Anybody here using the Canon Pro 1???

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Larry, Apr 7, 2005.

  1. Larry

    Larry Guest

    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.
    Larry, Apr 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Larry

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    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.
    Larry, Apr 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Larry

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
    Mark Weaver, Apr 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Larry

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > "Larry" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >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.
    Larry, Apr 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Larry

    ecm Guest

    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
    ecm, Apr 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Larry

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    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.
    Larry, Apr 8, 2005
    #6
  7. Larry

    TAFKAB Guest

    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > 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.
    TAFKAB, Apr 8, 2005
    #7
  8. Larry

    TAFKAB Guest

    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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.
    TAFKAB, Apr 8, 2005
    #8
  9. Larry

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Larry" <> 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
    Mark Weaver, Apr 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Larry

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    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.
    Larry, Apr 8, 2005
    #10
  11. Larry

    Larry Guest

    In article <42566562$0$39949$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Larry" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <>,
    > > 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.

    >
    >
    >


    I've never liked what the Sonys pictures look like after "neat Image" or
    "noise ninja" too "FLAT" and "Featureless".

    As I think I said before, from what I've seen posted of the
    Canons ISO 400 pictures, the noise is more like "grain" and less like "color
    speckles" than what Ive been getting from the Sony at higher ISO.

    I've used some ISO 200 shots from the 828, but not ISO 400.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Apr 8, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. serge
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    393
    Bob B
    Jun 12, 2005
  2. Synapse Syndrome

    Anybody here live in the Isle of Man?

    Synapse Syndrome, Jul 7, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,060
    Dr. Bill
    Jul 8, 2005
  3. Ovid

    Anybody here own a Sony Mavica-CD350?

    Ovid, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    382
  4. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    542
    Allan
    Oct 13, 2005
  5. PeeVee_Hermann

    Anybody here buy a Dell computer?

    PeeVee_Hermann, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    344
    THEOLDONE
    Apr 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page