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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mad Viking, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. Mad Viking

    Mad Viking Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > news:DoLHa.4256$...
    >
    >>>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_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
    >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
    >>
    >>or these two:
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/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/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
    >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/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" <> wrote in message
    >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$...
    >>
    >>>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.
    Mad Viking, Jul 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mad Viking

    Ray Clayton Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > > news:DoLHa.4256$...
    > >
    > >>>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_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
    > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
    > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
    > >>
    > >>or these two:
    > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
    > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/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/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
    > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/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" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$...
    > >>
    > >>>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.
    Ray Clayton, Jul 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mad Viking

    Ray Clayton Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > > news:DoLHa.4256$...
    > >
    > >>>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_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
    > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
    > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
    > >>
    > >>or these two:
    > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
    > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/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/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
    > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/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" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$...
    > >>
    > >>>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.
    Ray Clayton, Jul 24, 2003
    #3
  4. Mad Viking

    test Guest

    Ray, I believe you can adjust the amount of sharpening in the A70...

    "Ray Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:DoLHa.4256$...
    > > >
    > > >>>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_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG

    > >
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
    > > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
    > > >>
    > > >>or these two:
    > > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG

    > >
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/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/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
    > > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/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" <> wrote in message
    > > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$...
    > > >>
    > > >>>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.

    >
    test, Jul 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Mad Viking

    Zol. Guest

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

    "test" <> wrote in message
    news:bfne6v$efq$...
    > Ray, I believe you can adjust the amount of sharpening in the A70...
    >
    > "Ray Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:DoLHa.4256$...
    > > > >
    > > > >>>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_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
    > > >

    >
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
    > > > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
    > > > >>
    > > > >>or these two:
    > > > >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
    > > >

    >
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/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/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
    > > > >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/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" <> wrote in message
    > > > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$...
    > > > >>
    > > > >>>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.

    > >

    >
    >
    Zol., Jul 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Mad Viking

    test Guest

    That's a real bummer! =)
    Thanks!

    "Zol." <> wrote in message
    news:QPLTa.35122$...
    > Hi, you can reduce the amount of in camera sharepening but not increase it
    > on the Canon A70 ... Zol.
    >
    > "test" <> wrote in message
    > news:bfne6v$efq$...
    > > Ray, I believe you can adjust the amount of sharpening in the A70...
    > >
    > > "Ray Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > 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" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:DoLHa.4256$...
    > > > > >
    > > > > >>>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_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
    > > > >

    > >

    >
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
    > > > > >>Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >>or these two:
    > > > >

    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
    > > > >

    > >

    >
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/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/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
    > > > >

    >>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/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" <> wrote in message
    > > > > >>news:bcnp8t$l156a$...
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >>>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.
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    test, Jul 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Mad Viking

    Guest

    In message <QPLTa.35122$>,
    "Zol." <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jul 24, 2003
    #7
  8. Mad Viking

    Guest

    In message <t2RTa.36626$>,
    "Zol." <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jul 24, 2003
    #8
    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. John Navas

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

    John Navas, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    358
    John Navas
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. ed

    Canon S230/S400/A70 - same picture quality?

    ed, Oct 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    404
    Dave Martindale
    Nov 3, 2003
  3. MtK
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
  4. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    910
    Joseph Miller
    Jun 7, 2005
  5. gnnyman
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    778
    Scott W
    Jul 5, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page