Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

New "high ISO capable" ultrazooms... pure frauds.

E.TE.T Quote-o-matic
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/noticias/Sony_H2_ISO400.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/noticias/Sony_H2_ISO1000.jpg[/url]
Now if those are low noise shots I'm King of the Finland.
Especially notice noise removing washing details and completely destroying precise colors in last shot while still retaining blotchy chroma noise!

Or how about this one...
[url]http://www.fotopolis.pl/download/DSC06700.JPG[/url]
Could be said that noise is really blossoming while there isn't much any details.

And Canon's new "high ISO capable" S3 apparently uses entirely same sensor so there shouldn't be need to say more.


And then again Panasonic FZ7 with its "high ISO" which is achieved by very heavy processing combined to downscaling image first and then interpolating it back to original size after processing...
Sure it's free of noise but it's also free of details.
[i]There's not a lot you can say about these images really; the process of pixel binning, followed by noise reduction and sharpening, then re-sizing back up to 6MP produces results that - though virtually free of noise - are also virtually free of detail[/i]
That's from Dpreview's review, which appears to be now corrected to "more politically correct form".


Now for comparison here's quickly Noise Ninja processed JPEG ISO400&800 noise test shots (from Steve's Digicams) with KonicaMinolta A2 which was critisized as noisy by reviewers...
[url]http://rapidshare.de/files/14515406/A2_processed.exe.html[/url] (self extracting RAR)
Camera's builtin processing isn't great and more likely than getting rid of noise gets rid of some original data but such results can be still achieved with quick&easy post processing. (fortunately incamera processing is light)
So using RAW with good conversion would give still better results
(original JPEGs: [url=http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2/samples/pict0456_iso400.jpg]ISO400[/url], [url=http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2/samples/pict0458_iso800.jpg]ISO800[/url])


So kinda talking about double standards... big BS budget makers can claim about everything and what's worst, most magazines directly publish excrements of these BS departments without any kind checking are those total frauds.
And that's all what is needed because general public is dumber than amoeba and swallows all crap if it's just greased with big enough pile PR excrements.
:mad: :mad:


"If advertisers spent the same amount of money on improving their products as they do on advertising then they wouldn't have to advertise them."
-Will Rogers

"Advertising is legalized lying."
-H. G. Wells

Comments

  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    Well, I don't know why anyone would ever expect anything above "decent" from a consumer to prosumer-level camera with such high zoom. The CCDs are just too small to pull off low-noise at a higher ISO, and on top of that...the optics just plain cannot gather enough light to make much good of it. Combine that with low ambient light and poor quality onboard image processing/software noise reduction and you've got a recipe for abundant chroma noise and/or a painfully low detail photo.
  • E.TE.T Quote-o-matic
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sanfam [/i]
    [B]Well, I don't know why anyone would ever expect anything above "decent" from a consumer to prosumer-level camera with such high zoom.[/B][/QUOTE]Now do you think common people knows that?
    They believe every excrement of BS departments.
    Panasonic's "extended zoom" with lower resolution is good example.


    And there's no way for calling those prosumers, that's other word abused by BS departments in last years... all pure menu surfing point&prays, with crappy button zooms.
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    Well, the "extended zoom" thing isn't actually bad. It's a pretty good idea, and it's *not* interpolation. It's simply taking advantage of the fact that at a lower resolution, it doesn't need the entire CCD to capture an image. Of course, the resulting image would actually be just the same as taking one large picture and cropping it, but it's a nice perk for those who don't feel like shooting at the full pixel count all the time.

    Now if you want a scam...look at digital zoom figures. Ugh.

    I think you're taking things a bit harder than you should. There are many fine examples of good consumer level cameras (and FYI, prosumer, in my eyes, starts near $650 and goes all the way into the low-end digital SLRs currently available, roughly peaking at $2000), and many, such as almost every single product from canon or sony, which are quite flexible in their capabilities, with excellent optics, better color reproduction, and immense flexibility through a wide range of exposure modes.
Sign In or Register to comment.