Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Anybody here using the Canon Pro 1???

Reply
Thread Tools

Anybody here using the Canon Pro 1???

 
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2005
I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
(gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review sites
to go by.

Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody have
any practical experience with this???

There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise that
can be lived with.

AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)et says...
> I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review sites
> to go by.
>
> Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody have
> any practical experience with this???
>
> There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise that
> can be lived with.
>
> AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
> that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??
>
>
>

That was supposed to be "anything higher than ISO 100 unusable in the Sony.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Weaver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2005

"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
>I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review
> sites
> to go by.
>
> Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody
> have
> any practical experience with this???
>
> There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise
> that
> can be lived with.
>
> AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
> that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??
>


I've been shooting with a Pro1 for about a year. Daylight shots at ISO 50
are stunning--very close to DSLR quality, IMHO. 100 is still very good, but
digicam good rather than DSLR good. As for ISO 400 -- certainly it's not
ideal, but with a bit of noise reduction, I find it is possible to get shots
that I consider very usable. I doubt it's *very* different from the 828 in
this respect (it's the same sensor--the only differences would be in the
in-camera image processing).

The Pro1 is certainly not a perfect camera, but I'm very happy with the
combination of compactness and image quality (if I had a DSLR I'd rarely
bother to carry it--the film SLR that's been sitting on my closet shelf for
10 years is testimony to that). The camera has lots of other nice
attributes as well--body is very solidly built, the articulated LCD is
great, RAW shooting is fast--I think it's going to keep me happy for a quite
a while yet.

When you get it, do make sure you have the upgraded firmware.

Mark



 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> "Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> >I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> > (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review
> > sites
> > to go by.
> >
> > Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody
> > have
> > any practical experience with this???
> >
> > There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise
> > that
> > can be lived with.
> >
> > AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
> > that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??
> >

>
> I've been shooting with a Pro1 for about a year. Daylight shots at ISO 50
> are stunning--very close to DSLR quality, IMHO. 100 is still very good, but
> digicam good rather than DSLR good. As for ISO 400 -- certainly it's not
> ideal, but with a bit of noise reduction, I find it is possible to get shots
> that I consider very usable. I doubt it's *very* different from the 828 in
> this respect (it's the same sensor--the only differences would be in the
> in-camera image processing).
>
> The Pro1 is certainly not a perfect camera, but I'm very happy with the
> combination of compactness and image quality (if I had a DSLR I'd rarely
> bother to carry it--the film SLR that's been sitting on my closet shelf for
> 10 years is testimony to that). The camera has lots of other nice
> attributes as well--body is very solidly built, the articulated LCD is
> great, RAW shooting is fast--I think it's going to keep me happy for a quite
> a while yet.
>
> When you get it, do make sure you have the upgraded firmware.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>

What has the upgrade got???

Ive got a limited connection tonight and cant go to any websites ...

Only thing working is comcast homepage and giganews.comcast so I cant
investigate myself (though I probably could tomorrow.

I dont know whats wrong with the isp, I cant get through on the trouble call
number.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ecm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2005
Same thing with Comcast broadband.here in Utah. Weird; last time
anything like this happened it was during that huge DOS attack a
couple of years ago. I'd guess something was triggered this evening.

ECM

 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Same thing with Comcast broadband.here in Utah. Weird; last time
> anything like this happened it was during that huge DOS attack a
> couple of years ago. I'd guess something was triggered this evening.
>
> ECM
>
>


Its working here in Connecticut now at 5AM Friday, but its still slow, and
some urls arent working.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
TAFKAB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2005

"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> (E-Mail Removed)et says...
>> I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
>> (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review
>> sites
>> to go by.
>>
>> Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody
>> have
>> any practical experience with this???
>>
>> There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise
>> that
>> can be lived with.
>>
>> AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is
>> it
>> that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??
>>
>>
>>

> That was supposed to be "anything higher than ISO 100 unusable in the
> Sony.


With a program like Neat Image, the Sony is usable up to 400.

>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.



