2007 was a good year, and I wrote a number of interesting product reviews.
A recent article I wrote was a list of lens bargains for the Sony Alpha (formerly Minolta Maxxum) lens mount. The article was titled Sony Alpha (Minolta Maxxum mount) lens bargains.
I also wrote a review of my main wide-angle lens, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. And predictably review was titled Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Review.
A couple years ago I wrote an article called How Ebay profits from software piracy, based on my experiences with one transaction. Those are the most recent articles on my photography blog.
Several years ago I wrote a review of the CompactDrive PSD PD7X. This is a portable hard drive casing that ran off of AAA batteries and allowed you to dump the contents of CompactFlash drive cards on to your portable hard drive in the field. In the days of 16 gig CF cards, it is not terribly useful anymore. It back when he spent $200 for a one gig card, it made a lot more sense.
I also written a review of Genuine Fractals 3.5, were I compared it to Photoshop CS bicubic interpolation, and found Photoshop to upsize better than genuine fractals. The article is titled Genuine Fractals 3.5 Review.
Before that I wrote a review of the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. I am still very pleased with the camera, and think that the 7D still takes better pictures than my Sony Alpha 100. Read my review at Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Review.
My latest article is titled Flatbed scanner comparison: The Canon CanoScan 4400F vs the CanoScan 8600F. in this article I attempt to answer the question, "What is the difference between the Canon CanoScan 4400F and the CanoScan 8600F?
Daniel
In most important ways, the two scanners are the same: same tray size, same resolutions, same light source, internals, scan speeds, and firmware. The points of difference are primarily in build quality, and the extras that the 8600F has that the 4400F does not. Both have programmable buttons which allow for semi-automated scanning.
The first point is the bundled software. The driver is essentially the same for both, but the 8600F comes with Photoshop Elements. This may or may not be important, depending on whether you need Elements, or if you already have a full version of Photoshop.
The next point is that while both will scan 35mm negatives, only the 8600F will scan medium format negatives. This will only affect the few photographers who shot medium format – which is almost none of us amateurs.
While we are on the topic of negatives, the 8600F has digital dust reduction; the 4400F does not. The feature is called FARE (film automatic retouching and enhancement) and automatically removes scratches and dust from negatives. This is actually a very important feature if you plan to scan any real quantity of negatives. Even perfectly stored negatives have minute particles dust on them, and it can take up to 15 minutes per image in Photoshop to remove all the dust if you scan at full resolution and then try to clone stamp out every dust particle.
Another difference is that the 8600F has an on/off switch, while the 4400F does not.
Beyond the additional features is the difference in build quality. The first significant difference is the lid. Both lids are rather heavy and solid (the 8600F more so) which is nice if you scan books or things that need to lie flat. Then there is the difference in hinges. The 8600F has metal hinges that adjust vertically on metal supports so will stay open through 90 degrees of motion. The 4400F has a plastic hinge with a “break-away" articulating hinge to accommodate books or thick materials. When you place a book on the 4400F the lid hinge snaps open to accommodate the item, but will not stay open on its own. Since the hinge on the 4400F is all plastic and has a small piece of plastic that locks the articulating or adjusting part of the hinge, it is not ideally suited to high-volume book scanning. Another thing about the lid construction: the 8600F has a heavy-duty cable to power the light in the lid, while the 4400F provides power to the lid by a thin tape cable that is visible in the hinge, and might not be as durable under heavy use.
So which one is best for you? If you plan to scan mostly photo prints, loose papers, and small sections of books, the 4400F will save you nearly $100. If you will scan only a few 35mm negatives, the 4400F is fine. If you want to scan stacks of books, or large collections of negatives or 35mm slides, then the 8600F will serve you better. If you have medium format negatives or medium format slides, the 8600F is your only choice. Now, if you plan to scan a large collection of negatives or slides, seriously consider a dedicated negative scanner (like the Nikon CoolScan IV). I did several direct comparisons between the CoolScan IV dedicated negative scanner and the CanoScan 8600F (I own both) and found that the dedicated scanner produced significantly better scans (at 4000dpi) than the CanoScan (at 4800dpi). The difference was in the detail and especially in the color contrast. In the end I scanned close to 500 rolls of film in the dedicated film scanner. It is clearly the best way to go.
