If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson R800 versus 2200 image quality | Ben Kaufman | Digital Photography | 0 | December 31st 04 05:26 AM |
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams | Richard Lee | Digital Photography | 21 | August 23rd 04 07:04 PM |
Sigma wins image quality challenge. Bayer user in disbelief. | Georgette Preddy | Digital Photography | 3 | August 7th 04 01:48 PM |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
still image quality | paul flynn | Digital Photography | 1 | June 28th 04 11:07 PM |