Image quality of 350D ?

[dylan]

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

In last weeks AP (UK) review of the 350D they say the most bothersome issue
is the softness of the image, which is better than the 'processing-infested'
300D but not better than the clarity of the 10D.

What do users of 10D and 350D think ?. I haven't seen these comments in
other reviews.

 

[Guest]

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

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:d4t14v$i8a$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> In last weeks AP (UK) review of the 350D they say the most bothersome
issue
> is the softness of the image, which is better than the
'processing-infested'
> 300D but not better than the clarity of the 10D.
>
> What do users of 10D and 350D think ?. I haven't seen these comments in
> other reviews.
>
>
I trust dpreview's tests most of all. They do a good job testing. Keep in
mind that they test with settings on default so it is easy enough to change
to your own preference. From their tests, I gather the 350D/XT has
remarkable image quality. The original dRebel showed sharpening halos and
was a bit noisy at ISO 1600. The new Rebel seems to have cleared this up.

The Canon engineers are on the ball. I doubt they can do much better with a
Bayer sensor.
-S

 

[Guest]

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

dylan wrote:

> In last weeks AP (UK) review of the 350D they say the most bothersome issue
> is the softness of the image, which is better than the 'processing-infested'
> 300D but not better than the clarity of the 10D.

The biggest complaint with the 10D was 'soft images'.

In response, Canon upped the neutral JPEG sharpness level in the 300D..
So, if you had the sharpness slider set in the middle on both cameras, the
300D would apply more sharpening.

I don't know what they've done with the 20D and 350D..