10d image compared to 828 - hmmm.

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and here they are.

They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest sharpening.

What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't get near the Sony's without halos.

Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image, I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say (after the money it cost.

To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image. The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True, there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Gene - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

At the noise and the sharpening artifacts in the Sony image right out of the camera.

Now go back and have e little fun. Set them both to their default settings and then bump the ISO up to 200 or 400 ISO and tell us what you think.
--
Bill
Taking It One Day At a Time



http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill
'The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.' Unknown
'Every man dies; but, not every man lives' Braveheart
'Sometime the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't' Little Big Man

At first I thought you are new to DSLR and do not make allowances for the differences (widest aperture on the 10D has much less depth of field than on a small-sensor camera). But since you had the 300D before, I'm sure you know what to expect (image quality of 10D and 300D should be similar). Are these results consistent, or was it just one test shot?

--
Misha

YOu know, it's a bit of a side issue, but what exactly does "ROFMAO" mean. I've always wanted to know.

As I said before, I know the limitations of the SOny compared with the Canon. It's the sharpness/focus of my canon I'm concerned about.
--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

You're right, I just did a manual focus test shot (well, the Sony was on auto, but the Canon was on manual). Look at this.



Canon



Sony

I think that expailns a lot. Now, will it be the 10d body at fault, or the Sigma lens?
I'll do some more test shots to see if it's a consistent problem.

Hawkman said:

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Gene - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

1. The photo you posted from the Canon is completely out of focus.

2. The lens you have is not good at all.

3. The Sony has horrible sharpening artifacts and noise.

--
I am a sex object.
Everytime I ask girls for sex they object.
http://www.mikecousins.com

You're right. I just did a test shot (posted above) on maual focus. I'll try some more shots tomorrow with auto focus, see how it fares).

teriba said:

1. The photo you posted from the Canon is completely out of focus.

2. The lens you have is not good at all.

3. The Sony has horrible sharpening artifacts and noise.

--
I am a sex object.
Everytime I ask girls for sex they object.
http://www.mikecousins.com

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Philip Smith said:

YOu know, it's a bit of a side issue, but what exactly does
"ROFMAO" mean. I've always wanted to know.

As I said before, I know the limitations of the SOny compared with
the Canon. It's the sharpness/focus of my canon I'm concerned about.
--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

Dang I left out the "L" it should be ROFLMAO (rolling on floor laughing my a.. off)

I would say the 10D was slightly miss focused of course we're only getting a small crop and we have no idea where that crop came from. I'm pretty sure if done correctly the 10D will look better over all than the images from the Sony.
--
Bill
Taking It One Day At a Time



http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill
'The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.' Unknown
'Every man dies; but, not every man lives' Braveheart
'Sometime the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't' Little Big Man

Doug

A few comments to add to what has already been said here:

• The lenses on compact cameras like the 828 can be surprisingly decent at wide apertures.

• For SLRs, you'll need to get used to the fact that moderately priced lenses are often a good bit softer wide open than they are stopped down. There is a difference even for the better lenses, but the lows aren't quite as low.

• My Sigma 18-125 doesn't always do the best job focusing at wide to medium focal lengths on my D60. Obviously, it's less noticeable at smaller apertures. If you need to get the best possible focus with the 18-125, the technique of zooming in, focusing, and then zooming back seems to work well for some people.

• As with all things in life, the 18-125 is a compromise. You're trading some sharpness and speed for zoom range and price.

Some sample shots with my 18-125 and comparisons vs. other lenses:

http://www.pbase.com/parr/18_125_tests

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Philip,

As the others have noted, the 10D shot seems completely out of focus. Were you too close perhaps?

But don't be surprised as to the sharpness of the 828. Even at low sharpness, the image gets a lot more in-camera processing than a 10D image. Always keep in mind that the 10D has a much shallower depth of field than the 828 at the same stated aperture values.

I don't have a close-up comparison shot of 10D and F828 but I do have one set of comparison shots:

Sony: http://www.pbase.com/olgaj/image/24557363

10D: http://www.pbase.com/olgaj/image/24557020
(Used a 17-40L lens.)

I wanted both shots to have similar depth of field so I used f4 on the Sony and f11 on the 10D.

Olga

your 10D image look either totaly out of focus or it is camera shake. what shutter speed? on tripod? what aperture?

I get much sharper and more detailed photos with my 300d and the 20d than what you get with the Sony and much much less noisy.

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

What lens have you got? I'd be happy if I could get much sharper images than the Sony. Used to have a 300D, but never got them sharper than the Sony shots here.

Daniella said:

I get much sharper and more detailed photos with my 300d and the
20d than what you get with the Sony and much much less noisy.

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Thanks for that. Interesting to see them both together like that.

Olga Johnson said:

Philip,

As the others have noted, the 10D shot seems completely out of
focus. Were you too close perhaps?

But don't be surprised as to the sharpness of the 828. Even at low
sharpness, the image gets a lot more in-camera processing than a
10D image. Always keep in mind that the 10D has a much shallower
depth of field than the 828 at the same stated aperture values.

I don't have a close-up comparison shot of 10D and F828 but I do
have one set of comparison shots:

Sony: http://www.pbase.com/olgaj/image/24557363

10D: http://www.pbase.com/olgaj/image/24557020
(Used a 17-40L lens.)

I wanted both shots to have similar depth of field so I used f4 on
the Sony and f11 on the 10D.

Olga

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Thanks for that. I thought I'd read somehwere that the zooming trick didn;t work. on the canon. I'll have to try it out now and see. Have you any suggestions re sweetspot for the 18-125? I'd heard zoomed in a little and around F8, though I don;t know if that's true or not.

Ron Parr said:

A few comments to add to what has already been said here:

• The lenses on compact cameras like the 828 can be surprisingly

decent at wide apertures.

