G1 takes better pics than 300D!?!?

[David Martin]

Where did I write I like sharp unnatural colors and flat pictures?
I didn't say what I liked. I just read a post that said a G1
"takes a much better picture straight out of the camera." The
poster did not say what they meant by "better" but I assume that it
must be something like what I mean by "better" and so I was
concerned. Is there a reason for your snide post? Is it some sort
of smug DSLR club thing?

If I was satisfied with snapshots I wouldn't be interested in the
300D.

What especially interests me is a camera that can take good
low-light pictures without a flash. A sub f/2 lens with pumped up
ISO without much noise sounds great to me. And I'm intrigued by
the idea of playing around with other aspects of photography. But
the posts I'm reading, laced with arrogance of course, are pushing
me away from this choice. Not all of them, of course, but some.
(And some are much more polite about it than others.)

It wouldn't seema good idea to let your choice of camera be determined by responses you weren't keen on to your questions.

Getting back to the point, your question is a little indeterminate and depends on what look you prefer. The reason why some assumed that you like a P & S look is because that is, of course what a camera like that which you mention will turn out images which accord with that - ie very sharpened and brightened up.

Just the same,if you are talking about F2 glass you are looking to buy some reasonably expensive lenses, and to justify the expense the shots probably normally need optimisation.

To give you an idea of what is involved, I've just made a few actions which have got things like a couple of alternatives for sharpening,, and so my post-processing rarely needs more than a few clicks with a mouse.

Of course, on the rare occassions when I take a shot which I think justifies it, I can always hand-process!
Hope this helps
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[PhotoAm]

I think perhaps it is a little early to be making blanket statements such as this regarding the 300D. The G series cameras certainly default to a greater level of in-camera processing than the 10D, however to suggest that shots from a G1 will appear 'better' than a 300D on default settings seems a massive jump in logic.

The 300D is a consumer camera and defaults to greater levels of sharpness, saturation and contrast than the 10D. Everything we've seen so far indicates Canon intend this to be a camera usable by someone who has just picked it up for the first time.

I have seen one sample image straight out of the 300D that looks better than my G2 could take with any amount of post-processing. Further reviews may prove otherwise, but at the moment the thread title sounds far too much like scare-mongering to me.

A DSLR is not a P&S. Not because it does not work in P mode, but
because of the final image. I have just spent the last 30 min.
printing some wedding pictures from my 10D. Looking at them on the
computer I see a flat dull image. My G1 takes a much better picture
straight out of the camera.

But with a DSLR now the magic begins. I spend a little time in
photoshop, levels, curves and sharpening etc... and the pictures
are little short of stunning. I always am amazed. Why is this,
because the Canon engineers designed a camera for you to decide how
to process the images. But if you don't want to post process I
would not recommend a DSLR. If you do, then you will get images
that will so far surpass prosummer cameras that you will be amazed.

Is this really true that a G1 takes BETTER pictures than a 10D (and
therefore a 300D)? I don't mind the idea that to make really GREAT
pictures I'll have to learn a lot, get decent lenses, and work with
the camera. But I'd also like to think that a 300D in P or dumb
modes takes at least as good a picture as a G1 in the same modes.
Is this wrong? Is Ed right? I'm a P&Shooter who's willing to make
the jump, nay I was eager, but this post makes me think twice.

--
I never learn. I should know better by now that these forums only
make me spend more money, but I'm too dumb to stay away =)

 

[Tom@JHU]

If you thought my post sounded condescending, then I apologize. Didn't mean it that way. I really have tried to be helpful to newbies. But there just seems to be too many complaints about DSLR looking duller and less sharp from those who come from P&S digicams. They need to understand DSLR do less processing to images, therefore its output is a more accurate reflection of the real scene than those coming out of P&S cameras. Usually, in real life, scene are not all that vivid or constrasty. If those are the effects you are after, then you should do post-processing to give you the maximum benefit that DSLR's sensors offer.

To answer your question, the 10D doesn't neccessarily have to produce worse "straight out of the camera" images than the G1. You can bump up the in-camera processing effects and get similar or better images than those produced by P&S. However, that's not what most DSLR shooters do. They know that in-camera processing will destroy valuable information that will be difficult to recover later. Therefore, it is better to be safe and capture the image as authentic as possible, then twick them later to the desired effect. It doesn't mean you can't use a DSLR as a snap shot tool, you are just waste a lot of potentials of the camera.

