How is this for A2 performance?

[mikejac]

After a long time deliberating over whether on not to buy an A2 rather than a DSLR or other 8 Mp prosumer (concerned about all the complaints about soft images and autofocus problems) I finally took the plunge.

I've been trying the camera out for a few days, taking shots under varying conditions, and am unsure as to whether the performance of my A2 is up to scratch. To my eye there is a lot of noise from an 64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner, the results don't compare well. I expected film to come out on top, but not the scanned images.

I'd be interested to here the views of those of you more experienced in the use of this camera. To my eye, the following photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied. Are these indicative of the sort of problems mentioned in this forum, or am I simply expecting too much from the camera. They certainly don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by other members

I'm not sure if I'm going about sizing and posting the images correctly as I've never done this before, so forgive me if you can't see what I'm on about from these examples.

 

[dmjbrown]

At ISO 64 you shouldn't see any noise. You will need to give us some idea what the settings of the camera are to determine if you did something wrong or if you may have a probllem with the camera. Based on the shot you present here, IMHO, the exposure is to high which may be causing other problems in the image. Also, you didn't say what the focal length is which would give us some insignts into how the DOF might be for this shot. Generally DOF is pretty high on the A2, but with longer focal lengths you could get a different result...my guess is that this is pretty much at infinity. Was the aperature high...like above 5.6....if so that affects how light comes to the sensor and can also cause problems. Some info would help.

You should expect a fine shot of this subject...I know my A2 does well on such subjects.

db

After a long time deliberating over whether on not to buy an A2
rather than a DSLR or other 8 Mp prosumer (concerned about all the
complaints about soft images and autofocus problems) I finally took
the plunge.

I've been trying the camera out for a few days, taking shots under
varying conditions, and am unsure as to whether the performance of
my A2 is up to scratch. To my eye there is a lot of noise from an
64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well. I expected film to come out on
top, but not the scanned images.

I'd be interested to here the views of those of you more
experienced in the use of this camera. To my eye, the following
photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is
lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo
the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The
second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied. Are
these indicative of the sort of problems mentioned in this forum,
or am I simply expecting too much from the camera. They certainly
don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by
other members

I'm not sure if I'm going about sizing and posting the images
correctly as I've never done this before, so forgive me if you
can't see what I'm on about from these examples.

--
Dave Brown
homepage.mac.com/dmjbrown;
'Experiencing the world, one image at a time...'

Dimage A2, Casio QV-R51, PSE 2, iPhoto, Canon 9900, Apple PowerMac

 

[mikejac]

Thanks

The original was taken at 1/640 second at f5.6, with a focal length of 8.5 mm. I was focussing on the building. I guess the posted image doesn't show the noise, but looking at the RAW original (at 100% view) it shows quite clearly in the upper (darker) sky.

You should expect a fine shot of this subject...I know my A2 does
well on such subjects.

db

After a long time deliberating over whether on not to buy an A2
rather than a DSLR or other 8 Mp prosumer (concerned about all the
complaints about soft images and autofocus problems) I finally took
the plunge.

I've been trying the camera out for a few days, taking shots under
varying conditions, and am unsure as to whether the performance of
my A2 is up to scratch. To my eye there is a lot of noise from an
64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well. I expected film to come out on
top, but not the scanned images.

I'd be interested to here the views of those of you more
experienced in the use of this camera. To my eye, the following
photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is
lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo
the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The
second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied. Are
these indicative of the sort of problems mentioned in this forum,
or am I simply expecting too much from the camera. They certainly
don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by
other members

I'm not sure if I'm going about sizing and posting the images
correctly as I've never done this before, so forgive me if you
can't see what I'm on about from these examples.

--
Dave Brown
homepage.mac.com/dmjbrown;
'Experiencing the world, one image at a time...'

