Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Canon vs. Nikon ---> Picture quality

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Canon vs. Nikon ---> Picture quality

 
 
Mad Viking
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2003
Kong wrote:

> Hi. I am also torn between the A70 and the 3100 and yes, I had looked up
> reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On the
> http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face pictures
> of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be let down,
> I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100. It's
> without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed out. Some
> said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't makes
> sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp? For point
> & shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
> processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
>
> Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the Fuji Finpix
> A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That camera seems
> to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then the 3100.
> But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight going into
> the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Smoothy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newsoLHa.4256$(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
>>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
>>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.

>>
>>There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being much
>>smaller and
>>lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like battery
>>charger or
>>Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
>>You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.
>>
>>
>>Consider these two pictures:
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0139.JPG
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0014.JPG
>>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
>>
>>or these two:
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0161.JPG
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0001.JPG
>>Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
>>
>>
>>(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement, and

>
> I
>
>>don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
>>
>>or these ones:
>>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/A70INFP1.HTM
>>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...CP31INFFP3.HTM
>>Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
>>
>>You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics, but even

>
> in
>
>>same situations
>>it's like this.
>>
>>I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear your
>>opinins about this.
>>
>>Thanks for your reply.
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>"Tore Lund" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:bcnp8t$l156a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>Smoothy wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>>In the following text, I'm talking about:
>>>>Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
>>>>&
>>>>Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
>>>>
>>>>I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less

>
> noisy/less
>
>>>>grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
>>>
>>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
>>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
>>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>>(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the
>>>>online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
>>>>newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
>>>
>>>I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind. I draw very different
>>>conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
>>>
>>>For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation, and I
>>>do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO and all
>>>the missing controls. I just think the 3100 takes better pictures with
>>>more natural colors than the A70. But I am quite willing to be
>>>convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the superiority
>>>of the A70.
>>>--
>>> Tore
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image. Sharpening
is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the
camera before it's stored on the media. With the A70, things will go
much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt to
get them printed out. This can be a royal pain in the neck, but it's
not an insurmountable problem in any way. There is also a low sharpen
mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the
sharpening by the DIGIC processor. I guess it's better in this case to
have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much
sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Clayton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2003


Mad Viking wrote:

> Kong wrote:
>
> > Hi. I am also torn between the A70 and the 3100 and yes, I had looked up
> > reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On the
> > http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face pictures
> > of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be let down,
> > I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100. It's
> > without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed out. Some
> > said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't makes
> > sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp? For point
> > & shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
> > processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
> >
> > Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the Fuji Finpix
> > A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That camera seems
> > to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then the 3100.
> > But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight going into
> > the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Smoothy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > newsoLHa.4256$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >
> >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
> >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> >>
> >>There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being much
> >>smaller and
> >>lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like battery
> >>charger or
> >>Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
> >>You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.
> >>
> >>
> >>Consider these two pictures:
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0139.JPG
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0014.JPG
> >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
> >>
> >>or these two:
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0161.JPG
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0001.JPG
> >>Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
> >>
> >>
> >>(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement, and

> >
> > I
> >
> >>don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
> >>
> >>or these ones:
> >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/A70INFP1.HTM
> >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...CP31INFFP3.HTM
> >>Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
> >>
> >>You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics, but even

> >
> > in
> >
> >>same situations
> >>it's like this.
> >>
> >>I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear your
> >>opinins about this.
> >>
> >>Thanks for your reply.
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Tore Lund" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>
> >>>Smoothy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hi guys,
> >>>>
> >>>>In the following text, I'm talking about:
> >>>>Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
> >>>>&
> >>>>Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
> >>>>
> >>>>I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less

> >
> > noisy/less
> >
> >>>>grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
> >>>
> >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
> >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the
> >>>>online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
> >>>>newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
> >>>
> >>>I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind. I draw very different
> >>>conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
> >>>
> >>>For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation, and I
> >>>do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO and all
> >>>the missing controls. I just think the 3100 takes better pictures with
> >>>more natural colors than the A70. But I am quite willing to be
> >>>convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the superiority
> >>>of the A70.
> >>>--
> >>> Tore
> >>>
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

> The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image. Sharpening
> is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the
> camera before it's stored on the media. With the A70, things will go
> much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt to
> get them printed out. This can be a royal pain in the neck, but it's
> not an insurmountable problem in any way. There is also a low sharpen
> mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the
> sharpening by the DIGIC processor. I guess it's better in this case to
> have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much
> sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Clayton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2003
Made my decision today! And I chose the A70. The 3100 is a little sharper, but
the handling and ergonomics REALLY suck. I shoot street/documentary stuff so I
need to be able to react quickly.

And since I spend half my life in Photoshop-world…

Anyway that's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

Ray



Mad Viking wrote:

> Kong wrote:
>
> > Hi. I am also torn between the A70 and the 3100 and yes, I had looked up
> > reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On the
> > http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face pictures
> > of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be let down,
> > I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100. It's
> > without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed out. Some
> > said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't makes
> > sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp? For point
> > & shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
> > processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
> >
> > Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the Fuji Finpix
> > A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That camera seems
> > to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then the 3100.
> > But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight going into
> > the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Smoothy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > newsoLHa.4256$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >
> >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
> >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> >>
> >>There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being much
> >>smaller and
> >>lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like battery
> >>charger or
> >>Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
> >>You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.
> >>
> >>
> >>Consider these two pictures:
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0139.JPG
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0014.JPG
> >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
> >>
> >>or these two:
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0161.JPG
> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0001.JPG
> >>Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
> >>
> >>
> >>(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement, and

> >
> > I
> >
> >>don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
> >>
> >>or these ones:
> >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/A70INFP1.HTM
> >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...CP31INFFP3.HTM
> >>Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
> >>
> >>You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics, but even

> >
> > in
> >
> >>same situations
> >>it's like this.
> >>
> >>I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear your
> >>opinins about this.
> >>
> >>Thanks for your reply.
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Tore Lund" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>
> >>>Smoothy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hi guys,
> >>>>
> >>>>In the following text, I'm talking about:
> >>>>Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
> >>>>&
> >>>>Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
> >>>>
> >>>>I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less

> >
> > noisy/less
> >
> >>>>grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
> >>>
> >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
> >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the
> >>>>online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
> >>>>newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
> >>>
> >>>I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind. I draw very different
> >>>conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
> >>>
> >>>For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation, and I
> >>>do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO and all
> >>>the missing controls. I just think the 3100 takes better pictures with
> >>>more natural colors than the A70. But I am quite willing to be
> >>>convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the superiority
> >>>of the A70.
> >>>--
> >>> Tore
> >>>
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

> The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image. Sharpening
> is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the
> camera before it's stored on the media. With the A70, things will go
> much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt to
> get them printed out. This can be a royal pain in the neck, but it's
> not an insurmountable problem in any way. There is also a low sharpen
> mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the
> sharpening by the DIGIC processor. I guess it's better in this case to
> have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much
> sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.


 
Reply With Quote
 
test
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2003
Ray, I believe you can adjust the amount of sharpening in the A70...

"Ray Clayton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Made my decision today! And I chose the A70. The 3100 is a little sharper,

but
> the handling and ergonomics REALLY suck. I shoot street/documentary stuff

so I
> need to be able to react quickly.
>
> And since I spend half my life in Photoshop-world.
>
> Anyway that's my story and I'm stickin' with it.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> Mad Viking wrote:
>
> > Kong wrote:
> >
> > > Hi. I am also torn between the A70 and the 3100 and yes, I had looked

up
> > > reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On the
> > > http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face

pictures
> > > of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be let

down,
> > > I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100.

