Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

On Oct 4, 12:05 am, Annika1980 wrote:
My buddy, Ken Rockwell, did a recent comparison of high-ISO
performance between DSLRs that can be found hehttp://kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comp...7-10/index.htm

Note what he says about the Point & Shoots near the end of the
article:

"I was too lazy to include a compact camera, which as I showed last
year, is abysmal compared to any DSLR. A typical compact camera, like
the Canon SD700 I use all the time, is ten times worse than any DSLR.
My SD700 at its lowest ISO 80 looks about the same as any of these
DSLRs at ISO 800! "

LOL! Even Ken Rockwell says, "Sucks to be you, Point and ****ters !!!"

I see Canon is still plagued by chroma noise. Canon should admit the
40D is nothing but a pixel upscaled 30D, which in-turn was a 20D.

We've got to hand it to you for being ironic.

If Ken Rockwell had used a better downsampling algorithm,
rather than Photoshop bicubic (I'm assuming), maybe just maybe
the DSLR image would look better than the P&S digicam image.



I would like to know, what are the better downsamplers?

--
Giant_Alex
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

(~~NoMad~~) wrote:

" I recently bought a new Canon SX100is which is definitely at the
leading edge of P&S technology. Its speed, sensitivity, and resolution
are not comparable to some DSLRs or an 8x10 view camera. But, when it
comes to Bang for the Buck and Ergonomics there is no comparison, it is
the State-of-the-Art in photographic technology. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bang for the Buck and Ergonomics don't
have much meaning to the DSLR crowd.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:54:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

The benefits I find with the DSLR include faster operation, and much
better low-light performance. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and have almost
noise-free pictures, whereas with the compact camera I needed to stick
with ISO 100 to keep the noise down.

You wouldn't have this problem if you had a smaller sensor for which it is much
easier to make larger aperture lenses. How is shooting at ISO1600 better than
shooting at lower noise-free ISOs if your lens provides more light? You can pay
$500 for a Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6, just the lens alone, and only get 112mm
to 480mm focal length range, which forces you to use ISO1600 under many lighting
situations. Or pay $300 for a whole camera plus lens and use ISO 200 at f/2.8
with 36mm to 432mm focal lengths for the same lighting situations. Some P&S
cameras providing even larger apertures and wider zoom ranges than that. 1
difference in f-stop is less than the amount that can be reclaimed in shadow
detail using RAW. This is not grounds to jump up and down and be proud of. Doing
so and paying that much more for the opportunity only makes you look like an
utter fool.

Sure, you can get wider apertures for that DSLR, then you are faced with having
to change them to compose each shot for the maximum resolution needed for that
subject. If you don't change that 50mm f1.2 lens for the 500mm f/4.0, then that
bird further away is going to have to be cropped to less than the resolution of
a cell-phone camera. Wait, you won't even get that. It already flew away while
your camera forced you to change lenses. Should we add in how much you're going
to have to pay for it and how much luggage you'll have to carry around to get
this wonderful "improvement"?

Do the math. You actually get more by paying for less using a P&S camera. Your
high ISOs are needed because of the larger sensor. It all averages out where
there is absolutely no gain by using a larger sensor for lower noise. I take
that back, there is a gain. The DSLR and lens makers' bank accounts. That's the
only gain that I've ever found in buying a DSLR.

As we've recently seen by a comparison of moon photos between Roger Clark's
$7000 MkII and someone else with a $400 Lumix FZ18, his DSLR and $1,200 L-glass
lens couldn't even provide as much resolution as a P&S camera with a 28mm-504mm
f/2.8 zoom lens, the P&S being hand-held at that. (Thanks for posting your
photos Roger, what a wonderful source for comparisons to show how much better
the P&S cameras are these days!)

I appears that DSLR owners take pride in trying to outdo each other in displays
of ignorance and stupidity. On the plus side they are more than ready to provide
examples for the rest of us to see (i.e. Roger Clark for example). Those that
can see through their smoke-screen that they keep displaying, to justify why
they spent so much have no other clear choice but to run and buy the best P&S
cameras.