A final tip. Whatever scanner you get, you will usually get better images if you ignore the provided software and scan with VueScan. VueScan will talk directly to your scanner, produce better scans with less fuss, and makes batch scanning really easy.
The following lenses represent an unusual value. They are not necessarily the cheapest or the best quality available, but they all represent a very high quality for a reasonable price.
I've written this guide from the perspective of a longtime and Minolta user. I own the lenses below, but I don't buy or sell them. You'll have to find them on eBay or elsewhere on the web, and all the usual caveats about careful online shopping, checking seller reputation, and avoiding fraudulent listings applies. I wish simply to point you to lenses for the Sony Alpha / Minolta Maxxum mount that offer excellent value.
50mm f/1.4
This standby standard lens comes in several variants. They are all the same optical design and are all essentially equal. Some have different filter thread sizes (some are 49 mm, other 55 mm) and the newer ones have focal distance information to aid newer flash systems (these have a D at the end of their label). A really rare variant is the 1988 version with the crossed x’s (XX), a logo design that was quickly changed after complaints from Exxon, and thus extremely rare and valued by collectors. And Sony has released their version under the Alpha brand. From the point of view of basic performance they are all the same.
The 50mm f/1.4 is an extraordinarily sharp lens with one of the highest MTF ratings of any lens available. You really have no idea what your camera is capable of until you try this lens with it. If all you've had is the kit lens you'll be astonished by how much better your photos can be. Things just sparkle with contrast and clarity. The downside is no zoom, but the upside is worth it if you value really, really good pictures.
This lens costs around $325 new, and can sometimes be had in the used range for under $200. That isn't cheap, unless you consider just how amazingly good photos with this lens are in comparison to what you are currently using. Then it looks like a bargain.
35mm F/2 (rare)
Discontinued in the early 90s, this lens is the less expensive version of Minolta's legendary 35mm f/1.4, a $1400 lens. It's extraordinarily sharp at all apertures and all focal distances, and belongs to the small club of lenses with an MTF rating of over 4 (from a possible five). Better yet, it shines on 1.5x crop factor digital SLR’s like the Maxxum 7D, 5D and the Sony Alpha-100 and -700, where it is effectively a 50 mm f/2. It's hard to give a current price since they so seldom come up for sale, but a range of $200 to $400 for a good condition copy seems reasonable.
100mm f/2 (rare)
Another classic lens from the early 90s, long since discontinued. This lens is among the sharpest available for any system, with an MTF of 4.6. It doesn't do well on macro, and only focus is down to about 3 feet, but for any other purpose is just stunning. The bokeh (out of focus area blur smoothness) is among the best available, and it takes stunningly sharp portraits that yet isolate the subject against a background in a way that no general purpose is zoom is capable of (and that's just a function of lens design; a lens can't be all things, and zooms by design tend to have a very deep field of focus, which is really great for amateurs that makes it hard to get a professional looking portrait). This one too is quite difficult to find, and thus difficult to price, but even at $400 would be a good buy.
70-210 f/4 “the beer can”
This lens is truly become a cult classic. It used to be you could get them routinely for under $100, but those days are long gone and today they are pushing above $200. It's strange that it 30-year-old lens design remains this popular. But it's popular for a reason. The only downside is it's size; it does everything else amazingly well. It focuses close to about 12 inches. It is razor-sharp edge to edge at any focal length to infinity. It’s at f/4 at 210mm (on a dSLR that's an effective 315mm). And the pictures just look amazing. What more is there to say? You can get a better lens for $1500, but there's not much else below that that comes anywhere close to this one.
