Official: Nikon D3s the new benchmark in DSLR low noise capability
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: ACDSee 3.0 Pro + Nikon D90
Next: Then end of FF bulk?
From: Pete on 20 Feb 2010 09:36 Bruce wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:01:28 -0800 (PST), BD <robert.drea(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> I guess that's why P&S cameras beat the resolution and images from a >>> Canon >>> 7D. That says a whole lot for all other brands and models of DSLRs then >>> if >>> the 7D is setting a standard for DSLRs. >>> >>> http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/ >> >>I posted a link to that article quite awhile ago, when I was concerned >>about the 7D's image quality. >> >>I'm not concerned any longer. >> >>In the past few months, the only article I've seen posted which >>asserts any negative feedback about the 7D's IQ is the Wiggett >>article. >> >>That fact alone is pretty telling. > > > This is always a problem when testing a single sample, whether it be a > camera, a lens or anything else. No matter which price bracket the > item is in, there will always be sample variation. And the Wiggett > test is clearly of a sample that did not achieve the expected > standard. It should have been exchanged for another sample. It was, twice: see "A Second and Third 7D Body" in link above. > As you say, every other article on the 7D is very positive. It is a > fine camera, and Nikon has a real job on its hands to match it. Nikon > also needs to respond to the entry-level EOS 550D/Rebel T2i which > appears to use the same sensor as the 7D. As you both say, other articles are positive. Just because there's a very small chance of getting three duff bodies doesn't mean it didn't happen to Wiggett, a fourth, fifth and so on, may have produced better results. There is the possibilty that something other than the 7D performance affected the result. Most tests/reviews use pseudoscience, especially in that the claims can neither be proved nor disproved independently. Pete
From: John Sheehy on 20 Feb 2010 14:06 D.J. <nocontact(a)noaddress.com> wrote in news:lvuun55fnths415r38dktnntj8iticrgfp(a)4ax.com: > It's not his opinion that I depend on, I never depend on anyone's > opinion. It's the comparison photos posted that say more than you or > anyone else ever will. The loudest thing it says is that zero sharpening in the converter was actually a blur, not zero sharpening. Anyone who uses "zero sharpening" as reported by a converter, as a basis of equality, doesn't know what they're doing. Different cameras can have wildly differeng meanings of sharpening, and "zero sharpening", even in the same converter.
From: FrankS on 20 Feb 2010 17:39
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:36:35 -0000, "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.com> wrote: >Bruce wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:01:28 -0800 (PST), BD <robert.drea(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>> I guess that's why P&S cameras beat the resolution and images from a >>>> Canon >>>> 7D. That says a whole lot for all other brands and models of DSLRs then >>>> if >>>> the 7D is setting a standard for DSLRs. >>>> >>>> http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/ >>> >>>I posted a link to that article quite awhile ago, when I was concerned >>>about the 7D's image quality. >>> >>>I'm not concerned any longer. >>> >>>In the past few months, the only article I've seen posted which >>>asserts any negative feedback about the 7D's IQ is the Wiggett >>>article. >>> >>>That fact alone is pretty telling. >> >> >> This is always a problem when testing a single sample, whether it be a >> camera, a lens or anything else. No matter which price bracket the >> item is in, there will always be sample variation. And the Wiggett >> test is clearly of a sample that did not achieve the expected >> standard. It should have been exchanged for another sample. > >It was, twice: see "A Second and Third 7D Body" in link above. > >> As you say, every other article on the 7D is very positive. It is a >> fine camera, and Nikon has a real job on its hands to match it. Nikon >> also needs to respond to the entry-level EOS 550D/Rebel T2i which >> appears to use the same sensor as the 7D. > >As you both say, other articles are positive. Just because there's a very >small chance of getting three duff bodies doesn't mean it didn't happen to >Wiggett, a fourth, fifth and so on, may have produced better results. There >is the possibilty that something other than the 7D performance affected the >result. Most tests/reviews use pseudoscience, especially in that the claims >can neither be proved nor disproved independently. > >Pete > The "other articles'" positive reviews doesn't detract in any way from Wiggett's findings. Unless the "other articles" are also comparing the 7D to the same P&S cameras nobody can tell how they compare. "See? Those images are just fine! As long as we don't compare them to a P&S camera we can still feel all warm and fuzzy about our shiny new DSLR." Out of sight--out of their minds. Putting their blinders on to justify their favored product has never been more apparent than this. Lower your hemlines, girls, your biased conflict-of-interests are showing. |