It's
> > > without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed

out. Some
> > > said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't

makes
> > > sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp? For

point
> > > & shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
> > > processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the Fuji

Finpix
> > > A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That camera

seems
> > > to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then the

3100.
> > > But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight going

into
> > > the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Smoothy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > newsoLHa.4256$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > >
> > >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> > >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
> > >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> > >>
> > >>There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being

much
> > >>smaller and
> > >>lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like

battery
> > >>charger or
> > >>Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
> > >>You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Consider these two pictures:
> > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0139.JPG

> >
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0014.JPG
> > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
> > >>
> > >>or these two:
> > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0161.JPG

> >
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0001.JPG
> > >>Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement,

and
> > >
> > > I
> > >
> > >>don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
> > >>
> > >>or these ones:
> > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/A70INFP1.HTM
> > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...CP31INFFP3.HTM
> > >>Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
> > >>
> > >>You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics, but

even
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > >>same situations
> > >>it's like this.
> > >>
> > >>I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear your
> > >>opinins about this.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks for your reply.
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>"Tore Lund" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >>
> > >>>Smoothy wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hi guys,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>In the following text, I'm talking about:
> > >>>>Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
> > >>>>&
> > >>>>Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less
> > >
> > > noisy/less
> > >
> > >>>>grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
> > >>>
> > >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> > >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy the
> > >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the
> > >>>>online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
> > >>>>newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
> > >>>
> > >>>I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind. I draw very

different
> > >>>conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
> > >>>
> > >>>For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation, and

I
> > >>>do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO and

all
> > >>>the missing controls. I just think the 3100 takes better pictures

with
> > >>>more natural colors than the A70. But I am quite willing to be
> > >>>convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the

superiority
> > >>>of the A70.
> > >>>--
> > >>> Tore
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >

> > The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image. Sharpening
> > is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the
> > camera before it's stored on the media. With the A70, things will go
> > much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt to
> > get them printed out. This can be a royal pain in the neck, but it's
> > not an insurmountable problem in any way. There is also a low sharpen
> > mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the
> > sharpening by the DIGIC processor. I guess it's better in this case to
> > have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much
> > sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Zol.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2003
Hi, you can reduce the amount of in camera sharepening but not increase it
on the Canon A70 ... Zol.

"test" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bfne6v$efq$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ray, I believe you can adjust the amount of sharpening in the A70...
>
> "Ray Clayton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Made my decision today! And I chose the A70. The 3100 is a little

sharper,
> but
> > the handling and ergonomics REALLY suck. I shoot street/documentary

stuff
> so I
> > need to be able to react quickly.
> >
> > And since I spend half my life in Photoshop-world.
> >
> > Anyway that's my story and I'm stickin' with it.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> > Mad Viking wrote:
> >
> > > Kong wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi. I am also torn between the A70 and the 3100 and yes, I had

looked
> up
> > > > reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On

the
> > > > http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face

> pictures
> > > > of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be

let
> down,
> > > > I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100.

> It's
> > > > without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed

> out. Some
> > > > said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't

> makes
> > > > sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp?

For
> point
> > > > & shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
> > > > processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
> > > >
> > > > Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the Fuji

> Finpix
> > > > A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That

camera
> seems
> > > > to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then the

> 3100.
> > > > But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight going

> into
> > > > the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Smoothy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > newsoLHa.4256$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > > >
> > > >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> > > >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy

the
> > > >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> > > >>
> > > >>There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being

> much
> > > >>smaller and
> > > >>lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like

> battery
> > > >>charger or
> > > >>Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
> > > >>You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Consider these two pictures:
> > > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0139.JPG
> > >

>
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0014.JPG
> > > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
> > > >>
> > > >>or these two:
> > > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0161.JPG
> > >

>
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0001.JPG
> > > >>Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a

replacement,
> and
> > > >
> > > > I
> > > >
> > > >>don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
> > > >>
> > > >>or these ones:
> > > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/A70INFP1.HTM
> > > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...CP31INFFP3.HTM
> > > >>Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
> > > >>
> > > >>You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics, but

> even
> > > >
> > > > in
> > > >
> > > >>same situations
> > > >>it's like this.
> > > >>
> > > >>I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear

your
> > > >>opinins about this.
> > > >>
> > > >>Thanks for your reply.
> > > >>
> > > >>--
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>"Tore Lund" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > >>
> > > >>>Smoothy wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Hi guys,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>In the following text, I'm talking about:
> > > >>>>Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
> > > >>>>&
> > > >>>>Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less
> > > >
> > > > noisy/less
> > > >
> > > >>>>grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
> > > >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy

the
> > > >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all the
> > > >>>>online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
> > > >>>>newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind. I draw very

> different
> > > >>>conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation,

and
> I
> > > >>>do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO

and
> all
> > > >>>the missing controls. I just think the 3100 takes better pictures

> with
> > > >>>more natural colors than the A70. But I am quite willing to be
> > > >>>convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the

> superiority
> > > >>>of the A70.
> > > >>>--
> > > >>> Tore
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image.

Sharpening
> > > is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the
> > > camera before it's stored on the media. With the A70, things will go
> > > much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt to
> > > get them printed out. This can be a royal pain in the neck, but it's
> > > not an insurmountable problem in any way. There is also a low sharpen
> > > mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the
> > > sharpening by the DIGIC processor. I guess it's better in this case

to
> > > have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much
> > > sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.

> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
test
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2003
That's a real bummer! =)
Thanks!

"Zol." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:QPLTa.35122$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi, you can reduce the amount of in camera sharepening but not increase it
> on the Canon A70 ... Zol.
>
> "test" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bfne6v$efq$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Ray, I believe you can adjust the amount of sharpening in the A70...
> >
> > "Ray Clayton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > Made my decision today! And I chose the A70. The 3100 is a little

> sharper,
> > but
> > > the handling and ergonomics REALLY suck. I shoot street/documentary

> stuff
> > so I
> > > need to be able to react quickly.
> > >
> > > And since I spend half my life in Photoshop-world.
> > >
> > > Anyway that's my story and I'm stickin' with it.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mad Viking wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kong wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi. I am also torn between the A70 and the 3100 and yes, I had

> looked
> > up
> > > > > reviews etc but the A70 picture softness is a big issue to me. On

> the
> > > > > http://www.imaging-resource.com looking at the daylight full-face

> > pictures
> > > > > of the lady, it's very obvious that the 3100's is sharper. Not be

> let
> > down,
> > > > > I went down to the photo shop and took pic with both A70 and 3100.

> > It's
> > > > > without a doubt that the 3100's is a lot sharper with both printed

> > out. Some
> > > > > said that A70 didn't do much in-camera processing but that doesn't

> > makes
> > > > > sense. Which manufacturer wouldn't want their pics to look sharp?

> For
> > point
> > > > > & shoot consumer, I doubt they wanted to do much digital backroom
> > > > > processing. Sort of defeat the convenience issue. Doesn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just yesterday, I went to another photo shop and tried out the

Fuji
> > Finpix
> > > > > A310. Brand new model thats' cheaper then the A70 & 3100. That

> camera
> > seems
> > > > > to give even sharper pictures and the macro is even sharper then

the
> > 3100.
> > > > > But it's in a different shop, different day with more daylight

going
> > into
> > > > > the shop so that would matter, I supposed. Now I am confused.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Smoothy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > newsoLHa.4256$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > > > >
> > > > >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the

two
> > > > >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy

> the
> > > > >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100

being
> > much
> > > > >>smaller and
> > > > >>lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like

> > battery
> > > > >>charger or
> > > > >>Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
> > > > >>You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.


> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Consider these two pictures:
> > > >

>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0139.JPG
> > > >

> >

>
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0014.JPG
> > > > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>or these two:
> > > >

>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s/IMG_0161.JPG
> > > >

> >

>
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/DSCN0001.JPG
> > > > >>Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>(the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a

> replacement,
> > and
> > > > >
> > > > > I
> > > > >
> > > > >>don't think its picture quality is better than A60).
> > > > >>
> > > > >>or these ones:
> > > > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/A70INFP1.HTM
> > > >

>>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...CP31INFFP3.HTM
> > > > >>Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>You may say that lighting condition in different in these pics,

but
> > even
> > > > >
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > >>same situations
> > > > >>it's like this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I say again that maybe I'm wrong, and I'm more interested to hear

> your
> > > > >>opinins about this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Thanks for your reply.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>--
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"Tore Lund" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>Smoothy wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>Hi guys,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>In the following text, I'm talking about:
> > > > >>>>Nikon 2100 vs. Canon A60 ---> 2 MP range
> > > > >>>>&
> > > > >>>>Nikon 3100 vs. Canon A70 ---> 3 MP range
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>I have noted that pictures taken with Canon are "clearer/less
> > > > >
> > > > > noisy/less
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>grainy" than the ones taken with Nikon.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the

two
> > > > >>>Canons and no one the two Nikons. Still, quite a few people buy

> the
> > > > >>>Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>(I haven't compared myself, but this is my conclusion from all

the
> > > > >>>>online reviews I've read, notes and replies from you in these
> > > > >>>>newsgroups, and sample pictures I've seen)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>I wonder which sample pictures you have in mind. I draw very

> > different
> > > > >>>conclusions from the ones that I have sen.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>For my own part I may buy a Nikon 3100 for my upcoming vacation,

> and
> > I
> > > > >>>do that IN SPITE OF my irritation over things like automatic ISO

> and
> > all
> > > > >>>the missing controls. I just think the 3100 takes better

pictures
> > with
> > > > >>>more natural colors than the A70. But I am quite willing to be
> > > > >>>convinced that I am wrong if you have clear evidence of the

> > superiority
> > > > >>>of the A70.
> > > > >>>--
> > > > >>> Tore
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > The A70 did indeed give less image processing on that image.

> Sharpening
> > > > is, to some degree, an effect applied by the image processor in the
> > > > camera before it's stored on the media. With the A70, things will

go
> > > > much better if the images are manually sharpened before you attempt

to
> > > > get them printed out. This can be a royal pain in the neck, but

it's
> > > > not an insurmountable problem in any way. There is also a low

sharpen
> > > > mode in the effects selection so you can even further reduce the
> > > > sharpening by the DIGIC processor. I guess it's better in this case

> to
> > > > have too little than too much, as if you try to apply too much
> > > > sharpening to any image, you get noise (artifacts), and distortion.
> > >

> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2003
In message <QPLTa.35122$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Zol." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi, you can reduce the amount of in camera sharepening but not increase it
>on the Canon A70 ... Zol.


That's just from an arbitrary frame of reference. *All* RAW -> JPEG or
RAW -> TIFF conversions include sharpening decisions. Where they put
the zero point on the scale is totally arbitrary. It's all relative.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2003
In message <t2RTa.36626$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Zol." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>That`s just taking this out of context - we were on about the A70 in
>particular and the fact it has normal or low sharpening ... Zol.


.... and what that camera calls "normal" sharpening may be as much as
what another cameras calls "high" or another camera doesn't even sharpen
to at all. See?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, Nikon D2X with FILM gnnyman Digital Photography 13 07-05-2005 02:54 PM
Nikon 8800 vs Nikon 990 vs Canon 8MP Rebel vs Nikon D70 fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com Digital Photography 10 06-07-2005 06:53 PM
canon sd100 settings for best picture quality help! MtK Digital Photography 0 01-31-2004 05:03 PM
Canon S230/S400/A70 - same picture quality? ed Digital Photography 6 11-03-2003 01:43 AM
Re: Canon vs. Nikon ---> Picture quality John Navas Digital Photography 0 07-24-2003 05:57 AM



Advertisments