100-200 f/4
This lens has not yet achieved cult classic status, and as such still routinely sells for under $100. The contrast to this and the "beer can" above is a perfect lesson in how lens design is a trade-off of factors. This lens is very small and lightweight. It's also amazingly sharp. So what did they have to give up? Close focusing. Minimal focusing distances over 3 feet, so don't expect to use it for macro shots. But such a tiny lens doesn't scream "pro photographer", so it's useful where you don't want to stand out. Yet it certainly takes photos every bit as good as lenses costing 10 times as much. And while there are plenty of medium-telephoto zooms that you can choose from, none this small come anywhere close to having this level of image quality, and none with this image quality are anywhere close to this price. This is probably the best value lens around.
35-70 f/4
The little brother to the "beer can", this lens was designed at the same time and sold to complement its much larger sibling. In the days of dSLR cameras, the focal length is somewhat limited, becoming an effective 50-105mm zoom. But someday in a few years Sony will start selling full frame dSLR’s with the alpha mount and this little lens will become popular again. It has all the quality of the "beer can", including an amazing edge to edge sharpness and a constant f/4 aperture, and its focal range is actually the most commonly used for film cameras. Finally, add the fact that they routinely sell for under $50, and you have a real value bargain. Just don't confuse it with other 35-70mm lenses that aren't nearly as good, such as the f/3.5-4.5 variants. This one was also discontinued in the early 1990s.
24-105 f/4-5.6 D
Back when Minolta released what is probably the best film camera of all time, the Maxxum 7, they also developed a brand-new general purpose zoom lens to be the high-end kit lens for the system. Most kit lenses sell separately for under $100, but this one has a list price of $500, so it's clearly no ordinary kit lens. In general use it’s an all around excellent lens, long enough that you don't often reach for a telephoto, yet broad enough to work even on a dSLR with 1.5x crop factor, having a functional 35mm bottom end. Sony reissue this one with an alpha label on it, so you can have it new for $440 or you can pick up a used Minolta version for under $200 if you can find one. I've probably shot close to 40,000 images with this on the Maxxum 7D and many have been published. If you leave the house with just one lens, this is the one you’ll want (unless your budget stretches to the thousands). It represents an excellent value when you compare overall image quality to the price you pay.
There are plenty of other excellent lenses for the Maxxum/Sony Alpha lens mount, and most of them are much more expensive. But these all represent extraordinary value because they produce exceptional image quality at reasonable prices.
I originally got the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for my Maxxum 7D because I needed a good wide-angle lens for landscape and indoor photography. Because the Maxxum 7D has a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film, this acts as a built in zoom factor of 150%. What this means is all 35mm lenses are essentially zoomed 1.5 times closer than they are when used on a 35mm film camera body. This is great for telephoto lenses, because you get even more zoomed out of them. Your standard 210mm lens functions as a 315mm lens, and at the same aperture. On the wide-angle of things this is problematic. A 24 mm lens, normally an excellent wide-angle, is functionally a 36mm lens. Even an unusually wide 14 mm lens becomes a 21 mm. So the Sigma 10-20mm zoom functions effectively as a 15-30 mm zoom lens. Yet that is wide enough.
More than most lens manufacturers, Sigma suffers from uneven quality control (maybe less so now than 20 years ago but still to some degree). What this means is that individual samples of Sigma lenses can vary widely in their quality. A good one is very, very good. A bad one can be quite poor. And they can be brand-new in the box sitting next to each other on the shelf. The only way to really know is to test them. There have been numerous reports of individual examples of the Sigma 10-20mm which focus sharply only on one half of the lens, the other half being always slightly blurry (these are reported more by owners of the Nikon and Canon mount versions, but then most of these lenses are probably sold in Canon and Nikon mounts, so by virtue of their being more of them they'll also be more reports of defective ones).
I was fortunate in that the lens I purchased did not have any problems. Wide-open there is a lot of softness at the edges, but stopped down a bit its sharp all the way across. There are minor issues of vignetting towards the edges on high contrast subjects, but you only notice this zoomed to 100% in Photoshop. In all this is a great lens for the price, and really allows for wide-angle photography with DSLR cameras.