Here is a pretty good example of a DSLR vs a high end prosumer P&S that should illustrate which produces better images.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5974817

Noticed the 707 produce more vivid colors, but I would say those colors do not reflect the real scene. Everything else from exposure to noise, the 10D definitely wins.

If I was satisfied with snapshots I wouldn't be interested in the
300D.

What especially interests me is a camera that can take good
low-light pictures without a flash. A sub f/2 lens with pumped up
ISO without much noise sounds great to me. And I'm intrigued by
the idea of playing around with other aspects of photography. But
the posts I'm reading, laced with arrogance of course, are pushing
me away from this choice. Not all of them, of course, but some.
(And some are much more polite about it than others.)

A DSLR is not a P&S. Not because it does not work in P mode, but
because of the final image. I have just spent the last 30 min.
printing some wedding pictures from my 10D. Looking at them on the
computer I see a flat dull image. My G1 takes a much better picture
straight out of the camera.

But with a DSLR now the magic begins. I spend a little time in
photoshop, levels, curves and sharpening etc... and the pictures
are little short of stunning. I always am amazed. Why is this,
because the Canon engineers designed a camera for you to decide how
to process the images. But if you don't want to post process I
would not recommend a DSLR. If you do, then you will get images
that will so far surpass prosummer cameras that you will be amazed.

Is this really true that a G1 takes BETTER pictures than a 10D (and
therefore a 300D)? I don't mind the idea that to make really GREAT
pictures I'll have to learn a lot, get decent lenses, and work with
the camera. But I'd also like to think that a 300D in P or dumb
modes takes at least as good a picture as a G1 in the same modes.
Is this wrong? Is Ed right? I'm a P&Shooter who's willing to make
the jump, nay I was eager, but this post makes me think twice.

--
I never learn. I should know better by now that these forums only
make me spend more money, but I'm too dumb to stay away =)

--

I never learn. I should know better by now that these forums only make me spend more money, but I'm too dumb to stay away =)

 

[skutsch]

What especially interests me is a camera that can take good
low-light pictures without a flash. A sub f/2 lens with pumped up
ISO without much noise sounds great to me. And I'm intrigued by
the idea of playing around with other aspects of photography. But
the posts I'm reading, laced with arrogance of course, are pushing
me away from this choice. Not all of them, of course, but some.
(And some are much more polite about it than others.)

It wouldn't seema good idea to let your choice of camera be
determined by responses you weren't keen on to your questions.

Good point, I just got a little peevish.

Getting back to the point, your question is a little indeterminate
and depends on what look you prefer. The reason why some assumed
that you like a P & S look is because that is, of course what a
camera like that which you mention will turn out images which
accord with that - ie very sharpened and brightened up.
Just the same,if you are talking about F2 glass you are looking to
buy some reasonably expensive lenses, and to justify the expense
the shots probably normally need optimisation.

And I agree. For all the bucks I might be spending (wasting?) I'll certainly want to optimize my pictures a fair bit of the time. I just may not want to do it for all my pics. And I'll want the ones I don't play with to look good, assuming I didn't screw up taking them, without processing. For fantastic a bit more work may be required.

Hope this helps

It did, thank you.

 

[skutsch]

If you thought my post sounded condescending, then I apologize.

I took it that way, and now your gracious apology takes away my ire. Darn you! And thank you.

Didn't mean it that way. I really have tried to be helpful to
newbies. But there just seems to be too many complaints about DSLR
looking duller and less sharp from those who come from P&S
digicams.

I'm not complaining because I don't really know what to expect, never having had a DSLR.

They need to understand DSLR do less processing to
images, therefore its output is a more accurate reflection of the
real scene than those coming out of P&S cameras. Usually, in real
life, scene are not all that vivid or constrasty. If those are the
effects you are after, then you should do post-processing to give
you the maximum benefit that DSLR's sensors offer.

Understood on all counts.

To answer your question, the 10D doesn't neccessarily have to
produce worse "straight out of the camera" images than the G1.

Got it.

It doesn't mean you can't use a DSLR as a snap shot tool, you are
just waste a lot of potentials of the camera.

Got it again.

