馬克蘇 wrote:
至於tim_13x兄說的分版，小弟並不贊同，相機不過是工具，不同品牌就不是相機嗎？為了不同品牌而讓大家互相分享的樂趣少了很多，小弟認為划不來
．．．
嗯嗯，這的確也是，我也是一進來可以看到各種測試及報告，對新手選機是個很好的地方。只是，各家匯集，爭吵的情況更多了，實在是很難取捨啊！
實拍的測試..
http://img144.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45762_cmp_d80_400d_a100_122_388lo.jpg
測試結果漂亮..不代表實戰就好....
Vision, Not Technology
Possibly the biggest curse of the digital photography revolution is that it has excessively focused photographer's attention on technology, rather than vision. We now have tools that allow us to take very sharp pictures indeed, but a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept is of little interest or value to anyone.
Why then do the majority of photographers, magazines and enthusiast web sites concentrate almost exclusively on gear, secondarily on technique, and hardly at all on how to see? The answer is simple – it's easier.
I can explain, for example, how depth of field works. If I'm a good teacher you can learn about this aspect of photography fairly easily, and then quickly put that knowledge into practice in your own work. If how best to use a certain tool in Photoshop is what you're looking for, then the numerous tutorials on this site will be found useful. And, if you're like some 85% of visitors to this site, you'll likely first turn to the equipment reviews.
Why? Because – in order;
– an understanding of basic photographic technique must precede any form of competence
– utilizing contemporary tools is one of the cornerstones of the digital zeitgeist
– the belief persists that good equipment helps photographers take good photographs
Of course it is the later partial fallacy that trips most people up. The pitfall being the use of the word "good". Of course the best cameras and lenses can produce images of superior technical quality to gear that is less capable. Similarly, having an understanding of the photographic basics is a prerequisite for anyone who wishes to master their craft. And, unless one wants to learn the tools and techniques of the traditional darkroom, learning Photoshop has to be high on most photographer's to-do lists.
But, a good photograph isn't measured in line pairs per millimeter, MTF functions, S/N calculations, or any of the other measurements that photography enthusiasts recite like religious mantras. The most important tools that are used to take good photographs are the human eye, the human brain, and the human heart.
yuanleex wrote:
測試結果漂亮..不代表實戰就好....
從您這句話的意思，我推斷您的本意應該是說，DCVIEW 測試說 D80 結果漂亮，但實戰不太好。但我看了您提供的 link，D80 在 ISO1600 真的比 400D 還要好耶！（旁邊 A100 感覺上就像來亂的）。
yuanleex wrote:
從您這句話的意思，我推斷您的本意應該是說，DCVIEW 測試說 D80 結果漂亮，但實戰不太好。但我看了您提供的 link，D80 在 ISO1600 真的比 400D 還要好耶！（旁邊 A100 感覺上就像來亂的）。
關於甚麼樣的雜訊處理方法才算好，每個人有自己評判的標準。
對於這幾張照片，如果我們重點觀察左下方的樹葉叢的話。
很清楚的能看出，400D 和 α100 走的是保存細節這一路，到最後都還能有看清樹葉的感覺，
只是算法上400D明顯高出α100一籌，以至後者看起來像亂來一樣
和他們相異的是D80，走的是平滑相近色彩這個辦法，所以到了最後幾張畫面相對干凈，
但是感覺樹葉都粘在了一起，連成一片一樣。
這兩種套路大家各花入各眼吧，小弟是比較喜歡400D和α100的路子，呵呵。
其實最好還是相機的AI再智能一點，遇到類似樹葉的用400D法，遇到墻壁的用D80法。。。我也是亂來的了。。
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X