Here are a few images. Camera us the Maxxum 7D firmware 1.10. Click on them for a full size 2000x3000 4mb jpeg version.
Optimal sharpness:10mm @ f/8, 1/300th (Grand Teton National Park)
Optimal sharpness:20mm @ f/9, 1/250th (Zion National Park)
Optimal sharpness:10mm @ f/8, 1/640th (Homolavi Ruins State Park, AZ)
Wide open: 10mm @ f/4, 1/30th [no tripod; love that anti-shake!] (Zion National Park)
ACPI\AWY0001\4&3036D68D&0
A google search was not very helpful, but a little more poking around and I figured it out. There is a BIOS option called “Quick Resume” that sounded like something I wanted, so I had turned it on. However, “Quick Resume” only works with the Media Center version of Windows, and not with ordinary Windows XP Professional. And that was the source of my mystery device. I turned “Quick Resume” off in the BIOS and the mystery device went away.
How Ebay profits from software piracy
Recently I was looking for a newer version of WinDVD for my PC. Of course I know that I could take a quick trip to the seedy side of the internet and get a free version or a crack for the trial version that would probably not contain too nasty of a virus or trojan. But I decided long ago that as a matter of principle that I would only run properly licensed software on my PC. But that does not mean that I was instantly going to pay $70 to InterVideo for the download version of WinDVD Platinum 7. So I started to look around. I downloaded a trial version of WinDVD 5 Platinum, and decided that 5 had everything I wanted. So I looked on Amazon, and checked Pricegrabber. There were older versions offered for less, but everything was over $30, so I kept looking. And I turned to Ebay.
I have been occasionally buying and selling things on Ebay for 6 years, and with a few exceptions, it has always worked the way it is supposed to. People are usually honest, and things get worked out. So I feel comfortable with the whole process. Well, I found a number of copies of WinDVD for sale, from the first version up to the latest version 7. Some are new in the retail box, others are OEM (sold with the required "untested piece of hardware" so that they meet the legal requirements). After looking through the listings, one price is by far the lowest: WinDVD 7 for $8 (total including shipping). That is really low. I checked the seller's feedback: 6 months on Ebay, 130 ratings, with 100% positive. "What do I have to lose?" I think. "At that price, even if I get ripped off, it won't be much of a loss." I carefully read the listing, to make sure that I haven't missed anything. Everything in the listing indicates that this is a regular version of WinDVD 7. The seller has 20 for sale. Ebay makes a lot of noise about how they strictly prohibit software piracy. So I buy it, and pay with PayPal.
A few days later, the disc arrives. It is a burned CD-R, with an inkjet label (a scan of the regular disc top). Taped to the CD sleeve is a somewhat blurry color photocopy of the serial number. I'm not about to load this on my PC. It seems that the price was too good to be true. Time to see how the system works. I email the seller.
"Dude, this is a burned CD-R. What's up with that?"
I get a response (copied verbatim with errors): "Dude does it work??? u got a nice item for a decent price right???"
As in, who cares if it is illegal, if it works, it shouldn't matter. And apparently over 100 Ebay members agree, and have given this seller positive feedback, including over 10 who bought exactly the same thing. The next response is:
"so what do u want for me to do???? i bought them as a bundle and now selling them here on ebay, it works great though right because i use it on my computer, nice piece....open for suggestions.."
So I reply: "Well, first Ebay prohibits selling burned CD-R's, so that is probably why it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the listing. OEM versions unbundled from their hardware are also prohibited. Now if I wanted a pirated version of WinDVD 7, I would just download one or get the crack. Instead I made a decision to only run properly purchased software on my system, which is the reason I paid for it. Since I didn't get what I was lead to expect, I'd like a full refund. I'll mail your CD-R back to you if you want it."
