P&S versus DSLR -- actual photos for comparison

"N" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fsumaria/3083145269/

Very cool!

Would you mind contacting me offline? I have a few questions I'd like to
ask you.



That's not my photo. I just thought it was cute.

Actually, I use a D80 and am tossing up whether to upgrade to a D300 or
D700. It's a tough call as I would lose the use of 2 very useful lenses if
I go to the D700. Also it's weight might be a problem for me. The D80's
exposure algorithm and dynamic range are a real drawback.

"N" wrote in message
...

Would you mind contacting me offline? I have a few questions I'd like to
ask you.

That's not my photo. I just thought it was cute.

Ah -- in that case, never mind :-)

Yes indeed; it is cute.

"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
"MartinS" wrote in message
...

High ISO is only needed by someone that isn't very well versed in
photography
techniques.

Please post some pictures that you have taken of moving people in low
light without flash so that I can see how "well versed in photography" you
are.

My thoughts exactly!!

"N" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
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




http://www.flickr.com/photos/fsumaria/3083145269/


The conclusion here then is that a block of cake will out perform a P&S
camera even under good lighting conditions. ;-)


Awesome.

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"N" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
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




http://www.flickr.com/photos/fsumaria/3083145269/


The conclusion here then is that a block of cake will out perform a P&S
camera even under good lighting conditions. ;-)


Awesome.





Every time, Pete :-)

"N" wrote in message
...
"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"N" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
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




http://www.flickr.com/photos/fsumaria/3083145269/


The conclusion here then is that a block of cake will out perform a P&S
camera even under good lighting conditions. ;-)


Awesome.





Every time, Pete :-)

Hi N,

Hows things?

A D700, I like your thinking, they look very good, pity about the DX lenses
but you would really have to think about better lenses anyway as the D700
will show up every weakness in the DX lenses, just think how good landscapes
will be. Still the D80 with a couple of lenses will still sell for a bit, if
you are like me though I tend to keep all the old ones. :-(

Cheers.

Pete

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:01:12 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote:

"MartinS" wrote in message
.. .

High ISO is only needed by someone that isn't very well versed in
photography
techniques.

Please post some pictures that you have taken of moving people in low light
without flash so that I can see how "well versed in photography" you are.

You don't know how to pan with your subject to keep it sharp so that the
background is blurred to impart a feeling of motion in your photos? Let me
guess, your photography is as sterile and lifeless as those done with flash.

You don't know how to judge when a basketball player is at the peak of his jump
and his motion is stopped? You don't now how to ... (I could name a thousand
other examples).

In short, you just don't know how, i.e. amateur.



The DSLR shows nearly the same clarity on edges between individual pixels
as the
P&S lens. When you also adjust for photo-site sizes then the P&S camera is
resolving at an angular distance much finer than the DSLR lens.

Canon SD800: Sensor width = 5.75mm, pixels wide = 3072, photo-site size =
~1.8um

Nikon D700: Sensor width = 36mm, pixels wide = 4256, photo-site size =
~8.4um

8.4/1.8 = 4.6

Independent of the sensors used for imaging, the P&S lens is resolving 4.6
times
more detail than the DSLR lens.

You have failed to take focal length into account in computing angular
resolution. That's a factor of 5.5 that you're neglecting.

Focal-length is not a factor in this. It is the amount of resolution as recorded
by the sensors. (Unless you can shove your DSLR sensor 5.5 times closer to your
lens and still get a good image on it, then you will be correct.)

If you want, you can admit that a DSLR lens often puts out 5.5 (or more) times
the amount of CA too when compared against the same resolution performance in
P&S camera lenses, then I'll accept your reasoning.

Which will it be?



And this, from a poorly performing P&S lens. There are much better P&S
lenses
than that.

Please let me know when I can look at your images.

1) A zoom range that goes out to 28mm equivalent.

