand...
Can't do it. I have a Mac. I have been trying things in Photoshop,
but so far am not satisfied, or can't figure out how to do it. I
need a stand alone program which will work on a Mac. BTW, NOT and
expensive one.
Click to expand...
--
Pluche
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com
 
B A H said:
Thoser are all great techniques, but do you do that to every image
you take? I took 1200 shots on vacation. There are about 100 of
those that I want developed. Would I have to do that to 100 images?
First I would convert color space in the Minolta program, then I
would remove the noise in Photoshop or another program, then I
would tweak the levels, curves, color balance, and then sharpen....
That is just so many steps... : (
Click to expand...
It's all one step, if you use Photoshop. If you use something like ImageMagic it's one batch job for all 1200 pictures, running overnight. Color can be corrected with any ICC capable program; noise removal is a fix macro or program, tweaking to compensate for camera shortcomings doesn't change between pictures; sharpen likewise. Any added adjustments would have to be done anyway, regardless of camera.

If the same adjustments have to be made to several pictures there are excellent automation tools available. Yes, there is some effort and time involved in setting this up, but when it's done, it's done. You can reuse it as many times as you like.

We're not talking darkrooms here. Computers do automation better than anything else in human history; let's put them to their best use.

--
Jesper
 
BAH, HUMbug! Use the D-7 in "Fine Mode JPG" direct from the camera,
NOTHING has to be "converted", by-pass the cursed DIVU and open
in a PhotoShop like program of your choice. Maybe tweak the contrast,
brightness, do a crop and PRINT! With our two D-7's, most of our keepers
are printed 13X17 while wall-hangers go to stunning 20X30 inches. It is
a beautiful camera to watch perform!

--
Clifford
http://www.imageevent.com/cdbrown
 
Get one developed to se bow it looks to you. You may be pleasantly surprised by the result and need no further work done - hopefully. If not you can batch process changes on your computer.
B A H said:
B A H
henri said:
I also work on a Mac G4 with PS 6 (as hobby)
henri
Major C Henderson said:
s k u l p t said:
Major, go to;
http://www.neatimage.com This even corrects 800 asa, this
helps make the D-7 even more perfect!

Clifford
http://www.imageevent.com/cdbrown
Click to expand...
Can't do it. I have a Mac. I have been trying things in Photoshop,
but so far am not satisfied, or can't figure out how to do it. I
need a stand alone program which will work on a Mac. BTW, NOT and
expensive one.
Click to expand...
--
Pluche
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com
Click to expand...
 
I agree with you but: from the 100 that you really want to keep, after minotla conversion, not all need heavy correction steps and unless it all was taken in the dark, not many will really show visible noise (I have a D7 since august last year)

However here is a quicky : for light cases of noise/color artifact simply convert from RGB to LAB and apply 4-5 pixel gaussian blur to the b channel alone and return to RGB; if you want to sharpen as well, do that balso while being in the LAV mode and only on the lightness channel

I guess, your most favourite pics (quality or emotional) may recieve some extra "Photoshop" attention; I once restored > 1200 color slides from 30 years ago; it took me 6 months but I also learned a lot
Henri
B A H said:
B A H
henri said:
I also work on a Mac G4 with PS 6 (as hobby)
henri
Major C Henderson said:
s k u l p t said:
Major, go to;
http://www.neatimage.com This even corrects 800 asa, this
helps make the D-7 even more perfect!

Clifford
http://www.imageevent.com/cdbrown
Click to expand...
Can't do it. I have a Mac. I have been trying things in Photoshop,
but so far am not satisfied, or can't figure out how to do it. I
need a stand alone program which will work on a Mac. BTW, NOT and
expensive one.
Click to expand...
--
Pluche
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com
Click to expand...
--
Pluche
 
My friend has an F707. We havn't run any comparisons since I got my D7i

but he doesn't mind the funny handling and bought some memory sticks and a digital wallet in the US this year (half price of UK) so he's happy. Made sense for him (Sony camcorder, laptop, PDA and phone) so he needs lots of memory sticks:)

He's VERY happy with the cam and takes good pictures leaving the camera on auto-mode most of the time and printing it direct. If you don't want to spend a bit of lab time its a great camera and goes all day (and more) on a set of batteries. You just have to change sticks a lot!

I bought a D7i and after 500 shots I'm glad I did. Takes practice but results are (now) outstanding. However I dont do much post processing now other than sharpening and minor contrast adjustment. No colour space conversion, no noise reduction. Prints look immensely photographic and less like postcards (F707).

If you want instant gratification and nice looking shots, buy the F707. It is a GOOD camera and does much of the work for you.

Steve
B A H said:
I wish I knew Randy. Dpreview didn't show those numbers in the 707
review. I wish they would be more consistant on tests in their
reviews, and what is included in each review.

All 3 cameras are quite good. The G2 in my mind takes the best
looking pictures, but the telephoto range is average. Getting a 2X
teleconverter will bring it to around the other cameras range, but
then that's it. I'm hoping to have around 200mm to start off with,
and then add a teleconverter to get to 3-400mm. So that leaves me
with the 707, the D7i, and the 602. Maybe the Nikon 5700.

The 602 has some great features, but the noise reduction from what
I've seen is butchering some images and making them smeary in some
areas. They claim it's a 6mp camera, but it's interpolation that
can be done to any 3mp image with roughly the same result. Funky
artifacts showing up as well.

The 707 from what I've seen has shown the best image quality
between the higher zoom cameras. Colors can be too saturated, but a
quick drop in saturation levels fixes this for a few shots that go
too far. The thing that impresses me about the 707 images is that
the noise levels are better than the D7i, and yet the saturation is
higher. Dropping the saturation will decrease the noise levels of
the 707 images even more. I held a 707 today, and it felt good.
Darn them for using the memory stick. I have no problems with the
battery. If it lasts as long as they say it does, it doesn't bother
me.

And then there's the D7i. Great features include a manual focus
ring, manual zoom ring, live histogram, and tack sharp images. But
from what I've seen, the images blow out highlights, and darken
shadows too much. This accounts for the lower dynamic range
numbers. Noise also is really high I think. Yes, you can use
programs to reduce the noise, but same for any other camera. And
this process takes time for each image. To me, there are too many
processes at work here. First, you convert the color space in the
Minolta program, drop the noise in another program, and THEN tweak
it further in a program like Photoshop? Yikes. 49mm lens fits all
of my filters... Bad battery life, but cheaper as well.

I'd say image quality is as follows (for me)

1) G2
2) F707
3) D7i
4) 602

Which one do I wish was the best based on features and specs? I
REALLY wish the D7i had the best image quality. I would buy it so
fast. It's a great price with great features, but features mean
squat to me if the images can't support them.

I'm hoping that Sony releases a newer version of the 707, which
will drop the price of the 707 a few hundred bucks.

But I'm eagerly awaiting the review of the D7i at other sites other
than at Steve's Digicams.... Hurry up guys and gals.... : )

Keeping my fingers crossed for the D7i,

B A H
Click to expand...
 
B A H said:
I wish I knew Randy. Dpreview didn't show those numbers in the 707
review. I wish they would be more consistant on tests in their
reviews, and what is included in each review.

All 3 cameras are quite good. The G2 in my mind takes the best
looking pictures, but the telephoto range is average. Getting a 2X
teleconverter will bring it to around the other cameras range, but
then that's it. I'm hoping to have around 200mm to start off with,
and then add a teleconverter to get to 3-400mm. So that leaves me
with the 707, the D7i, and the 602. Maybe the Nikon 5700.

The 602 has some great features, but the noise reduction from what
I've seen is butchering some images and making them smeary in some
areas. They claim it's a 6mp camera, but it's interpolation that
can be done to any 3mp image with roughly the same result. Funky
artifacts showing up as well.

The 707 from what I've seen has shown the best image quality
between the higher zoom cameras. Colors can be too saturated, but a
quick drop in saturation levels fixes this for a few shots that go
too far. The thing that impresses me about the 707 images is that
the noise levels are better than the D7i, and yet the saturation is
higher. Dropping the saturation will decrease the noise levels of
the 707 images even more. I held a 707 today, and it felt good.
Darn them for using the memory stick. I have no problems with the
battery. If it lasts as long as they say it does, it doesn't bother
me.

And then there's the D7i. Great features include a manual focus
ring, manual zoom ring, live histogram, and tack sharp images. But
from what I've seen, the images blow out highlights, and darken
shadows too much. This accounts for the lower dynamic range
numbers. Noise also is really high I think. Yes, you can use
programs to reduce the noise, but same for any other camera. And
this process takes time for each image. To me, there are too many
processes at work here. First, you convert the color space in the
Minolta program, drop the noise in another program, and THEN tweak
it further in a program like Photoshop? Yikes. 49mm lens fits all
of my filters... Bad battery life, but cheaper as well.

I'd say image quality is as follows (for me)

1) G2
2) F707
3) D7i
4) 602

Which one do I wish was the best based on features and specs? I
REALLY wish the D7i had the best image quality. I would buy it so
fast. It's a great price with great features, but features mean
squat to me if the images can't support them.

I'm hoping that Sony releases a newer version of the 707, which
will drop the price of the 707 a few hundred bucks.

But I'm eagerly awaiting the review of the D7i at other sites other
than at Steve's Digicams.... Hurry up guys and gals.... : )

Keeping my fingers crossed for the D7i,

B A H
Click to expand...
I agree with what you have said and also i agree with the ranking of image quality on the cameras also. The G2 colors and that pretty blue sky on G2 really stands out. The 707 are sharpe and detailed, very nice but the colors sometime can be to bold and the blues are funny sometimes, like a sky shot, or a lake, maybe an ocean, almost a blue green lake or sky. To bad it's not a perfect camera in the bunch. I love the Minolta colors but again i come back to the noise. Minolta has the right combination on this camera and if they could get rid of some of that noise, it would be a hot seller now and for sometime to come. I have been looking at the 707 like you and i do or would like the extra zoom and all, but also i would like a camera a little more lighter weight. The memory sticks leave a very bad taste in my mouth also. It would be so much easier to have a 1 gig ibm drive. But who knows, i am holding off for Phil's review on the d71. If you decide on the 707, do not forget the pricematch Sears has been doing. That's a great deal it sounds at anywhere in the $600.00, when you pricematch Giftsplash. Sears does not carry Canon or Minolta. Atleast i think they do not. I even looked at the Nikon 5000 but boy did that camera have even more probs i was not at all happy with, but it sure is light weight. I guess it is hard to have the zoom and range the Minolta has, the picture quality of the G2, light weight, low noise, etc but who knows one day we will have it all and i guess now it is time to get a camera and start shooting. I am like you and i have my fingers crossed as i wait Phil's review on the d7i.
Randy
 
Perhaps I've been misusing the word noise. When I talk about noise being bad on the D7i, I am mostly refering to the grain kind of noise, especially in the darker areas like deep greys and blues. I can live with some color noise. I just don't like shots shot at 100 ISO looking like my old cameras shots at 200 ISO. That's all. Color noise is about the same on the 707 vs the D7i, but the 707 handles granular noise a whole lot better in my mind.

I would like to know what sharpness settings these D7i samples are being taken at. Also might be set to auto ISO, which I always never use. I'd like to see D7i samples shot at its softest sharpening setting and set at 100 ISO. Could be there are some other features that could be tweaked to get better results as well.

Darn it. Hurry up on the reviews Imaging Resource and Phil!

