P&S versus DSLR -- actual photos for comparison

It is said that a picture is worth 1,000 words. Accordingly, I set up a
tripod and took a bunch of pictures of the same subject with a P+S camera
and a DSLR. The cameras I used were the ones I happened to have handy: A
Canon SD800 (7.1 megapixels) and a Nikon D700 (12.1 megapixels).

In all cases, I set the camera to delay for a few seconds before taking the
picture, to allow any vibration from my hands to settle down. I used a 50mm
f/1.4 lens with the Nikon; I set the lens to f/11 for all pictures because I
think that is close to the optimum image quality. This particular P&S does
not allow manual aperture adjustments, so I had no choice but to let the
camera pick the aperture.

The DSLR offers an ISO range from 200 through 6400, so I took pictures at
200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400. The P&S offers an ISO range from 80
through 1600, so I took pictures at 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600.

For each picture, I have posted a scaled-down version of the picture and a
full-size crop from the center portion of it. Aside from scaling and
cropping, the pictures are exactly as they came from the cameras; I have not
applied sharpening, additional noise reduction, or any other
image-processing algorithms.

I invite you to look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. You can
find them he

http://www.pbase.com/ark/ps_versus_dslr

LOL, you think you are telling anyone something new? :-)

We know you have got the labels back to front anyway.... ;-)

I invite you to look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. You
can find them he

http://www.pbase.com/ark/ps_versus_dslr

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:23:45 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote:

It is said that a picture is worth 1,000 words. Accordingly, I set up a
tripod and took a bunch of pictures of the same subject with a P+S camera
and a DSLR. The cameras I used were the ones I happened to have handy: A
Canon SD800 (7.1 megapixels) and a Nikon D700 (12.1 megapixels).

In all cases, I set the camera to delay for a few seconds before taking the
picture, to allow any vibration from my hands to settle down. I used a 50mm
f/1.4 lens with the Nikon; I set the lens to f/11 for all pictures because I
think that is close to the optimum image quality. This particular P&S does
not allow manual aperture adjustments, so I had no choice but to let the
camera pick the aperture.

The DSLR offers an ISO range from 200 through 6400, so I took pictures at
200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400. The P&S offers an ISO range from 80
through 1600, so I took pictures at 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600.

For each picture, I have posted a scaled-down version of the picture and a
full-size crop from the center portion of it. Aside from scaling and
cropping, the pictures are exactly as they came from the cameras; I have not
applied sharpening, additional noise reduction, or any other
image-processing algorithms.

I invite you to look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. You can
find them he

http://www.pbase.com/ark/ps_versus_dslr

Peering into the gift horse's mouth...it would be easier to make a
determination if the P&S images and the dslr images- at the same ISO
setting - were viewable on the same screen at the same time.

Doncha just love someone making a suggestion for you to do more work
when you've already done something for them?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...

Peering into the gift horse's mouth...it would be easier to make a
determination if the P&S images and the dslr images- at the same ISO
setting - were viewable on the same screen at the same time.

Open the images you want to compare in two separate windows and move them
where you like.

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

LOL, you think you are telling anyone something new? :-)

Well, probably not; but I was curious to see the images for myself, and once
I had them, I figured I might as well post them.

wrote in message
...

So what SW and specific steps did you use to do this? There are many
scaling methods. And since these are jpgs with no exif it appears these
may
possibly have been resaved.

I used a program called "JPEG Wizard" to do the cropping. After that, I
uploaded the original JPEG files and the cropped output files from JPEG
Wizard onto Pbase. Any further transformations were done by Pbase as part
of putting the images into their galleries. I see no obvious visual
difference between the cropped images on Pbase and corresponding sections of
the original JPEG images on my machine.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
It is said that a picture is worth 1,000 words. Accordingly, I set up a
tripod and took a bunch of pictures of the same subject with a P+S camera
and a DSLR. The cameras I used were the ones I happened to have handy: A
Canon SD800 (7.1 megapixels) and a Nikon D700 (12.1 megapixels).

In all cases, I set the camera to delay for a few seconds before taking the
picture, to allow any vibration from my hands to settle down. I used a 50mm
f/1.4 lens with the Nikon; I set the lens to f/11 for all pictures because I
think that is close to the optimum image quality. This particular P&S does
not allow manual aperture adjustments, so I had no choice but to let the
camera pick the aperture.

The DSLR offers an ISO range from 200 through 6400, so I took pictures at
200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400. The P&S offers an ISO range from 80
through 1600, so I took pictures at 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600.

For each picture, I have posted a scaled-down version of the picture and a
full-size crop from the center portion of it. Aside from scaling and
cropping, the pictures are exactly as they came from the cameras; I have not
applied sharpening, additional noise reduction, or any other
image-processing algorithms.

I invite you to look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. You can
find them he

http://www.pbase.com/ark/ps_versus_dslr



Hi,

Canon SD 800 is not a very good choice for comparison. In order to get a
28mm equivalent at the wide end, the quality of this zoom lens is
compromised. Why not compare with a P & S with a better lens?

Morton

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:23:45 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote
Re P&S versus DSLR -- actual photos for comparison:

I invite you to look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. You can
find them he

http://www.pbase.com/ark/ps_versus_dslr

Well, the P&S seems to have a lot more noise noticeable in the ISO800
center blow-ups. It seems particularly noticeable in the Civilization
& Capitalism series. My guess is that it wouldn't be a problem in a
4x6 print if the image was captured at ISO200. Larger prints and
higher ISOs might be disappointing.

As usual, the selection of the tool depends on what you want for an
end result. Thanks for doing the test and reporting the results.

BTW, very nice library.

"Morton" wrote in message
...

Canon SD 800 is not a very good choice for comparison. In order to get a
28mm equivalent at the wide end, the quality of this zoom lens is
compromised. Why not compare with a P & S with a better lens?

Because it's the one I had available.

You're welcome to take similar pictures with whatever camera you like and
post them. If you want to try for a similar scale, the bookshelf in the
photo is 40 inches wide.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
It is said that a picture is worth 1,000 words. Accordingly, I set up a
tripod and took a bunch of pictures of the same subject with a P+S camera
and a DSLR. The cameras I used were the ones I happened to have handy: A
Canon SD800 (7.1 megapixels) and a Nikon D700 (12.1 megapixels).

In all cases, I set the camera to delay for a few seconds before taking the
picture, to allow any vibration from my hands to settle down. I used a 50mm
f/1.4 lens with the Nikon; I set the lens to f/11 for all pictures because I
think that is close to the optimum image quality. This particular P&S does
not allow manual aperture adjustments, so I had no choice but to let the
camera pick the aperture.

The DSLR offers an ISO range from 200 through 6400, so I took pictures at
200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400. The P&S offers an ISO range from 80
through 1600, so I took pictures at 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600.

For each picture, I have posted a scaled-down version of the picture and a
full-size crop from the center portion of it. Aside from scaling and
cropping, the pictures are exactly as they came from the cameras; I have not
applied sharpening, additional noise reduction, or any other
image-processing algorithms.

I invite you to look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. You can
find them he

http://www.pbase.com/ark/ps_versus_dslr



Nice comparison, although putting a D700 up against an SD800 was pretty
much a foregone conclusion.
A few points are worth noting:
The P&S at 80 ISO and DSLR at 3200 ISO, give roughly equivalent noise
levels. The p&s also has at least one hot pixel..
The low P&S lens quality is evident in the corners of the image, even at
those highly reduced sizes, and there's a lot of barreling.
The P&S seems to be suffering from a lot of flare/discoloration at left
- was there a lighting issue?