Reading mode: Light Dark

DSLR vs. digicam (warning: huge pics)

Go to last post
R

Robert N

Senior Member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
3
Location
AT
Yesterday I had a interesting discussion with a professional photographer. He asked me why I wouldn't use a "real camera" for my pictures. (For those who don't know me, I have a A620, a FZ50 and a D50 with a couple of prime lenses, but I hardly use my DSLR).

I told him that my digicams would have a lot of advantages (flip-out LCD, size, weight...). "Yeah, but it's all about the image quality, isn't it?" he asked me. "I'm very happy with the image quality, my digicams are nearly as good as my DSLR. At least I can hardly see a difference on a A4 print", I answered. "No way, I can see it immediately!", he told me. I showed him a couple of A4-sized prints, some were taken with a DSLR, the others were taken with my FZ50. Guess what? Even with a loupe he couldn't see a difference. Here are some of the pictures:
1)



2)



3)



4)



5)



6)



He was even more confused when we did some pixel peeping:

From Phil's review:
FZ50(left) vs. Pentax K10D, ISO100:



It's getting better: ISO 800!!

dcresource: (both ISO 800) 100% crops

FZ50 RAW (left) vs. Sony Alpha (right)



Noise reduction at cost of detail? Judge for yourself:

FZ50 (left) vs. Sony Alpha (right) 100% crops



By the way, it took me only 20 seconds to post process the RAW file (noise reduction and sharpening).

Needless to say that the we were a little puzzled. Even at ISO 800 the results were excellent. Please don't get me wrong, I don't think DSLRs are dispensable (I own one myself), but digicams are certainly "real cameras" and not only toys.
--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com
 
I agree completely. This summer I bought a Cannon A95... old model I know, but it uses CF memory of which I have several 2gb cards.

I use it more than my KM 7D outdoors simply because it fits in my pocket, & it takes very good pictures!

I think the quality & features of modern digicams run rings around 35mm compacts & slrs of yesteryear.
--
Quickbeam, Entwade, Yorkshire, UK.
 
Robert,

Take a look at the G7 Professional use thread you may find it interesting.

I have a 620 and DSLR and was going the G7 route but the FZ50 is very attractive. How do you like it and how do you process your raw files with it?

Thanks Robert.

Pat
 
Great post. Here's a similar one that I like as well. ;)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=21742594

Still, I can't knock my DSLR. I saved a total of 106 photos from Christmas: 38 from my SD550 and 68 with my Pentax DSLR & lenses. Out of all those 106 photos, only 16 were special and worth sharing and all 16 were shot with the DSLR. As you might guess, my wife uses only the SD550 - it's fast, easy, and does a good job in just about any lighting conditions. To me, it's a technical marvel - so many advanced features in such a small package. The movie mode in particular I still find astonishing even though I own a nice camcorder. For the most part though, the images that the SD550 captures seem pretty ordinary compared to the DSLR. The one major exception is underwater photos - I have the Canon underwater housing for the SD550 and those photos can be pretty neat.
 
Hi Pat,
Patrick Watson said:
Take a look at the G7 Professional use thread you may find it
interesting.
Click to expand...
Indeed, that's a very interesting thread. I know a studio photographer who thinks his Fuji 9500 is the best camera on earth for his job, because of the beautiful skin tones. Another one still uses a Sony 828 and his clients are perfectly happy. I guess a smart photographer knows which tool does the job.
Patrick Watson said:
I have a 620 and DSLR and was going the G7 route but the FZ50 is
very attractive. How do you like it and how do you process your
raw files with it?
Click to expand...
I'm very happy with my FZ50. I posted my first impressions at the Panasonic-forum:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=20524303

The JPEGs are fine, but the RAW files are certainly better, if you know what you're doing. Usually I open them with ACR without any noise reduction and sharpening. Here's an example. I only increased the saturation, sharpened the wood and cleaned the sky:



One thing is for sure, I'll never buy again a camera without image stabilization. Hand held, 420mm (equ.), 1/15:



--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com
 
Maxwell Smart said:
Great post. Here's a similar one that I like as well. ;)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=21742594
Click to expand...
I have to say, the camcorder picture really looks very nice. :-)
Maxwell Smart said:
Still, I can't knock my DSLR. I saved a total of 106 photos from
Christmas: 38 from my SD550 and 68 with my Pentax DSLR & lenses.
Out of all those 106 photos, only 16 were special and worth sharing
and all 16 were shot with the DSLR.
Click to expand...
Yes, DSLRs do have a lot of advantages. However, this year I used my FZ50 with an external flash to take some pictures at Christmas. I couldn't believe how easy it was. I only had to set the shutter speed (1/30) and thanks to the image stabilization and the flash, every picture was tack sharp and perfectly exposed. This is a JPEG (nearly) straight out of the camera:


Maxwell Smart said:
As you might guess, my wife
uses only the SD550 - it's fast, easy, and does a good job in just
about any lighting conditions. To me, it's a technical marvel - so
many advanced features in such a small package. The movie mode in
particular I still find astonishing even though I own a nice
camcorder. For the most part though, the images that the SD550
captures seem pretty ordinary compared to the DSLR. The one major
exception is underwater photos - I have the Canon underwater
housing for the SD550 and those photos can be pretty neat.
Click to expand...
I agree, in difficult conditions, nothing beats a DSLR.
--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com
 
Thanks Robert! That was a real eye-opener. FZ50 performed better than I would've thought. Nice BW photos also.