To which the seller replies: "sure send it back and ill refund your money, even after you downloaded it?? how do I have proof that u didn’t do this already, what else did u expect for 99 cents, and as far as the crack I bought that here on ebay and it only lasted 2 weeks when I need to re-install it it didn’t work but with the disc u have it will always work, that’s why in my auctions I ask people to ask me any questions b4 they buy, and ill answer any questions for them. and u did get a properly paid for item I don’t understand.....????"
Notice how the mind of a criminal works. Here is someone who is making money scamming people on Ebay, and he is concerned that someone might take advantage of him. The irony is immense. Notice also that after I said that I refused to download it illegally, I am now accused of illegally downloading it.
My response is perhaps a little more annoyed than it should have been: "I haven’t downloaded it, although I could. I could be ripping you off, but I’m not. You are ripping me off, running an illegal business on Ebay, and then getting upset when your customers object to the deception. Your auction did not state OEM, and did not state burned CD-R. You did not deliver what you listed, and it is not my responsibility to ask you if you are breaking any rules or misrepresenting your item before I bid."
To which our scammer responds: "just for refernec when I do get this back im not going to full refund you due to the fact postage+envelope+finalfees+paypal fees, because ill be damned if u think ill be paying all of these fees after u installed everything already."
Greed, plus lack of logic and listening skills (to say nothing of grammar) have created a strange situation in his mind. He is being scammed by a customer who wants something for nothing (projection?). Just for example, I never said that I installed it, but he is now sure that that is what I have done. I, of course, am convinced that I am in the right. So I file a PayPal complaint: Item significantly not as described.
The seller emails me privately: "fine have it your way get nothing back!!! not a problem with me,, thanx again." And a few minutes later through Ebay says: " i dont have a problem taking the disc back, but u really think i should pay all assiocited fees thus far u not asking me any questions b4 purchase, and even though the auction says no returns and as-is as well...."
At this point I am still sure that the system works, and that Ebay cares about preventing software piracy. In the long run, it turns out that our scammer actually knows Ebay far better than I do. Privately he emails me to say: "no where does it says it’s a legit version, keep that in mind but it does say as-is!!!!!". On Ebay he states, "u really think its fair u didn’t read the as-is auction, and then expect for me to pay all fees because of your mistake, please send me the disc back if it really bother you so much but im still deducting all fees I paid for, u decide, and I've delt with people like u b4 and ince we tried to work things out they still reported, me so how do I have your word, even after u probably still installed this software..what will bring your ease down???" Somehow it is all my fault that I didn't presume the software they were selling on Ebay was actually illegal, and didn't confirm in advance that the listing was really for what it said it was for. The sad thing is that, in the long run, Ebay would take his side!
After I file my complaint, Paypal states that they will make a thorough investigation, and will let me know the outcome in 30 days. A few days later my scammer tries to manipulate his feedback, asking: "To show u how much of a woman i am just lets try this leave me feedback, 1st, then send me the disc, and once disc is recieved ill reund u 7.00 bucks???? and of cousre once u leave me feedback ill do the same for you, no questions asked, but b4 all u much cancel the paypal quirrel??? hows that??? respond b4 4pm today if not ill be gone till monday thanx.."
I ignore it.
30 days pass, and then I get a real surprise, an Email from PayPal. The message is simple:
"Based on PayPal's definition of significantly not-as-described, this claim does not qualify for a refund. We found the seller to have accurately represented the item(s) in question."
The determination is final. There are no appeals. Ebay/Paypal approves of the sale, and will do nothing to sanction the seller.
And boom - there it is! Ebay and PayPal really don't care about software piracy. They encourage it. After all, they profit from it. I've been keeping tabs on my scammer, meanwhile. In the last month he's sold close to 100 copies of WinDVD 7 Gold for $8 each. And he has also sold about 30 copies of WinDVD 7 Platinum for $25 each. Ebay has made between $2 and $3 on each transaction. No wonder they have no interest in stopping it. Total to scammer: about $1300 after expenses. Total to Ebay: about $300. His feedback has dropped to 98%, but he switched his feedback to private. This means that his buyers can't read why people rate him negatively – the actual comments that would tell a potential buyer that others have received pirated goods are hidden. Another way Ebay facilitates pirates. Multiply that by hundreds of such scammers, and you have some serious profits. The only party that really suffers is InterVideo. You think they would care, but they have not responded to my emails. And you can still buy an illegal copy of WinDVD 7 for $8 on Ebay.
