T1 vs S400

[c3pio]

http://server.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1/FULLRES/T1OUTAP0.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S400/FULLRES/S40OUTDP1.HTM

The above compares the T1 with the often mentioned S400.
Look at the details of the hair. The reviewer concluded the T1
noise suppression reduces the images of the hair to mere blur.
Compare it to the S400 where you can even count the hair.
I wonder if the reviewer somehow makes some kind of
mistakes.. like lighting or so in the taking of the picture. If anyone
can repeat it and claify, pls do. I just can't believe they can make
the T1 that bad with such a major loss of details. If this is
unavoidable. Is the lens or sensor of the T1 the culprit in
producing such a major loss of details. What do you think?

p

 

[kyutip]

it's the lens. With lens like T1 (and Minolta Xt, Xi too), certain compromise has to be made. Lens like that just can not compare to regular/normal lens in term of sharpness and resolution.

My suggestion is to get Canon S400 (which is going down in price) or Sony W1 instead.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bochie

 

[OlivierS]

Good thing you point this out.

I had compared imaging-resource's images for other cameras but concluded my eye couldn't make any difference. I'll look twice at the S400-T1 comparison as they're both on my shortlist.

Finally some objective thing in this heated debate ! I guess T1's sexyness creates a lot of emotion.

Thx

 

[maio]

Well, first of all, i do not believe that different shots like those in the review might be comparable. They would have comparable only if they were taken using a tripod, same distance (and in these two shots it seems the cameras were at different lenghts to to subject), same lights and over all settings in the single cameras that might be comparable themselves (sharpness, saturation, exposition, etc etc). So pls, avoid continuing making this kind of usefulness comparitions between cameras.
Greetings

Good thing you point this out.

I had compared imaging-resource's images for other cameras but
concluded my eye couldn't make any difference. I'll look twice at
the S400-T1 comparison as they're both on my shortlist.

Finally some objective thing in this heated debate ! I guess T1's
sexyness creates a lot of emotion.

Thx

 

[OlivierS]

These comparative pics taken by professional, independent guys like Dave and Phil are most precious.

...or do you prefer the innumerable postings like "look at this shot of my kids, how beautiful, proves that my camera is the best". Don't prove much in terms of camera quality imho.

BTW, had a more serious look at the T1/S400 pics on imaging-resource's comparometer, and yes, S400 is better on a couple of things : see ao the top-left corner on the dollar bill (macro), the lady's hair (outdoor), the blurred colours on the Ektachrome table (test box)... I'm not that good at evaluating noise and colours on a PC screen.

 

[highsector]

click on my name please so you can see all my thread about how bad the T1 is.
T1 is a nice designed camera but does not produce a good quality pictures.

These comparative pics taken by professional, independent guys like
Dave and Phil are most precious.

...or do you prefer the innumerable postings like "look at this
shot of my kids, how beautiful, proves that my camera is the best".
Don't prove much in terms of camera quality imho.

BTW, had a more serious look at the T1/S400 pics on
imaging-resource's comparometer, and yes, S400 is better on a
couple of things : see ao the top-left corner on the dollar bill
(macro), the lady's hair (outdoor), the blurred colours on the
Ektachrome table (test box)... I'm not that good at evaluating
noise and colours on a PC screen.

 

[OlivierS]

Thanks highsector, I've been reading almost all T1 posts for over 3 weeks now and didn't find many helpful (with the notable exceptions of gho and eric ryder, sorry if I forgot others)

S400 would be a wiser bet, but part of my heart is still with T1. Although (somewhat) poorer, T1's image quality would be enough for me and other criteria are still on balance.

For example ("stupidly" enough), I've come to put the big, bright LCD as part of my criteria : sharing pics on-the-go with my kids is an important part of the photography pleasure and avoids half the costly printing. Amazingly, no camera (even prosumers) match the T1 in this respect. Even the upcoming W1 has a lower LCD pixel count. These 1.5" displays definitely suck.

What really puts me off is the price of memory sticks - I could make do with the extra 100-150 $ for the body, but you have to blow another 100 extra bucks for 2 256M sticks, if you're lucky enough to find them.

I'll have to make up my mind at some point in time !

 

[c3pio]

Let's have an objective look at this T1.

I wonder if the reviewer of Digital-Imaging has
somehow got a defective copy. The macro shot is
just so blurred as if out of focus. The Z3 and many
others blow it away. The full body shot also has significant
loss of details. You can see the entire face of the
woman without skin definition... like she wears
powder. I mean, in other digicams. You can see
many details like freckles, pimples, etc. And of
course the hair turns into a blur.

Now if the T1 has bad macro and full body shots.
The distant far field should be equally bad.
However, in the far_field tests of the house. The
hollow blocks are still resolvable... only they are
a bit soft.

If the reviewer got a fully functioning T1. What
would explain an unsharp macro and soft full body
shots (where hair detail is lost) while far field shots
don't produce as bad a resolution loss.

If the reviewer is right that Sony did very aggressive noise
suppression in the T1 which produce a loss of
resolution. How come it only affects macro and
close shots while far field shot (house shot) is not so
bad (here we should expect the hollow blocks edge to
become like blur too). If anyone can explain it.
Pls. do. Thanks.

