Canon Eos 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jim Townsend, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. Monochrome MPs (Bayer) vs. Color MPs (Foveon).

    It is extrememly simple.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Monochrome MPs (Bayer) vs. Color MPs (Foveon).

    It is extrememly simple.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Monochrome MPs (Bayer) vs. Color MPs (Foveon).

    It is extremely simple.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 14, 2004
  4. Monochrome MPs (Bayer) vs. Color MPs (Foveon).

    It is extrememly simple.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 14, 2004
  5. Monochrome MPs (Bayer) vs. Color MPs (Foveon).

    It is extremely simple.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 14, 2004
  6. Posting the same lies 15 times does not make it so.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 14, 2004
  7. Monochrome MPs (Bayer) vs. Color MPs (Foveon).

    It is extremely simple.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 14, 2004
  8. Jim Townsend

    Jan Rychter Guest

    nospam> speaking dancing around things, the differences that previously
    nospam> did not matter are now important enough to install an
    nospam> unsupported hack to obtain them? clearly, the differences
    nospam> matter, just like skip said.

    nospam> futhermore, the hack voids the warranty and does not fix the
    nospam> smaller buffer or build quality.

    How does it void the warranty? Can't you just go back to the original
    firmware if you need warranty services?

    --J.
     
    Jan Rychter, Jul 14, 2004
  9. Jim Townsend

    JeffS Guest

    While I've never had a problem with my 300D, I did take it into a local
    service center to see if they could tell I'd been using the hack. They
    could not. As long as you follow the directions, you can reinstall the
    approved Canon firmware without problems and the camera reverts to its
    normal set of features. If you don't follow the directions, then the
    camera doesn't revert properly and the use of the hack can be obvious.
    This would indeed void the warranty.

    Jeff
     
    JeffS, Jul 14, 2004
  10. Weight savings are offset by optical flaws due to small lenses. Not to
    mention smaller sensor = more noise.
    They're hardly bulky considering the image quality they give is vastly
    superior to compact optics.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 14, 2004
  11. []
    mention smaller sensor = more noise.

    I don't see the present small lenses having significantly greater optical
    flaws than 35mm lenses. Manufacturing tolerances would be smaller,
    though.

    I don't mind the noise! I think that some people are obsessed with that
    is, to me, a relatively small and acceptable noise level (in the top 5MP
    cameras).
    superior to compact optics.

    Yes, to me they _are_ bulky. In the Nikon Coolpix 5700 I have a camera
    with a 35 - 280 mm zoom weighing just 1lb 12oz total - camera, lens,
    bettery and CF card. You simply could not match that with 35mm optics.

    I want to have the choice of smaller lenses and judge for myself whether
    noise and quality are adequate, and not have 35mm lenses forced upon me.
    Such lenses may even be too good for my needs.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 14, 2004
  12. Chromatic aberration, sharpness and light transfer are all problems
    encountered with small lenses. To make them on par with 35 mm lenses,
    you have to invest more cash into materials.
    But as you increase resolution (as the market demands) smaller sensors
    inevitably will produce more noise until new technologies are created to
    compensate for them. Even then, a larger sensor utilizing the same
    technology will have a better signal to noise ratio than the small
    sensor.
    Yet you can't match the image quality of 35 mm lenses with the Nikon
    Coolpix. They're on completely different levels.
    Well, if you're happy with the image quality of the current range of
    point and shoot cameras and can live with having to dump everything each
    time you upgrade - more power to you. But the comparison of image
    quality and flexibility isn't valid - you're talking about two different
    levels. 4/3s isn't likely to meet your needs any better than the
    existing crop of 35 mm lenses if you're unconcerned about noise, upgrade
    path or the absolute best image quality.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 14, 2004
  13. Jim Townsend

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It's simple, but it's wrong. Bayer cameras do not sense or "sene" any
    full-color pixels at all, nor do they need to. The "full-RGB-color"
    sampled pixel is not the "atom" of digital photography. It is the atom
    of the RGB raster bitmap.

    A "6MP" Bayer camera senses or "senes" the luminance of 6M locations,
    and has less resolution of color, in a ratio which more than enough
    color resolution when viewed at the limits of luminance resolution.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 15, 2004
  14. Jim Townsend

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    No; they're all filtering for color.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 15, 2004
  15. []
    I don't see why. Yes, manufacturing tolerances are tighter, but why is
    light transfer a problem, for example?
    I don't expect this - 5 - 8MP may well be enough for many purposes. I
    expect to see innovation in directions other than pixel count.
    If the sensor is only 5MP, there is no need for the higher image quality
    of a 35mm lens. Resolvable pixels in the image is what matters.
    The only thing I need to dump is the camera. The cost is about the same
    as one decent 35mm lens.
    I suspect you are right about 4/3 - from the small amount I have seen
    about 4/3 it does not strike me as having gone far enough in the direction
    I would like to see. I think you are pessimistic, though, about the
    quality of images that can be obtained from today's top-of-the-range
    point-and-shoot cameras. For many purposes, the quality is more than
    adequate. I do accept that under some circumstances, a 35mm DLSR could do
    better, but for me the frequency of those circumstances don't justify the
    extra expense, bulk and inconvenience.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 15, 2004
  16. Jim Townsend

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Sure, but the noise levels of compact cameras are _low enough_ for most
    purposes, if you shoot at the lowest ISO (and to a certain extent at
    higher ISO also).
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 15, 2004
  17. As I've said before, ISO 50 is really painfully slow. Since you can have the
    same quality images at ISO 800, putting up with ISO 50 seems pretty silly.

    And if you want to play the Photoshop games where you bring up the shadow
    areas (by applying different curves to different parts of the image), you
    really want lower noise in the shadows than the consumer cameras can
    provide. For example, in your cathedral pictures if you hadn't blown out the
    highlights, with a dSLR you could bring up the shadows by two or three f
    stops.

    Also, as I've said before: this discussion happened before when it was the
    F707 vs. the D30. When you look closely at the images, the F707 was a joke
    compared to the D30. But that was three years ago, and the current consumer
    cameras are _worse_ than the F707, and the 300D is a lot better than the
    D30.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 15, 2004
  18. Jim Townsend

    Chris Brown Guest

    I think what we're learning is that what was true for film is also true for
    digital - there's no competing with a larger sensing area. It's just that
    with digital, everything is scaled down a bit.

    Ultimately, once the market matures, I suspect DLSRs are set to become the
    "medium format" of digital photography, especially when the economy of
    scale makes 1.3x 10+ megapixel sensors in a 10D-type camera feasible.
     
    Chris Brown, Jul 15, 2004
  19. More vignetting, etc. etc. The limits of small lenses in the current
    crop of point and shoots is fairly well documented.
    People will want more pixels because it will allow more flexibility in
    cropping and printing the final image. However, increased noise is a
    problem with small sensors, and any camera that can't give low noise at
    ISO 400 isn't flexible enough for most shooters.
    But as I said, no one wants to stop at 5 MP.
    The lens is a one time cost. You can use it with future cameras with
    better technology. It's a sound investment, especially from the point
    of image quality.
    Sure, there are some great point and shoots that can give you great
    pictures. I did a bunch of product photos with a Canon G2 that looked
    terrific. However, point and shoots do have their limitations such as
    shutter lag, slow AF and limited focal length. A DSLR might not be the
    most convenient choice for everyone, but it does provide higher image
    quality, quicker shutter times and more versatility.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
  20. I'd say that low noise at ISO 400 should be the minimum standard for
    digital point and shoots. Sadly, many of the newer high resolution
    models fail miserably at this point.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.