DSLR v Consumer Image quality

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

Its got me wondering...What the replacement will be from Sony..In regards to
the-F828....If they can harness the noise...Should be a great camera...So
I'd wait...And the Canon-350...Could be a winner...

--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
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. 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

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


IMO, the main thing that distinguishes
digicams these days (both point 'n shoot and
DSLRs) is the sensor size. Not surprisingly,
manufacturers go out of their way to hide and
obfuscate that particular statistic. Given
good optics, the sensor size will be the main
determinant of image quality.

There are certainly good things to be said
for the portability and compactness of non-SLR
cameras (both film and digital.)

If I were taking photos mostly of people and
wanting mostly "candid" photos (as opposed to
formal portraits) I'd work with a nice light
point and shoot camera.

I particularly like the tilt/swivel LCDs on
some of the consumer digicams (eg. my Canon
G2.) It lets me get some interesting angles
and perspectives that I can't capture from a
conventional viewfinder.

When I'm hiking deep in the backcountry (where
weight counts) I take my Canon G2.

If image quality is the main thing, you want
the largest possible sensor size, and these are
mostly found in DSLRs. Taken a couple of steps
farther, if image quality were the MAIN thing,
you'd shoot MF or LF film...


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

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. 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


If you can't see the difference, or consider it not worthwhile, then I would
keep waiting....
For me DSLR offers more than just the quality difference there's also the
flexibility of the system, just like SLR's in the film world, but if you
don't need it then save your money etc...

On 22 Feb 2005 11:40:49 -0800, 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?

You've answered your own question about image quality. If you can't
tell the difference, then what's the issue?

I disagree with you on quality, even at ISO-80 that thing is much more
noisy than a DSLR.

See the noise in the blue sky:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...s/p1010069.jpg

Compare to a Canon DSLR, the 10D at ISO-100:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...s/IMG_0082.JPG

The other big difference between the DLSR and FZ20 is interchangeable
lenses, so ask yourself, are you going to ever need this? I love my
300 on the D70 (it becomes a 450mm) which isn't much further than the
FZ20's 35mm eq. effective 432mm. On the other end, you'll be limited
to effective 36mm. Problem for some, not for others.

--
Owamanga!

"Owamanga" wrote in message
...
....
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.
....
I disagree with you on quality, even at ISO-80 that thing is much more
noisy than a DSLR.

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.

....
The other big difference between the DLSR and FZ20 is interchangeable
lenses, so ask yourself, are you going to ever need this? I love my
300 on the D70 (it becomes a 450mm) which isn't much further than the

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.

FZ20's 35mm eq. effective 432mm. On the other end, you'll be limited
to effective 36mm. Problem for some, not for others.

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" wrote in
:

"Owamanga" wrote in message
...
...
The other big difference between the DLSR and FZ20 is interchangeable
lenses, so ask yourself, are you going to ever need this? I love my
300 on the D70 (it becomes a 450mm) which isn't much further than the

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.

Sorry, but that's ********!

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.



--
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"

"MarkH" wrote in message
...
"Dan Wojciechowski" wrote in
:

"Owamanga" wrote in message
...
...
The other big difference between the DLSR and FZ20 is interchangeable
lenses, so ask yourself, are you going to ever need this? I love my
300 on the D70 (it becomes a 450mm) which isn't much further than the

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.

Sorry, but that's ********!

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?

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" wrote in
:


"MarkH" wrote in message
...
"Dan Wojciechowski" wrote in
:

"Owamanga" wrote in message
...
...
The other big difference between the DLSR and FZ20 is
interchangeable lenses, so ask yourself, are you going to ever
need this? I love my 300 on the D70 (it becomes a 450mm) which
isn't much further than the

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.

Sorry, but that's ********!

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?

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.

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?


--
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"

MarkH wrote:
[]
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.

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