Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

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.

In rec.photo.digital David Ruether wrote:

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...

Certainly not more than $10 to $50 worth of difference between these.
Isn't the Sony 707 a really old camera?

I like the Sony 707 picture better because of the kid with a red shirt
riding a scooter. That's the main difference for me. The Nikon D1x
with 18-70 has less purple fringing in the corners, but fuzzy infinity
and less saturated greens. So it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

On 4 Oct 2007 17:27:50 -0700, Bill Tuthill wrote:

In rec.photo.digital David Ruether wrote:

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...

Certainly not more than $10 to $50 worth of difference between these.
Isn't the Sony 707 a really old camera?

I like the Sony 707 picture better because of the kid with a red shirt
riding a scooter. That's the main difference for me. The Nikon D1x
with 18-70 has less purple fringing in the corners, but fuzzy infinity
and less saturated greens. So it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

I guess you missed all the detail in the foliage. The missing texture from the
yellow lines in the road, important detail that shows what they really are. How
the dSLR sensor could miss detailing that much information and that large of a
texture about a subject is beyond me. If you took a photograph of someone in a
yellow cable-knit sweater with that dSLR it would look like they are wearing a
yellow t-shirt. The number of things missing from the dSLR image compared to the
P&S camera would take too long to point out. The least of which being the image
of the kid in a red shirt. There's at least half the detail and textures missing
in the dSLR image compared to the P&S image. It's as if the dSLR image was put
through too high of jpg compression but the file-sizes say the reverse is true.
The Sony applied more compression yet provided twice the detail.

It's not 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. It's more like 1 of 144, and 99.3%
of a gross.

Maybe you need a new monitor, or glasses. That's the only possible explanation
for your reply.

Walter Hancock wrote:
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.

What I see are halos around all edges in the Sony image, which to the
untrained eye gives the impression of sharpness. To others it looks like
horrible artifacts. The advantage of the Nikon image is not shown.
It should be processed through a raw converter, where it would show
sharper edges and even less noise.

Roger

"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...
--

Yep, the Sony P&S won this round of comparison. Less glass, more sass!

Thanks!

NM

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:17:30 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Walter Hancock wrote:
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.

What I see are halos around all edges in the Sony image, which to the
untrained eye gives the impression of sharpness. To others it looks like
horrible artifacts. The advantage of the Nikon image is not shown.
It should be processed through a raw converter, where it would show
sharper edges and even less noise.

Roger

Keep putting those self-made blinders on Roger. Maybe you'll take them off one
day to see what the rest of us see.

Interestingly the D1x originally sold at $6000 (body only) Feb. 2001, the F707
sold at $1000 Aug. 2001. So it's not a matter of what technology was available
when they were made. I doubt many would pay $5000 (+$lenses) more for half the
resolution and detail. But I know some that do even today. Then they try to
justify it any way they can--while loudly and proudly making fools of themselves
on the internet.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
My buddy, Ken Rockwell, did a recent comparison of high-ISO
performance between DSLRs that can be found he
http://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
!!!"

Although I agree 100% with your point about P&SO vs. DSLR, depending on
Rockwell for honesty and objectivity is like seeking Bill Clinton for
advice on staying faithful to your wife.