20D jpegs on web

[Pekka]

http://metasync.com/20d/
Photos by Mark Komosa /Chirebel
Lens is Canon 85/1.8, all ISO 100

What do you think?

[CyberDyneSystems]

In this shot
http://metasync.com/20d/pages/IMG_6930.htm

The detail in the subject is phenomenal.. and yet there is NO noise or grain in the smooth background. :)

And this is a jpeg out of camera!

I'm impressed.

[Kinger]

Excuse me, I just drooled all over my keyboard.

[gerolamo]

Nice.
Too bad they're mostly macros / closeups
I'd like to see how it handles a landscape

[tommykjensen]

Here are a few more

http://www.pbase.com/riokid/xxd

[Pekka]

Nice.
Too bad they're mostly macros / closeups
I'd like to see how it handles a landscape

See http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos20d_sample-e.html

[gerolamo]

I didn't know they updatet the samples.

The landscapes look awesome.

[timmyquest]

STELLER!

Where is the hack to get the low noise performance of the 20D for my 1D???

I'm glad i made my desission impulsivly for once because had these been out pre my purchase i dunno how long i'd wait to actually get a camera.

Take that nikon!

(Can you imagine how the images from the 1ds MKII will/would look :shock: )

[sGu]

is it me or the landscape sample on canon website isn't sharp at all?

the trees, grass at foreground are NOT sharp, while the mountain peak looks okay.

anyone?

[Ballen Photo]

is it me or the landscape sample on canon website isn't sharp at all?

the trees, grass at foreground are NOT sharp, while the mountain peak looks okay.

anyone?

I got the same impression. :shock:
-Bruce

[gotspeed]

Hey these are my pics. I am afraid of landscapes, and I do mostly portrait stuff. I never really made any prints from landscape shots but looking at them full size on screen they dont look all that hot, as far as how much detail is there compared to something like a head shot. This was on the 300d.

I used think it was my the 18-55 kit lens. But I've read that mostlikely it's the sensor resolving power and most likely my technique.

I usually try to use f/11 or f/16 and just focus randonly. I have no DOF scale on the kit lens. I do have a faint idea of hyperfocal distance, just no way to do it on the fly. What was it, 1/2 distance of start of DOF? So focus on something 2x that.. Or maybe it is the lens as well. But the kit holds its own according to most, corners maybe soft though.

I will soon resurrect my old palm pilot and install the nifty DOF calculator to help out, but the lens does not even have a distance scale. So it's a guestimate even then.

Nice.
Too bad they're mostly macros / closeups
I'd like to see how it handles a landscape

[gotspeed]

Hey these are my pics. I am afraid of landscapes, and I do mostly portrait stuff. I never really made any prints from landscape shots but looking at them full size on screen they dont look all that hot, as far as how much detail is there compared to something like a head shot. This was on the 300d.

I used think it was my the 18-55 kit lens. But I've read that mostlikely it's the sensor resolving power and most likely my technique.

I usually try to use f/11 or f/16 and just focus randonly. I have no DOF scale on the kit lens. I do have a faint idea of hyperfocal distance, just no way to do it on the fly. What was it, 1/2 distance of start of DOF? So focus on something 2x that.. Or maybe it is the lens as well. But the kit holds its own according to most, corners maybe soft though.

I will soon resurrect my old palm pilot and install the nifty DOF calculator to help out, but the lens does not even have a distance scale. So it's a guestimate even then.

Nice.
Too bad they're mostly macros / closeups
I'd like to see how it handles a landscape

[JZaun]

I'm gonna be verrrrry happy :D :D :D This only reinforces the reviews that the noise is not an issue with the smaller 8mpx sensor!! Wow I can't wait. Now the only negative review remark I am concerned about is the brightness of the viewfinder :? Just need to get it in my hand. I'm 4th at my local shot and on notify at B&H Whoever is first gets the sale :)

Thanks for posting pic's Pekka!

JZ

[gotspeed]

I don't want to spread misinformation: You focus at hyperfocal distance and but DOF starts at 1/2 that -> infinity.


[quote="gotspeed"][quote="gotspeed"]Hey these are my pics. I am afraid of landscapes, and I do mostly portrait stuff. I never really made any prints from landscape shots but looking at them full size on screen they dont look all that hot, as far as how much detail is there compared to something like a head shot. This was on the 300d.

I used think it was my the 18-55 kit lens. But I've read that mostlikely it's the sensor resolving power and most likely my technique.

[Andy_T]

is it me or the landscape sample on canon website isn't sharp at all?

the trees, grass at foreground are NOT sharp, while the mountain peak looks okay.

anyone?

I got the same impression. :shock:
-Bruce

Same with the other landscape image.

I thought that the 17-40/2.8 L and 24-70/2.8 L would do better ... but the 17-40 image is only at f/6.3 ... nearly wide open.

Best regards,
Andy

[Pekka]

I most like will get this camera (to replace 10D as backup camera, next year) and I have tried to evaluate the image samples objectively.

My initial impressions about 20D image quality is that Canon has primarily sought after low noise and fine detail and so they have

a) lowered contrast (yes slight DR increase but also by internal shadow/hight processing just like shadow/highlight tool in PS)
b) made CMOS hardware noise reduction harder (or more coarse) on low detail areas
b) set up sharpening to touch only finer detail.

The overall look is ok but also has a sligh anomaly feel which can be described perhaps as "like using a slighly bad copy of a lens". Lens resolution vs. 1.6X (small chip trying to pull up lots of data from lens) surely adds to this problem. Or maybe that is the problem?

A visible examples of that

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/1d_mark2/samples/gr3b0621_cr2.jpg
vs
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d/samples/img_9955.jpg (f/8!)

Same lens used.

In photo http://metasync.com/20d/pages/IMG_6930.htm you have fine detail here and there, but unevenly - exactly like after using Neat Image or such. And as a sunny day high contrast shot it lacks real contrast and definition.

[sGu]

the difference between 1D MK II and 20D is pretty obvious, MK II produced more DR and much better contrast.

saving up is still a long way to go ...

I'll be playing with a 20D this friday, hopefully i'll post some images

[gotspeed]

You know, that's the time of thing that worries me. I only took a few pictures so far. But the ones outside in bright sun lot look like that, very low contrast. I mentioned this on the DR forum to see what other say. But you are kind of confirming it for me with the comparison shot.

I thought it maybe just settings I was using P-mode only didn't pay attention to metering.
Can good post processing make make it better? The shot you are posting from my camera is what I considered one of the better ones. I did not even post the ones I thought looked to "white". As I was not sure what to make of them.

I most like will get this camera (to replace 10D as backup camera, next year) and I have tried to evaluate the image samples objectively.

My initial impressions about 20D image quality is that Canon has primarily sought after low noise and fine detail and so they have

a) lowered contrast (yes slight DR increase but also by internal shadow/hight processing just like shadow/highlight tool in PS)
b) made CMOS hardware noise reduction harder (or more coarse) on low detail areas
b) set up sharpening to touch only finer detail.

The overall look is ok but also has a sligh anomaly feel which can be described perhaps as "like using a slighly bad copy of a lens". Lens resolution vs. 1.6X (small chip trying to pull up lots of data from lens) surely adds to this problem. Or maybe that is the problem?

A visible examples of that

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/1d_mark2/samples/gr3b0621_cr2.jpg
vs
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d/samples/img_9955.jpg (f/8!)

Same lens used.

In photo http://metasync.com/20d/pages/IMG_6930.htm you have fine detail here and there, but unevenly - exactly like after using Neat Image or such. And as a sunny day high contrast shot it lacks real contrast and definition.

[runic]

A visible examples of that

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/1d_mark2/samples/gr3b0621_cr2.jpg
vs
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d/samples/img_9955.jpg (f/8!)

Same lens used.



Are you sure it's the same lens? It doesn't appear to be.

From Steve's Digicams 20D samples:

"We used a custom SET 1 parameter with Sharpening at +1 and used a
Canon EF 28-105mm F3.5/4.5 USM lens and ISO 100 unless noted."

The 20D shot you've referred to isn't otherwise noted, so it's shot with Canon 28-105.

