Sony R1 images....er.....

[Rich]

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

Seems to be a bit of noise....

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880

 

[Slack]

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

Rich wrote:
> Seems to be a bit of noise....
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880


Should've used one of those plastic Canon XT things.
--
Slack

 

[Guest]

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

In message <k7j4i19bhql7gpv5tlbl4q9gr3p50rjp37@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Seems to be a bit of noise....
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880

Were they under-exposed?

Was the saturation boosted?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

In article <9gk4i1tkgh7osnf2dbddpue18gusodsk69@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
says...
> In message <k7j4i19bhql7gpv5tlbl4q9gr3p50rjp37@4ax.com>,
> Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> >Seems to be a bit of noise....
> >
> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880
>
> Were they under-exposed?
>
> Was the saturation boosted?

Looks like the same thing the D2X had before release.

Of course, the D2X ended up producing cleaner images in the end - chalk
it up to pre-production firmware, I guess.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

 

[Charles]

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

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:03:42 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Seems to be a bit of noise....
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880


Must be the plastic.

 

[Guest]

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

Rich wrote:
> Seems to be a bit of noise....
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880

Meaningless without the originals. Bear in mind that /all/ cameras have
noise, it's fundamental to the nature of light.

David

 

[Guest]

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:fquUe.105873$G8.59673@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Rich wrote:
>> Seems to be a bit of noise....
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880
>
> Meaningless without the originals. Bear in mind that /all/ cameras have
> noise, it's fundamental to the nature of light.
>
> David
>
This is a very small crop, hardly a representation, with no other info they
are meaningless.

 

[Rich]

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:35:27 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:03:42 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Seems to be a bit of noise....
>>
>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880
>
>
>Must be the plastic.

Holds in heat longer than metal = more noisy shots.

 

[Guest]

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

In message <MPG.1d8c2ad7d7b11e92989a2b@news.verizon.net>,
Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>Of course, the D2X ended up producing cleaner images in the end - chalk
>it up to pre-production firmware, I guess.

External RAW converters usually improve over time, too, even if the
camera stays the same.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

Why don't you check *up* one message at the pix *he's* taken??? Not too bad,
really, even for biased folks.




"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:k7j4i19bhql7gpv5tlbl4q9gr3p50rjp37@4ax.com...
>
> Seems to be a bit of noise....
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=14973880