Here is a pretty good example of a DSLR vs a high end prosumer P&S
that should illustrate which produces better images.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5974817

Noticed the 707 produce more vivid colors, but I would say those
colors do not reflect the real scene. Everything else from
exposure to noise, the 10D definitely wins.

Cool.

Now what I'd like to do, and what I hope the 300D can do, is take pictures like this



And make them better.

I mean, that pic is f2.8 iso400 and 1/5 sec shutter speed, and I rather like it, but I don't see how I could make it less noisy with the equipment I have (the S30). Even playing in Photoshop can only do so much. But with a f1.8 lens I could do iso1600 and a much faster shutter speed and have much less noise, or so I hoped.

Am I dreaming?

And again, thanks for the repost and apology.

carl

 

[David Martin]

If you thought my post sounded condescending, then I apologize.

I took it that way, and now your gracious apology takes away my
ire. Darn you! And thank you.

Didn't mean it that way. I really have tried to be helpful to
newbies. But there just seems to be too many complaints about DSLR
looking duller and less sharp from those who come from P&S
digicams.

I'm not complaining because I don't really know what to expect,
never having had a DSLR.

They need to understand DSLR do less processing to
images, therefore its output is a more accurate reflection of the
real scene than those coming out of P&S cameras. Usually, in real
life, scene are not all that vivid or constrasty. If those are the
effects you are after, then you should do post-processing to give
you the maximum benefit that DSLR's sensors offer.

Understood on all counts.

To answer your question, the 10D doesn't neccessarily have to
produce worse "straight out of the camera" images than the G1.

Got it.

It doesn't mean you can't use a DSLR as a snap shot tool, you are
just waste a lot of potentials of the camera.

Got it again.

Here is a pretty good example of a DSLR vs a high end prosumer P&S
that should illustrate which produces better images.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5974817

Noticed the 707 produce more vivid colors, but I would say those
colors do not reflect the real scene. Everything else from
exposure to noise, the 10D definitely wins.

Cool.

Now what I'd like to do, and what I hope the 300D can do, is take
pictures like this



And make them better.
I mean, that pic is f2.8 iso400 and 1/5 sec shutter speed, and I
rather like it, but I don't see how I could make it less noisy with
the equipment I have (the S30). Even playing in Photoshop can only
do so much. But with a f1.8 lens I could do iso1600 and a much
faster shutter speed and have much less noise, or so I hoped.

Am I dreaming?

And again, thanks for the repost and apology.

carl

Don't worry about shots like that. Easy with the 300D. The only thing is, if you go to faster shutter speeds, the background in the shot will come out a lot darker.

There's about forty-eleven ways you can get shots like this better, and not all of them even involve fast (read expensive) lenses.
You should have a ball!
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[Tom@JHU]

Don't worry about shots like that. Easy with the 300D. The only
thing is, if you go to faster shutter speeds, the background in the
shot will come out a lot darker.

Not neccessarily. If he uses brighter lenses and/or dial up the ISO, then the background should not get any more dark than the foreground. I mean the exposure would be the same, just shifted to a bigger aperature/higher ISO/faster shutter speed. The difference of course will be DOF, which will be a lot shallower, thus the background will be very fuzzy. I think the background will only gets darker if he uses flash.

There's about forty-eleven ways you can get shots like this better,
and not all of them even involve fast (read expensive) lenses.
You should have a ball!
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--

I never learn. I should know better by now that these forums only make me spend more money, but I'm too dumb to stay away =)

 

[David Martin]

Don't worry about shots like that. Easy with the 300D. The only
thing is, if you go to faster shutter speeds, the background in the
shot will come out a lot darker.

Not neccessarily. If he uses brighter lenses and/or dial up the
ISO, then the background should not get any more dark than the
foreground. I mean the exposure would be the same, just shifted to
a bigger aperature/higher ISO/faster shutter speed. The difference
of course will be DOF, which will be a lot shallower, thus the
background will be very fuzzy. I think the background will only
gets darker if he uses flash.

There's about forty-eleven ways you can get shots like this better,
and not all of them even involve fast (read expensive) lenses.
You should have a ball!
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--
I never learn. I should know better by now that these forums only
make me spend more money, but I'm too dumb to stay away =)

Yeah, of course you are right, Tom. Sorry for any confusion caused - my brain went on holiday and I was thinking of flash shots.
Pretty late here, so I think I'll go to bed, before I sow more confusion!
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[livedistortion]

I feel sorry for the poster. He asked a very fair question and put referenced a post to further the question.