• For SLRs, you'll need to get used to the fact that moderately

priced lenses are often a good bit softer wide open than they are
stopped down. There is a difference even for the better lenses,
but the lows aren't quite as low.

• My Sigma 18-125 doesn't always do the best job focusing at wide

to medium focal lengths on my D60. Obviously, it's less noticeable
at smaller apertures. If you need to get the best possible focus
with the 18-125, the technique of zooming in, focusing, and then
zooming back seems to work well for some people.

• As with all things in life, the 18-125 is a compromise. You're

trading some sharpness and speed for zoom range and price.

Some sample shots with my 18-125 and comparisons vs. other lenses:

http://www.pbase.com/parr/18_125_tests

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

First of all, since most of the image quality comes from the lens, I would conclude that the glass (isn't it Leica in the 828?) on the 10D is worse.

In order to reach that conclusion I first have to assume that camera shake and proper focus techniques are not a factor (hard to tell.)

To that you can add the fact that the absolute lowest sharpening in the 828 is probably more sharpening than the highest 10D setting.

Even the 300D has more sharpening than the 10D and the 20D has more than the 1D Mk II - the more profesional the body, the more that the manufacturer takes the expertise of the photgrapher for granted and actualy expects them to expertly post-process the images. P&S cameras, even the "prosumer" models, do the opposite and try to produce a "finished" image straight out of the camera.

Having said all that, it IS still possible that you got a defective 10D--it can happen...just not as frequently as you would think from reading dpreview though

Philip Smith said:

Thanks for that. I thought I'd read somehwere that the zooming
trick didn;t work. on the canon. I'll have to try it out now and
see. Have you any suggestions re sweetspot for the 18-125? I'd
heard zoomed in a little and around F8, though I don;t know if
that's true or not.

Click to expand...

Lenses that retain their focus as you zoom are called, "parfocal." My understanding is that while the 18-125 is not advertised as being parfocal, many have tried this technique with success. I've also heard that a few have claimed failure, so it's most likely something you'll need to test for yourself. In the few tests I've done, it seems to help a little.

I'm afraid I don't know for sure what the sweet spot(s) for the lens is (are). I only did comparison shots through f/8, which always seemed to be a least as good as the wider apertures, so I would guess that the sweet spot is at f/8 or smaller and probably not smaller than f/13 or so, since diffraction is likely to be a factor for such small apertures.

I'm sorry I can't be more definite.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

I shoot a lot with both a 10D and a smaller canon G3. I have found that it is often easier for me to get tack sharp shots out of my G3. But this is in no way indicative of the 10D's abilities; however, it takes a bit more effort to get the most out of the 10D.

The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that the Sony has a much smaller sensor and therefore has a much shorter lens to provide a similar field of view as the SLR. Since the lenses are so short their depth of field is much greater at an equivalent field of view. Therefore, aim the sony and the 10D at the same scene and compose exactly the same with the same fstop and shutter speed, the sony will appear sharper since more of the scene will be in focus. However, if you get out a tripod, stop your SLR down to about f16 and your shutter speed accordingly, you will find that the there is no comparison since the sony's smaller sensor also makes it far less sensitive to light than the 10D's.

In the real world, however, this is something that is appealing about the small digicams and why I have not gotten rid of my G3 even though it doesn't have near the performance of my 10D. A quality prosumer camera will have a lens that can be as good as the best SLR lenses, and it will be in many instances easier to get great shots with than an SLR. Even though your Sony may have artifacts, if it gives a sharp image to the 10D's blurry one, then its still gives a better picture.

If you want to get the best images possible, take a tripod and spend more time dialing in your 10D's settings. If you want to be able to take shots quickly without thinking about them (as many times I do) and not carry around equipment, then the Sony might be the camera to take.

Eric

Daniella said:

I get much sharper and more detailed photos with my 300d and the
20d than what you get with the Sony and much much less noisy.

Philip Smith said:

I thought I'd run a test to see what the image quality, close up
was like on my new 10d compared to my 828. Took the photos, and
here they are.
They were both taken with onboard flash, both on P set to widest
apeture. The Canon, btw, has got a Sigma 18-125 on it, and was a
little zoomed in. At first I thought the obvious difference in
quality was down to the 8MP of the Sony, but I checked , and I
actually had it set to 5 MP. I also checked the sharpness, and the
Sony was set to minus, whereas the Canon was set to highest
sharpening.
What's going on? Have I got a bad camera, or is it my lens? I know
it's the cheaper end, but, still for £200, I expect it to out
perform the Sony. I've tried sharpening the image in PS, and can't
get near the Sony's without halos.
Have to say, nest time there's good light and I want a sharp image,
I think I'll take my Sony and leave the Sony at home. SOrry to say
(after the money it cost.
To me, ti looks like there's a lot more detail in that SOny image.
The text is sharper, and the the scuffing on the corner of the
books has detail in it whereas with the Canon, it doesn't. True,
there's more noise with the Sony, and some PF, but it's the detail
that concerns me. Why is the Canon so soft (and I have to say, I
find the 10d less soft than my old 300d)?

Anyone help me with this? I'm somewhat concerned.



Canon



Sony.

--
http://www.geocities.com/philrachsmith/

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

--
http://www.ekramerphoto.com/nature

Philip Smith said:

You're right. I just did a test shot (posted above) on maual focus.
I'll try some more shots tomorrow with auto focus, see how it
fares).

Click to expand...

Assuming you know, each lens has a different minimum focusing distance. If you shoot closer than that you will get blurry shots. It may be hard to see in the viewfinder and you may still get focus confirmation in AF.

--
Rick A. Diaz
http://www.mcjournalist.com
The image is everything.
See my profile for equipment list.