Marco_Polo From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 324 posts, RR: 19 Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3526 times:
I just have a general questions regarding D60 image quality when it comes Canon EOS USM Image Stabalizer lenses.
A) I was wondering if any other photographers out there are happy or impress with image quality pre-processing, no post-processing, when using USM Image Stabalizer either the 75-300mm or the 100-400mm. This is regardless whether you have the Image Stabalizer ON or OFF.
B) What are you thoughts on the Image quality comparison between D30 and D60 either RAW or uncompressed JPEG files.
Looking forward to hearing some of your input from the digital world folks.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3472 times:
Not sure what you're asking here Jay - I have a number of IS lenses and performance varies. The 300mm IS f4 is razor sharp, the 70-200 IS 2.8 is also very sharp for a zoom. The 100-400 IS is very good but not, as you might expect from a long zoom in the same class as the fixed 300. I'm not sure IS is at all a factor in the image quality apart from your ability to hold it still at slow shutter speeds.
IMHO all Canon files need post processing ... unless you tweak the camera settings, the standard image will be a little dark and a little soft - this is a good thing ... shadow and midtone detail is easily recovered in PS, whereas burned out highlights would be a disaster. Likewise, by leaving the image a little soft, sharpening artifacts and fringing are avoided - the images respond very well to USM in PS.
Out of camera, large/fine jpg and RAW are indistinguishable BUT, the RAW files are much more suited to post processing, so I think the final image is better.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3432 times:
I can't answer for the lenses, (using Sigma 170-500....wishing for a IS lens one of these days....)
I don't see the difference in post processing between the RAW and fine JPEG files. If the image was good out of the camera it sharpens up nicely as a JPEG. (as mentioned a little on the dark side, but easy to brighten up just a touch in PS elements...) 8X12 prints made at a local photo shop are incredible, all shot on fine/jpeg.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3409 times:
No issues with the D60 and the 100-400 IS. As with Tony, they come out of the camera pretty nice and sharpen up a treat simply using something like 100, 0.8, 2 or maybe slightly more depending on the image. Fiddle with the levels a bit and you're in.
I also use the 100-400 IS with the Canon 1.4x extender, and this combo produces pretty good results too, albeit that the AF has a sense of humour failure and I need to cut over to MF (rotate the focus ring - ughh, thought I'd got away from that several years ago!)
Over 300 images shot over the weekend and I'm happy with pretty much all of them - I'll make sure the other screeners give me priority!
Marco_Polo From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3388 times:
Awesome inputs!!! O.k. Here is the kicker. I guess I am asking this questions because I just wanted to do a comparison. My friend Tim was shooting almost similar photos with me at LAX that day with Paul Paulsens and others. We both use uncompressed JPEG. I still have a D30 while he has upgrade his to a D60. When we downloaded the pictures JPEG raw and untouched. When you zoom in 1:1 ratio pictures, on his monitor you can see noises a redish / magenta kind of noise incorporated in the clear blue sky while mine on D30 there is no noticable noises. Now here is the kicker, when he switch over to RAW file which is outrageously large, and took the same pic with the same sky background, those noises no longer exists.
Now my questions to you guys. Have you guys seen this? If not, do you guys believe this might be a JPEG characterisitc or some other issues relating to internal software / hardware (CMOS). If you guys do see this noises in JPEG Large Uncompressed, are you concern?
If you guys like we can send a sample file to anyone who is interested in looking at the noises we are talking about.
Not trying to be knit picky but it does concerns me when I decide to upgrade my D30 to D60. If not I may have to choose an alternate EOS-1D which is a different review in itself. I will make that a discussion later.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3373 times:
I just took a look at some shots that I took yesterday at North Island. Nice clear blue sky, some with nice white clouds from storms out east and I see no noise in them at all. I even looked at them on my laptop and saw nothing. Maybe it is the monitor? (I can send you one of my files and you can see if it shows on your monitor...)
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3370 times:
Both shooting at ISO 100? Certainly noise will be discernable at ISO 200.
When the D60 was first released, there were comments on dpreview that some felt the D60 output wasn't quite as silky smooth as the D30. Can't say I see it myself, and I've shot with both - but admittedly not much in jpg.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3366 times:
Had another look at some jpegs... Still I can't see anything that remotely resembles your problem. I've tried looking in Photoshop, and directly through a browser. I've also zoomed up the image in Photoshop to 2x and 4x with no noticable discoloration.
If you do find an image, drop it to me on e-mail and I'll take a look.
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3346 times:
If you go to sites like fredmiranda.com, you will see reviews that suggest that the D60 does have a slight bit more noise in areas such as sky, even at low iso like iso 100 at 100% size. If you reduce a D60 size shot down to D30 size, you are obviously going to lose a lot of that noise and end up with an even cleaner image (although I don't know if iso 100 on the D30 can get any cleaner!). So what I am saying is: I think you get better image quality with the D60 than the D30 overall although at 100% crops there is a little more noise. Would this discourage me from getting the D60? I don't think so. However, if money were to allow I think I would ultimately prefer to go with the 1D or its successor (news of which is leaking out at the moment).
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3315 times:
OK, I have been sent two cropped images by Tim. Here is my response to him:
I must admit I am puzzled. Yes I can clearly see the artifacts.
I've tried the same process as you and I have to admit I see similar (though not so noticable) artifacts in a picture of mine.
(1) they are not obviousy present in my original jpeg, only those saved by photoshop - even a crop represents a resave of the original image (yes?) so the only true original is the image out of the camera without a crop
(2) they are not noticable if the image is reduced to smaller sizes (i.e. 1024 pixels)
(3) they are not in any way noticable in a photo quality print from the full size original image at about 12x8 inches
I've not bothered to send my own findings (unless you really want to see them). However, I use broadly similar settings to you - 100 ISO, usually aperture priority F8.0, large fine, etc. on the Canon 100-400IS or 28-135.
The only conclusion I can draw at this moment is that the artifacts are put there by photoshop - I cannot see them in my image in the original jpegs captured by the camera without any processing/cropping/saving etc. I can only assume these artifacts are caused by the process of saving a jpeg as a second generation - as I say, even a crop followed by a save is a second generation, and therefore subject to some degredation. Maybe raw will work better?
You should ask Colin Work - ckw - he's an expert in such matters. Perhaps forward my comments, and maybe let me see what he has to say too.
Sorry I cannot be of more help,
Colin, I hope you don't mind me recommending your opinion!