DSLR v Consumer Image quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by oink, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. oink

    Scott W Guest

    The visual acuity of the human eye, even your, drops as the contrast is
    lowered. What this means is that a bit of detail that might be visible
    on the screen, where it is being view greatly enlarged, will not be
    visible to you in the print, even with you golden eyes.
    differences are not
    This seems a bit condescending, seems to me we had a photographer with
    work in a on display in a museum who has been echoing my thoughts on
    this. I think people know how to look at a photograph, I think perhaps
    some photographers have forgotten..
    consideration of the DSLR.
    If you have been reading my post you would see that I have said the
    something, I did buy a 20D after all. But subject of this thread was
    the relative image quality of a point and shoot digital vs. a DSLR,
    when looking at an A4 sized print.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    Right at the top of the thread. The very first article. That's what
    started this.

    In that first article, DonB complains that when comparing 2 different
    cameras at 200% on screen he can see very little difference. It
    brought on comments from me and others that 200% is an insane
    enlargement to be looking at and he'd be much better doing an 8x10
    print from both to do a real life comparison.

    A few million posts later and he we are.
    The point was, was that difference *only* visible at 100%, masked at
    90% and below? If so, I don't believe you. :) Because it makes no
    physical sense.
    By the same token, you should read the entire thread before butting
    in, otherwise you won't understand what the discussion is about.
    Who's attacking your art? Not me.
    Really, my experience is that it shows you less than 1/5th of the
    image at a time and you therefore loose perspective of what the point
    of the photo was, because you are not looking at it as the viewer
    would.
    Even scans in general are a different discussion.
     
    Owamanga, Feb 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. oink

    Scott W Guest

    So far the only person to do my test has reported just the opposite,
    when he showed the prints to others, and they were looking for
    differences, they could not see any, quote "While at it, I let a
    couple of other people judge the two prints,
    asking which they liked best. Their answer was "I can't see any
    difference!" Of course they aren't "experts" either. "

    So the one person who printed my photos would disagree with you,
    he used a Canon i950 BTW, of which Steves Digicams says "The i950's
    print quality is the equal of anything that I've ever had printed by
    pro color labs in my film days".

    And here is what Luminous-Landscapes had to say when comparing the 10D
    with the F828.
    "Please note when looking at the above 100% crops that these are tiny
    segments of much larger images. The full size of
    these frames at web resolution is almost 3 feet by 4 feet across.
    Therefore while there is some noise and other
    artifacting visible at these magnifications, it is essentially
    irrelevant at normal print sizes up to about 13X19".
    My comments about the camera's noise characteristics refer to what can
    be seen in normal sized prints
    of the full frame, not with ones nosed pressed up against the screen,
    counting pixels.
    In any event, what is being evaluated here is lens performance, not
    noise."
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml


    When comparing two cameras it really helps if you can look at the same
    scene and it helps if the photos can be taken within a couple of
    minutes of each other. If you try to do it with photos when each
    camera take a photo of a different scene then your own bias can make
    you believe that the photo from the your camera is the better one.
    That is way to took these two photos at the same time, so I could
    really see what the camera differences were. I took these two photos
    shortly after buying the 20D, I has a pretty big interest for the 20D
    to produce that better photos, which when looking on the screen it did.
    But when I printed the two, if I was honest with myself, I could only
    really tell the difference between the two if I looked far closer then
    any normal person would and even then the differences are hardly worth
    noting.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 28, 2005
  4. You totally missed my point! If neither 8 X 10 print shows the wires
    (or the equivalent of hair) what is so damned important? If you wish
    to crop a portion and print that ONLY, then of course you are correct.
    BUT that was NOT the drift of this test.

    Frankly, I need another camera like another hole in my head, but after
    this exercise, even at almost 80 years old with one foot in the grave,
    I'm probably now persuaded to buy something like the 20D or similar.
    But only to satisfy my ego and perfectionist leanings, even though
    I'll likely never really justify it except for the pride of being able
    to SEE the detail on the screen. My wife will think I've gone over
    the deep end, and she will be correct of course. But I don't control
    what she buys, so it's my call.

    NOW, if anyone wants to help, constructively that is, give me your
    best advice for lens (s) to acquire with such a 20D.

    Olin McDaniel
     
    Olin K. McDaniel, Feb 28, 2005
  5. oink

    Scott W Guest

    The one lens that everyone says is a must have, and I agree is the 50mm
    1.8, very sharp if stopped down just a bit and at $75 how can you pass
    it up. The 20D sample I posted was using the 50mm 1.8 lens.

    The kit lens works well enough when stopped down and is very cheap so
    you might as well get that one.

    Then it depends on how much money you are willing to spend, the 10-22mm
    Canon is a pretty neat lens if you are going to do wide angle work but
    pretty expensive. I have a freind who has one of these and you can get
    some fantastic photos with it.

    Then a telephoto lens is in order, I have a cheap sigma 70-300mm lens
    that has a macro mode, this lens really only works at f-10 or higher
    but can produce some very good photographs. If you want to spend the
    money Canon has some L lenses that are great.

    You will love the 20D, it is the most fun camera to use that I have
    ever owned.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 28, 2005
  6. oink

    Frank ess Guest

    Olin K. McDaniel wrote:

    They say:

    50mm 1.8 Canon
    18-55 kit Canon
    10-22 EF-S Canon
    "A zoom lens ... "

    Yup; the first two are like give-away items when melded-in to the 20D
    purchase scenario.

    Then comes the difficult part: where do you go from there? Nowhere,
    necessarily. If you have no specialty in mind, you are equipped to
    continue your trek toward immortality with more lens flexibility than
    many of your predecessors (Weegee, Eisenstadt, Arbus, _et alii_), quite
    on a par with what 85% of all shooters have available (statistic by
    POA).

    If you really need Wide-wide excellent quality today, the $750 10-22 is
    pretty much the only answer. Some others on the horizon may be
    satisfactory or better.

    For the long-lookers, many more choices as to length and quality. After
    a puny two months' experience with a 20D and a 70-300 DO IS I'm ready to
    pronounce it "OK or better throughout the range, excellent in the
    middle", and wish I had held out for the 70-200 2.8L and a 1.4 extender.

    So, there you have it: 10-22, 18-55, 50, 70-200+.

    Wait! What about 55-70? Uh-oh ...

    Well, my solution was 24-70 2.8L. Expensive (for me) but wonderful.
    Covers the essential "normal to portrait" range incorporated in (POA)
    85% of P&Ss sold, and it is almost unbearably sharp and responsive.

    I keep the 18-55 only because some of my work is in conditions I'd
    rather not expose the 24-70 to.

    Desert island with but one lens? As long as there is an "L" in the
    arsenal, that's got to be it. _ne_?
     
    Frank ess, Feb 28, 2005
  7. oink

    bob Guest

    That's for sure! I used to have a camera that had really strong
    compression (only). Everything looked really poor on the screen, but 4x6
    prints looked reasonable.
    With experience you can learn what will show up and what won't. It's
    just like printing negatives. At first you need to print everything in
    order to see what it looks like, but before too long you get to where
    you can evaluate the negatives directly and just know what the print
    will look like.

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 28, 2005
  8. oink

    bob Guest

    I usually make more than one Photoshop adjustment before printing. If
    you don't adjust your prints, then there wouldn't be a need to look as
    closely, because you could easily predict through experience what the
    camera/printer system was going to produce.

    I wasn't necessarily thinking in terms of *faults* either, but just
    examining so I'll know what's there before I print it.

    I went back and compared some 8x10 prints to 100% and 200% on screen
    viewing, on my smaller, older monitor. There wasn't as much to see as I
    remembered.

    Maybe that means I'm getting better at "reading" the screen so I can see
    subtlties at lower magnification that I couldn't before.

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 28, 2005
  9. oink

    Bruce Graham Guest

    but if you like nice things (and I suspect you do based on your previous
    post) you may want to pay the extra for the 50mm f1.4. I'm not saying
    that the optical performance is very much different (although the extra
    half stop or so can be useful) but I just preferred the feel of the f1.4,
    not that it is to be compared with a Leica or even an old Canon or Nikon,
    but it is nicer than the 1.8.
     
    Bruce Graham, Mar 2, 2005
  10. ....
    The misleading part of many pictures on Steve's and other sites, is that
    they are
    shot under good to excellent conditions. And as the originator pointed out,
    under
    those conditions, the difference between DSLR and P&S isn't all that great.
    Looking at low light/high ISO shots will show the short comings of the P&S
    and
    the strength of a good DSLR.

    ....
    Just to be picky... You'll get the *field of view* of a 450mm lense, but the
    focal length is still 300mm. Unless you get a "longer" lense, the FZ20 will
    will have the greater tele-photo capability.
    True. Few P&S cameras have a truely *wide* wide angle. Ultimately,
    the DSLR will always win the flexibility contest, thought the FZ20 is
    certainly more flexible than most P&S cameras. That's why I have
    one. }:)

    ....


    --
    Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
    space)[com]
    ===============================
    "I want to feel sunlight on my face
    I see the dust cloud disappear
    Without a trace
    I want to take shelter from the poison rain
    Where the streets have no name"
     
    Dan Wojciechowski, Mar 2, 2005
  11. oink

    MarkH Guest

    Sorry, but that's bollocks!

    On the FZ20 you will get the equivalent of 432mm, but the focal length is
    still 72mm, on a D70 you will get the equivalent of 450mm from a lens with
    an actual focal length of 300mm. How does the FZ20 get its greater tele-
    photo capability?

    Consider:
    D70 with 300mm = FoV equivalent of 450mm on 6MPix
    FZ20 with 72mm = Fov equivalent of 432mm on 5MPix

    Clearly the D70 has more tele-photo capability with more res across a
    narrower angle of view. The D70 can also capture more signal with less
    noise due to the larger sensor, so it can more easily get faster shutter
    speeds and a sharper picture. For telephoto performance there is no way a
    p&s can equal the capability of a D-SLR.
     
    MarkH, Mar 2, 2005
  12. oink

    Scott W Guest

    This is certainly true. I bought my 20D not so much because of the
    image quality as mush as the fact that it can take photos that my F828
    simply can't take, at least not with any quality.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 2, 2005
  13. The same way 35mm gets its greater telephoto capacity than medium format: by
    sacrificing image quality. The 90mm lens on the GW690III acts like slightly
    wide normal lens, yet the 35mm types think they're doing telephoto when they
    have a 90mm lens.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 2, 2005
  14. MarkH wrote:
    []
    But that extra performance costs you weight, bulk and money. It's not
    free. It's a value judgement as to what is "good enough" for a particular
    photographer.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 3, 2005
  15. oink

    MarkH Guest

    You'll certainly get no argument from me on that one! It is hard to argue
    with a true and accurate point. I'll just have to agree with you that D-
    SLR cameras tend to be better but heavier, bigger and more expensive. The
    compact cameras are for many purposes cheaper, smaller, lighter and good
    enough.
     
    MarkH, Mar 3, 2005
  16. oink

    MarkH Guest

    You have strayed off my point I think. I was simply answering Dan's claim
    that the 432mm equiv (from 72mm) on the FZ20 gave it more telephoto
    capability than the 450mm equiv (from 300mm) on the D70. My point was
    simply a detailed WTF?
     
    MarkH, Mar 3, 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.