Prev: Life Expectancy of Cheaper Digital Cameras
Next: Nicely Posed in the Snowstorm
From: Savageduck on 8 Feb 2010 09:32
On 2010-02-08 04:56:03 -0800, DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> said:

> On Feb 8, 3:38�am, Wally <Wa...(a)luxx.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, the 7D sucks for landscape photography. Check out Darwin
>> Wiggett's review.
>>
>> Wally.
>
> That site maintains 1000D is better than 7D with the same TS lens.
> I cannot undestand why he did not use a standar kit lens.
> And then goes on to compare the 7D with a G11 and say IQ is the same.
>
> See this
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras
> /(appareil1)/329%7C0/(appareil2)/268%7C0/(appareil3)/334%7C0/(onglet)/0/(br
> and)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon
>
> DanP

The interesting thing with the Darwin Wiggett 7D review "he who shall
reman nameless" keeps citing as a definitive P&S vs. DSLR comparison,
is the final result in favor of the D300, not the G11 or 7D.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Chris Malcolm on 8 Feb 2010 10:10
Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 04:38, Wally wrote:

>> The 18-55mm IS kit lens works great for many, but others malign it for
>> being a mere kit lens. The more expensive 17-85mm attracts much less
>> criticism but is no better optically than the kit.

> I do have the 18-55 IS and while it is on the whole a very fine lens for
> the price, I recently found that its distortion at 18mm is quite visible
> and too complex to correct by software (it's not a plain
> barrel/pincushion distortion). OTOH Canon announced a "new" 17-85 with
> the 7D, that is said to be better that the previous one.

You mean it's too complex to correct with simple generic correction
software. It should be easily correctable by software which has a
database of the specific aberrations of each camera and lens
combination, and corrects complex types of distortion, such as PTLens
and I believe DXO.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Chris Malcolm on 8 Feb 2010 10:13
Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
> On 2010-02-08 04:56:03 -0800, DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> said:

>> On Feb 8, 3:38am, Wally <Wa...(a)luxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, the 7D sucks for landscape photography. Check out Darwin
>>> Wiggett's review.
>>>
>>> Wally.
>>
>> That site maintains 1000D is better than 7D with the same TS lens.
>> I cannot undestand why he did not use a standar kit lens.
>> And then goes on to compare the 7D with a G11 and say IQ is the same.
>>
>> See this
>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras
>> /(appareil1)/329%7C0/(appareil2)/268%7C0/(appareil3)/334%7C0/(onglet)/0/(br
>> and)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon
>>
>> DanP

> The interesting thing with the Darwin Wiggett 7D review "he who shall
> reman nameless" keeps citing as a definitive P&S vs. DSLR comparison,
> is the final result in favor of the D300, not the G11 or 7D.

None of the trolls much cited reviews actually support the troll's
views, they contradict them. So either the troll hasn't read them, or
can't find anything which does support its views, and hopes you won't
read them. Since this has been pointed out many time to the troll, and
the troll hasn't changed its citations, I incline to the latter view.

--
Chris Malcolm
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Life Expectancy of Cheaper Digital Cameras
Next: Nicely Posed in the Snowstorm