Dimage A2, Casio QV-R51, PSE 2, iPhoto, Canon 9900, Apple PowerMac

 

[Icypeak]

Noise is visible on most A2 images, including ISO64, if you know how to look for it. Easily visible on most deep blue sky shots, even at full screen resolution, and obvious at 100% (granular appearance). Not much different than film grain, say ISO 200 or 400 negative film. Same thing from every small sensor camera I've ever seen (although less with fewer pixels, in general, so my Minolta F100 images beats the D7 and A2 images for noise). Probably won't be noticable in 5x7" prints, but for 8x10" or larger, noise reduction may or may not be necessary (depending on the image, and how much noise bothers you). Unfortunately, there's no way to judge this from res'd down images on the web, you would have to examine the full resolution image, as the pixel averaging that's done when downsizing will smooth over a lot of the noise. You could try posting a small crop from the image, without any downsizing, to better show what you mean.

At ISO 64 you shouldn't see any noise.

After a long time deliberating over whether on not to buy an A2
rather than a DSLR or other 8 Mp prosumer (concerned about all the
complaints about soft images and autofocus problems) I finally took
the plunge.

I've been trying the camera out for a few days, taking shots under
varying conditions, and am unsure as to whether the performance of
my A2 is up to scratch. To my eye there is a lot of noise from an
64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well. I expected film to come out on
top, but not the scanned images.

I'd be interested to here the views of those of you more
experienced in the use of this camera. To my eye, the following
photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is
lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo
the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The
second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied. Are
these indicative of the sort of problems mentioned in this forum,
or am I simply expecting too much from the camera. They certainly
don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by
other members

I'm not sure if I'm going about sizing and posting the images
correctly as I've never done this before, so forgive me if you
can't see what I'm on about from these examples.

--
Dave Brown
homepage.mac.com/dmjbrown;
'Experiencing the world, one image at a time...'

Dimage A2, Casio QV-R51, PSE 2, iPhoto, Canon 9900, Apple PowerMac

--
David



http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

 

[mikejac]

I have produced a crop of the 100% image. Trouble is that jpeg artefacts are now showing up at this magnification. However, I think you can see from this what I mean about noise and lack of sharpness (image was sharpened before cropping)

At ISO 64 you shouldn't see any noise.

After a long time deliberating over whether on not to buy an A2
rather than a DSLR or other 8 Mp prosumer (concerned about all the
complaints about soft images and autofocus problems) I finally took
the plunge.

I've been trying the camera out for a few days, taking shots under
varying conditions, and am unsure as to whether the performance of
my A2 is up to scratch. To my eye there is a lot of noise from an
64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well. I expected film to come out on
top, but not the scanned images.

I'd be interested to here the views of those of you more
experienced in the use of this camera. To my eye, the following
photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is
lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo
the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The
second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied. Are
these indicative of the sort of problems mentioned in this forum,
or am I simply expecting too much from the camera. They certainly
don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by
other members

I'm not sure if I'm going about sizing and posting the images
correctly as I've never done this before, so forgive me if you
can't see what I'm on about from these examples.

--
Dave Brown
homepage.mac.com/dmjbrown;
'Experiencing the world, one image at a time...'

Dimage A2, Casio QV-R51, PSE 2, iPhoto, Canon 9900, Apple PowerMac

--
David



http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

 

[E.Z]

... To my eye there is a lot of noise from an
64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well.

... To my eye, the following
photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is
lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo
the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The
second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied.
... They certainly
don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by
other members

The A2's noise is typical for a camera with a relatively small sensor. The advantage of a (good) digicam is that it's a compact system full of wonderful features and paired with a good lens. However to keep it all compact the sensor must be kept small (bigger sensors require bigger lenses which in turn will make the entire system bigger and heavier). Technology giveth and technology taketh. Or does it?

The hardware and software inside digicams do a lot of work, but in order to make the camera fast and responsive, there is only limited image processing done in camera. The A2 was designed to do moderate or no processing, but with good RAW performance. This allows you to shoot RAW and do image processing where it belongs - on a powerful computer with powerful software.

You can enjoy the compactness and all the great features of the A2, and then process your images with some good tools and get near DSLR results (and certainly better than what you can get with film with average SLR equipment).

For noise reduction there are two great tools, Neat Image and Noise Ninja. Once you get the hang of using either of them, you should be able to clear almost all noise from your photos. I managed to clean up some really high ISO night shots to an amazing degree (not patting my own shoulder, it's the software that did the job).

