A1 versus 10D image comparison

[Albert Voss]

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

 

[PDM]

That side by side comparison shot has completely different white balance and exposures. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Paul

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting
comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

 

[Craig]

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting
comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

one looks good the other like. bad..

A1 that bad?

 

[Albert Voss]

The pics taken with the A1 were saved as TIFFs with AWB, therefore the yellow taint (the photographer had the A1 only for a few days). The 10D pics were taken with the Canon EF 16-35mm/2,8 L USM in RAW-Format and then changed to TIFF with Capture One, where the WB was made.

Albert

 

[David Martin]

The pics taken with the A1 were saved as TIFFs with AWB, therefore
the yellow taint (the photographer had the A1 only for a few days).
The 10D pics were taken with the Canon EF 16-35mm/2,8 L USM in
RAW-Format and then changed to TIFF with Capture One, where the WB
was made.

Albert

Yikes! that sounds like the worst comparison I've ever heard. Discount it.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[PDM]

The A1 white balance is consistantly wrong on all shots for the A1 but perfect on all 10D shots, Hmmmm.. Looks like whoiever was taking the pictures knew exactly how to get the best out of the 10D, but no clue how to use the A1. I also question whether the basic settings like exposure, focus, and aperture were set correctly for the A1.

All in all, either this person had something to prove or didn't have a clue how to use the A1.

Paul

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting
comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

one looks good the other like. bad..

A1 that bad?

 

[Willem Steurbaut]

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting
comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

This comparison is worthless. The one who made those photographs don't know what is color temperapure and was clearly not able to manipulate the A1. Miserable test! Please friends, forget this!

Willem

 

[Albert Voss]

A1 that bad?

Probably and hopefully not. "Fritzchen" the photographer of the A1 pics was quite new to his beast, whereas "Wallo" could outgun the A1 with the quite decent EF-lens (See http://www.d7-forum.de.vu/ and there "Über den Tellerrand geschaut" thread "Vergleich der A1 mit der 10D: Teil 1-Abbildungseigenschaften") . And anyway, did anybody expect ernestly that the comparably tiny A1 sensor can stand up to the 6 times biger CMOS thing from Canon?

I still prefer the A1 "despite" its obvious shortcomings regarding image quality compared to bigger sensors.

Albert

 

[PDM]

Yes and it look like he was using a strobe from the PC sync socket - WHICH IS WHEN YOU NEVER WANT TO USE AWB!. Unless of course it is a Minolta 3600/5600, which it doesn't look like it was.

As I said the person had something to prove, or didn't have aclue. Otherwise, they would have compared RAW to RAW.

Paul

The pics taken with the A1 were saved as TIFFs with AWB, therefore
the yellow taint (the photographer had the A1 only for a few days).
The 10D pics were taken with the Canon EF 16-35mm/2,8 L USM in
RAW-Format and then changed to TIFF with Capture One, where the WB
was made.

Albert

 

[PDM]

Probably? Hopefully not? More like definately not! The A1 can come very close to the 10D performance (especially with EF lenses) at ISO100. My 4MP E10 does a pretty good job, and I would expect the A1 to do better than my E10. You can go to the Oly SLR forum and see a comparison where a user there just did a RAW to RAW comparison. The difference is using RAW files and a good converter. This comparison was so BIASED that the person went as far as to even by-pass using the standard Canon RAW conveter that comes with the camera and instead used the third party Capture One program that does a better job at conversion than the Canon converter - it cost $499 for the pro version alone!!!!

Albert, get a clue!

Paul

A1 that bad?

Probably and hopefully not. "Fritzchen" the photographer of the A1
pics was quite new to his beast, whereas "Wallo" could outgun the
A1 with the quite decent EF-lens (See http://www.d7-forum.de.vu/
and there "Über den Tellerrand geschaut" thread "Vergleich der A1
mit der 10D: Teil 1-Abbildungseigenschaften") . And anyway, did
anybody expect ernestly that the comparably tiny A1 sensor can
stand up to the 6 times biger CMOS thing from Canon?
I still prefer the A1 "despite" its obvious shortcomings regarding
image quality compared to bigger sensors.

Albert

 

[Jens(Sweden)]

The guy actually succeded in making the A1 picture look like it was taken from one of those cheap cameras found in mobile phones...

