Comment on the quality of this camera's image...

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No, I did not take the image. It's someone's else image. I won't say
what the camera is, though some of you may guess correctly, but I
suggest you resist that temptation to guess, and I suggest you don't
'cheat' by trying to find out. All I can say is that he says that he
compared it against the Sony DSCF828, which he has, both shot at RAW,
and comparing them at 8mp, the camera in question's image was "sharper"
than the Sony's, his word not mine.

http://users.skynet.be/gie.dekie/images/DSCF0044-8mp80ASA.jpg

PS - it's been processed from RAW, so make an allowance for the skill
of the person who processed it, as I don' tknow how good he was at
post-processing RAW images.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:

> ... some of you may guess correctly ...

Looks to me like a Canon 10D.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102146512.694198.233750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, I did not take the image. It's someone's else image. I won't say
> what the camera is, though some of you may guess correctly, but I
> suggest you resist that temptation to guess, and I suggest you don't
> 'cheat' by trying to find out. All I can say is that he says that he
> compared it against the Sony DSCF828, which he has, both shot at RAW,
> and comparing them at 8mp, the camera in question's image was "sharper"
> than the Sony's, his word not mine.
>
> http://users.skynet.be/gie.dekie/images/DSCF0044-8mp80ASA.jpg
>
> PS - it's been processed from RAW, so make an allowance for the skill
> of the person who processed it, as I don' tknow how good he was at
> post-processing RAW images.

I don't know what camera it is, but at full resolution, it suffers badly
from jaggies in the branch detail. This does not look like teh fine detail
I get with my 10D.

Interesting scene that looks OK when fit to screen, but a closer look is not
impressive.
 

Kenny

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2001
110
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102146512.694198.233750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, I did not take the image. It's someone's else image. I won't say
> what the camera is, though some of you may guess correctly, but I
> suggest you resist that temptation to guess, and I suggest you don't
> 'cheat' by trying to find out.

Typical Fuji image. Very good for a P&S, as most of the better Fuji's
are.

I'll spoil it for everyone, it is an F810.

Kenny
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
>Typical Fuji image. Very good for a P&S, as most of the better Fuji's
>are.
>
>I'll spoil it for everyone, it is an F810.
>
>Kenny

Argh, you cheat!

Well, since you spoiled it, you'll have to explain what's a "typical fuji
image".
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 0
T Digital Cameras 5
U Digital Cameras 8
R Digital Cameras 3
P Digital Cameras 4
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
spellbinder2050 Digital Cameras 14
M Digital Cameras 2
B Digital Cameras 5
M Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 3
M Digital Cameras 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY