DSLR v Consumer Image quality

Larry wrote:
Taking a GOOD picture with the 828 REQUIRES several factors to fall
into
place all at the same time.

NO STRONG BACKLIGHT!
NO SHARP CONTRAST EXTREMES!

Very carefull adjustment of flash level if flash is used.
Avoid sparkling jewelry on subjects.

SHOOT IN MANUAL
CROSS YOU FINGERS

(and wave a chicken over your head while chanting "I hate Sony for
this" over
and over again")

OR... Just use the F-717 to get the picture if you gotta use a Sony
use their
best one..

I'm STILL glad I didn't sell the 717 when I bought the 828.. (I sold
the V-1
instead).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Gee Larry why do you feel the need to SHOUT so much?
I have now shot close to 20,000 photos on the F828 and for the most
part it works very well. The 8 x 10 prints looks great, last year I
photographed our canoe clubs team in the Molokai Hoe long distance
canoe race and gave each of the team members a CD with all the photos
on it, they where blown away by the quality of the photos.

Having said all that, the 20D produces photos with much more detail and
it a lot more fun to use. There is in fact enough detail from the 20D
that it will not all be visible on an 8 x 10 print.

Scott

wrote:
Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
and a FZ20.


When I go to DP review and download the images from a D70, and a Coolpix
8400, I can easily see differences in noise in solid fills. I can also
easily see differences in resolution in detailed areas.

I can see the differences on the screen, but they are much more obvious
in prints.

Bob

wrote in news:1109101249.765477.235140
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
latter.
Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
and a FZ20.
Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
wait a year or two yet?

If you are happy with what you get from what you have then I fail to see
how spending money is necessary!

However on quality of image try taking photos in less than ideal
conditions.

Try in low light where you need ISO 1600 to get the shot, my Canon 10D can
do that with noise that would be acceptable for most uses (I also have a
lens with f1.8 and another lens with IS). Isn't the FZ20 limited to a max
of ISO 400? I think my 10D has lower noise at ISO 1600 than the FZ has at
ISO 400.

Try sports photos where you need very fast AF and low shutter lag. These
photos were taken with a cheap lens (only f5.6 and 2nd rate focusing motor)
and using AF: http://www.gigatech.co.nz/Superboats2005.htm

Try photos of birds in flight or planes in flight at an airshow. How much
telephoto can you get on the lens on your compact digicam?


In summary: There are advantages to using a D-SLR, if you don't need the
features then you don't need to buy a D-SLR.

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

Thankyou all for your valued comments.
The thing holding me back from going to dslr is probably because I have
become used to pulling out a consumer model and just taking a shot,
which is excellent 90% of the time. I sort of cringe at going back to
an array of lenses, clutter , finding a safe place to put one down
while changing, etc etc. Probably got lazy! But also my wife's Lumix is
pretty capable, so I'll wait it out a little because technology moves
so quickly.
DonB
I

In article .com,
says...
Gee Larry why do you feel the need to SHOUT so much?
I have now shot close to 20,000 photos on the F828 and for the most
part it works very well. The 8 x 10 prints looks great, last year I
photographed our canoe clubs team in the Molokai Hoe long distance
canoe race and gave each of the team members a CD with all the photos
on it, they where blown away by the quality of the photos.

Having said all that, the 20D produces photos with much more detail and
it a lot more fun to use. There is in fact enough detail from the 20D
that it will not all be visible on an 8 x 10 print.

Scott


The CAPs are for emphasis, not volume!

I'de use italics if they worked....

I do get frustrated about the camera the 828 should have been, as opposed to
the camera it is...

Im around 20,000 exposures myself, so I shouldn't complain.. But I do break
out the 717 if the backlight situation getss bad (which it does every day of
a horseshow at around 2 PM at the venue we use most).

The arena is completely open at one end,(essentially it is a building with
only 3 walls, with a 40 skylighted ceiling and a 150x250 foot floor) and
first thing in the morning, and again late in the PM the sun comes in that
open end full blast, giving me the strongest backlight in the solar system
for a couple of hours a day.

So I cant use the 828 (or at least cant use it in that direction) for a good
chunk of the day.



Like I said, FRUSTRATING!

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
because image quality is my thing.

If image quality is your thing, you will find that at size A4 a cheap 3 MP
point and shoot is not much different than a Canon 1Ds Mk II or a 4x5 view
camera on film. All of them look just about the same with a small print.

The only time it makes any difference is when you start to enlarge the
picture for any reason. You can enlarge a 4x5 piece of film a lot more than
any digital before you start losing image quality.

A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
manufacturers' marketing departments. Consider the "sensor size" of the eye
of an eagle, or even a human eye, and the relative quality of that sensor
vs. any camera or film. (I suppose a human eye could be defined as a 150 MP
sensor, but only about 16 MP are used for color vision -- the rest simply
give a rough outline of light and dark. One may note, too, that small
children, whose eyes are not fully developed, may still "see" something like
digital noise, which disappears at about age 5 or so. The physical size of a
human eye is not all that large; the eye of an eagle is much smaller yet
sharper with better color vision.) I wonder how much the image recorded by
the eye could be enlarged before you began to see significant degradation,
but I digress.

Anyway, I suspect that we are far from the limit in what can be crammed onto
an imaging chip.

I just spent a long weekend traveling around and photographing a lot of
different environments in the dead of a cold New England winter --
seaside villages and dunes, forest trails, railroad scenes, etc. --
with my Oly 5060. For much of the time I had a couple of conversion
lenses tucked into my jacket and a spare battery in my pocket. That's
it. Not even a camera bag. The results were really fine, even in low
light (a lot of noise talk is pretty exaggerated I think) . What wasn't
fine I could fix up quickly with Photoshop. My sense is that it is all
cost-benefit analysis at a time when new dslr products are still pretty
pricey and many have a lot of bugs to be worked out as the megapixel
parade calms down. Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
only be met by a dslr go for it. Or some old lenses looking or a new
home. Otherwise, the high end prosumers offer portability, no dust on
sensors, not much to fiddle with and some stunning images. I'd wait a
year or two and in the meantime really get a good sense of what you
really need. This is not to say that you cannot get real added value
with a dslr, but don't leap until you no longer have to try to figture
it out. Most of us have yet to fully exploit or appreciate the features
on our cameras. When they are exhaused and we know what more we need
it's time to move on.


wrote:
I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty
pleased
with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
latter.
Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk
about
their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far
greater
than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
and a FZ20.
Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more
expensive
DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with
the
E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
wait a year or two yet?
DonB

I just spent a long weekend traveling around and photographing a lot of
different environments in the dead of a cold New England winter --
seaside villages and dunes, forest trails, railroad scenes, etc. --
with my Oly 5060. For much of the time I had a couple of conversion
lenses tucked into my jacket and a spare battery in my pocket. That's
it. Not even a camera bag. The results were really fine, even in low
light (a lot of noise talk is pretty exaggerated I think) . What wasn't
fine I could fix up quickly with Photoshop. My sense is that it is all
cost-benefit analysis at a time when new dslr products are still pretty
pricey and many have a lot of bugs to be worked out as the megapixel
parade calms down. Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
only be met by a dslr go for it. Or some old lenses looking or a new
home. Otherwise, the high end prosumers offer portability, no dust on
sensors, not much to fiddle with and some stunning images. I'd wait a
year or two and in the meantime really get a good sense of what you
really need. This is not to say that you cannot get real added value
with a dslr, but don't leap until you no longer have to try to figture
it out. Most of us have yet to fully exploit or appreciate the features
on our cameras. When they are exhaused and we know what more we need
it's time to move on.


wrote:
I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty
pleased
with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
latter.
Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk
about
their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far
greater
than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
and a FZ20.
Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more
expensive
DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with
the
E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
wait a year or two yet?
DonB

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
manufacturers' marketing departments.


In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
image quality?

In the presence of noise, more signal is always
desirable. It certainly works that way for film,
and in fact for any other physical measurement
that I know of.

Your argument is curious, because sensor size is
one thing that the "marketing departments" have
taken pains to obscure -- at least for their
point & shoot / consumer models.

For a number of reasons, that sort of obfuscation
doesn't work in the DSLR market.

Now, it's possible that not all 15.0 x 22.7 mm
sensors are equally efficient at creating
images... but I haven't seen any hard data at
all on that topic.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

12x with image stabilization
DonB