U
Ulysses
Guest
Here are two crops, resized to 200%, from the *ist D and the 300D resolution charts.
--
Ulysses
--
Ulysses
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
David Kieltyka
Veteran Member
It might be better to compare at similar levels of USM (granted, this may not be possible yet). The Canon shot is strongly sharpened with artifacts (haloing & such) plainly visible while the Pentax shot looks unsharpened.
-Dave-
-Dave-
D
Darrell Spreen
Guest
All the reviewers could benefit by using the same technique to
do comparisions. Much more revealing than to scan back-and-
forth to try to compare.
It's pretty obvious that Canon has used substantial in-camera
processing with the new 300D.
Thanks,
Darrell
Comparison isn't valid in this case. The file size was about 20% smaller, so that should have been an indication. I hope Phil redoes the Pentax chart. A lot of conspriacy thinking individuals are going to start thinking why the Canon happened to get the better exposure. 
Here are two crops, resized to 200%, from the *ist D and the 300D
resolution charts.
--
Ulysses
Rick.L
Active member
It is a good way to compare.Here are two crops, resized to 200%, from the *ist D and the 300D
resolution charts.
--
Ulysses
Despite my wanting the Pentax to be as good as, or better than the 300D, I am afraid it does not look that way to me, even given the slightly different size and different exposure. Still lets see the full review. I wonder if any non Pentax or Canon owners have an opinion.
Rick
Peter Spiro
Senior Member
The Pentax is said to have the same sensor as the Nikon D100. If you look at the the 300D vs D100 comparison in the 300D review, the vertical resolution is 1300 for the Nikon vs 1450 for the Canon, which is quite a subsantial difference.
(In his table, Phil states that both are 1600 horizontally, but even there the Canon looks noticeably sharper to me.)
(In his table, Phil states that both are 1600 horizontally, but even there the Canon looks noticeably sharper to me.)
I applied USM (70%, 2 px, 0 thr) to *istD image, and adjusted background sharpness so as to match the Canon's one. Actually, we are speaking not about resolution, but how well antialiasing is handled; better antialiasing results in a seemingly lower resolution. Canon seems to put more emphasis on resolution, Pentax more on antialiasing (evidenced by more even density of stripes)
Things to notice
a) noisy backround of Pentax can be attributed to the original underexposure. (b) Canon image has 3% larger magnification, which gives an additional advantage to Canon.
Things to notice
a) noisy backround of Pentax can be attributed to the original underexposure. (b) Canon image has 3% larger magnification, which gives an additional advantage to Canon.
U
Ulysses
Guest
It's going to be interesting to see how the Pentax plays out in terms of noise, focus and sharpness in the review, which is hopefully only days away.
Personally, I have wanted to like the *ist D. My question has been what would the prices of lenses be, and how safe an investment would it be in comparison to a Canon camera.
Ulysses
Personally, I have wanted to like the *ist D. My question has been what would the prices of lenses be, and how safe an investment would it be in comparison to a Canon camera.
--I applied USM (70%, 2 px, 0 thr) to *istD image, and adjusted
background sharpness so as to match the Canon's one. Actually, we
are speaking not about resolution, but how well antialiasing is
handled; better antialiasing results in a seemingly lower
resolution. Canon seems to put more emphasis on resolution, Pentax
more on antialiasing (evidenced by more even density of stripes)
Things to notice
the original underexposure. (b) Canon image has 3% larger
magnification, which gives an additional advantage to Canon.
