Reading mode: Light Dark

Pro1 Sample images

  • Thread starter Thread starter WP
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Have no clue on the settings, but Wow!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=7584551
Ulysses said:
I don't see it so much in the bridge shot. You can, however, find
miniscule amounts in the shots of the shoes, which is interesting.
Again, it's so small as to be a non-issue. Then again, I find that
studio shots even with the F828 are not really bad in this way. We
need to see more Pro1 outdoor shots to make sure. :-)

Overall, I'm encouraged.

--

Ulysses
Click to expand...
--
http://www.trytel.com/~pguidry/vacation.html
 
They don't look particularly NR-ed to me. They look like "typical" Canon images (either dSLR or digicam). Canon's images in the digicams have always had that sort of buttery look to them (for lack of a better description). I like it. But not everyone will.

As to noise in the sky, I'll be honest with you, people sometimes expect these sorts of images to look like flat sheets of blue. But even dSLR cameras won't depict the sky that way.

That said, we're looking at a 2.7um photosite result. I'm amazed that it's as clean as it is. :-)

What I'd really like to see is whether Canon is finally serious about their ISO 200 and 400 performance, where they always lost ground to other manufacturers for this class of camera.
Ron Parr said:
Thanks for bringing these to our attention.

Unlike Sony, Canon picks their sample shots carefully, so it would
be surprising to see large, glaring flaws in the official shots.

The images do look like they've undergone a lot of NR, yet the
bridge shot still managed to have a lot of sky noise.

No miracles.

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

Ulysses
 
In my opinion, it's very unfortunate that the camera manufacturers, Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Minolta, all have to play this marketing game similar to how Intel and AMD have their gigahertz race. Looking at the feature sets of both the Sony F828, and the Powershot Pro1, I very much wanted first the F828 to be a, bar none, superior camera. These are the same hopes that I pin on the Powershot Pro1. Mainly because of their feature sets more so than their increased resolution.

While the F828 is still a good camera, perhaps it could have avoided the pitfalls of high pixel density (PF and noise) if it had retained the 2/3" 5MP sensor of the F717. And we cannot say for certain anything about the Pro1, but the sample images so far, which only demonstrate ISO50 and small apertures, cast some suspicion that the Pro1 will show these problems as well.

If they released a 5MP nothing-else-changed version of the F828 or Pro1, I'd be the first to order it... even before the Canon/Sony execs and insiders, if that were possible.

Lastly, I think the prosumers of this caliber are a dying breed. With falling dslr prices, increasing complexity and manufacturing costs ("L" lens and Carl Zeiss T*'s don't come cheaply), the ignorant consumer-led pi$$ing contest for more megapixels, and the alienation of amateurs-in-the-know that understand the pitfalls of high pixel density, they simply cannot keep creating cameras that much better and sell them for less. (I will go so far out on a limb as to say that that's why the Pro1 and its "L-glass high MP" successors will NEVER get Image Stablization)

As for Minolta and Nikon, it's too bad that they have to just introduce their old cameras with the 8MP sensor instead of making something more innovative, just to keep in the MP race. (A2 and 8700)
 
Poetic justice or a little irony -- Anyone notice the File name of the Bridge&Sky photo?
Ulysses said:
Which fringing are you referring to?

For example, I see a bit of CA in that there are orange/red areas
that show up against the contrasty white of the bridge edges.
However, thankfully, there is little corresponding green/cyan
fringing on the side opposite.

As for fringing (of the purple type), I'm not yet seeing much of
that at all. Extremely low in that department. And as for the CA,
I'm not at all surprised to see this, even though it's fairly
little in intensity. After all, this L lens would come under the
classification of a super-zoom.
Adam-T said:
the G5 NEVER fringes on blue skies like that, only bright white
skies - I can't wait to see backlit tree branches against a white
sky ;-) ..

Anyway, these are only preliminary shots and the camera will cost
DOUBLE that of the G5 at least (UK)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Click to expand...
 
Ulysses said:
They don't look particularly NR-ed to me. They look like "typical"
Canon images (either dSLR or digicam). Canon's images in the
digicams have always had that sort of buttery look to them (for
lack of a better description). I like it. But not everyone will.
Click to expand...
Places that look NR-ed to me:

Model's hair and eyebrows
Underside of bridge

What I mean by NR-ed, is that the detail gets a clumpiness to it. I don't see this in Canon's SLR shots and I see it to a much lesser degree in their CCD cameras with bigger pixels.
Member said:
As to noise in the sky, I'll be honest with you, people sometimes
expect these sorts of images to look like flat sheets of blue. But
even dSLR cameras won't depict the sky that way.
Click to expand...
dSLRs produce much cleaner and, IMO, natural looking skies than this. Look at any of Phil's Tower Bridge shots with Canon DSLRs, for example.

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

I think you've summed it up well. The 8MP digicam sensor may never cut it. Like you, I similarly wish that Canon had put the 5MP sensor from the G5 into the Pro1. Good sensor, good lens, better ergonomics (maybe). Oh well, when the masses stop accessorising themselves with megapixels, maybe we'll all get the digicam we've been waiting for. In the meantime, I just bought a G5 to supplement my 4MP (gasp) 1D. ;-)

--
Sally S
aka pigasus
The pig that flies
http://www.pigasusgrove.net/gallery/
 
Okay, I follow you now.
Ron Parr said:
Model's hair and eyebrows
Underside of bridge
Click to expand...
Now this is where it gets interesting. Where you mentioned that this looked like NR to you, I had the impression that this was the sensor at work. The areas of "clumpiness" looked to me very similar to some of the original problems that were mentioned with the F828. Not exactly the jagginess, but the sort of 'clumpy' look. It's a certain similarity I see here between the cameras, whereas the Pro1 looks marginally cleaner overall.
Member said:
dSLRs produce much cleaner and, IMO, natural looking skies than
this. Look at any of Phil's Tower Bridge shots with Canon DSLRs,
for example.
Click to expand...
Oh, no doubt about that. I don't really expect dSLR type clean here. But even the older G-series didn't provide that.