I would feel ashame to publish anything like that when not knowing how to handle a camera...

Really silly !

Cheers
Jens

 

[Albert Voss]

No they had to 250W lamps with umbrellas. Still it was silly to use AWB. (the A1 guy - a 7i owner - had got the A1 only hours before.)

As I said the person had something to prove, or didn't have aclue.

It were two different persons, both with considerable expirience, as I read from the forum.

Otherwise, they would have compared RAW to RAW.

Or even JPEG to JPEG.

Unfortunately there are practically no one on one comparisons outside of Phil's site. Therefore I think this is interesting despite its obvious faults and shortcomings.

Albert

 

[Albert Voss]

This comparison was so BIASED that the person went as far as to
even by-pass using the standard Canon RAW conveter that comes with
the camera and instead used the third party Capture One program
that does a better job at conversion than the Canon converter - it
cost $499 for the pro version alone!!!!

Contemplating on a 300D, which regarding image wise is more or less the same as the 10D, I of cause thought of getting the C1 Rebel version. But I dont expect that a mere RAW converter can bring about miracles in improving an otherwise inferior out of camera pic. I think this is too much honour to C1. And dont forget "Fritzchen" has bought his A1 already and will probably not turn it in for a 300D or a 10D.

Albert

 

[Albert Voss]

The guy actually succeded in making the A1 picture look like it was
taken from one of those cheap cameras found in mobile phones...

Well not all A1 pictures are taken worse than their 10D counterparts. In the night shots I think they are even. And some of the comparisons are known anyway: the 10D can easily take pics with 800 ISO and even 1600 if you really need, the A1 is limited with 400 (but of course can bring in the AS, which should balance the advantage of the 10d to quite some degree)
Albert

 

[Willem Steurbaut]

The guy actually succeded in making the A1 picture look like it was
taken from one of those cheap cameras found in mobile phones...

I would feel ashame to publish anything like that when not knowing
how to handle a camera...

Really silly !

Cheers
Jens

I agree!!

The difference between a 5 MP (A1) and a 6,3 MP (10D) camera is smaller then 5% (linear resolution). The difference in the examples is 100ths of %.
The whole test is shameless, as simple as that.
Somebody is trying to discourage A1 owners (and possibly others).

Willem

 

[*isteve]

..on a phonecam. Its out of focus, the white balance is wrong and even the exposure is all over the place. Conclusion

a) the photographer was a moron or
b) the camera was broken (being charitable)

This photo bears no resemblance to any sample photos I have seen of the A1 so what does it prove?

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting
comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

 

[RémiG]

The pics taken with the A1 were saved as TIFFs with AWB, therefore
the yellow taint (the photographer had the A1 only for a few days).
The 10D pics were taken with the Canon EF 16-35mm/2,8 L USM in
RAW-Format and then changed to TIFF with Capture One, where the WB
was made.

10D: 1472 €
16-35L: 1642 €
C1 DSLR LE: 99 €
-------
total: 3213 €

A1: 899 €
-------
total: 899 €

--
Rémi

 

[cameras]

They may have both been taken by 10D with a few errors put in on the left one. Quite funny.

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting
comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

 

[PDM]

This person has taken a few shots of almost exactly the same picture all within a very short time frame. The 7Hi holds up very well and often shows more detail than the 300D/kit lens combo. The kit lens (18-55) lens combo also shows more CA and much corner softness compared to the Minolta GT lens. Take a look at the detail of the yellow tree leaves in PICT2174a.jpg. I think he had the contrast set a little too high for this shot but there is obviously more detail in the tree leaves than with the 300D.

http://www.pbase.com/maderik/c_fall

Paul

As I said the person had something to prove, or didn't have aclue.

It were two different persons, both with considerable expirience,
as I read from the forum.

Otherwise, they would have compared RAW to RAW.

Or even JPEG to JPEG.

Unfortunately there are practically no one on one comparisons
outside of Phil's site. Therefore I think this is interesting
despite its obvious faults and shortcomings.

Albert

 

[Aura_69]

http://fotos-dx.de/album03/Vergleich_1 has an interesting
comparison between images of an Minolta A1 and a Canon 10D.

Albert

--
Everyday is a GOOD day except for those BETTER days.
Heng.