B A H
 
B A H said:
I've also been looking at the G2, but you can't match pure
telephoto with add on teleconverters from what I've seen. Something
I found this morning which might have put the last nail in the
coffin for me is when I looked at dpreviews dynamic range tests of
the G2 and then the D7. (For those who don't know, dynamic range
is.....

"Dynamic range simply defines the range of light the camera is able
to capture before it either loses detail in darkness (shadows for
example) or blows out a highlight (edges of chromed metals are good
examples of this)."
Click to expand...
Nice. Unfortunately the test was bogus. It didn't measure how much DR you can get in sigle picture. It was based on a series of pictures, taken using different exposure values, presumably using auto white balance, default contrast, etc. In other words: too many variables, the results were greatly affected by in camera processing (interpolation, sharpening, color balance, JPEG compression etc.).Let me repeat: it was based on a series of pictures, it does not give any indication of the max. DR in a single picture.

Fortunately this test is no longer used. However, we have a new, similar one; the ISO sensitivity / noise levels test. The more a camera softens the image, the higher points it will get.

Marko
 
I wouldn't say that the test was bogus. In fact, a test could be even more bogus if he took just 1 shot. This is averaging out many shots and gives a better balance vs 1 shot that could be unrealistic and set on settings/conditions that are not common. I will say however that it would be better if he would say what settings he chose, and which pictures he took to get that average. 1 shot could be a fluke (for good or bad)

Even if the numbers aren't dead on, it does show a general tendancy of a camera. From all of the blown out whites and dark dark shadows, this would explain these numbers. I've also noticed D7 images to look a bit flat, which further explains the cameras inability to capture subtle detail in highlights and shadows as well as say a G2.
Marko Björkroth said:
Nice. Unfortunately the test was bogus. It didn't measure how much
DR you can get in sigle picture. It was based on a series of
pictures, taken using different exposure values, presumably using
auto white balance, default contrast, etc. In other words: too many
variables, the results were greatly affected by in camera
processing (interpolation, sharpening, color balance, JPEG
compression etc.).Let me repeat: it was based on a series of
pictures, it does not give any indication of the max. DR in a
single picture.

Fortunately this test is no longer used. However, we have a new,
similar one; the ISO sensitivity / noise levels test. The more a
camera softens the image, the higher points it will get.

Marko
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com
 
B A H said:
Thanks for the info. I agree as well that the noise looks more like
film grain, and that the color noise (the actual noise) is about
the same. It just seems like the grain kind of noise is a bit high.
I've been looking into grain and that kind of thing, and have found
that some cameras over do it like you said. I wouldn't say that the
707 is overdoing it, but I've seen some Fuji 602 samples where
trees are turned into washy water color paintings due to noise
reduction overkill. I too would rather have noise than too much
detail taken away from noise reduction.
Click to expand...
Trees are not a good test, because unless you have absolutely no wind, the leaves are always moving.
s k u l p t said:
I looked at each channel, and it's the blasted green channel that's
creating pretty much all of that disturbance. Go into photoshop (or
your other editing program), open up the triangle building taken
with the D7i, select just the green channel, and apply the dust and
scratches filter to that channel. I used radius of 1, and threshold
of 2 I think. Boom. The noise is gone, but so is some detail, and
green appears on some edges and some other colors slightly change.
The point being, it's the green channel that's the main problem.
Thordur Arnason said:
It might be that I have a bit to simplistic views on noise in the
D7, D7i and F707 but here goes...

Fist and foremost: They all use the same CCD to capture images (
http://www.sony.co.jp/~semicon/english/img/sony01/a6802960.pdf )

Ignoring the lens, thus avoiding the GT vs. Carl Zeiss debate, and
focusing on what happens in-camera after the image is captured:

1. The CCD data is written to the camera buffer

2. The camera performs some operations on the image data including
in-camera sharpening and noise reduction.

3. The image data is written to a file in either JPEG,TIFF or RAW
(RAW only available in D7/D7i) on the media (CF type I or II in the
D7/D7i, Memorystick in the F707)

So what is going to effect the final image quality? Well, there are
four things that can affect the way an image will look out of these
cameras:

1. The ISO setting: 100,200,400 or 800 (800 only available in D7/D7i)
2. The in-camera processing including noise redution and sharpening
3. The colour space used in the resulting image files
4. The compression level, if JPEG is used.

So the percived noise in images captured by any of these three
cameras boils down to what Sony and Minolta do when post processing
an image in-camera and what your preferences are.

I have no problem with the noise in images captured with my D7. If,
for any reason, I would want to reduce the noise (for some purposes
this can be necessary) I just use noise reduction software that
gives me the results I want.

I love Minolta for giving me the choice and not doing heavy noise
reduction in-camera like some other brands/models do.

--
Cheers,

Thordur Arnason
All about DiMAGE - http://www.arnason.no/
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com
Click to expand...
 
Hi BAH,

I have a D7 myself. Noise is not a problem for me, since I am not pro or need to use the pics for big prints. On the other hand, I have more than one complain about the camera, but perhaps they have been fixed in D7i.

First, I will tell you why I got D7 over Sony.
  • It uses standard CF, not only proprietary Memory Stick
  • It has a better non optical zoom lens, 28-200 is most what you need 90% of the time.
  • Quality is as good as Sony, I do not think myself better or worse
  • Price was almost $200 lower.
  • ISO is wider, eventhough I do not use 800 almost because of the noise
  • It has a RAW format
Well, there were others perhaps, but I do not remember them now ;-). Now the bad things about it (and they are from experience).
  • Autofocus is SLOOOOOOOW. And I mean it.
  • EVF does not look very nice, mostly if you are looking to some reflection. Even the reflection of the sun in some bush leaves do not let you see anything.
  • Flash is a toy. Do not use it for anything farther than 6-8 feet.
  • RAW mode is useless in real life. It takes so long to be written to the CF that you can miss a ton of shots in the meanwhile. Same for TIFF format.
  • Batteries are swallowed by the Dragon. A new pack of alkaline Duracell can take about 20 pictures. I tried some Albertson's brand ones (supermarket in Seattle area) and did not get the second picture (incredibly true). With Ni-MH 1800 mAh full of charge I have not got to take more than 60-70 pictures. I never use the LCD, neither delete pictures or preview them much, and this I do in EVF. There is a reason why Minolta put out an external battery pack.
And perhaps something else, but not important. About pre-processing, I can not agree with Clifford when he says pictures straight out of the camera are "done". If you open them with the software provided and convert them with Minolta Image Viewer application from Minolta Colour Space to sRGB or Adobe RGB, you will notice a big difference for the better.

Best,
Dioni
 
This program works flawlessly on a Mac, at least on my Powerbook G4. I don't know what it costs as I got it at work. It does put some strain on the processor since you're running both native Mac OS, Virtual PC, the Windows session in Virtual PC, and the program you use in Windows, f.ex. Neatimage. My Powerbook has a G4 667MHz processor and 512MB Ram which I'll say is probably the slowest system you'd like to run Virtual PC on (WinXP's too heavy, stick with 98SE). I thought I'd be running lots of PC programs on my Mac but I tend to look for alternatives that run straight on the Mac. It's a feasible route to take if you only want to work with one system though. I tend to take the best of both worlds with my PC workstation and Mac Powerbook.

Regards, Maxven
Michael Almond said:
I think I've tried all the tricks to reduce noise and I've found
that Neat Image is by far the best. It seems to do an excellent job
of removing noise without removing detail. Another good one to use
is Camera Bits Quantum Mechanic (www.camerabits.com), but it is not
as good as Neat Image (plus a lot more expensive - $190!). A
cheaper alternative to Camera Bits is Noise Reduction Pro ($100)
from http://www.theimagingfactory.com . Both are available for the Mac
with demo versions.

