Digital camera I have owned

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Scott W, Jun 26, 2005.

  1. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
    photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
    height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
    of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
    advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.

    Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
    the top, the newest on the bottom.

    I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
    adding a few more cameras to the list.

    Scott W, Jun 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Scott W

    denis Guest

    A very interesting excercise!
    denis, Jun 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Scott W

    Rick Guest

    Scott, is that Keauhou in the background?
    Rick, Jun 26, 2005
  4. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Boy are you close, that is Kailua, I paddle out of Keauhou, which is
    south about 6 miles.
    You are looking right at the Kailua pier.

    Scott W, Jun 26, 2005
  5. Scott W

    Rick Guest

    Ah ok, thanks. I couldn't figure out which hotel that is
    (directly above the palm tree in the center of this shot).
    Is it the King Kam?
    Rick, Jun 26, 2005
  6. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Yup, that is the King Kam.

    You can make out a bit of Old A. behind.

    Here is the whole photo, it might make it a bit easier to figure out
    just where you are looking.

    Do you or did you live here?

    Scott W, Jun 26, 2005
  7. Scott W

    Rick Guest

    Thanks. What a great shot. I'd never seen Kailua from that
    angle before.
    Just a frequent visitor to the island since 1990. Me and the
    SO are planning to move there someday.
    Rick, Jun 26, 2005
  8. Scott W

    birdman Guest

    I have done similar comparisons using my 828, D70 and 200ASA color negative
    film scanned at 2000dpi.
    When you start comparing higher definition image sources what you actually
    see on the monitor is not always what you believe you are seeing and not
    what a print will yield.
    To a great degree in comparing the Canon and Sony you are comparing jpeg
    algorithms and not what the sensors and lenses are capable of producing. The
    algorithm that enhances edge contrast/sharpness in a particular scene to
    your liking will look best.
    You should compare a raw and jpeg of the same scene to see what the camera
    has done to the image with its in-camera jpeg processing. More often than
    not, in my experience, the jpeg is far from optimal. Basically, it stinks.
    In my personal tests, using digital raw formats, because of the two
    megapixel difference in resolution enlarged sections from the Sony 828
    images on a monitor almost invariably appear sharper and more detailed than
    the 6mp D70 images. Because of the appearance of film grain on an enlarged
    section of a film scan both digital images look "better" on a computer
    monitor even though they may actually contain less pictorial information.
    However inkjet prints are a different matter than what you think you see on
    a computer monitor. For the most part the prints are indistinguishable as to
    source. That doesn't mean there are no differences between the prints, just
    that it is not clear which originated from digital and which originated from
    film sources. More often than digital afficinados would like to admit the
    film images print better because of the superior dynamic range of color
    negative film, a quality that can be missed on a computer monitor.
    birdman, Jun 26, 2005
  9. Scott W

    ecm Guest

    Very interesting exercise - and VERY interesting pictures - but I find
    myself wanting more details:

    1. What focal length were the cameras at when you took the pics (35mm
    2. How many megapixels are we talking about (eg HP Photosmart - 1.3
    Mpixels? 2.1?)
    3. What lens on the 20D?
    4. What file format was used, and what compression level, if any?
    5. Not to open a whole can of worms, but - did you consider a pic with
    35mm film scanned at a similar resolution to compare?

    My OCD kicking in, I guess.... Thanks for posting!
    ecm, Jun 26, 2005
  10. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    The last two photos in thegroup, the F828 and the 20D were both done
    from raw, the whole image was save at the lowest compression level.

    I put this group together just for fun, I have been orginizing my
    office and came across all my old cameras so I though I would see how
    things have progressed. The thing that does not show up in the photos
    is how much improvment in the human factors part there has been. The
    first digital I owned did not have a screen to view the photos you
    took, it would take several seconds to take the photo and then several
    more to save it to the memory card.
    Each camera has gotten faster and easier to use, the 20D is a pure joy
    to use.

    With regards to dynamic range I find that I get more from my digital
    cameras then I do from my scans of my negative film.

    Scott W, Jun 26, 2005
  11. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    The resolutions were as follows,

    Photosmart 640 x 480 (and soft at that)
    Ricoh 1280 x 960
    Nikon Coolpix 995 2048 x 1536
    Sony F828 3264 x 2448
    Canon 20D 3504 x 2336 (kit lens)

    I tried to come close to matching the field of view of all the cameras.
    The focal length for the 20D was 34mm, so taking into account the 1.6
    factor this would be the same as about 55mm for a 35mm camera.

    I have done some comparisons between my 35mm film camera and my Sony
    F828, after which I quit shooting film. Film is a real hassle here and
    just not worth shooting.

    Scott W, Jun 26, 2005
  12. Scott W

    Bob Guest

    It's hard to compare cameras when you have to re-sample the images... obviously
    the 'bigger' camera has an advantage...

    What I used to do was take a picture of exactly the same thing with each camera,
    and 'downsize' ALL of them to the same small size, say 640x480. I'm not sure how
    valid this is either! It's always better to pick whole numbers to re-sample,
    like x2 or /2 ... you can get close this way...

    Another thing I tried was to take a picture of a scene so that a certain piece
    was always the same size... for example, if 1 camera was 3000x2000 and another
    one was 1500x1000, I would frame the larger one on twice the area... so the
    pixels on screen would be the same scene... Again, I'm not sure how valid this
    is either!

    I sold my old Kodak so I can't compare it to new pictures unless I try to copy
    an exact old picture... on the same date and time!
    Bob, Jun 26, 2005
  13. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Well shinking down to 640 x 480 would be a bit of a waste for the 8 MP

    This was just a fun thing I put together, not really compare one camera
    to the next, other have done a much better job of that then this. I
    just got a kick out of having a graphical way to look at the
    improvements in my cameras over the last 7 years.

    It is interesting to note that all the cameras as still working, the
    oldest was bought in eary 1998.


    Scott W, Jun 27, 2005
  14. Scott W

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Better yet to print them all at the same size, at a print resolution
    that won't be a bottleneck for comparison. Or, you could upsample a
    portion from each to the same size, at about 200% of the one with the
    most pixels, and then stand back from the monitor. This keeps the
    screen itself from having an influence, and exposes any false sharpness
    due to under-sampling.
    JPS, Jun 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.