All this arguing about it boils down to just one thing: People who didn't do
their homework because they blindly followed some self-appointed authority and
self-proclaimed "pro" are now trying to justify why they spent so much money to
get a decent picture.

GetAClue wrote:
[]
All this arguing about it boils down to just one thing: People who
didn't do their homework because they blindly followed some
self-appointed authority and self-proclaimed "pro" are now trying to
justify why they spent so much money to get a decent picture.

No, having 16 times the sensitivity is about getting photos, the cost was
about the same.

David

In rec.photo.digital AAvK wrote:

If Ken Rockwell had used a better downsampling algorithm,
rather than Photoshop bicubic (I'm assuming), maybe just maybe
the DSLR image would look better than the P&S digicam image.

I would like to know, what are the better downsamplers?

At whole-fraction scaling factors (25%, 33%, 50%, 67%, 75%)
most downsampling algorithms give identical results.

Otherwise Lanczos is far better than Bicubic for most images.
Lanczos leaves smooth areas smooth and keeps edges sharp.

It's possible Bicubic is good if you're changing aspect ratio
(different scale for x / y). I have not investigated.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:35 am, Bob Williams wrote:
Unfortunately, in this post, Rockwell does not SHOW any comparisons
between P/S and DSLRs.
I suspect the difference in
image quality between a P/S and a DSLR at ISO 80 would be minuscule.


Roger Clark has posted a good comparison pic on his site.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter/



No one even remotely suggests that images from a 2.3 micron pixel pitch
camera can compare favorably with those from an 8.2 micron pixel pitch
camera at HIGH ISO settings. Such conditions test the small sensor at
its weakest point and the large sensor at its strongest point.

What I'd like to see.....Maybe Roger can do this for us.....Is to shoot
two identical subjects under BRIGHT conditions where both cameras
capture an image at about f=4.0 - 5.6, ISO = 80-100, speed 1/250-1/400 sec.
These conditions are fairly typical of outdoor lighting on a partly
cloudy day and utilize a camera parameters where BOTH cameras are
operating near their optimum conditions.
Bob

"Bob Williams" wrote in message ...

What I'd like to see.....Maybe Roger can do this for us.....Is to shoot two identical subjects under BRIGHT conditions where both
cameras capture an image at about f=4.0 - 5.6, ISO = 80-100, speed 1/250-1/400 sec.
These conditions are fairly typical of outdoor lighting on a partly cloudy day and utilize a camera parameters where BOTH cameras
are operating near their optimum conditions.
Bob

I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
very large...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

"David Ruether" wrote in message ...
"Bob Williams" wrote in message ...

What I'd like to see.....Maybe Roger can do this for us.....Is to shoot two identical subjects under BRIGHT conditions where both
cameras capture an image at about f=4.0 - 5.6, ISO = 80-100, speed 1/250-1/400 sec.
These conditions are fairly typical of outdoor lighting on a partly cloudy day and utilize a camera parameters where BOTH cameras
are operating near their optimum conditions.
Bob

I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
very large...
--
David Ruether

The photos are now up (dull, and it would have been nice to have
had the sharpening at normal on the Sony, and/or to have used the
Fuji S700, but anyway...). I will remove this page soon...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:20:51 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:



"David Ruether" wrote in message ...
"Bob Williams" wrote in message ...

What I'd like to see.....Maybe Roger can do this for us.....Is to shoot two identical subjects under BRIGHT conditions where both
cameras capture an image at about f=4.0 - 5.6, ISO = 80-100, speed 1/250-1/400 sec.
These conditions are fairly typical of outdoor lighting on a partly cloudy day and utilize a camera parameters where BOTH cameras
are operating near their optimum conditions.
Bob

I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
very large...
--
David Ruether

The photos are now up (dull, and it would have been nice to have
had the sharpening at normal on the Sony, and/or to have used the
Fuji S700, but anyway...). I will remove this page soon...

Ouch! (saying that on behalf of all dSLR owners out there)

Yet again the P&S camera clearly wins, over a Nikon dSLR no less.

Not even a contest.