You can get a free noise reduction Photoshop action from
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/denoiseISO.html which works
pretty good too.

An even cheaper trick (and basically what both Quantum and Noise
Reduction Pro do) is to convert your image to LAB is Photoshop and
use the despekle or dust and sctraches filter followed by an
unsharp mask on the luminance channel only.

BTW: Major, isn't there software for the Mac that lets you run Windows
software? That might be the route to go.
  • Mike (anxiously waiting for my D7i to arrive from Amazon)!
TNRandy said:
I have been looking at G2 galleries and i am so impressed with that
camera and the noise is not bad. But then you get to looking at
telephoto lens, wide lens, and you come back and look at the 707
and d7i. I know if i buy the G2, i will be buying more add on lens,
etc. Do you lose mush or any detail, when you use the program neat
image? Can Minolta have an add on thru software, in camera or even
a program, out of camera to correct and reduce the noise? I could
live with the battery issues and any of the other bad points, is it
had any, with the D7, but i can't get past the noise. I hope when
Phil does the review he will comment about the noise, noise in
general, and how hard it is to rid noise, with neat image or
another program and if you lose much detail. This would be a killer
camera if the noise could be controlled. I wish Minolta would call
Canon and hire Canon to help them with noise. I have always loved
the noise free pics with the D30 and i am very impressed with the
G2 as well. Maybe someone can comment on the neat image program,
that uses it with his or her D7i and can they tell if they lose
detail and any bad points using a noise removal program.
Randy
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have looked through the reviews, I must be missing the dynamic range numbers, whare are they typically in a review?
B A H said:
"Dynamic range simply defines the range of light the camera is able
to capture before it either loses detail in darkness (shadows for
example) or blows out a highlight (edges of chromed metals are good
examples of this)."

Anyways. The G2 has a rating of 675:1 ratio (the higher the better)
The D7 has a ratio of 354:1! That would easily explain the blown
out highlights and the too dark shadows that you see in many shots.

B A H
TNRandy said:
I have been looking at G2 galleries and i am so impressed with that
camera and the noise is not bad. But then you get to looking at
telephoto lens, wide lens, and you come back and look at the 707
and d7i. I know if i buy the G2, i will be buying more add on lens,
etc. Do you lose mush or any detail, when you use the program neat
image? Can Minolta have an add on thru software, in camera or even
a program, out of camera to correct and reduce the noise? I could
live with the battery issues and any of the other bad points, is it
had any, with the D7, but i can't get past the noise. I hope when
Phil does the review he will comment about the noise, noise in
general, and how hard it is to rid noise, with neat image or
another program and if you lose much detail. This would be a killer
camera if the noise could be controlled. I wish Minolta would call
Canon and hire Canon to help them with noise. I have always loved
the noise free pics with the D30 and i am very impressed with the
G2 as well. Maybe someone can comment on the neat image program,
that uses it with his or her D7i and can they tell if they lose
detail and any bad points using a noise removal program.
Randy
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com
Click to expand...
 
Looking at Steve's D7i and F707 shots again I have a couple of observations.

1. Sun position and intensity is very different. In the canoe shots the sun is behind on the D7i, causing bad reflections. In the F707 shot is was above and the sky was cloudy, so there was far less total contrast for the metering to deal with and no glare.

2. The D7i matrix overexposes in these situations. The shot is just overexposed - hence the washed out colours, sky and highlights. Downloading Steve's photo and adjusting the brightness levels not only improves the situation it also reduces sky noise AND improves the colour contrast a lot. Try it. Can't recapture lost info of course, but its not saturation, its just exposure. I use standard saturation on the D7i and -0.7 to -1 EV compensation in these scenarios and get great results and colour and still preserve most of the shadow detail - which looks more "realistic" at the same time. Had the same issues with my Dynax - must be the metering system!!! At least the EVF provides enough info to get it right and the multi-mode bracketing means you;d have to be very sloppy not to get a good shot. A polariser would also help!!