Same goes for sharpening (actually the correct term is accutance - see http://www.luminous-landscape.com ). Get the right tools and you'll get pro-level results. If you like a lot of tweaking and a very technical approach - try Focal Blade, if you like a photogrpaher approach but less control over the sharpening algorithm - try Photokit Sharpener.

I'm not kidding you can get pro-level results from the A2 (or any of the other digicams) and post processing. 3-4 years ago pros would trade their souls for something like the A2, which today is considered a "prosumer" model. But even with the latest low-noise 25 megapix sensors, pros still do a lot of post processing. It is part of creating a digital photo. In fact, pro-oriented cameras are designed to deliver as much RAW data for post processing, rather than attempt to finalize the image in camera. In that respect the A2 is more pro-oriented than any other digicam and even some DSLRs.

In short, once you acquire the tools and techniques, you'll be able to produce images that are technically excellent. I've learned a lot since I bought my A2 (which didn't work for 3 months, but that's another story). Today I can improve almost any photo in a matter of minutes, and I know that I have a lot more to learn.

I suggest you take a good look at the articles on Luminous Landscape and http://www.dpfwiw.com . On the former read about workflow and photoshop techniques (search for Local Contrast Enhancement!), on the latter read about human vision and the Lab color space.

So far it's the easy part. The hard part - taking good photos to begin with - is not up to hardware or software, it's entirely up to you.

EZ.

 

[Icypeak]

This is fairly a fairly typical small sensor noise pattern for a deep blue sky. If shot in JPEG, or when converting from RAW, I'd suggest turning sharpening to low, and then when processing in your image editor, I'd select out the sky, and sharpen the rest of the image, but not the sky. Noise easily hides in the detail of the rest of the image, and is harder to pick out unless in shadows or areas of uniform color and no texture. If you don't want to have to deal with each image seperately in processing, a noise reduction software like Neat Image can batch process them, with minimal detail loss (you should keep the settings fairly conservative). I've used it both before any processing, or after processing and sharpening, and it works quite well either way.
-David

I have produced a crop of the 100% image. Trouble is that jpeg
artefacts are now showing up at this magnification. However, I
think you can see from this what I mean about noise and lack of
sharpness (image was sharpened before cropping)

--
David



http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

 

[x2h229497]

This is too much noise at ISO64. I think your sharpening in photoshop also contributes to it. First of all you can remove some noise in ARC 2.2, then when sharpening for the final print/post, try not to sharpen the sky but only boundaries.

At ISO 64 you shouldn't see any noise.

After a long time deliberating over whether on not to buy an A2
rather than a DSLR or other 8 Mp prosumer (concerned about all the
complaints about soft images and autofocus problems) I finally took
the plunge.

I've been trying the camera out for a few days, taking shots under
varying conditions, and am unsure as to whether the performance of
my A2 is up to scratch. To my eye there is a lot of noise from an
64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well. I expected film to come out on
top, but not the scanned images.

I'd be interested to here the views of those of you more
experienced in the use of this camera. To my eye, the following
photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is
lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo
the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The
second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied. Are
these indicative of the sort of problems mentioned in this forum,
or am I simply expecting too much from the camera. They certainly
don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by
other members

I'm not sure if I'm going about sizing and posting the images
correctly as I've never done this before, so forgive me if you
can't see what I'm on about from these examples.

--
Dave Brown
homepage.mac.com/dmjbrown;
'Experiencing the world, one image at a time...'

Dimage A2, Casio QV-R51, PSE 2, iPhoto, Canon 9900, Apple PowerMac

--
David



http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

 

[sparrowminded]

After a long time deliberating over whether on not to buy an A2
rather than a DSLR or other 8 Mp prosumer (concerned about all the
complaints about soft images and autofocus problems) I finally took
the plunge.

I've been trying the camera out for a few days, taking shots under
varying conditions, and am unsure as to whether the performance of
my A2 is up to scratch. To my eye there is a lot of noise from an
64 ISO

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well. I expected film to come out on
top, but not the scanned images.