And he gets flack about the camera not making you a better photographer. Not very helpful and disappointing to see from the people running this site. I think the poster realizes that the camera doesn't make the phographer. He also brings up a real issue in the differences between P&S and DSLR's.

The topic header was a little misleading, but the post shows clearly the real issues. If you are new to DSLR's you may not readily understand why the untouched images may not seem up to par. I think this is a fair question that all of us had to learn about at one time. If someone came in here telling you that the Foveom looks so much better than RAW D10 images you all would be willing to expound on the reasons why, but a newbie comes along and a bunch of criticism comes out.

You would think Phil would be more constructive in order to foster more interest and knowledge in photography which would only help a site like this, but I guess not.

A DSLR is not a P&S. Not because it does not work in P mode, but
because of the final image. I have just spent the last 30 min.
printing some wedding pictures from my 10D. Looking at them on the
computer I see a flat dull image. My G1 takes a much better picture
straight out of the camera.

But with a DSLR now the magic begins. I spend a little time in
photoshop, levels, curves and sharpening etc... and the pictures
are little short of stunning. I always am amazed. Why is this,
because the Canon engineers designed a camera for you to decide how
to process the images. But if you don't want to post process I
would not recommend a DSLR. If you do, then you will get images
that will so far surpass prosummer cameras that you will be amazed.

Is this really true that a G1 takes BETTER pictures than a 10D (and
therefore a 300D)? I don't mind the idea that to make really GREAT
pictures I'll have to learn a lot, get decent lenses, and work with
the camera. But I'd also like to think that a 300D in P or dumb
modes takes at least as good a picture as a G1 in the same modes.
Is this wrong? Is Ed right? I'm a P&Shooter who's willing to make
the jump, nay I was eager, but this post makes me think twice.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Emerson]

A DSLR is not a P&S. Not because it does not work in P mode, but
because of the final image. I have just spent the last 30 min.
printing some wedding pictures from my 10D. Looking at them on the
computer I see a flat dull image. My G1 takes a much better picture
straight out of the camera.

But with a DSLR now the magic begins. I spend a little time in
photoshop, levels, curves and sharpening etc... and the pictures
are little short of stunning. I always am amazed. Why is this,
because the Canon engineers designed a camera for you to decide how
to process the images. But if you don't want to post process I
would not recommend a DSLR. If you do, then you will get images
that will so far surpass prosummer cameras that you will be amazed.

Is this really true that a G1 takes BETTER pictures than a 10D (and
therefore a 300D)? I don't mind the idea that to make really GREAT
pictures I'll have to learn a lot, get decent lenses, and work with
the camera. But I'd also like to think that a 300D in P or dumb
modes takes at least as good a picture as a G1 in the same modes.
Is this wrong? Is Ed right? I'm a P&Shooter who's willing to make
the jump, nay I was eager, but this post makes me think twice.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[sdb]

Cool! Not that I have to do this, but I'd like to know that if I
choose to be lazy in my post-processing my pictures will not be
"worse". I don't want to have to Photoshop every darn picture I
take.

With my P&S, I end up wanting to post-process my best shots, or, what I want to become my best shots, but most often find out that there's too little info left to post-process. I'm interested in the 300D, or some other digital SLR, if it's not to be the 300D, because I want the camera to capture sufficient useful information so that I can coax out that great photo.

Scott

I disagree, otherwise, why do they put in-camera adjustments such
as sharpness, contrast, saturation and WB into 300D, if all they
expect you do to is to shot everything in RAW and post-processing
all the pictures.

I am sure if you set all the adjustment to +2, you should be able
to produce "better" picture than the Gx.

 

[alex74298]

P&S cameras have a lot of adjustments to
make the picture more pleasing to the eye? Are they better than one
that isn't pleasing but conveys more or more accurate information?
No.

Here is a list of common adjustments made in camera by P&S:

• Contrast adjustments looses data
• Sharpening can result in bad artefacts and trades off dynamic

resolution and contrast in favour of the impression of sharpness.

