I've looked at some samples from various sites and I personally find the moiré unacceptable. Noise performance was much better, sharpness, color and resolution good.
Some people in the Kodak SLR forum already have one don't they?
The mark 2 isn't due out until later this month I think. The auto noise reduction looked like a real draw back in the first edition of this camera. Along with the Moire issues.
There are two fantastic sites I recommend you visit:
//www.epinions.com - you can search for digital cameras by price, by megapixel and by zoom lens.
You can then view product details and see reviews from users who bought the camera (kind of like Amazon.com reviews).
The other site is //www.imaging-resource.com/ There are unbelievably detailed reviews for almost every digital camera on the market. The cameras are tested by an expert and have to pass various criteria. It's an excellent source of information for digital photography.
Right, the in camera software auto matically reduced what it perceived as noise.. so there was unitentional loss of actual detail. That is a major issue as far as I'm concerned..
I'd want to be sure that wasn't going to happen before I bought a camera.
10d, 1ds, both suffer from moire you know... and you'll find the software does a damn fine job :-)
also do you use usm? why would you with your point of view?
10d, 1ds, both suffer from moire you know... and you'll find the software does a damn fine job :-)
also do you use usm? why would you with your point of view?
Both make the image look better...
Exscuse me? I'm saying the issue with the first generation of this camera is; it has automatic internal adjustments that cause an actual loss of detail....
I use the usual digital darkroom adjustments in photoshop.
10d, 1ds, both suffer from moire you know... and you'll find the software does a damn fine job :-)
also do you use usm? why would you with your point of view?
Both make the image look better...
It (1Ds) does? I've been shooting for a year and haven't noticed it. Unless it's a complex fabric, but then any digital moires that.
10d, 1ds, both suffer from moire you know... and you'll find the software does a damn fine job :-)
also do you use usm? why would you with your point of view?
Both make the image look better...
It (1Ds) does? I've been shooting for a year and haven't noticed it. Unless it's a complex fabric, but then any digital moires that.
He he, yes thats true, but then that was my point... Well actually NO, the Sigma SD9 and SD10 CAN'T moire! any other digi will :-)
I think the 1DS, if memory serves, doesn't moire till you get to roughly 2000-2500 line pairs per picture height -- might have bad recollection though :-)
10d, 1ds, both suffer from moire you know... and you'll find the software does a damn fine job :-)
also do you use usm? why would you with your point of view?
Both make the image look better...
It (1Ds) does? I've been shooting for a year and haven't noticed it. Unless it's a complex fabric, but then any digital moires that.
He he, yes thats true, but then that was my point... Well actually NO, the Sigma SD9 and SD10 CAN'T moire! any other digi will :-)
I think the 1DS, if memory serves, doesn't moire till you get to roughly 2000-2500 line pairs per picture height -- might have bad recollection though :-)
...but even scanning film will do the same thing on the ripstock fabric I'm talking about. ;D
10d, 1ds, both suffer from moire you know... and you'll find the software does a damn fine job :-)
also do you use usm? why would you with your point of view?
Both make the image look better...
I have looked at a lot of samples, from every dSLR on the market (curiosity & buyers interest), but the moire of the 14n and SLR/n (14n Mark2) is much, much, much worse than that of the other offerings.
Here are two crops of fullsize SLR/n (/14N Mark2) samples. This is what I mean:
I don't think that that is good and at the moment I don't think you can perfectly restore the original colors and without destroying some detail (have a go at it, when you can I'd like to know). I know that it is caused by the lack of an anti-aliasing filter on the CCD and that that gives extra resolution/sharpness. But this is a bit too much of a tradeoff imho.
You mean a low pass filter don't you? and it caused as much by that as by crappy firmware :-)
Fujifilm and Kodak sensors moire like buggery compared to others from what I seen...
And no I won't try the software, its like £450 or so and I have better things to spend what little money I have on :-)
If we have a resident millionaire then maybe he/she can oblige...
A thought (because I'm wrestling with similar perceptions myself with my own recent upgrade): How would those two crops, at full resolution, compare with the same scene taken by a lower megapixel camera? Would cropping 378x252 pixels on a 5 of 6 mp camera cover a much larger area of the scene, and overall have a lower level of detail. Or, from the other side, cropping out that same scene on the lower mp camera, what would the resulting resolution or dimensions be? Something like 245x165. How would the level of detail in that lower resolution compare to this sample, and how would the levels of lost detail compare?
I'm not sure you can compare without a side-by-side evaluation, of the same scene, and arguable with the same lenses (couldn't lens resolving abilities be playing a role, at least in the first sample?).