I'd be interested to here the views of those of you more
experienced in the use of this camera. To my eye, the following
photos exhibit a lot of noise for a setting of ISO 64 and detail is
lacking. I used the camera's RAW setting and for the first photo
the only post processing was to resize and save as a JPG The
second shot is the same, but with some sharpening applied. Are
these indicative of the sort of problems mentioned in this forum,
or am I simply expecting too much from the camera. They certainly
don't look as sharp and detailed as many of the photos posted by
other members

I'm not sure if I'm going about sizing and posting the images
correctly as I've never done this before, so forgive me if you
can't see what I'm on about from these examples.

--E.Z. is on the money. The noise in the sky in this particular image really is excessive for the A2 @ ISO 64. I have found that this comes and goes, even from one frame to the next. For that reason, I was led to suspect that the sensor may be influenced by other unseen energy sources, like strong electro/magnetic fields, broadcast energy, or shielding from passing fighter aircraft. this is adressed here:
http://www.procabbie.com/broadcast/extraneous.html

While my results are not conclusive, they generally say "no". So, I accept that if at all possible, it doesn't hurt to shoot more than one copy of anything you feel inclined to value. I often do this in scenes with a lot of contrast, locking focus/exposure on different areas, so I have alternatives to choose from when the images are reviewed. This is still light years ahead of the days when we had to use film, and the success rate is vastly improved.

This noise that you show us has not been a problem, so I would carry on, and gather up a larger body of images to review, in your case.

The vast majority of us have found that the A2 is an imaging monument that will be a long time in surpassing.
Who am I to blow against the wind? -Paul Simon

 

[Gordon W]

The crop below doesn't look unusual to me. All cameras that use this same sensor produce noise even at ISO 64. It's worth it to me for the benefits of the sensor and is something I was completely aware of before buying my A2. I also don't mind a little noise.

There are several factors that increase image noise. Underexposure and heat are two, as well as the application you use to convert the RAW file. The same RAW file converted with DiVU, MRWFormat, and ACR will exhibit three different looks to the noise.

However, at the start of this thread you said...

When comparing the results with film and even with 35 mm
slides/negs scanned in via an ageing 2710 dpi Canon film scanner,
the results don't compare well.

How do they not compare well? Did you shoot the same scene with film and scan that for a comparison? If so, what does a crop from the same area look like?

I expected film to come out on
top, but not the scanned images.

What were you comparing from the film other than scanned images? Prints from the film compared to prints or inkjet printouts from the A2 files?

I have produced a crop of the 100% image. Trouble is that jpeg
artefacts are now showing up at this magnification. However, I
think you can see from this what I mean about noise and lack of
sharpness (image was sharpened before cropping)

--



http://www.pbase.com/merriwolf/

 

[Barrie Davis]

I agree whole heartedly with the comments made by E.Z. and I believe he put the facts extremely well. (Thanks E.Z.!)

However..........

E.Z wrote the following:

You can enjoy the compactness and all the great features of the A2,
and then process your images with some good tools and get near DSLR
results (and certainly better than what you can get with film with
average SLR equipment).

I think the A2 provides results, not just "near", but VERY near dSLR.

With regard to film comparisons, I would put it MUCH stronger......

35mm film is completely outclassed by comparison with A2 used at optimum -- optimum meaning a well processed RAW.

When you view your "noise" on-screen at 100%, if it is a 19" model like mine, you are looking at a picture nearly 4 feet across!! Please ask yourself these questions....

How good would a 4 foot print from 35mm film appear to be, when seen this close up?? (Do you honestly think it would be BETTER? If so, I suggest you are seriously mistaken.)

Then take into account that the image sensor of the A2 is 1/16th the area of the full frame 35 mm camera --- and is approximately equal to one frame of super eight cine film. Have you ever seen one of those, in still frame mode and when projected 4 feet across? (That experience might put "quality", or the lack of it, into perspective!)

Please believe me -- you have one of the highest quality, and most flexible, pieces of photo-equipment that has ever existed (at least until next year's model comes along!)

Please don't let false perceptions spoil your enjoyment.

Regards,
Baz

 

[E.Z]

However..........

E.Z wrote the following:

You can enjoy the compactness and all the great features of the A2,
and then process your images with some good tools and get near DSLR
results (and certainly better than what you can get with film with
average SLR equipment).

I think the A2 provides results, not just "near", but VERY near dSLR.

With regard to film comparisons, I would put it MUCH stronger......

35mm film is completely outclassed by comparison with A2 used at
optimum -- optimum meaning a well processed RAW.

Baz,

Actually my opinion is very much like yours, but I toned down my claims hoping to avoid reactions from sensitive D/SLR users...

EZ.

PS - My wife informed the guy at Minolta about the 200mm/F7.1 bug.

 

[E.Z]

I have produced a crop of the 100% image. Trouble is that jpeg
artefacts are now showing up at this magnification. However, I
think you can see from this what I mean about noise and lack of
sharpness (image was sharpened before cropping)

Can you put the original RAW file for download somewhere, so I can play with it a little bit? If you don't have any place to put, I can provide provide you with a temporary username/password for my FTP server.

By the way, RAW files can be compressed to save transfer time. I tested a random image which reduced from 12MB to 9.5MB with WinRar's "best" setting, and to 7.5MB with 7z compressor using PPMd/256/32 settings (need lots of RAM though!).

The 7z compressor is available from http://www.7-zip.org . While it's not yet as polished as WinZip/WinRar, it's still very usable and compresses better than zip/rar.

EZ.

 

[RedDawg]

As good as I thought my A2 was, I am amazed at the increase in quality my new Canon 10D provides. I wish I had upgraded sooner. I'm sure the new Dynax 7 Digital will be comparable. What I have found:

Better sharpness from the 10D's bigger but less numerous pixels. Shadow detail is much better. Also, areas of detail with lower contrast show much better detail and sharpness, like hair, grass, leaves. etc.

The color on my new 10D is superior to my A2. I could never get the coat of my dog just right. With the 10D, it is spot on.

Much better exposure latitude. With the 10D, I can expose for highlights and then use the shadow/highlights tool in PS to bring up the shadows, showing amazing detail with NO noise. If I do this with the A2, you bring up lots of detail destroying noise. No more foggy shadows either.

When I shoot at ISO 100, there is absolutely no noise. There's a medium format quality to the images. ISO 800 is like ISO 100-200 on the A2. Even ISO 1600-3200 is usable in the 10D. And the images stand up much better to noise reduction treatment from Neat Image, becasue the noise is much more regular and less clumpy, with no banding.

As fast as I thought the A2 was, the 10D, (and I imagine other Dslr's) is much quicker. Follow focus that works. No shutter lag. It's was at first startling to me to see how quickly the shutter is released.

A couple of examples:

The A2 could never get the color of this dog just right. The Canon nails it. Even with post-processing, it was impossible to get it right. Also, the detail in the hair is a better, as well as the eye. The dog pics were shot in raw, processed in PS CS at default settings.





The pic below is a 100% crop. RAW, processed in PS CS, default settings. The hair is so well delineated, it's startling. Also, the tonality is better in the Canon. Portraits have a creamy smooth look, medium format like.



I think the major advantage the A2 has is it size. After a few hours with the 10D, when I went back to the A2, it felt tiny in my hands.

 

[Aguru]

Noise like this is definitely not typical at ISO 64. However, it is possible if the cam is hot due to either extreme ambient/storage temperature or after long usage. I'd return it for repair/replacement if noise continues to occur under normal circumstances.

I have produced a crop of the 100% image. Trouble is that jpeg
artefacts are now showing up at this magnification. However, I
think you can see from this what I mean about noise and lack of
sharpness (image was sharpened before cropping)

 

[Icypeak]

I'll have to agree that the A2 and other small sensor cams still lag behind DSLR's noticably in noise, AF speed, shutter lag, and somewhat in DR, but it's a decent compromise for what you get in such a compact package. I knew from my D7 what I would be getting with an A2, but still chose to get one in addition to my 10D for its virtues, and haven't regretted it. On the couple of quick tests I've made, the absolute resolution between the 2 is fairly similar. I really like having both, although switching back and forth between them sometimes leads me to not be as automatic in adjusting the parameters of each, given the differences in user interface. Noise reduction processing is just another tradeoff that allows great images to come from a small camera.
-David

As good as I thought my A2 was, I am amazed at the increase in
quality my new Canon 10D provides. I wish I had upgraded sooner.
I'm sure the new Dynax 7 Digital will be comparable. What I have
found:

Better sharpness from the 10D's bigger but less numerous pixels.
Shadow detail is much better. Also, areas of detail with lower
contrast show much better detail and sharpness, like hair, grass,
leaves. etc.