 
Reply With Quote
 
TAFKAB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2005

"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
>I only asked this because Im about to recieve one in the next week or so
> (gift from an old friend, new in the box), snd I have only the review
> sites
> to go by.
>
> Dpreview shows it to be as noisy as my F-828 at ISO 400.. Does anybody
> have
> any practical experience with this???
>
> There is noise thats bad enough to destroy a photo, and there is noise
> that
> can be lived with.
>
> AFAIC the noise in the Sony makes anything higher than ISO unusable, is it
> that objectionable in the Canon Pro1??


No, but the incredibly bad AF system is objectionable! If you're used to the
Sony, the Canon will drive you crazy. Constant hunting, slow response, etc.
Take a look at the "timings" page in the review (DP Review) for proof.

>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Weaver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2005
"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> What has the upgrade got???
>


The most important changes have to do with AF--AF is faster now. Also in
the original version, the LCD viewfinder would freeze briefly during AF,
which was pretty annoying with moving subjects. Now if you stay in
'continuous' AF mode, there's no viewfinder glitch.

Also, FWIW, if you care about the movie mode, there's now a hacked version
of the new firmware that replaces a 30 second limit with a 3 minute limit.

> Ive got a limited connection tonight and cant go to any websites ...
>
> Only thing working is comcast homepage and giganews.comcast so I cant
> investigate myself (though I probably could tomorrow.
>
> I dont know whats wrong with the isp, I cant get through on the trouble
> call
> number.
>


There seemed to be some major problem last night. I have Comcast in MI and
DNS lookups weren't working.

Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> The most important changes have to do with AF--AF is faster now. Also in
> the original version, the LCD viewfinder would freeze briefly during AF,
> which was pretty annoying with moving subjects. Now if you stay in
> 'continuous' AF mode, there's no viewfinder glitch.
>
> Also, FWIW, if you care about the movie mode, there's now a hacked version
> of the new firmware that replaces a 30 second limit with a 3 minute limit.
>
> > Ive got a limited connection tonight and cant go to any websites ...
> >
> > Only thing working is comcast homepage and giganews.comcast so I cant
> > investigate myself (though I probably could tomorrow.
> >
> > I dont know whats wrong with the isp, I cant get through on the trouble
> > call
> > number.
> >

>
> There seemed to be some major problem last night. I have Comcast in MI and
> DNS lookups weren't working.
>
> Mark
>


Ive got a digital "Handycam" for video, so I dont give it any consideration
when getting a still camera..

The only ISO 400 shots Ive seen from the Canon are whats on Dpreview.. and it
looked a little better than the Sony (the noise is there in the Canon shot,
it just doesn't seem quite the same, and its more easily removed without
makeng the picture look "plastic", but then its not the same picture as any
Ive taken with the Sony, so I guess I'll have to wait and find out.

I had heard the slow focus, and the "freezing evf" were fixed in later
production runs (they were most likely refering to the new firmware), so Ill
be sure to check and upgrade if needed.

I read this AM that the fix reduses lag by about 30% in Constant Auto Focus
mode.. that would put it in the same ballpark as the Sony, if not on the
same base.

What Im hoping for is to get the color quality of the Canon, and less
fringing than the Sony. Sample shots at Dpreview showed less fringing with
the Canon.

Im hoping the are different enough that I can use each for what it does best.

You cant beat the Sony focus assist laser in a darkened room with a good
flash at ISO 100!

If Sony ever builds a DSLR that focus assist would be a selling point.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
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
Well worth reading: "I was wondering if anybody on here has had any problems with there Canon 5D MKII" . Web address inside. Griffin Digital Photography 1 06-11-2010 12:06 AM
anybody here using ActiveRDF? Damaris Fuentes Ruby 3 01-21-2007 08:46 PM
Semi-OT: Anybody using CuteFTP Pro with Norton's Personal Firewall? (Pete Cresswell) HTML 3 10-20-2004 03:29 PM
Is anybody here familiar with the Java certification program? JK Java 1 09-27-2004 11:01 PM



Advertisments