Phil Askey's D70 review is out!

[Watcher]

Although the 300D has a very cheap look, I stronly disagree that it feels cheap.

I'm sorry I have to disagree, as a personal opinion on this. Creaking plastic parts (near the shutter release) reminds me of cheap toys...

<chopped>
moire is quite common at higher frequencies (anti aliasing filter, no patch can go around that).

I disagree. Capture One comes with a De-moire plugin for Photoshop. So either the company the Canon has engaged to produce its software is releasing phony stuff or it can be done via firmware upgrade...

 

[Watcher]

Well, at least on dpreview, such traffic generates hits, which feeds itself from the sponsors, at least partly or indirectly. In CS, trolling = wasted bandwidth. :sweat:

:sweat: Now you've done it... :devil:

 

[DeusExMachina]

As for Moire, I think shots in RAW and converted in Nikon Capture solves the problem to some extent, at least the results look much better that shooting with JPEG directly.

 

[chriszzz]

Although the 300D has a very cheap look, I stronly disagree that it feels cheap.

I have a 300D. I'll have to say it feels cheap, and LOOKS cheap too. But then again, at the time it was released, it was cheap (for a DSLR). It creaks if you press it, and the shiny plastic body shouts "LOW END CHEESY BODY" ! That said, it's still a very good body. I would love to see Canon's followup to it.

I have no regrets on having kept my 300D and bought a new lens instead of getting the D70.

Well, that's wise. If you keep switching brands just because a better body came up, you'll go broke in no time. Like I always say, you are buying into a system, not a body. The body's only 1 piece of the entire system.

 

[karlie]

No arguing that it does look less "pro" than the D70

But as far as manufacturing goes I don't think that the D70 has such an edge:
- the rotary dials do not look so good to me (compared to other lower-end film Nikons)
- the "antislip" paint (don't know how to call it), looks fragile.

My ego may wish that I had a more "pro" looking camera, for sure, though.
Canon marketed the Canon as a non-pro camera, and made it look and cripled it so that it would not take market share from the 10D, but I don't think it went cheap on the manufacturing.

Yes the D70 is better value for money than the 300D, but it's not the panacea
And just the same way: the 300D has better value than it looks

 

[karlie]

Well, that's wise. If you keep switching brands just because a better body came up, you'll go broke in no time. Like I always say, you are buying into a system, not a body. The body's only 1 piece of the entire system.

I have issues being locked into one system in general (I am a Mac + PC + Unix guy)
So if Canon is not good enough, it's not 4-5 lenses +1 flash (?) that would stop me from switching.

I have not been able to convince myself that the D70 would be the answer to my concerns with the 300D.

 

[karlie]

I disagree. Capture One comes with a De-moire plugin for Photoshop. So either the company the Canon has engaged to produce its software is releasing phony stuff or it can be done via firmware upgrade...

The demoire filter tries to conceal a problem, it does not solve it.
It tries to find where moire could have occurred and then corrects the hue and saturation.
It works the same way as a noise remover: where you have lost information, you cannot recreate it.

When you have some aliasing, there is no way of knowing what is aliasing and what is not without knowledge of the original signal.

I always shoot raw, but the less post processing I do, the better.

 

[Watcher]

The demoire filter tries to conceal a problem, it does not solve it.
It tries to find where moire could have occurred and then corrects the hue and saturation.
It works the same way as a noise remover: where you have lost information, you cannot recreate it.

When you have some aliasing, there is no way of knowing what is aliasing and what is not without knowledge of the original signal.

I always shoot raw, but the less post processing I do, the better.

Let me put it this way: what is the difference from a thicker AA filter? You know what that does right?

Phil himself said in his review (page 17) "in-camera Bayer interpolation algorithms", which means that it can be altered with a tweaking of the firmware. It does not need to "conceal a problem".

You do know that both AA and the "in-camera Bayer interpolation algorithms" are working in your 300D right?

 

[FLiNcHY]

So what if the 300D looks cheap. It takes good photos and that's all i care about

You want to look pro, go ahead

Just remember to show us your "pro" photos :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Watcher]

My ego may wish that I had a more "pro" looking camera, for sure, though.
Canon marketed the Canon as a non-pro camera, and made it look and cripled it so that it would not take market share from the 10D, but I don't think it went cheap on the manufacturing.

Why don't you tell another fellow 300D owner about this. He insisted that the 300D is not a crippled 10D but followed from 300V

Yes the D70 is better value for money than the 300D, but it's not the panacea
And just the same way: the 300D has better value than it looks

If Product A is "better value for money" than Product B when they are in the same product group, shouldn't Product A be bought? :dunno:

 

[Watcher]

So what if the 300D looks cheap. It takes good photos and that's all i care about

You want to look pro, go ahead

Just remember to show us your "pro" photos :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Alas, if looks is the only advantage the D70 has, I would agree...

After all, karlie feels that looks (a relative attribute) can be more important than value for money, heh :bsmilie:

 

[Kit]

Why don't you tell another fellow 300D owner about this. He insisted that the 300D is not a crippled 10D but followed from 300V

If Product A is "better value for money" than Product B when they are in the same product group, shouldn't Product A be bought? :dunno:

Well put it this way...... the 300D is a stripped down version of the 10D in a 300V body.

 

[karlie]

Let me put it this way: what is the difference from a thicker AA filter? You know what that does right?
Phil himself said in his review (page 17) "in-camera Bayer interpolation algorithms", which means that it can be altered with a tweaking of the firmware. It does not need to "conceal a problem".
You do know that both AA and the "in-camera Bayer interpolation algorithms" are working in your 300D right?

The AA filter is in the analog domain, while the Bayer Interpolation filter is in the digital domain.
The Moire is produced when going from Analog to Digital domain (Sampling Theorem).
The in-camera Bayer interpolation problem that Phil talks about is the one that makes Moire appear as Mazes in the in-camera JPEG shots.

So
- yes: this funny mazes can be solved by a FW update (and probably will be, although one has to go to the Nikon Customer service for that).
- no, the moire is not going to disapear with a FW update.

The problem with the 300D stonger AA filter is that I may not be able to go up to resolution N, because it filters strongly from N-1.

The advantage of the AA filter in the D70 is that it filters slowly from N so that it can get good detail at N.
The problem is that if in the subject there is also detail at N+1, N+3, etc, this will show as N-1, N-2 on your picture, hence the moire.

Whether one prefers to loose a bit of sharpness, or to do post-processing when moire appears is up to the photographer.
I prefer to loose a bit of sharpness, rather than taking the risk to find a moired picture (it's the ame reason why I shoot raw).

 

[karlie]

Alas, if looks is the only advantage the D70 has, I would agree...
After all, karlie feels that looks (a relative attribute) can be more important than value for money, heh :bsmilie:

It's not me per se, it's my ego.
The thing is I am probably not the only one with such an ego, looking at the number of people listing the fact that the D70 looks more "pro" than the 300D as a postitive point when comparing the 2...

 

[karlie]

If Product A is "better value for money" than Product B when they are in the same product group, shouldn't Product A be bought? :dunno:

Had the D70 had a stronger AA filter (no moire) I would probably have switched (99% sure).

There is also the problem of the vertical grip, but this I am sure is going to be solved by some smart third party.

 

[Amfibius]

Amazing to see the D70 and the 300D so close in picture quality. I thought that the D70 would blow it out of the water. The only difference is, 300D has an advantage in bright light (ISO 100 ability, so cleaner images), D70 has nicer noise characteristics at high ISO though ultimately the amount of noise is the same.

Of course, the D70 blows the 300D out of the water with its superior camera handling, responsiveness, battery life, custom functions, flash system, and styling.

I would advise new users to get a D70. People who already have a 300D should stick with it as the cost of switching over does not buy you better image quality.

 

[acetylcholine]

tsk tsk tsk

all the anti phil bashing...over d70....

 

[mpenza]

Image quality is 300D's strong point ;p if it's bad, not that many would buy it when it's launched. The D70 eclipse it in terms performance (other than image quality which is similar).

anyway, from the page below, which one do you think produces a sharper image? There were some arguments about it in the DPReview forums. The 300D's image did have more sharpening "halo".
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page22.asp

 

[Amfibius]

Image quality is 300D's strong point ;p if it's bad, not that many would buy it when it's launched. The D70 eclipse it in terms performance (other than image quality which is similar).

anyway, from the page below, which one do you think produces a sharper image? There were some arguments about it in the DPReview forums. The 300D's image did have more sharpening "halo".
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page22.asp

That was one of the pages I was studying. IMO the image output of the 300D was superior in each case. Better contrast, better detail. See the chip on the crayon? It's more obvious on the 300D picture.

Having said that, Phil shot those images in JPEG at default parameters. Most people who are really serious about image quality will shoot RAW. If you shoot JPEG, you should reduce contrast, colour saturation, and sharpening to a minimum so that you have more headroom to do some post-processing. Comparing the default output of both cameras is IMO meaningless and only reflects marketing decisions made by the manufacturers.

For people accustomed to a digital workflow I think there will be no difference between the two cameras as far as image quality goes ... except for ISO 100 in the 300D, and the more pleasant high ISO characteristics of the D70.

 

[mpenza]

that's true. the raw images looked more similar, with D70 being better in some crops:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page24.asp