DSLR or prosumer / consumer digicam
- Thread starter Red Dawn
- Start date
- Status
J
Jerome
Guest
Hmmm, about the softness of images, that was a nice analogy about spices and food. Now I know why.
But I still can't quite accept the reason that the softness is to give users more freedom to do post-processing of USM. Maybe more for graphics artists who, for whatever reason, do not want sharp images? For me as a photographer, I will want my images to be tact sharp all the time. So bcos of this, I find myself having to use USM more than 85% of the time. Else, compared to my prints even at 4 x 6 from slides, the digital images look like they were taken with a $200 lens instead of $2000 L lens.
Ok, would anyone be kind enough to briefly explain what Pekka software is? Thanks!!!
But I still can't quite accept the reason that the softness is to give users more freedom to do post-processing of USM. Maybe more for graphics artists who, for whatever reason, do not want sharp images? For me as a photographer, I will want my images to be tact sharp all the time. So bcos of this, I find myself having to use USM more than 85% of the time. Else, compared to my prints even at 4 x 6 from slides, the digital images look like they were taken with a $200 lens instead of $2000 L lens.
Ok, would anyone be kind enough to briefly explain what Pekka software is? Thanks!!!
You see, you need different levels of USM at different output sizes. Web-destined images will need less USM than a 20x30" print, for example. Amount of USM needed also varies for different types of subjects. Portraits probably need a bit less USM than a detailed landscape, for example. If the camera had pre-sharpened everything toa certain setting, it's not going to be very flexible.
Even when you send in your negatives and slides for printing, they are not printed straight. In the modern digital minilabs used by the photo labs, the film is first scanned into digital files. According to the print size, USM is applied to to the files before they are output via laser onto photo paper, then developed.
Same goes when you do your own scanning of film and photos. USM is always needed.
Regards
CK
K
konei
Guest
Agree that consumer CCDs are smaller and hence poorer (more noise) but RAW is uncompressed data. There is no loss of captured data from D30 or G2 if you save in RAW mode. Only in JPEG mode do you expect a degradation of image on aggressive compression.
Base on Red Dawn's explaination
Therefore can assume bigger pixel size plus CMOS equal less noise?
Looking at the >3 million pixels DSLR in the market,
we use this basic equation,
Pixel size = (sensor area)/ (Pixel count)
D30 : CMOS
Pixel count = 3.11 million
Sensor size =22.7 mm x 15.1 mm = 342.77 mm2
Pixel size= 110.22 micro mm2
D60 : CMOS
Pixel count = 6.29 million
Sensor size =22.7 mm x 15.1 mm =342.77 mm2
Pixel size= 54.49 micro mm2
1D : CCD
Pixel count = 4.06 million
Sensor size = 28.7 x 17.8 mm = 510.86 mm2
Pixel size= 125.83 micro mm2
D100 : CCD
Pixel count = 6.0 million
Sensor size = 23.7 x 15.6 mm = 369.72 mm2
Pixel size= 60.45 micro mm2
D1X : CCD
Pixel count = 5.89 million
Sensor size = 23.7 x 15.6 mm = 369.72 mm2
Pixel size= 61.58 micro mm2
It shows that 1D has the largest pixel size, followed by D30, D1X, D100, and D60 has the smallest pixel size.
What does it tell you, EOS fans?
Therefore can assume bigger pixel size plus CMOS equal less noise?
Looking at the >3 million pixels DSLR in the market,
we use this basic equation,
Pixel size = (sensor area)/ (Pixel count)
D30 : CMOS
Pixel count = 3.11 million
Sensor size =22.7 mm x 15.1 mm = 342.77 mm2
Pixel size= 110.22 micro mm2
D60 : CMOS
Pixel count = 6.29 million
Sensor size =22.7 mm x 15.1 mm =342.77 mm2
Pixel size= 54.49 micro mm2
1D : CCD
Pixel count = 4.06 million
Sensor size = 28.7 x 17.8 mm = 510.86 mm2
Pixel size= 125.83 micro mm2
D100 : CCD
Pixel count = 6.0 million
Sensor size = 23.7 x 15.6 mm = 369.72 mm2
Pixel size= 60.45 micro mm2
D1X : CCD
Pixel count = 5.89 million
Sensor size = 23.7 x 15.6 mm = 369.72 mm2
Pixel size= 61.58 micro mm2
It shows that 1D has the largest pixel size, followed by D30, D1X, D100, and D60 has the smallest pixel size.