Well. Even if the reviewer is right and accurate. What happens
then is that the T1 is like a perfect 3mp digicam that
can go up to 5mp at high contrast. And this is not bad
considering most prints of 3x5 you put in albums only
require one megapixel.

p

Thanks highsector, I've been reading almost all T1 posts for over 3
weeks now and didn't find many helpful (with the notable exceptions
of gho and eric ryder, sorry if I forgot others)

S400 would be a wiser bet, but part of my heart is still with T1.
Although (somewhat) poorer, T1's image quality would be enough for
me and other criteria are still on balance.

For example ("stupidly" enough), I've come to put the big, bright
LCD as part of my criteria : sharing pics on-the-go with my kids is
an important part of the photography pleasure and avoids half the
costly printing. Amazingly, no camera (even prosumers) match the
T1 in this respect. Even the upcoming W1 has a lower LCD pixel
count. These 1.5" displays definitely suck.

What really puts me off is the price of memory sticks - I could
make do with the extra 100-150 $ for the body, but you have to blow
another 100 extra bucks for 2 256M sticks, if you're lucky enough
to find them.

I'll have to make up my mind at some point in time !

 

[Ron Parr]

Dave's shots aren't as perfectly controlled as Phil's. There are differences in lighting, composition, aperture, etc. that can make comparisons a little unfair.

Hair is a particularly tricky thing since it is a very fine detail and its appearance can be influenced by slight changes in subject size, lighting, or even the texture of the subjects hair that day.

That said, I think that the harsh lighting in Dave's shots does give some insight into the effects of noise/noise reduction on image quality. This is something for which Phil hasn't yet developed a good test. (His noise tests involve patches with no detail, while his detail tests are under ideal illumination.)

Many of your criticisms of the T1 are true of the V1 to a lesser degree as well. A lot of V1 owners here seem to think they have a low noise camera because it did well at the one brightness level that Phil measured in his noise comparison with other 5MP 1/1.8" sensor cameras. Compared to 4MP cameras, and even some 5MP cameras at different brightness levels, the V1 is pretty noisy.

Check out Dave's V1 image:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/V1/FULLRES/V1OUTAP1.HTM

Look at the noise in the shadow areas of the subject's hands and neck. Look at her teeth.

I think the hair looks better on the S400 shot, except for a patch on the left side (her right) that looks very blurry from the S400.

Of course, we shouldn't read too much into this either. There will be shots were the extra resolution of a 5MP sensor will make a positive difference. Rather than making a blanket statement, I think it's best to understand what the tradeoffs are. With the T1 or V1, you get the potential for more detail, but you need good light (especially with the T1) to realize this potential and avoid noise.

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

 

[Frank B]

I don't see much difference in the hair, although the S400 might have a slight edge.. The resoultion as tested with the resoultion chart is much greater for the T1. This is borne out by the Far Field shot of the House. For example, if you l;ook at the trunk of the tree in front of the window on the right there is much more detail in the picture taken by the T1.

In both cases comparing pictures is problematic though, as they were not taken at the same time and they have different apetures, etc.

Frank B

Photos 10D, Sony T1 and Others
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

 

[maio]

i completely agree

I don't see much difference in the hair, although the S400 might
have a slight edge.. The resoultion as tested with the resoultion
chart is much greater for the T1. This is borne out by the Far
Field shot of the House. For example, if you l;ook at the trunk of
the tree in front of the window on the right there is much more
detail in the picture taken by the T1.

In both cases comparing pictures is problematic though, as they
were not taken at the same time and they have different apetures,
etc.

Frank B

Photos 10D, Sony T1 and Others
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

 

[Cut-Throat]

I Read all the comments and there certainly seemed that there was agreement that the S400 image was better. Which is what I was expecting -- Except not on my screen! - The S400 looked like a watercolor painting instead of a photgraph!

The only thing that I could think of doing was to post actual printscreens of what I was looking at! What is going on here? Can anyone explain this?

The S400 Test Photo



The T1 Test Photo

 

[c3pio]

Well. If you will notice carefully between the far field shot of the
T1 versus S400, the trunk of the tree in front of the window on
the right in the T1 shot is bigger.. it's because the tree has grown!
So there certainly is more detail in bigger trunks.

Maybe one can notice the red bricks and shadows. The S400
is certainly clearer with 3D like effect. The shadows in the T1
has more noise. I thought he said Sony has made aggressive
noise suppression how come there is still many noises. Also
when they capture the image, do digicams actually do noise
suppression at all aperture and shutter speed. I thought they
wil do it when it's less than 1/25 sec for example. Any one
can clarify about this NR thing going on in image capture.
I think the T1 is affected only in subtle contrast at macro, near
and far shots while high contrast details (where there is an
abrupt change between dark and light areas) are not affected.

p

I don't see much difference in the hair, although the S400 might
have a slight edge.. The resoultion as tested with the resoultion
chart is much greater for the T1. This is borne out by the Far
Field shot of the House. For example, if you l;ook at the trunk of
the tree in front of the window on the right there is much more
detail in the picture taken by the T1.

In both cases comparing pictures is problematic though, as they
were not taken at the same time and they have different apetures,
etc.

Frank B

Photos 10D, Sony T1 and Others
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

 

[gfrensen]

I Read all the comments and there certainly seemed that there was
agreement that the S400 image was better. Which is what I was
expecting -- Except not on my screen! - The S400 looked like a
watercolor painting instead of a photgraph!

Looks like your color setting is in 256 color mode.So your screen color is not right! try an other setting (16bit or 32 bit color mode) by right clicking on your windows desktop and selecting property's then selecting settings.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Nope! - That's not it both of my monitors are set at Highest 32 bit!

 

[Cut-Throat]

Also both pictures would have been screwed up if my monitor settings were off.

I also downloaded the images to my laptop and got the same result. The S400 image is very strange.

 

[Frank B]

Sorry, I missed that about the tree.

The T1 has a smaller sensor than the S400 so in theory with the same amount of noise reduction it should have more noise. Sony, however, claims that the design of this sensor reduces noise.

I believe virtually all cameras have technology built into the sensor and processing to reduce noise. At slower shutter speeds and higher ISOs additional noise suppression is often used.

The T1 does have a very clear advantage in the regular resolution test. The reasons I like it so much, are:

It form and light weight.

The 2.5 inch LCD.

Its speed. It is much faster than the S400. Its shutter lag with focus rivals Digital SLRs and its lag when you first focus by half pressing the shutter is faster than the Nikon 2H, Canon 1D, Canon 1Ds etc.

Maybe one can notice the red bricks and shadows. The S400
is certainly clearer with 3D like effect. The shadows in the T1
has more noise. I thought he said Sony has made aggressive
noise suppression how come there is still many noises. Also
when they capture the image, do digicams actually do noise
suppression at all aperture and shutter speed. I thought they
wil do it when it's less than 1/25 sec for example. Any one
can clarify about this NR thing going on in image capture.
I think the T1 is affected only in subtle contrast at macro, near
and far shots while high contrast details (where there is an
abrupt change between dark and light areas) are not affected.

p

I don't see much difference in the hair, although the S400 might
have a slight edge.. The resoultion as tested with the resoultion
chart is much greater for the T1. This is borne out by the Far
Field shot of the House. For example, if you l;ook at the trunk of
the tree in front of the window on the right there is much more
detail in the picture taken by the T1.

In both cases comparing pictures is problematic though, as they
were not taken at the same time and they have different apetures,
etc.

Frank B

Photos 10D, Sony T1 and Others
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

--
Frank B

Photos 10D, Sony T1 and Others
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

 

[c3pio]

The 2 pics you attached above didn't work so ppl don't know what
you are talking about. Try to post them again.

p

Also both pictures would have been screwed up if my monitor
settings were off.

I also downloaded the images to my laptop and got the same result.
The S400 image is very strange.

 

[c3pio]

Is there another 1/2.4" 5 megapixel digicam around (like Casio or
Pentax)? I wonder how it would perform.

Based on what is written here and at imaging-resource.com site.
I can imagine this is the case (and I stand corrected).

Without aggressive noise reduction, the image from a 1/2.4"
5 megapixel sensor would produce horrendous noise and even
visible at daytime. So to counter this. Sony include "heavy
handed noise suppression" as Dave called it. This removes the
noise at all areas of the image including high contrast areas and
makes the low contrast part of the T1 image noisefree too but
at the cost of resolution loss. At areas like shadows and dim parts.
The noise is still there because the image can't be further noise
supressed without causing more resolution loss.

Is this the correct theory?

The 828 has greater CA than average. And it is one of the tradeoffs
of increased pixel density. The T1, instead of having greater
CA, has significant resolution loss from noise suppression. Sony
has indeed created two new design. One a megamoth, the other
a miniaturization. People still buy 828 in spite of the CA because
of the functions. Similarly, people will continue to buy the T1
because of the form factor in spite of the resolution loss and
warm colors which may or may disturb people depending on
their preference. Some of us just need to understand what is
the exact tradeoffs so we would be satisfy with our
purchase and not overexpecting something that isn't there.

This said. It is possible the resolution loss of the T1 is not from
sensor noise suppression, but, as someone pointed out here, from
the tiny lens. This is possible since internal reflection of the
unique nature of the T1 lens can cause resolution loss due to
the mixing of the areas of subtle contrast (it's not T* coated)
which removes the distinction between shades of different order
hence the details are lost.

So what do you think is the likely culprit in the case of the soft
macro, blurred portraits and unsharp distant shots of the T1.
The sensor giving aggressive noise suppression or the nature
of the lens. Which can theoretically give more impact and
loss of resolution in the image.

And again, what other 1/2.4" 5 megapixel based digicams
around? Anyone?

p

 

[R2D2]

And the Kodak picture looks like this:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SLRN/FULLRES/SLRNFACAM1.HTM

But try sticking That in your shirt pocket unnoticed!
R2 ;-)

http://server.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1/FULLRES/T1OUTAP0.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S400/FULLRES/S40OUTDP1.HTM

--
Good judgement comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgement.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries