20D officiell
- Trådstartare froderberg
- Start datum
Grunden till den förbättrade prestandan ligger i att kameran fått en snabbare processor. Samma som i mek II, men där sitter den dubbel - en för AF och en för bildbehandling. Kameran kan alltså räkna snabbare och det påverkar framförallt den följande autofokusen (AI Servo) som gör ständiga mätningar och uträkningar för att förutsäga var motivet kommer att vara i exponeringsögonblicket.
dave1 skrev:
Fin kamera.. synd bara att känslan av att min D60 börjar bli föråldrad infinner sigtrots att det är en bra kamera det med..
Men men när uppföljaren till D20 kommer så kanske man byter upp sig./D
Allt beror ju på vad ska använda prylarna till.
Bildkvaliteten hos D60 vid låga ISO-tal är mycket bra så plåtar man i studio eller landskap är kameran hur bra som helst. *försöker uppmuntra*
Men jag försökte använda D60n till reportage - inte så värst lyckat när den bara har ett brusigt ISO 1000-läge som bäst och högst tveksam autofokus i dåligt ljus.
matnyttige
Aktiv medlem
Bruset inte så mycket bättre än 10D
Det verkar som om skillnaden i bruset mellan 20D och 10D endast verkar synligt från ISO 800 och uppåt.
Så här skriver Michael Reichmann på The Luminous landscape:
"It was with interest that I noticed that some other reviewers have commented on the superior performance of the 20D vs. the 10D when it comes to signal to noise ratio, especially at higher ISO settings. This was not my experience, either based on bench tests using DxO Analyzer or through visual comparisons of prints and on screen.
Now, Canon claims in their sales literature that the 20D is superior at high ISOs; specifically that ISO 1600 on the 20D looks as good as ISO 400 on the 10D, a two stop advantage. I wish.
I didn't receive my copy of this pre-sales material until just a couple of days before publication, and long after I had done my tests and written my review, so I was quite curious to go back and see if I'd missed anything. The answer is that I don't believe so. Canon's claims are at odds with what I see. Maybe it's because my particular sample camera is not of the same spec as that which other reviewers got or the ones which Canon used to make their claims. I can't say.
What I have noticed though is that while there doesn't seem to be much difference in chroma noise between the 10D and the 20D, what luminance noise can be seen appears to be finer grained, especially at ISO 800 and above. In other words, there is less clumpyness to the noise, if there is such a word. But subjectively I simply don't see the huge advantage that Canon is claiming, and I certainly don't from DxO's results.
I would also caution that I see people discussing these S/N measurements"
Det verkar som om skillnaden i bruset mellan 20D och 10D endast verkar synligt från ISO 800 och uppåt.
Så här skriver Michael Reichmann på The Luminous landscape:
"It was with interest that I noticed that some other reviewers have commented on the superior performance of the 20D vs. the 10D when it comes to signal to noise ratio, especially at higher ISO settings. This was not my experience, either based on bench tests using DxO Analyzer or through visual comparisons of prints and on screen.
Now, Canon claims in their sales literature that the 20D is superior at high ISOs; specifically that ISO 1600 on the 20D looks as good as ISO 400 on the 10D, a two stop advantage. I wish.
I didn't receive my copy of this pre-sales material until just a couple of days before publication, and long after I had done my tests and written my review, so I was quite curious to go back and see if I'd missed anything. The answer is that I don't believe so. Canon's claims are at odds with what I see. Maybe it's because my particular sample camera is not of the same spec as that which other reviewers got or the ones which Canon used to make their claims. I can't say.
What I have noticed though is that while there doesn't seem to be much difference in chroma noise between the 10D and the 20D, what luminance noise can be seen appears to be finer grained, especially at ISO 800 and above. In other words, there is less clumpyness to the noise, if there is such a word. But subjectively I simply don't see the huge advantage that Canon is claiming, and I certainly don't from DxO's results.
I would also caution that I see people discussing these S/N measurements"
violator
Aktiv medlem
Första svenska testet hittade jag hos CAP & Design
Re: Bruset inte så mycket bättre än 10D
Det räcker väl? Det hade varit tillräckligt imponerande om bruset bara var oförändrat.
Det räcker väl? Det hade varit tillräckligt imponerande om bruset bara var oförändrat.
Paragrafryttaren
Aktiv medlem
Jag tittade just i en några månader gammal Foto och kunde inte annat än tänka på den här tråden när jag läste hänvisningar till D10 och D1 mk II i en artikel...
