![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Singapore, Redhill
Posts: 1,063
|
Courtesy of CP@MB, near closing time, here are some shots, all EXIF intact:
S3pro-STD: S3pro-F1: S3pro-F2: S2pro-STD: ![]() Shot at F5.6, using A-mode, WB set to FINE day, using Nikon 18-70 DX kit lens, shot at 18mm, stored as FINE-JPEG 6MP. Scled down by Photoshop to 300x200, USM "100%, 0.2, 1". In any case, exif intact, right click and download image and read the exif. Tells me that the S3 is definitely better than the S2 in terms of image results, but cost is still pretty high. Last edited by yowch; 16th January 2005 at 09:10 PM. |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Singapore/Thailand
Posts: 5,804
|
looks to me like major diff is WB?
__________________
Budget wedding photographer :) |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Singapore, Redhill
Posts: 1,063
|
The WB does seems strange, but the holdng of details at both the highlights and shadows seems great.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Singapore (Kallang)
Posts: 2,084
|
thanks for the photo comparisions. but i'll have to say that the difference does look rather drastic when comparing the S3 to its predecessor.
i assume that you used the same metering throughout the test, e.g. spot metering at the same spot. |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Singapore, Redhill
Posts: 1,063
|
Both cams on Matrix metering. The only thing that might have change (and that is a really drastic effect on the photo) would be the light at the roof right in front. Seems like CP turned it off suddenly, but I have no way to be sure now. Sorry. But the details in the shadows are certainly clearer on the S3. Both shots taken using the same aperture f5.6, S3 at 1/8, S2 at 1/10.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|