From Steve's Digicam's 1d Mk II samples:

"Pictures taken at ISO 100 unless noted, most with Canon EF 16-35 f2.8L lens."

The shot you've referred to isn't otherwise noted, so it's shot with the Canon 16-35L.

As you know, these are two VERY different lenses, the 16-35L would be expected to be sharper and more contrasty. In which case, not a fair comparison.

Cheers
Martin

[Pekka]

You know, that's the time of thing that worries me. I only took a few pictures so far. But the ones outside in bright sun lot look like that, very low contrast. I mentioned this on the DR forum to see what other say. But you are kind of confirming it for me with the comparison shot.

I thought it maybe just settings I was using P-mode only didn't pay attention to metering.
Can good post processing make make it better? The shot you are posting from my camera is what I considered one of the better ones. I did not even post the ones I thought looked to "white". As I was not sure what to make of them.

What kind of contrast settings does the 20D have?
Also, using RAW and high contrast profile (i.e. film profile in Capture One) may help a lot.

[Pekka]

A visible examples of that

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/1d_mark2/samples/gr3b0621_cr2.jpg
vs
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d/samples/img_9955.jpg (f/8!)

Same lens used.



Are you sure it's the same lens? It doesn't appear to be.

From Steve's Digicams 20D samples:

"We used a custom SET 1 parameter with Sharpening at +1 and used a
Canon EF 28-105mm F3.5/4.5 USM lens and ISO 100 unless noted."

The 20D shot you've referred to isn't otherwise noted, so it's shot with Canon 28-105.

From Steve's Digicam's 1d Mk II samples:

"Pictures taken at ISO 100 unless noted, most with Canon EF 16-35 f2.8L lens."

The shot you've referred to isn't otherwise noted, so it's shot with the Canon 16-35L.

As you know, these are two VERY different lenses, the 16-35L would be expected to be sharper and more contrasty. In which case, not a fair comparison.

Cheers
Martin

Thanks for correcting, yes they were not with same lens. But still, all lenses are practically equal on sunshine day and f8 :)

[larryvt]

I'm sure many of you have been to the site but for those who haven't there's an in depth review on the 20D. After reading it through I ordered mine this morning from Vistex in Toronto they may see them on Wed.

http://dpreview.com/

[wibbly]

... there's an in depth review on the 20D ... http://dpreview.com/

I'm just waiting for their "preview" to turn into a "full review".

I'd also like to see a review of the camera with 17-85 lens kit.

W

[tommykjensen]

I just found this posting on dpreview with a shot taken with the EF-S 10-22 lens

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10283888

[gotspeed]

I am used to shooting with 300d where defaults are +1 on contrast,saturation. On the 20d, and 10d, the default is zeros. So I will play with the Parameter 1, which is +1 contrast,satration,sharpness. This is from memory...

And sounds like Pekka comparison was with a different lens and different exposure... I hope that's all it is.


You know, that's the time of thing that worries me. I only took a few pictures so far. But the ones outside in bright sun lot look like that, very low contrast. I mentioned this on the DR forum to see what other say. But you are kind of confirming it for me with the comparison shot.

I thought it maybe just settings I was using P-mode only didn't pay attention to metering.
Can good post processing make make it better? The shot you are posting from my camera is what I considered one of the better ones. I did not even post the ones I thought looked to "white". As I was not sure what to make of them.

What kind of contrast settings does the 20D have?
Also, using RAW and high contrast profile (i.e. film profile in Capture One) may help a lot.

[tommykjensen]

More sample photos:

http://www.dragtimes.com/canon-20d-ef-100-400.php

[Morden]

Here's a link to a full sized (3504 by 2336, 3804KB) large, fine JPEG right out of my 20D. It's a photo of one of my lightsabers.

It was shot at f/3.5 through a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 at 28mm. Oh, and at ISO 3200. :)

http://www.planet-zhadum.com/images/temp/20D_ISO3200_Saber.JPG

For ISO 3200, I don't think that the noise is too bad! :)

I know it's a bit blurred ("neutral" parameters and relatively long hand-held exposure) but I was only interested in testing the noise levels.