A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DSLR v Consumer Image quality



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 22nd 05, 08:40 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 22nd 05, 08:52 PM
Boch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #3  
Old February 22nd 05, 08:59 PM
rafeb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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



IMO, the main thing that distinguishes
digicams these days (both point 'n shoot and
DSLRs) is the sensor size. Not surprisingly,
manufacturers go out of their way to hide and
obfuscate that particular statistic. Given
good optics, the sensor size will be the main
determinant of image quality.

There are certainly good things to be said
for the portability and compactness of non-SLR
cameras (both film and digital.)

If I were taking photos mostly of people and
wanting mostly "candid" photos (as opposed to
formal portraits) I'd work with a nice light
point and shoot camera.

I particularly like the tilt/swivel LCDs on
some of the consumer digicams (eg. my Canon
G2.) It lets me get some interesting angles
and perspectives that I can't capture from a
conventional viewfinder.

When I'm hiking deep in the backcountry (where
weight counts) I take my Canon G2.

If image quality is the main thing, you want
the largest possible sensor size, and these are
mostly found in DSLRs. Taken a couple of steps
farther, if image quality were the MAIN thing,
you'd shoot MF or LF film...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

  #4  
Old February 22nd 05, 09:09 PM
dylan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old February 22nd 05, 09:22 PM
Owamanga
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 22nd 05, 09:40 PM
Ben Thomas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


I don't know if it's a similar comparison to yours, but 8x10s from my 4MP Kodak
DX6490 are significantly inferior to the 7.5x10 prints from my 6MP Nikon D70.
The prints from the Nikon are better in every way: detail, colour, contrast,
jpeg artifacts, depth of field, etc.

The Nikon does retail for double the original retail price of the Kodak so it
should produce significantly better prints.


--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
  #7  
Old February 22nd 05, 10:01 PM
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Under most conditions you would have a hard time telling an 8 x 10
print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
you need a DSLR.

The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
soft.

Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
have the photos.


Scott

  #8  
Old February 22nd 05, 10:23 PM
Sheldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
Under most conditions you would have a hard time telling an 8 x 10
print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
you need a DSLR.

The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
soft.

Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
have the photos.


There's something to be said for this. While I'm still learning the ins and
outs of my D70, I'm thrilled with the lack of shutter delay. It feels and
acts just like my 35mm cameras. With my point and shoot digital I could go
out and have lunch while it focused and "finally" tripped the shutter.


  #10  
Old February 22nd 05, 10:53 PM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...


is the image quality worth the difference?

Ken Rockwell, on his website, has an informative article about this. He
maintains that the non-interchangeable-lens cameras are essentially ported
over from the manufacturers' video lineup, and that if one were to spend an
equal amount on a consumer digicam vs. a DSLR, the DSLR would give better
performance.

He writes, "Even the most expensive and exotic camera that is not a true SLR
is going to be slow and a pain to use. Many expensive digital cameras are
still just very complex point-and-shoot cameras that take way too long to do
anything."

I personally use a consumer digicam and it meets my needs. I still use 35mm
and MF when I require focal length lenses that are outside of my digicam's
zoom range, or when I want the higher resolution of film.

Here is the URL for the full article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson R800 versus 2200 image quality Ben Kaufman Digital Photography 0 December 31st 04 06:26 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.