I can't understand this anwer. The 300D has even more adjustments than a G1

 

[Grayhair]

And I agree. For all the bucks I might be spending (wasting?) I'll
certainly want to optimize my pictures a fair bit of the time. I
just may not want to do it for all my pics. And I'll want the ones
I don't play with to look good, assuming I didn't screw up taking
them, without processing. For fantastic a bit more work may be
required.

Can't take pics at default settings then decide to process them as raw files.
--
Jim
http://www.pbase.com/doylejj

 

[dchao]

I can't imaging Phil has time to read every post on his forum. It must be the title caught his attention. I agree the title sounds far too much like scare-mongering to me. I think it's the thread starter's fault, and should be told-off.

A DSLR doesn't make you a good photographer.

 

[livedistortion]

So replying to a thread without reading it's contents would be ok with you? If that's even what happened, it is only your hypothesis.

Plus, he put a question mark in the thread title.

And he should be told off??? What's your problem?

A DSLR doesn't make you a good photographer.

 

[dchao]

Will... it is my hypothesis. I just feel Phil doesn't sound too please with the post.

It's also misleading for newbies reading the post.

He also put "!" before "?", does this turn the title into a statement more than a question? Maybe if he'd wrote "????", it would sound better

Plus, he put a question mark in the thread title.

And he should be told off??? What's your problem?

A DSLR doesn't make you a good photographer.

 

[eshropshire]

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I wrote my post. This is just my opinion, and is worth what you pay for it. I think straight out of the camera, no post processing many of my G1 pictures look good. Printed at 4x6 they are fine with no post processing. Canon engineers decided how to make the pictures ok.

In a 10D Canon engineers have left it up to me to decide how I want the images processed. This is how it should be. Once an image is overly processed it can't be undone. I am left with little options on the images from the G1.

I hear all the time from people saying on this forum, my 10D images look soft, yes they do. Canon has left it up to you to decide how sharp you want the images. Sharpening is a process done by software, either firmware in the camera, or in a photo editor on your computer. If you don't like getting into PS Elements, PS, or any other program and process your pictures then you should not get a DSLR. You will be disappointed.

On the other hand, my 10D images blow everything I have ever owned out of the water (8 other digital cameras). I love this camera. I have been print 13x19 size images that just are outstanding. I see no reason why the 300D won't deliver the same. I think the 300D is one of the biggest changes in digicams in years. I almost feel sorry for the competition.

My main point was if you don't want to post process your images then the G5, or even the 828 are better choices. But they will in no way deliver a better final image than a 300D if you want to spend time with your images. You could also use some of the PS actions people post to speed up your post processing.

Take a look at the image. I took this at my daughter's end of year program. I could not use a flash and this was a very dark setting, in a large auditorium and at the time I ony had a pretty slow lens, th 28-135 IS. The full size image looks great and I have printed large output and still like the image.



I would not even have brought my G1, or D7i to this event. In fact, I would not have brought a film camera. But my 10D did a great job. I have even printed it several times for the school. The unprocessed image look ok, but with just a little post process the image came to life.

I would also refer you to an article in the August issue of Outdoor Photography by Rob Sheppard "The Blacks have it". This gives some good advice for post processing digital images.

BTW, I am talking JPG, not RAW, I assume most P&S shooters use JPG. If you shoot RAW go with a DSLR and never look back.

Ed

A DSLR is not a P&S. Not because it does not work in P mode, but
because of the final image. I have just spent the last 30 min.
printing some wedding pictures from my 10D. Looking at them on the
computer I see a flat dull image. My G1 takes a much better picture
straight out of the camera.

But with a DSLR now the magic begins. I spend a little time in
photoshop, levels, curves and sharpening etc... and the pictures
are little short of stunning. I always am amazed. Why is this,
because the Canon engineers designed a camera for you to decide how
to process the images. But if you don't want to post process I
would not recommend a DSLR. If you do, then you will get images
that will so far surpass prosummer cameras that you will be amazed.

Is this really true that a G1 takes BETTER pictures than a 10D (and
therefore a 300D)? I don't mind the idea that to make really GREAT
pictures I'll have to learn a lot, get decent lenses, and work with
the camera. But I'd also like to think that a 300D in P or dumb
modes takes at least as good a picture as a G1 in the same modes.
Is this wrong? Is Ed right? I'm a P&Shooter who's willing to make
the jump, nay I was eager, but this post makes me think twice.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/Index.html Old Pictures

 

[eshropshire]

I often bump my sharpness +2 in the 10D, but to get the image to really come to life I tend to like a little more USM. I do find this varies depending on my lens.