--
David



http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

 

[E.Z]

As good as I thought my A2 was, I am amazed at the increase in
quality my new Canon 10D provides. I wish I had upgraded sooner.
--- 8

Every camera is a compromise, an attempt to balance conflicting needs: size, weight, speed, image quality, features, reliability, build quality, cost (and probably a few more).

There is no such thing as "best" and there's hardly even "better". It's all a matter of which compromise, which balance, each of us prefers.

There's no doubt that the bigger sensor in DSLRs can produce better RAW images and as a consequence better out of camera images. However, there's a lot of technology OUTSIDE the camera that can take lower quality data (eg. noise) and improve it considerably. So an 8MP digicam can produce results that are close, and sometimes even identical, to those produced by a DSLR.

Regarding the color accuracy that you mention - technical tests show that the 10D and the A2 are both very good but neither is perfect. Every camera has unique color characterstics, that depend on the sensor, the RGB filter, the signal processing, white balance, interpolation, etc. Sensor size does make some difference for color accuracy, but all the other factors are by far more determining. In some cases the 10D fares better than the A2 and in other cases it's the other way around.

I had, actually still have, a Canon EOS 3 (film), Canon 550EX flash, and several lenses. I considered going for the 10D or 300D, but then I realized that in the last 3 years I hardly take photos anymore. I avoid taking my camera and lenses because I'm tired of carrying around big and heavy gear. For me an A2 can - and does - produce far superior results compared to what a seldom used 10D can produce.

For me the A2 offers a better compromise than any DSLR, because it gives me a lot of creative and technical freedom, and also because I want to take it with me and use it. Show me an SLR that provides a better compromise (ie. great handling, anti-shake, as compact as the A2, big sensor, and priced at $1,000 including a quality 28-200 lens) - and I'll switch.

I understand that your needs and motivations are different than mine, and you strive for clean image off the sensor, better color and faster operation. But in that case the 10D is not really a good camera - if you compare it to the 1Ds, 1D MarkII, Kodak DCS/c, or a Hasselblad H1 + Phase One P25 sensor.

But, you'll say, those systems are much more expensive, bigger, heavier, require a lot of storage, etc. etc. - that's right but if you want the ultimate quality, why stop at the 10D.

Maybe because it's the one compromise that lets you take the photos you want? ;-)

EZ.

 

[Rommaker]

This is fairly a fairly typical small sensor noise pattern for a
deep blue sky. If shot in JPEG, or when converting from RAW, I'd
suggest turning sharpening to low, and then when processing in your
image editor,

--
David

David, I realize you're talking about a sky here where you have to deal with a large, mostly textureless area. But I have obtained my best results when setting my A1 in-camera sharpening to "hard". The image below was shot in RAW at ISO100 (A1's lowest ISO), 1/60, f5.6. I then processed with PS CS using the Adobe Camera RAW Plug-In. After all adjustments were made, I then set the sharpness to the max just prior to saving to JPG.

I realize that this image is under controlled lighting, but I think the sharpness speaks for itself. I would suggest to mikejac that he tinker with the in-camera sharpness to see which result is the best.

If there is no improvement in the noise issue after this, I would definitely return the camera for service.



--
Rommaker
http://www.pbase.com/rommaker
http://www.momentsnoticed.com

 

[Barrie Davis]

Maybe because it's the one compromise that lets you take the
photos you want? ;-)

EZ.

--
Hmmmm... If I may be permitted to say......

I think your responses on these forums are models of reasoned, and most diplomatically expressed(!) thinking -- quite a humbling experience for the rest of us!

Please stick around ... we can use people like you to keep us in order. ;-)

With highest regards,

Baz

 

[Gordon W]

mikejac, I mentioned further up the thread the effect exposure can have on image noise. I just posted a thread showing this illustrated with imagery and perhaps you'd find it of some interest. In case you miss it in the main forum, this is it...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=9508766

To my eye there is a lot of noise from an 64 ISO

--



--
My online photo galleries
http://www.pbase.com/merriwolf/
--
Why my online photos are not larger
http://www.pbase.com/merriwolf/shortlong