There are many excellent wide-angle adapters that do not degrade the image
in
any way. Learn to shop for them. They are relatively lightweight and
pocket-sized, as well as being inexpensive. You pay less for smaller
lenses
while also getting the advantages of them being more accurately figured
than
larger lenses.

I will be happy to consider any adapters that you suggest, as soon as you
post images to convince me that their quality is adequate. Failing that, I
will not waste my time looking for them, as I do not believe they exist at
all -- let alone meet my size requirements.

Yes, you believe they don't exist so they must not exist.

"Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no
influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not
exist." - Pronouncement made by a group of Aristotelian contemporaries of
Galileo, following his discovery of four Jovian moons.

Sound like you'd fit right in with them.


2) An optical viewfinder.

Get over your archaic dependency on an OVF that is useless in low-light
and has
inaccurate framing (this includes DSLR OVFs). Instead learn to use a good
EVF
that is useful in low-light with 100% accurate framing. It will greatly
expand
purchasing your options.

Then again, some old dogs can't be taught new tricks.

You've crippled yourself by wanting to hold onto last-century's
inadequacies.
Just because your peers say an OVF is better doesn't make it true.

Please suggest to me a camera with an EVF that does not impose a significant
time lag. Every one I have seen adds a delay of at least 1/4 second, which
is just too much for moving subjects. I don't care about framing accuracy
because I know how to crop.

With a P&S camera with 100% accurate viewfinder and if you are talented enough
there is no need to crop. Perfect compositions in the camera. No need to throw
away all those valuable pixels that you paid for dearly. Throw away a small 5%
border on all your DSLR images every time and you might as well have bought a
camera with 2-4 megapixels less. Taking a 5-10% border from a 12 megapixel image
leaves you with an image that is equal in area to a 9-10 megapixel camera. Quite
the loss if your OVF is only 95% accurate and then you have to remove another 5%
due to poor framing to begin with. No wonder that sloppy DSLR owners are so
megapixel hungry, they drop so much on the floor with every reckless pig-like
bite/photo that they take.

1/4 second EVF lag? Let me guess, the only P&S cameras you ever test are those
12 year old ones that you find in the $0.10 box at your garage sales.


3) Image stabilization.

Not a requirement in the hands of a talented photographer but it does have
its
merits. Now that I've learned how make IS give me an 8-stop advantage I
probably
would make this an almost-requirement of my next camera. But not
necessarily a
deal-breaker if the camera had other advantages that I desired and needed.

You are obviously welcome to buy whatever you want, but I consider it a
requirement because of how much of an improvement it makes even at shutter
speeds where one might think it would make no difference. If you disbelive
me, I will be happy to look at samples of your images taken at 1/30 second
once you have posted them.

No need to post them. I already believe you. You have demonstrated in your
camera requirements that you need all the help you can get. You clearly lack
what it would take to do any of this without technological benefits.


4) Fits in my shirt pocket.

Then you'll have to make-do with the limitations of an ultra-compact
design
instead of enjoying all the greater advantages of the vast majority of all
other
P&S cameras available.

Not at all. If I don't need extreme portability, my D700 is dramatically
better than anything else I've seen. And if I'm going to give up extreme
portability, I wouldn't dream of taking on the extra delay implied by an
electronic viewfinder.

Well, there's no sense in trying to convince a person who was born blind as to
what colors must look like.


There is no way to attach a hood to this particular P&S.

No way to hold your hand there either I suppose. I never use a lens hood.
A
quickly placed finger or hand of an experienced photographer is all that's
really needed to blot out the occasional contrast-robbing flare.

Not with this particular wall of windows it isn't.

Please let me know when you've posted your test pictures, and I'll be
happy
to look at them.

I never post my own photography on the net.

Well, then, we have nothing more to talk about.

Obviously. You love to live with blinders on. No doubt your photographic
creativity suffers from the same. Shoot any photos of kitty-cats lately?



If you can find a better camera that meets my requirements, please let me
know.

How much are you going to pay me per hour for being your purchasing
department?
It takes me about 3-5 hours per evening for 3-4 weeks of research before I
settle on a new P&S camera + accessory purchases. My time is worth about
$800
per hour to me.

Don't ask for what you cannot afford.

In that case, you've made things very simple for me -- there is no need for
you to waste any more of your precious time communicating with me.

It's not a waste if I have nothing more pressing being needed done. I suppose I
could trim a toenail, that's just about the same importance as communicating
with you. Either or, doesn't matter.


However; the time taken to do the research when weighed against all the
vast
benefits that a good P&S camera affords to my photographic needs; verses a
cumbersome, less capable, and more expensive DSLR kit; then the gains are
truly
priceless and worth every minute of my time.

It is obvious that your photographic needs are dramatically different from
mine, so I am not going to waste any more of my time reading your
descriptions of them.


Yes, your photographic needs are in seeing how much you can pay for the hopes of
finding a "talent button" on your camera. I don't need one of those. I provide
the talent, not my camera.

"MartinS" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:01:12 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote:

"MartinS" wrote in message
. ..

High ISO is only needed by someone that isn't very well versed in
photography
techniques.

Please post some pictures that you have taken of moving people in low
light
without flash so that I can see how "well versed in photography" you are.

You don't know how to pan with your subject to keep it sharp so that the
background is blurred to impart a feeling of motion in your photos? Let me
guess, your photography is as sterile and lifeless as those done with
flash.

You don't know how to judge when a basketball player is at the peak of his
jump
and his motion is stopped? You don't now how to ... (I could name a
thousand
other examples).

In short, you just don't know how, i.e. amateur.


What utter crap, both types of shot are valid.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
"MartinS" wrote in message
...

High ISO is only needed by someone that isn't very well versed in
photography
techniques.

Please post some pictures that you have taken of moving people in low light
without flash so that I can see how "well versed in photography" you are.
In many earlier rounds of his insane (or is it 'inane') crusade,
'Vern/Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll/Dave Ingols/MartinS' has been asked for
examples of this type of image. Clearly it is something he is
unfamiliar with. He has posted *this* highly reduced and completely
meaningless image several times as an example of his p&s in low light:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo....php?id=101398
??? Yep, just like a basketballer-in-action shot... If that wasn't
enough to show anyone that he is a deluded and close to talentless
troll, there are more examples of his work below. He spent quite some
time over at Steve's forums (as Keoeeit) on the same crusade but was
banned there, as he has been from other forums. Here of course he can't
get banned, but I would suggest he be shunned (ok, I should practice
what I preach, hey..)...

Yes, usenet is the refuge of this desperate and lost soul. I have a
theory - perhaps he was once beaten severely by someone wielding a dslr?

The DSLR shows nearly the same clarity on edges between individual pixels
as the
P&S lens. When you also adjust for photo-site sizes then the P&S camera is
resolving at an angular distance much finer than the DSLR lens.

Canon SD800: Sensor width = 5.75mm, pixels wide = 3072, photo-site size =
~1.8um

Nikon D700: Sensor width = 36mm, pixels wide = 4256, photo-site size =
~8.4um

8.4/1.8 = 4.6

Independent of the sensors used for imaging, the P&S lens is resolving 4.6
times
more detail than the DSLR lens.

You have failed to take focal length into account in computing angular
resolution. That's a factor of 5.5 that you're neglecting.
(O: Keoeeit's math has been proven several times to be roughly equal to
his photography skills.

There are many excellent wide-angle adapters that do not degrade the image
in any way.
Yes, in Keoeeit's fantasy world you can throw several pieces of glass
onto an already stretched lens and lose nothing. Well, it all depends
on your quality standards of course... And if the image you have is
worthless anyway then yes, I can see how that works.

I will be happy to consider any adapters that you suggest, as soon as you
post images to convince me that their quality is adequate.
About the only two worth even vague consideration are a couple made by
Sony and Olympus, but it has to be said that due to the variations in
lens designs, some work well with some cameras and horribly on others,
so it's a bit of a lottery. All are big and heavy, and of course they
degrade the (already flawed) image to varying degrees - this is one of
the reasons Keoeeit will nevermore post images, because even his 'leet
skilz' can't clean up the damage. If front mounted adapters worked
well, one would have to ask why aren't they used on larger format cameras?

Now that I've learned how make IS give me an 8-stop advantage
8-stops, eh? Possibly the most hilarious thing I've heard today. Of
course Keoeeit will not show proof, nor will he elaborate (we are not
worthy), so we shall all take his word on that one, 'kay?

Just a quick question for Keoeeit... What is the actual point of all
your (claimed) superiority, when you shall take it (and any proof) to
your grave?

Why, lesser folk than myself might even think you were just a Quixote..

quickly placed finger or hand of an experienced photographer is all that's
really needed
A hand is what I use mostly, too. But I'm experienced enough to know
that in some circumstances it is either not enough, or not readily
available.

Please let me know when you've posted your test pictures, and I'll be
happy
to look at them.

I never post my own photography on the net.
As mentioned above, he used to, until it became clear that everyone
except Keoeeit could see the flaws in his 'perfect' images, and that
largely, the images didn't even address the point being made.

Here are some examples, starting with two images that aren't horrible,
even if ridiculously small and therefore any further faults are
well-hidden...
The Keoeeit Gallery (ta-da!!):
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96572 (Beetle
macro - ok, but over-processed)
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Imagerop_a.jpg (Water droplet - this is
actually quite good, but does seem to be showing CA/PF, even at that
size..?)
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96685 (IR fox
- "I'll admit it's not a very good photo...")
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96582
(Raccoons - sometimes content overcomes technical issues, but not always..)
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96597
(Raccoons II - sometimes...)
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=97424
(Raccoon, nice example of aliasing artefacts in the whiskers)
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=99180
(Chipmunk - oversharpened and badly cropped)
http://iz.carnegiemnh.org/cranefly/i...by_Keoeeit.jpg
(crane fly)
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo....php?id=100233
(oversharpened geese panorama)

If Keoeeit has better ones, I would suggest he posts them. Otherwise,
those will remain his legacy for all time.. OK with that, Keoeeit?
Also, if he claims any of these *aren't* his, I'm happy to show proof
they *are*.. (there is one I'm only 80% sure of - I'm happy to be
corrected on that one and will apologise profusely if wrong..)

Well, then, we have nothing more to talk about.
Indeed, I would suggest it gets dropped right there, as Keoeeit's only
desire in life is to punish all those he perceives as the mortal enemy.
Ie anyone who dares to think there are different needs out there, and
that better cameras exist than the Canon S3IS and the Sony F717 (those
are his) for the huge variety of intended purpose.

But, if anyone is satisfied with the quality of the shots above, then go
with Keoeeit!

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

Hi N,

Hows things?

A D700, I like your thinking, they look very good, pity about the DX
lenses but you would really have to think about better lenses anyway as
the D700 will show up every weakness in the DX lenses, just think how good
landscapes will be. Still the D80 with a couple of lenses will still sell
for a bit, if you are like me though I tend to keep all the old ones. :-(

Cheers.

Pete



Rod is saying the 70-300VR is way better on the D700 than it was on the D200
and I have that lens. I also have a 50mm 1.4.

If I go that way, I'd get a 24-120VR with it. Of course the SB800 is very
usable.
But of course, lots of other things come into play, like a new remote and CF
cards.

My current laptop is a Dell with a built in SDHC reader, so I'd need to
carry a card reader. Not really an issue.

I wonder if there's a market of a used D50 as I'd keep the D80 and not the
D50.
I have a Tokina 12-24 which a great little DX lens.

Wouldn't it be nice if Nikon brought out a 17-35 2.8 FF VR?