thirrouard
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 0
- Website
- www.thirrouard.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
I do realize that. The problem is that the 30D isn't even able to go above ISO 1600 (my 7D neither), and I couldn't go really under f1.4 and 1/30 sec...
Yes, the light was VERY dim...
But in moderate light, I made some compared shot with my Minolta 7D, and at ISO800, with correct exposure, the 30D just do as bad as the 7D, if not worse.
Just check out this picture: http://www.thirrouard.com/divers/zenphoto/albums/maclan17/IMG_0370_2.jpg
it's taken in ISO1600 1/60 f2.2, and wasn't underexposed. For me, the chroma noise is really too hight. If it was a more grainly look it would be ok, but still stronger that I would like (note that the noise is already really visible even in this greatly resized picture. I will upload pictures resized on 6Mpixel so you can compare with the 7D...).
This chroma noise is what I hate the most on the 30D, and that begin to be annoying from ISO400...
The minolta raw may be already treated against this (and there should be an option on the canon to do so), but anyway I don't see any reason why would people want to keep the chroma noise. Ok, there is noise ninja, but honestly I was far happier when I just could have awesome pictures out of the box with my Minolta. Now I have to spend a lot of time on photoshot just to be happy with the shots.
For my compositions, I don't mind, but when I do a 600 photoshot, I would be happier not to have to PS them all...
Fortunatly, my 600 photoshot were taken in ISO 100
Anyway, I'm not saying the 30D is a bad camera. It's better than the 7D still in some point, there is more pixels and I can surely notice that in a good way, there is some options that are nice (like you can shot straight in black and white JPG, there is not way to do that on the minolta), but I'm disapointed because I was expecting an improvement in IQ quality in ISO 800 and 1600, and in ISO 800, I would say the image are more noisy than on my 7D!... In 1600, the 30D get a slightly clearer image though.
But to me, Canon's camera are really over-rated by users and review (for the reviews, I guess getting free cameras and gear help a lot, if you give me even a 1D mkIII and the good L zoom and primes that would go nicely with, I would make advertises for them anyday till my death lol), and most likely because canon users often bash other brands like "the sony are bad in hight ISO", well, when any real comparaison was done, I guess they only compared the RAW, because his ancestor the 7D was doing just as good as the 30D in hight ISO.
For exemple in dpreview, reviews I really like, that try to be scientific, but I realized they never compare noise with RAW... that's stupid...
Anyway, my point is just that canon user should stop saying that other camera aren't as good as the other brands. What make me use the 30D instead of my minolta is because I bought 800€ in very nice lenses, and I don't have the equivelent for the minolta, but if I had to go back, I would just buy new lenses for my Minolta...
And yeah, by the way, the lens really does matter more than the camera...
at least, if you are not willing to change "category" (for exemple 30D=>5D=>D3).
PS: I tested a 5D in a shop... in ISO1600, damn, the difference is HUGE... it's almost neater than ISO400 on my freakin' 30D ...
Problem with this camera is the price, + the price of the EF lenses that are still good on FF... glups... ok I'll stick either to my 30D or 7D...
And Sony really sucks, the a700 is really good, but guys, it's the price of the Canon 5D! Common!
NB: Minolta, come back please
Yes, the light was VERY dim...
But in moderate light, I made some compared shot with my Minolta 7D, and at ISO800, with correct exposure, the 30D just do as bad as the 7D, if not worse.
Just check out this picture: http://www.thirrouard.com/divers/zenphoto/albums/maclan17/IMG_0370_2.jpg
it's taken in ISO1600 1/60 f2.2, and wasn't underexposed. For me, the chroma noise is really too hight. If it was a more grainly look it would be ok, but still stronger that I would like (note that the noise is already really visible even in this greatly resized picture. I will upload pictures resized on 6Mpixel so you can compare with the 7D...).
This chroma noise is what I hate the most on the 30D, and that begin to be annoying from ISO400...
The minolta raw may be already treated against this (and there should be an option on the canon to do so), but anyway I don't see any reason why would people want to keep the chroma noise. Ok, there is noise ninja, but honestly I was far happier when I just could have awesome pictures out of the box with my Minolta. Now I have to spend a lot of time on photoshot just to be happy with the shots.
For my compositions, I don't mind, but when I do a 600 photoshot, I would be happier not to have to PS them all...
Fortunatly, my 600 photoshot were taken in ISO 100
Anyway, I'm not saying the 30D is a bad camera. It's better than the 7D still in some point, there is more pixels and I can surely notice that in a good way, there is some options that are nice (like you can shot straight in black and white JPG, there is not way to do that on the minolta), but I'm disapointed because I was expecting an improvement in IQ quality in ISO 800 and 1600, and in ISO 800, I would say the image are more noisy than on my 7D!... In 1600, the 30D get a slightly clearer image though.
But to me, Canon's camera are really over-rated by users and review (for the reviews, I guess getting free cameras and gear help a lot, if you give me even a 1D mkIII and the good L zoom and primes that would go nicely with, I would make advertises for them anyday till my death lol), and most likely because canon users often bash other brands like "the sony are bad in hight ISO", well, when any real comparaison was done, I guess they only compared the RAW, because his ancestor the 7D was doing just as good as the 30D in hight ISO.
For exemple in dpreview, reviews I really like, that try to be scientific, but I realized they never compare noise with RAW... that's stupid...
Anyway, my point is just that canon user should stop saying that other camera aren't as good as the other brands. What make me use the 30D instead of my minolta is because I bought 800€ in very nice lenses, and I don't have the equivelent for the minolta, but if I had to go back, I would just buy new lenses for my Minolta...
And yeah, by the way, the lens really does matter more than the camera...
at least, if you are not willing to change "category" (for exemple 30D=>5D=>D3).
PS: I tested a 5D in a shop... in ISO1600, damn, the difference is HUGE... it's almost neater than ISO400 on my freakin' 30D ...
Problem with this camera is the price, + the price of the EF lenses that are still good on FF... glups... ok I'll stick either to my 30D or 7D...
And Sony really sucks, the a700 is really good, but guys, it's the price of the Canon 5D! Common!
NB: Minolta, come back please