--

Ulysses
 
Sorry, I didnt mean to seem angry, because I wasn't... I just thought I saw some "conspiracy theory" irony in your post, and I didn't think it was fair.

Of course they will publish the best pictures they can get, and will try to avoid any possible problems that the camera has... but in that picture, I don't see why they shouldn't have used f/8.

Sure, they could have tried f/5.6 with the ND filter, or even cranked up the ISO, selected a much faster shutter speed, and so on, but why should they go out of their way to choose settings that could make the camera look bad, when the picture with the settings they chose looks just fine? I don't see any clear drawback to using f/8 in that picture, and I bet most people would have done it the same way.

Anyway, I guess we'll see soon enough how it really performs. It's fun but useless to speculate now.
Man-Fai Wong said:
Shooting at such a small aperture on these digicams is not exactly
ideal.

Ok, maybe I should've said "odd", instead of "interesting".

Man
Giordano Biondani said:
I don't see your point. Why SHOULDN'T they shoot at f/8? It's a
panoramic shot, there is a lot of light, what did you want them to
shoot at, f/2?
Man-Fai Wong said:
Ron Parr said:
WP said:
If there was ever an image that should show purple fringing it is
this image. Bright white with lots of angles and detail against a
bright sky.
Click to expand...
It was shot at f/8. You shouldn't expect much PF here.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Click to expand...
--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog
resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong
Click to expand...
--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997
Click to expand...
--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog
resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong
Click to expand...
--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997
 
Pigasus said:
I think you've summed it up well. The 8MP digicam sensor may never
cut it. Like you, I similarly wish that Canon had put the 5MP
sensor from the G5 into the Pro1.
Click to expand...
More pixels are not a bad thing, they are in fact a very good thing.

What is a bad thing is smaller pixels. And the G5 has pixels that are essentially the same size as the Pro1 pixels and about the same amount of noise. I guess what you really want is the 5MP sensor for the Sony 717.
G5 sensor is 1/1.8" the Pro1 is 2/3".

People are starting to build the more pixels == bad mentality without looking at the underlying sensor size.
 
Member said:
For example, I see a bit of CA in that there are orange/red areas
that show up against the contrasty white of the bridge edges.
However, thankfully, there is little corresponding green/cyan
fringing on the side opposite.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I'm on about - I call it "fringing" as I don't know if it's lens CA or Microlens fringing ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
Daniel Card said:
Agree. Many of us hope they will put a larger sensor in point and
shoot cams too offset the noise problem. Even at 5 megapixels it
is a problem.
Click to expand...
Would it be too expensive to release 828b or Pro1b with 5M senzor? Lenses could be the same in case of Pro even software and image processor could be the same...
 
As I'd said when the F828 came out, down sample your pictures to 5/6MP, then you'll get picture quality that will probably be better than your usual 5MP cameras.

The only 5MP cameras coming out with a 2/3" sensor that I know of are the Panasonic LC1/Leica Digilux2. They look nice, but they have they own set of limitations; zoom range being one of them.
Glen said:
While the F828 is still a good camera, perhaps it could have
avoided the pitfalls of high pixel density (PF and noise) if it had
retained the 2/3" 5MP sensor of the F717. And we cannot say for
certain anything about the Pro1, but the sample images so far,
which only demonstrate ISO50 and small apertures, cast some
suspicion that the Pro1 will show these problems as well.

If they released a 5MP nothing-else-changed version of the F828 or
Pro1, I'd be the first to order it... even before the Canon/Sony
execs and insiders, if that were possible.

Lastly, I think the prosumers of this caliber are a dying breed.
With falling dslr prices, increasing complexity and manufacturing
costs ("L" lens and Carl Zeiss T*'s don't come cheaply), the
ignorant consumer-led pi$$ing contest for more megapixels, and the
alienation of amateurs-in-the-know that understand the pitfalls of
high pixel density, they simply cannot keep creating cameras that
much better and sell them for less. (I will go so far out on a limb
as to say that that's why the Pro1 and its "L-glass high MP"
successors will NEVER get Image Stablization)

As for Minolta and Nikon, it's too bad that they have to just
introduce their old cameras with the 8MP sensor instead of making
something more innovative, just to keep in the MP race. (A2 and
8700)
Click to expand...
--
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/supperman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hike Pics
The 8MP 2/3" Sensor Cameras From 2004
Replies
11
Views
904
Craig Gillette
C
Marco Cinnirella
Messenger bag with detachable strap?
Replies
9
Views
763
CameraCarl
C
MJ_Photo38
Do you ever wonder on Fujifilm's "what could have been" moments?
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Truman Prevatt
Truman Prevatt
M
Ricoh's GR IV sample images
Replies
17
Views
9K
baobob
baobob
MickeyVee
A Little Bit Crazy - Z 24-70F4 Story
Replies
9
Views
2K
sirhawkeye64
S

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