What does it tell you, EOS fans?
Factor in the fact that CMOS sensors inherently has less noise, it basically cancels out the fact that it's a smaller sensor.
Regards
Ck
USM - UnSharpen Mask ( DOn't you think it sounds a bit misleding given it is use to 'sharpen' an image? )
As you can see.. nope it is not the same as the USM ( is it Ultra Sound Motor? ) used in canon lens...
Cheers,
MadZ.. waiting for Minolta to come out with a DSLR
Not true, the Nikon and Minolta 50/1.4s are also substantially of higher cost. And both has no USM. It's the glass, not the USM.
Regards
CK
Originally posted by MadAnt
USM - UnSharpen Mask ( DOn't you think it sounds a bit misleding given it is use to 'sharpen' an image? )
As you can see.. nope it is not the same as the USM ( is it Ultra Sound Motor? ) used in canon lens...
Cheers,
MadZ.. waiting for Minolta to come out with a DSLR
Minolta DOES have digital SLRs, one of them is the RD175.
Regards
CK
Thanks!
But it seems more like Minolta HAD digital SLRs...
Tried to check it out..
Most of the site I come across are russian and japanese?
Seems like it is a 1.8MP camera based on the 500si body..
BUT.. it was replaced by the RD3000 based on the V system ( bad move I think.. )
Hope Minolta will catch the drift and produce a dc based on Dynax 7... just a hope.. nothing more...
Facts:
1D is the cleanest camera of them all. At high ISOs from 400 to 1600, it is better than any of the other cameras. It also has ISO 3200 - and though it is noisy at that ISO, none of the other cameras u listed has ISO 3200 as an option.
D30 is also an extremely clean performer, with very clean and smooth images at ISO 800. 1600 is noiser, but still extremely usable. The D30's clean and smooth images is attributed to:
- CMOS sensor
- Unique noise reduction algorithms applied at pixel level in the CMOS sensor. Each pixel is processed by special algorithms.
D60, though it has smaller pixel size, manages to keep up with the D30 in terms of noise levels through even more optimised noise reduction processing on each pixel. So even though the pixels are smaller, noise levels are not increased from the D30 - a real tribute to Canon.
As for the other Nikon cameras u mentioned, the jury is still out on the D100 and the D1x is relatively clean too, with clean ISO 800 and usable ISOs up to 1600 (according to Jed ;p).
Originally posted by MadAnt
USM - UnSharpen Mask ( DOn't you think it sounds a bit misleding given it is use to 'sharpen' an image? )
As you can see.. nope it is not the same as the USM ( is it Ultra Sound Motor? ) used in canon lens...
Cheers,
MadZ.. waiting for Minolta to come out with a DSLR
Oh well!! Maybe we can all use some other acronym to avoid confusion. And yes I wonde why Unsharp Mask and not sharpen mask!! And yes, I am waiting for Minolta to come out with a really pro digital SLR like the D30 from Canon. That seems to be currently the digital SLR of choice. I wonder if they could come out with one that uses the Dynax 7 body. Shouldn't be too difficult u know - to meld the electonics of the D7i(with some more major improvements) and the technical features of the Dynax 7. It would really be cool and if it sold for less than the D30, it would be a hot seller. I may end up in a line for it then........
Originally posted by TME
Oh well!! Maybe we can all use some other acronym to avoid confusion. And yes I wonde why Unsharp Mask and not sharpen mask!! And yes, I am waiting for Minolta to come out with a really pro digital SLR like the D30 from Canon. That seems to be currently the digital SLR of choice. I wonder if they could come out with one that uses the Dynax 7 body. Shouldn't be too difficult u know - to meld the electonics of the D7i(with some more major improvements) and the technical features of the Dynax 7. It would really be cool and if it sold for less than the D30, it would be a hot seller. I may end up in a line for it then........
It dates back to the olden days of traditional darkroom printing, whereby a "unsharp" (yes, as in not sharp) negative is sandwiched between the sharp one to enhance the sharpness of the final print.
Regards
CK
There's a digital interpretation but I would need to check it out. Forgot all about digital imaging theory liao ;p
Yup, I agree that the D30 gives very good image quality that I can't tell the difference between ISO100 and ISO400. I don't blow up my images very much, only on screen observations. Anyone any comments?
a 2nd film (I _think_ it's a positive) is made from the original negative, then sandwiched together. Something like that, can't remember already.
Regards
CK
- Status
Similar threads
