Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b

 
 
Mike Henley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004
Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)

Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Renee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004

"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
> Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)
>
> Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
> Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)



You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.

This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
"the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,
etc.

Although I have entirely different type of Canon, on my Canon the AWB
setting makes my photos come out a little more orange.

When I use the TUNGSTEN preset indoors, not AWB, the photo color comes out
fine.

I'd guess that the Canon 20D D-SLR has settings similar to my Canon SLR-type
model.

Even I know (as one who doesn't know much about cameras) that you have to
experiment with some of the settings instead of just using AUTOMATIC mode
for everything.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael A. Covington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004

"Renee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:nHfkd.11661$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.
>
> This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
> through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
> "the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
> doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
> The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,
> etc.


Sounds like HP simply chose to allow the camera to make much larger changes
in automatic mode. That is something that would annoy a professional
photographer, though it's handy for casual snapshooting. The pro would want
the automatic changes to be relatively small so as not to produce unexpected
results.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Will M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004
You truly don't know anything do you Mike?

Study photography and learn something about colour temperature.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004
You need to type less and do a little bit more research.



"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
> Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)
>
> Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
> Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jaxak
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004
My Ferrari does not have a traction control, so the wheels spin if I his the
gas pedal too much. Friends BMW has it, shame shame on you Ferrari. Because
this is a photoforum, I should also add that I don't own a digital camera,
because I'm too stupid to use it

"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
> Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)
>
> Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
> Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)



 
Reply With Quote
 
Des Perado
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004

"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
>


I do wish people would steer clear of subjects they obviously do not
understand.

I do wish people would learn that the subject line is for a brief subject
line and not for an essay.



 
Reply With Quote
 
BG250
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004
Cameras that try to get white balance right in every situation are actually
not desirable. Say your taking a picture of wood furniture of a light color,
like the natural wood. White balance could be tricked into thinking it is
incandescent light and make the wood look dull grey. Serious photogs will
manually set the WB or use Kelvin if the camera supports that.
bg


"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
> Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)
>
> Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
> Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)



 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004
"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
> Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)
>
> Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
> Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)


Dude, why did you even bother to type anything in the message box? Your
subject line didn't even fit on my 19" monitor. Geez, keep it short.
And next time, don't troll.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Henley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2004
"Renee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<nHfkd.11661$(E-Mail Removed) m>...
> "Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
> > Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)
> >
> > Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
> > Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)

>
>
> You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.
>
> This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
> through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
> "the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
> doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
> The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,
> etc.
>
> Although I have entirely different type of Canon, on my Canon the AWB
> setting makes my photos come out a little more orange.
>
> When I use the TUNGSTEN preset indoors, not AWB, the photo color comes out
> fine.
>
> I'd guess that the Canon 20D D-SLR has settings similar to my Canon SLR-type
> model.
>
> Even I know (as one who doesn't know much about cameras) that you have to
> experiment with some of the settings instead of just using AUTOMATIC mode
> for everything.


I fully understood that this was the AWB when I posted, but what you
don't seem to understand is that there is no universal "tungsten" or
"fluorescent" light situation that a preset will get right all the
time. Each light pulp is different; a different intensity of tungsten
or fluorescent or whatever or even a mixture of more than one light
source in the situation. Even when you do a custom/manual white
balance in-camera in-situ, or even if you do it in post-processing
using a white object in the image, there's rarely ever a decidedly
"white" thing in reality. You can use a white balance slider
afterwards in post-processing to correct it, but then it'd be
different for each lighting situation or angle on a lighting
situation, and you'd be messing with something that could've and
should've been gotten right the first time, at a great expense of
time, and you'll be doing it to your liking rather than how it
*really* is, which to me means that you just won't be getting it right
no matter how "fine" it looks unless it's exactly like the natural.

In my experience, and I've been testing this over the past week
between an HP camera and a major japanese manufacturer's camera that's
much more expensive and I got with the intention of upgrading to it
from the HP but now won't be keeping, if a camera won't get it right
in the auto setting it won't get it right with a preset either. Now
you may get it to "come out fine", but "fine" is not good enough, and
especially when you put images from the two cameras next to each other
(I could show you the images if you want to), and, quite importantly,
especially when you're dealing with skintones. I will not have any
respect for a camera that can't get skintones right, and will make me
have to go through sliders, curves, histograms, and swatches for each
individual image when another much cheaper cameara will just get them
consistently right time after time and regardless of light source.
(yes, there's more to skintones than just white balance, but white
balance is one thing that shouldn't be screwed up)

The HP too has presets and manual/custom if you wish to switch off
auto and use those, but it also has an auto white balance that DOES
work, eventhough it's budget-priced even for a P&S. The Canon 20D
doesn't, and Canon should be totally ashamed of that, and no bullshit
excuses from the Canon apologists will do.
 
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
3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLSFOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING ANDMAINTAINING... Oanh Bui C++ 0 04-27-2009 12:51 PM
3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLSFOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING ANDMAINTAINING... Oanh Bui C Programming 0 04-27-2009 12:51 PM
3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLSFOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING ANDMAINTAINING... Oanh Bui Python 0 04-27-2009 12:46 PM
Pentax should be ashamed Rich Digital Photography 25 10-12-2007 05:12 AM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM



Advertisments