http://web.starman.ee/jkalda/776596-O_.gif
Ulysses
GordonBGood
Veteran Member
I looked at noise vs. sharpness in this resolution chart and the other colour chart and noticed, as you did, that the Pentax images were almost not sharpened at all compared to the Canon. Actually, I prefer that, as that allows one to apply their own sharpening later. Also noted the under-exposure. Howeve, in a noise comparison, I find that the base electronics plus sensor noise as measured at near black and near white levels for the Pentax 1stD at ISO 200 is at the same too-small-to-be-measurable level which is about equivalent to the bit jitter from the 8 bit per channel JPEG output file. The Canon 10D and the Rebel at ISO 100 had the same unmeasurable noise for the near dark and near white levels, but noise about twice this and into the measurable range in the shadow details at about 64/255 in the JPEG files. If this trend carries on to ISO 3200, the Pentax ISO 3200 images will be fairly usable right out of the camera, whereas I don't regard the Canon's usable without noise reduction processing. If we only had equivalent full size images taken at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200!I applied USM (70%, 2 px, 0 thr) to *istD image, and adjusted
background sharpness so as to match the Canon's one. Actually, we
are speaking not about resolution, but how well antialiasing is
handled; better antialiasing results in a seemingly lower
resolution. Canon seems to put more emphasis on resolution, Pentax
more on antialiasing (evidenced by more even density of stripes)
Things to notice
the original underexposure. (b) Canon image has 3% larger
magnification, which gives an additional advantage to Canon.
And the Canon 10D/300 were the noise champions to date!
Regards, GordonBGood
Rüdiger123933
Well-known member
Hallo Gordon
In the Test
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=267
are also a picture with ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 (at the end)
Regards
Rüdiger
In the Test
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=267
are also a picture with ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 (at the end)
--I looked at noise vs. sharpness in this resolution chart and theI applied USM (70%, 2 px, 0 thr) to *istD image, and adjusted
background sharpness so as to match the Canon's one. Actually, we
are speaking not about resolution, but how well antialiasing is
handled; better antialiasing results in a seemingly lower
resolution. Canon seems to put more emphasis on resolution, Pentax
more on antialiasing (evidenced by more even density of stripes)
Things to notice
the original underexposure. (b) Canon image has 3% larger
magnification, which gives an additional advantage to Canon.
other colour chart and noticed, as you did, that the Pentax images
were almost not sharpened at all compared to the Canon. Actually,
I prefer that, as that allows one to apply their own sharpening
later. Also noted the under-exposure. Howeve, in a noise
comparison, I find that the base electronics plus sensor noise as
measured at near black and near white levels for the Pentax 1stD
at ISO 200 is at the same too-small-to-be-measurable level which is
about equivalent to the bit jitter from the 8 bit per channel JPEG
output file. The Canon 10D and the Rebel at ISO 100 had the same
unmeasurable noise for the near dark and near white levels, but
noise about twice this and into the measurable range in the shadow
details at about 64/255 in the JPEG files. If this trend carries
on to ISO 3200, the Pentax ISO 3200 images will be fairly usable
right out of the camera, whereas I don't regard the Canon's usable
without noise reduction processing. If we only had equivalent full
size images taken at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200!
And the Canon 10D/300 were the noise champions to date!
Regards, GordonBGood
Regards
Rüdiger
U
Ulysses
Guest
Don't forget, however, that Phil's Digital Rebel chart was shot using the camera in Parameter 1 mode. This mode applies more sharpening to the image out of the box. Another side result is slightly higher noise at ISO 800 and above. Take it out of Parameter 1 and you've got a different camera.
While I'm not sure whether or not we can extrapolate what the *ist D noise will be in such a linear fashion (it usually is not), it will be great to see what the final results will be. Personally, I find the ISO 1600 of the 10D/Digital Rebel to be quite usable, IF you take the right kind of shot. The samples I've seen thus far from the *ist D at ISO 1600 looked a little noisier to my eye. But it could be that the conditions contributed to a less than stellar look for these shots.
--
Ulysses
It seems that the 300D's "parameter 1" is roughly "sharpened enough to be ready to print" which is also I believe typical of the default settings on other brands; "parameter 2" and the defaults on other Canon models have low sharpening to support post-processing, with the side effect of lower noise measurements that will however increase somewhat with the necessary additional computer sharpening.
So perhaps the 300D's "parameter 1" is the fairest choice to use in comparisons to other camera brands.
U
Ulysses
Guest
I'd agree that it's the fair choice to compare because that's the default value out of the box.
But I'd be willing to bet that if you take a RAW image from the Digital Rebel, convert it and then process it with good technique, it's going to do quite well.
Ulysses
But I'd be willing to bet that if you take a RAW image from the Digital Rebel, convert it and then process it with good technique, it's going to do quite well.
--
Ulysses
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum