DSLR v Consumer Image quality

12x with image stabilization
DonB

Well said, thanks Ron
DonB

C J Campbell wrote:
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.

Before commenting on the stuff below, I would like to say that
if you have good light, plenty of light, no extremes in light,
then the small sensor P&S cameras take excellent high quality
pictures. But as the light gets tough, then the difference
becomes great. It all comes down to what kind of light you
photograph in.

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.

There are many who would say this is complete crap, and I would
agree with them. For examples, a 3 MP image gives maximum of
about 200 dpi. Normal eyes can resolve 2 to 3 times this. Large
format photographers easily demonstrate that an 8x10 inch film
contact print beats out a 4x5 enlarged to 8x10. Everyone I've
seen view this demonstration and have normal eyes, agreed there is a
difference, and I do too.

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.

Something that is true, but irrelevant to the OPs question.

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.

Incorrect. Modern sensors are photon noise limited. The marketing
departments don't even know this, nor hype it. It is a demonstrated
fact. See:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...el.size.matter
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ignal.to.noise

and check the references for additional data if the above doesn't\
proved it to you.

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.

And not factual either. The human eye with normal vision has a image
resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

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

Not at all; the photon limit has been reached. See:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...el.size.matter

Roger
Photos at http://clarkvision.com

In article ,
says...
In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
image quality?

macro with my P&S is a doddle compared to my 35mm film stuff.

(not to detract from your argument which I agree with)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
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.

There are many who would say this is complete crap, and I would
agree with them. For examples, a 3 MP image gives maximum of
about 200 dpi. Normal eyes can resolve 2 to 3 times this. Large
format photographers easily demonstrate that an 8x10 inch film
contact print beats out a 4x5 enlarged to 8x10. Everyone I've
seen view this demonstration and have normal eyes, agreed there is a
difference, and I do too.

I have to say that from what I have seen a cheap 3 MP is not up to
making great looking 8 x 10 prints, but then I am near sighted and can
see pretty small detail. It was the slightly fuzzy feel to my 8 x 10
prints from my Nikon 995 that made me upgrade to the Sony F828.

I will say that I have found a lot of people who can't see the
difference between a print made from my 995 and the F828, but to me it
is the difference between night and day.

Now enter the 20D, in the tests that I have done between it and the
F828 the 20D captures a lot more detail, and in prints at 8 x 10 fine
detail that can be seen at the pixel level on the computer screen can
not be seen in the print, at least not by me.

The point being is that not all pixels contain the same level of
information.

The other tests that I have done is to take the output from the 20D and
resize it to 3 MP and print from both the original photo and the
resized one, both at 8 x 10 a casual view of them and they look pretty
much the same, a closer look and the original is clearly sharper
looking. But then this is with my near sighted eyes, others I have
shown then to can not tell them apart. The 3 MP from the resized photo
prints much sharper then any camera that is 3 MP native, again not all
pixels are the same

In the end how much resolution is need for an 8 x 10 print depends on
who is looking at it, the young and near sighted will need more
resolution, the old and far sighted less.

I have done tests in terns of at what point does increasing the dpi
feed to the printer stop making a difference , clearly this depends on
the printer. The Fuji Frontier prints at 300 dpi so feeding it higher
resolution will not buy you anything, assuming that the pixels are
sharp. For my printer and my eyes the limits is a bit higher, I can
tell the difference between a print make with an input of 300 dpi and
400 dpi, higher then 400 and I can not tell any difference. Having
said that the difference between 300 and 400 is so small that is take
very careful study to tell them apart, at least by me.

Now someone reading this might think they have found an inconsistency,
I stated that there was detail in the 20D photos that could be seen on
the computer screen but not in the print, this print was made at very
close to 300 dpi, and yet I said that a print made at 400 dpi looks
just a little bit sharper then one at 300 dpi. What is happening is
that the detail that can be seen on the screen but not the print is low
contrast detail, a spider web thread for instance, the eye has much
worst resolving power for low contrast detail then high. But if there
is some high contrast detail in the 400 dpi print at say 200 light
pairs per inch then this will be visible.

Scott

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

Often it is not until your image is enlarged and in PRINT that you notice it's
shortcomings.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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

You won't be always grabbing a lens.
80% of my quickie grab-shots are with my basic all-around lens, which sits on the camera
in my bag. DSLRs work like point-and-shoots if you want them to.
It's just that when you WANT the control, flexibility, and speed...you have it available
to you.
-Mark²

"Ron" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

I think you make some good points above.
What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most simple cameras to assess
your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how much they "needed"
something until they had it available to them.

This is why the phrase, "I didn't know what I was missing!" comes from.
Often times, it isn't until a person has a new capability avaiable to them (like lack of
shutter lag, or major depth of field adjustments--like with a DSLR) that they suddenly
realize what all the fuss is about.

This is why I think anyone considering spending with a few hundred dollars of the 300D or
D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.

How does one know what one needs when they don't really understand what's out thre first
hand? -This doesn't mean buying a 1Ds Mark II, but it might mean it's worth a low-end
DSLR.

-Mark²

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

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:gyWSd.116204$0u.42705@fed1read04...

I think you make some good points above.
What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most simple cameras to assess
your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how much they "needed"
something until they had it available to them.

This is why the phrase, "I didn't know what I was missing!" comes from.
Often times, it isn't until a person has a new capability avaiable to them (like lack of
shutter lag, or major depth of field adjustments--like with a DSLR) that they suddenly
realize what all the fuss is about.

This is why I think anyone considering spending with a few hundred dollars of the 300D
or D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.

How does one know what one needs when they don't really understand what's out thre first
hand? -This doesn't mean buying a 1Ds Mark II, but it might mean it's worth a low-end
DSLR.

-Mark²

Wow! Lots of typos up there...sorry.

I would like to add to the above that although I owned a crummy film camera for years, it
wasn't until my dad gave me my first SLR film camera that photography really took off for
me. Real control breeds real interest in ways that you just can't foster without it.

-Mark²

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.

Stop looking at 200% crops and make some real prints from full size files.


--

Stacey