When I first got my 10D, and look at the images the first time I don't know why but I was a little disappointed. Then I would come back and look at them again and would be blown away by what I captured. I know it sounds weird but it is true for me.

I am an in between photographer. I only shoot RAW for important shoots. I don't want to do all of the post processing required for RAW. I am lazy, but then I also think my JPGs look great with just a little effort. I don't slave away, a little level adjustment, and USM is generally what I need. Once in awhile layers and other stuff.

Ed

I am sure if you set all the adjustment to +2, you should be able
to produce "better" picture than the Gx.

A DSLR is not a P&S. Not because it does not work in P mode, but
because of the final image. I have just spent the last 30 min.
printing some wedding pictures from my 10D. Looking at them on the
computer I see a flat dull image. My G1 takes a much better picture
straight out of the camera.

But with a DSLR now the magic begins. I spend a little time in
photoshop, levels, curves and sharpening etc... and the pictures
are little short of stunning. I always am amazed. Why is this,
because the Canon engineers designed a camera for you to decide how
to process the images. But if you don't want to post process I
would not recommend a DSLR. If you do, then you will get images
that will so far surpass prosummer cameras that you will be amazed.

Is this really true that a G1 takes BETTER pictures than a 10D (and
therefore a 300D)? I don't mind the idea that to make really GREAT
pictures I'll have to learn a lot, get decent lenses, and work with
the camera. But I'd also like to think that a 300D in P or dumb
modes takes at least as good a picture as a G1 in the same modes.
Is this wrong? Is Ed right? I'm a P&Shooter who's willing to make
the jump, nay I was eager, but this post makes me think twice.

--
I never learn. I should know better by now that these forums only
make me spend more money, but I'm too dumb to stay away =)

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/Index.html Old Pictures

 

[eshropshire]

I am really sorry my original post caused this much confussion. I hope you have read a few of my posts in this thread to answer some of your questions.

Here is one of my early ISO 1,600 images you might like.



To understand my post, here is a site of unprocessed, except for compressing them a lot for the web of some 10D picts.
http://home.comcast.net/~edshropshire/

Nothing to write home about. Give me a few tweeks in PS and I can bring most of them to life. (the originals, not these little compressed images).

Anyway, sorry you got beat up for me rushing off a quick and very unclear post. Hopefully you got some good information.

Ed

A DSLR is not a P&S. Not because it does not work in P mode, but
because of the final image. I have just spent the last 30 min.
printing some wedding pictures from my 10D. Looking at them on the
computer I see a flat dull image. My G1 takes a much better picture
straight out of the camera.

But with a DSLR now the magic begins. I spend a little time in
photoshop, levels, curves and sharpening etc... and the pictures
are little short of stunning. I always am amazed. Why is this,
because the Canon engineers designed a camera for you to decide how
to process the images. But if you don't want to post process I
would not recommend a DSLR. If you do, then you will get images
that will so far surpass prosummer cameras that you will be amazed.

Is this really true that a G1 takes BETTER pictures than a 10D (and
therefore a 300D)? I don't mind the idea that to make really GREAT
pictures I'll have to learn a lot, get decent lenses, and work with
the camera. But I'd also like to think that a 300D in P or dumb
modes takes at least as good a picture as a G1 in the same modes.
Is this wrong? Is Ed right? I'm a P&Shooter who's willing to make
the jump, nay I was eager, but this post makes me think twice.

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/Index.html Old Pictures

 

[Karl Gnter Wnsch]

P&S cameras have a lot of adjustments to
make the picture more pleasing to the eye? Are they better than one
that isn't pleasing but conveys more or more accurate information?
No.

Here is a list of common adjustments made in camera by P&S:

• Contrast adjustments looses data
• Sharpening can result in bad artefacts and trades off dynamic

resolution and contrast in favour of the impression of sharpness.

I can't understand this anwer. The 300D has even more adjustments
than a G1

But they all are toned down as to not spoil the picture's qualitites.

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch