Move up to an SLR for this project?

I'm starting a major project in
which I'll shoot a lot of landscape
images in raw format, archive them,
and process them in various ways.
I bought an Olympus SP-350 for the
proof-of-principle stage of this
project because it was the cheapest
that produced raw-format images and
also worked with a freeware time-lapse
controller, which, as it turned out,
I didn't use.

But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org

wrote:

But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

You will essentially always see a significant image quality difference
between small-sensor and DSLR cameras. The DSLR lenses generally make
*another* significant difference.

I can't, however, comment on the SP-350 specifically.

I'd suggest you look at the sample pictures posted in reviews at
dpreview.com, if they have a full review of the SP-350. That'll give
you pictures taken of identical subjects under controlled conditions,
and you should be able to reach a fairly informed judgment on whether
the upgrade is worth the money for what you're doing.

On Mar 9, 5:12 pm, wrote:
I'm starting a major project in
which I'll shoot a lot of landscape
images in raw format, archive them,
and process them in various ways.
I bought an Olympus SP-350 for the
proof-of-principle stage of this
project because it was the cheapest
that produced raw-format images and
also worked with a freeware time-lapse
controller, which, as it turned out,
I didn't use.

But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

--
Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org

Well, this question has been discussed to death in this newsgroup many
times, but just to give you a basic rundown:

A digital SLR will give you the following advantages over a compact
camera:

- The option to use much higher quality lenses than what's available
on a compact camera.

- Greater dynamic range.

- Much better low light (high ISO) performance.

- Greater control over the depth of field.

- Much shorter shutter lag.

If you're only shooting well-lit landscapes that don't have deep
shadows or bright highlights, you might be OK with a compact camera.
But in general, yeah, an SLR will give you noticeably better pictures.

-Gniewko

On Mar 9, 5:58 pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
wrote:
But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

You will essentially always see a significant image quality difference
between small-sensor and DSLR cameras. The DSLR lenses generally make
*another* significant difference.

I can't, however, comment on the SP-350 specifically.

I'd suggest you look at the sample pictures posted in reviews at
dpreview.com, if they have a full review of the SP-350. That'll give
you pictures taken of identical subjects under controlled conditions,
and you should be able to reach a fairly informed judgment on whether
the upgrade is worth the money for what you're doing.

Good suggestion. Also, Flickr recently added a feature that lets you
search for pictures based on what camera they were taken with. That's
a good way to see what's possible with different cameras (accounting
for differing levels of photography skills, of course).

-Gniewko

wrote:

Good suggestion. Also, Flickr recently added a feature that lets you
search for pictures based on what camera they were taken with. That's
a good way to see what's possible with different cameras (accounting
for differing levels of photography skills, of course).

Ah, that's a good idea. I used something similar (on pbase.com, I
think) to decide which ultra-wide zoom to use; I searched for photos
taken in the 12-24mm range and considered what lenses they were taken with.

wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:58 pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
wrote:
But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

You will essentially always see a significant image quality
difference between small-sensor and DSLR cameras. The DSLR lenses
generally make *another* significant difference.

I can't, however, comment on the SP-350 specifically.

I'd suggest you look at the sample pictures posted in reviews at
dpreview.com, if they have a full review of the SP-350. That'll give
you pictures taken of identical subjects under controlled conditions,
and you should be able to reach a fairly informed judgment on whether
the upgrade is worth the money for what you're doing.

Good suggestion. Also, Flickr recently added a feature that lets you
search for pictures based on what camera they were taken with.

Pbase allows image viewing based on camera model also.
Millions of images in many cases...


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Mar 9, 4:12 pm, wrote:
I'm starting a major project in
which I'll shoot a lot of landscape
images in raw format, archive them,
and process them in various ways.
I bought an Olympus SP-350 for the
proof-of-principle stage of this
project because it was the cheapest
that produced raw-format images and
also worked with a freeware time-lapse
controller, which, as it turned out,
I didn't use.

But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

--
Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org

I would say that landscape photography is one of the least likely to
need an SLR. The SLR is more of a must for things like macro
photography, where you must see the actual optical focus to view the
depth of field, and to eliminate viewfinder parallax.

With landscape photography, you usually are not worried about depth of
field, and you are far enough away that parallax error is no concern.

Yes, a more expensive camera may have better optics, but that is not
an SLR vs non-SLR issue. Admittedly with an interchangable lens SLR
you have more flexibility in what lens you use. But in daylight
landscape photography you generally can use a tripod, and medium
aperture settings, which does not stress lens performance.

On Mar 9, 12:12 pm, wrote:
I'm starting a major project in
which I'll shoot a lot of landscape
images in raw format, archive them,
and process them in various ways.
I bought an Olympus SP-350 for the
proof-of-principle stage of this
project because it was the cheapest
that produced raw-format images and
also worked with a freeware time-lapse
controller, which, as it turned out,
I didn't use.

But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

--
Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org
You did not give enough information to really know how much gain there
would be for you to move to a DSLR. When I got a 20D I did a number
of comparisons between it and my Sony F828, both camera are 8MP. The
20D pretty much blew the F828 out of the water for image detail as
well as having a lot less noise. Even using just the cheap kit lens
the 20D still was way sharper then the F828. However making 8 x 10
prints with both it takes a very close look to tell the difference,
both make very sharp prints at that size.

It really depends on what you are going to do with the images, if you
are going to be viewing them at the pixel level then a DSLR will
likely be a lot sharper.

I also note that the SP-350 does not go very wide, so this might be
another good reason to get a DSLR.

In the end it really comes down to what you are after in your images.

Scott

On Mar 10, 10:54 am, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
wrote:
I would say that landscape photography is one of the least likely to
need an SLR. The SLR is more of a must for things like macro
photography, where you must see the actual optical focus to view the
depth of field, and to eliminate viewfinder parallax.

With landscape photography, you usually are not worried about depth of
field, and you are far enough away that parallax error is no concern.

Yes, a more expensive camera may have better optics, but that is not
an SLR vs non-SLR issue. Admittedly with an interchangable lens SLR
you have more flexibility in what lens you use. But in daylight
landscape photography you generally can use a tripod, and medium
aperture settings, which does not stress lens performance.


This is what I was wondering about, whether an SLR
would make a enough of a difference in landscape
photography to make it worth the money. I'll be
using a tripod, it will be daylight (always close to
noon, in fact), and the trees I'm shooting will
be a couple of hundred feet away. The only concern
I have is sharpness. I'm basically satisfied with the
sharpness I've got, but I don't want to miss out on
the opportunity to improve it if it can be done.
The SP-350's narrowest aperture is F8. Suppose I had
an even narrower aperture and I compensated with
longer shutter time. Isn't that supposed to
compensate for any deficiencies of the lens?

As for the Web sites with pictures from different
cameras -- they all look great!

--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org

wrote:
I'm starting a major project in
which I'll shoot a lot of landscape
images in raw format, archive them,
and process them in various ways.
I bought an Olympus SP-350 for the
proof-of-principle stage of this
project because it was the cheapest
that produced raw-format images and
also worked with a freeware time-lapse
controller, which, as it turned out,
I didn't use.

But so far the SP-350 has met my needs in
terms of flexibility and control (except
for zoom convenience, which I complained
about in another thread). Given that the
Olympus SLRs have about the same megapixels
as the SP-350, I would move up -- to any
make of SLR, for that matter -- only if I
knew that an SLR would produce obviously
better images, for reasons of optics or
whatever. Has anybody here had any experience
with both species of camera to have an
opinion on this?

--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org


This is my experience with this point, I have owned a Nikon CP8700 (8MP)
for several years and I now have a D80 (10MP).

The D80 delivers images that are sharper and crisper. This fits in with
the conventional wisdom. The 8-10 MP difference is not much.

But the difference between the two cameras shrinks quite a bit if your
work flow includes an editor with some sort of sharpening, I use unsharp
mask in the GIMP editor but they all work and a bit of gamma and or
color tweaking.

An issue you don't mention but might consider is how the camera handles
- can you get "in sync" with it? I tried a Pentax before I settled on
the Nikon and it handled a little better than the Nikon - a number of
the common operations were easier & more natural on the Pentax. You
want to be able to be consistent with the camera you end up with for
this job.

Jim