3. For my money the D7i also showed better detail on the canoes and signboards despite the high exposure - possible the F707 noise reduction does affect subtle surface detail which looks like noise! Always thought bricks looked a bit "plastic" on the F707.

As to the dynamic range tests, it is the ISO 50 setting on the G2 that gives it the better range - lower ISO would help preserve highlights in a bright scene given a decent metering system. I agree the G2 is excellent in these situations - pity about the zoom range and poor grip but its a great camera all the same. So nearly got one.

The F707 is another ISO 100 camera with a slightly faster lens and less noise. Would expect DR somewhere between the G2 and D7 at ISO 100 eg 400:1 Not hugely better than the D7i and not enough to explain the problems in Steve's shots.

You pay your money, take your choice. At least the D7i is easy to adjust, more flexible and does less internal processing. It helps get round these little issues and makes it a bit more versatile in the field, just more work to get consistently good shots.

Steve
----------
B A H said:
Even if the numbers aren't dead on, it does show a general tendancy
of a camera. From all of the blown out whites and dark dark
shadows, this would explain these numbers. I've also noticed D7
images to look a bit flat, which further explains the cameras
inability to capture subtle detail in highlights and shadows as
well as say a G2.
Marko Björkroth said:
Nice. Unfortunately the test was bogus. It didn't measure how much
DR you can get in sigle picture. It was based on a series of
pictures, taken using different exposure values, presumably using
auto white balance, default contrast, etc. In other words: too many
variables, the results were greatly affected by in camera
processing (interpolation, sharpening, color balance, JPEG
compression etc.).Let me repeat: it was based on a series of
pictures, it does not give any indication of the max. DR in a
single picture.

Fortunately this test is no longer used. However, we have a new,
similar one; the ISO sensitivity / noise levels test. The more a
camera softens the image, the higher points it will get.

Marko
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com
Click to expand...
 
B A H said:
I wouldn't say that the test was bogus.
Click to expand...
Of cource, because you never bothered the read the description of the test method.
s k u l p t said:
In fact, a test could be
even more bogus if he took just 1 shot.
Click to expand...
The test was not based on averaging. The exposure value was increased or decreased until all detail was lost. That might sound like a good idea, but many point'n'shoot cameras try to make the pictures more appealing by applying a different tone curve depending on the situation (=trying to increase contrast and/or enhance colors, if the the camera thinks the picture will look too dull etc.).

In other words, the results were affected by the (variable) tone/gamma curve of the camera. The only way to get comparable results would be to use unprocessed data from the CCD = RAW. Ever wonder why most manufacturers won't allow you to check what the camera really is seeing?
s k u l p t said:
Even if the numbers aren't dead on, it does show a general tendancy
of a camera.
Click to expand...
In the case of the D7(i), the "general tendency" is affected by the in-camera sharpening level, contrast (7 levels to choose from) and exposure (compensation, metering mode etc.). You were planning to use only the default settings? Then the D7i clearly is not the right camera for you.
s k u l p t said:
From all of the blown out whites and dark dark
shadows, this would explain these numbers. I've also noticed D7
images to look a bit flat, which further explains the cameras
inability to capture subtle detail in highlights and shadows as
well as say a G2.
Click to expand...
Try to make up you mind. A great dynamic range will result in a "flat" picture, because monitors has limits, too, and what you'll see is a compressed DR. Increase contrast (by using an S-shaped tone curve) and you'll get a Canon-like picture with bright colors - and it will look sharper, too. High DR gives more latitude for post processing, but it will not look good WITHOUT post processing. Ever wonder why people post process photos taken with DSLRs, although DSLRs are supposed to have a superior DR?

Marko
 
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