PS: In case anyone is wondering, I ended up buying a boxed retail version of WinDVD 5 Platinum for about $22 from a surplus store in England. It arrived in 5 days by airmail.
CompactDrive PSD PD7X Serial Review So now we have the hard drive properly formatted and installed
Here is the drive from the front, and below is the Compact Flash card.
And here we see the one drawback. The Compact Flash card below is fully inserted. If you look at the packaging again, you will see that this fact is actually shown on the box. Now I, for one, didn't really notice it, or think much of it. However, if I am bounding through Arches National Park and switch Compact Flash cards, and go to empty this one in the CompactDrive PSD PD7X, well, I'll have to live with the fact that the cover is open and the card is sticking out. This will make it harder to throw the CompactDrive PSD PD7X in my backpack while it copies the files off the card (a full 1 Gig card takes almost 5 minutes to copy over). This is an annoyance and a bit of a design flaw, but tolerable.
Once I have copied the test files over to the CompactDrive PSD PD7X, it is time to try getting them on to a computer. So I plug in the USB cable.
The drive was instantly recognized... ... installed itself and showed up in "My Computer".
A couple of clicks and I was browsing the pictures. Typically in a reviewer will perform an exhaustive number of tests to benchmark the transfer speeds under various conditions. I haven't the time. All I can say is that the times seem to match the manufacturers claim. The Compact Flash to HD transfer speeds are about 4 megabytes per second ( or a bit over 4 minutes for a 1 Gig card) and the transfer from hard drive to computer via the USB2 cable is about what you would expect for USB2. CONCLUSION: The CompactDrive PSD PD7X meets my expectations, and does exactly what the manufacturer claims it will do. Be aware that any hard drive you install has to be formatted FAT32 before you install it, and this can be tricky if you only have Windows XP. |
|---|
CompactDrive PSD PD7X Serial Review Ok, all ready to go. I turned it on, and... Uh oh. Frowning face and an error #10. I look this up in the manual. Appearently the CompactDrive PSD PD7X can't format a hard drive, the drive has to be formatted before installation, and the drive has to be formatted FAT32. Since the hard drive is brand new, it has not been formatted or partitioned yet. There is only one thing to do: take the drive out and format it properly, then reinstall it. Out comes the drive. To format it, it must be installed in a PC and formatted. Since it is a laptop drive, it has to either go into a laptop, or you can use a 2.5" to 3.5" Hard drive adapter ($5-$10). Fortunately I have one on hand for this kind of thing. Here is the adapter on the laptop drive.
I put the drive in a removable drive bay. These are easier to use than opening up the whole PC every time you want to add or remove a hard drive.
The drive tray is inserted into the drive bay.
Then you lock it into place, and turn on the PC.
Inside Windows XP Disk Manager, the new drive shows up. Below are the steps to partition and format the drive.
Here is the next problem: FAT32 is not an option for formatting the drive. A quick check with Microsoft TechNet confirms it: Windows XP will not format a partition larger than 32GB with FAT32. Windows will only format NTFS on a 60GB drive. If I want to use the entire capacity of this drive on the CompactDrive PSD PD7X, I will have to use Windows 98, Linux, or something else to format the drive FAT32. Well, I don't have any Win98 machines laying around, and I don't feel like installing Linux just for this, so that leaves...
Good old Partition Magic Pro! I reboot the system from the Partition Magic floppy, and we're off to work!
So there it is! Disk formatted in Partition Magic. I install the hard drive in the CompactDrive PSD PD7X again, and this time it works!
|
|---|
CompactDrive PSD PD7X Serial Review 280 pictures may seem like a lot. That is how many images my Maxxum 7D will store on a 1 Gig CompactFlash card at top JPEG resolution. 80 is a lot less; that is how many RAW images it will hold. For those days where I am hiking in, say, Arches National Park, I might want to take 10 times that many shots in one afternoon. That is a lot of CompactFlash cards! And what if I am away from my laptop for a week? How many shots could I take? This got me to looking at portable storage drives. I wanted one where I could upgrade the hard drive myself, since drives are continually becomming cheaper. After looking at several, I chose the CompactDrive PSD PD7X, and ordered from www.mydigitaldiscount.com. I also ordered a Hitachi 60gig 5400RPM laptop hard drive to use in it, from www.zipzoomfly.com. A couple of days later, the packages arrived.
Inside was the CompactDrive PSD PD7X, retail box.
Opening the box, I found:
The drive comes with a nice screwdriver! Opening up the instructions, I found the steps simple, and the illustratins clear. Here is the hard drive, brand new and in the anti-static bag.
In principle, this is simple. Open up the CompactDrive PSD PD7X, insert the drive, and off we go! Here goes... No problem getting the back cover off. In goes the hard drive. A small plastic piece holds the drive in place, and serves as an anchor for the cover screws. The cover goes on, and it is time to tighten the screws back down. All done! Drive installed. Time to get out the CompactFlash card, in this case a SanDisc Ultra II 1 Gig.
4 NiMH AA rechargable batteries are easy to insert.
|
|---|
At $140 the program is not cheap. The question is, is it worth it? Especially when Adobe Photoshop CS has such a good tool for upresing files with Bicubic Interpolation. So I bought a copy and decided to do a quick test. With my new Maxxum 7D I now have lots of 6 megapixel images to test. The 7D produces a 3008 x 2000 pixel image. Some stock houses want at least 5000 x 3000 pixels, so some uprezing will be necessary. The question is, do the extra steps involved in using Genuine Fractals produce a better image? Or will a quick Photoshop action do the trick?
The Test
For the test I picked a picture almost at random, then enlarged it 400% (to about 12,000 x 8,000 pixels) with both Photoshop CS and Genuine Fractals 3.5. Below are 100% crops of four different parts of the image. I was in a hurry, so the crop areas are not exactly identical, but you can easily compare the two results.
| Genuine Fractals 3.5 |
|---|
 |
| Photoshop CS Bicubic Interpolation |
 |
| Genuine Fractals 3.5 |
 |
| Photoshop CS Bicubic Interpolation |
 |
| Genuine Fractals 3.5 |
 |
| Photoshop CS Bicubic Interpolation |
|
| Genuine Fractals 3.5 |
 |
| Photoshop CS Bicubic Interpolation |
 |
Observations
At first glance the results are very close. Unless you go to 100%, you won't tell a difference between the two. At 100% there are slight differences. Genuine Fractals renders the details smoother, in what to my eye appears a more artificial way. The image takes on a hint of computer generated "fakeness". Look at the highlight on the glasses frame in example 1, or the highlights in the sweater knit in example 3. The one place that this tendency to smooth the highlights works well is in the close-up of the hair in example 2. In that crop, Genuine Fractals 3.5 has a slight edge over Photoshop CS. But the tendency to smoothing serves only to eliminate the subtlest detail in fairly uniform areas, such as example 4.
Conclusions
This test is hardly scientific or detailed. It shows the results of manipulation at only one size (400% enlargement) on only one image (chosen more or less at random). And it uses only one starting file size – 3008 x 2000 pixels. Yet this random sample is likely close to what your average dSLR shooter will be using the program on. I have already read other reviews that state that Genuine Fractals does better the more detail it has, and thus would do less well with smaller images such as are produced by a 3 megapixel camera.
At best Genuine Fractals 3.5 does no worse than Photoshop CS. But for $140 that is not enough to recommend the program. Worse, it introduces a smoothing that starts to look fake on close examination. Photoshop CS renders a much more natural looking result that to my eye is preferable overall.
Save your money.