I just want a G7 with wider lens, tilt & twist lcd, grip, RAW, faster lens, bigger sensor and less pixels. I wouldn't care if it costs 800€ I just want one. What I don't want/need is a dslr. Today I got my Fuji E900, it has too many pixels for my taste and a little too much CA/PF but it was cheap and it's a d*mn fine camera. Now I need learn how to get most out that camera and RAW.

--

If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it away from him. An investment of knowledge always pays the best interest.
 
A P+S camera is fine for static shots but try photographing a moving subject with either a P+S or camera with electronic viewfinder. Impossible. I am interested in motorcycle racing. SLR for me.
 
I have an S3IS, a 20D and a 5D. Often my wife and I are shooting together, her with the S3 and me with one of the dSLRs.

When I'm going through the images, I can usually tell which is which instantly and just at screen size without looking at the file names or the EXIF data.

In certain non light-limited situations with deep DOF selected, the S3 can do almost as well as the dSLRs and produce files that are hard to tell apart. But as soon as the light gets a bit low or you are looking for shallower DOF, there is just no contest at all. Everything from tonal gradations to noise to contrast to detail all favor the larger sensor camera so enormously that it's obvious from the first millisecond of looking at the images.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
ljfinger said:
I have an S3IS, a 20D and a 5D. Often my wife and I are shooting
together, her with the S3 and me with one of the dSLRs.

When I'm going through the images, I can usually tell which is
which instantly and just at screen size without looking at the file
names or the EXIF data.

In certain non light-limited situations with deep DOF selected, the
S3 can do almost as well as the dSLRs and produce files that are
hard to tell apart. But as soon as the light gets a bit low or you
are looking for shallower DOF, there is just no contest at all.
Everything from tonal gradations to noise to contrast to detail all
favor the larger sensor camera so enormously that it's obvious from
the first millisecond of looking at the images.

--
Click to expand...
Yes, in difficult conditions a DSLR can be MUCH better, sometimes it's even necessary (hockey,...). That's one of the reasons why I also have a one. However, a DSLR is not always the better tool and the image quality of a digicam can be excellent.

By the way, this picture was taken with a FZ50. The DOF looks pretty shallow to me. f3.7, ISO100, 1/30



--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com
 
ljfinger said:
I have a 20D and a 5D...as soon as the light gets a bit low or you
are looking for shallower DOF, there is just no contest at all.
Everything from tonal gradations to noise to contrast to detail all
favor the larger sensor camera...
Click to expand...
20D/5D doesn't tell the whole story though. Are you also talking about fast telephoto IS lenses on those bodies? If so, a $4,000 camera/lens combination certainly should outperform a digital camera costing one-tenth as much. The question for many is whether or not the DSLR photos are anywhere near ten times better.

In my own separate thread, I was comparing a $550 DSLR camera/lens combination against a $550 digital camcorder and the camcorder did an amazing job (for pixel-peeping on full size crops). Not that I'm ready to throw away my DLSR but, as I'm sure you'll agree, with certain situations and techniques one camera type may hold advantages over another.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
ljfinger said:
I have a 20D and a 5D...as soon as the light gets a bit low or you
are looking for shallower DOF, there is just no contest at all.
Everything from tonal gradations to noise to contrast to detail all
favor the larger sensor camera...
Click to expand...
20D/5D doesn't tell the whole story though. Are you also talking
about fast telephoto IS lenses on those bodies? If so, a $4,000
camera/lens combination certainly should outperform a digital
camera costing one-tenth as much. The question for many is whether
or not the DSLR photos are anywhere near ten times better.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, much, much more than 10 times better. Sometimes not better by much.
Maxwell Smart said:
In my own separate thread, I was comparing a $550 DSLR camera/lens
combination against a $550 digital camcorder and the camcorder did
an amazing job (for pixel-peeping on full size crops). Not that
I'm ready to throw away my DLSR but, as I'm sure you'll agree, with
certain situations and techniques one camera type may hold
advantages over another.
Click to expand...
The smaller sensor cameras never hold an image-quality advantage. They hold a size advantage (if you like a small size) and a cost advantage.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Robert N said:
By the way, this picture was taken with a FZ50. The DOF looks
pretty shallow to me. f3.7, ISO100, 1/30

Click to expand...
Looks pretty deep to me (eyes and hair by the ears both in focus).

This is shallow DOF, and this isn't extreme equipment (20D, 50/1.4 at f1.4). A 5D+85/1.2L or 50/1.2L would be much shallower.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Lee Jay said:
Looks pretty deep to me (eyes and hair by the ears both in focus).
Click to expand...
Yes, and both eyes. Perfect DOF for a portrait (but that's certainly a matter of taste).
Lee Jay said:
This is shallow DOF, and this isn't extreme equipment (20D, 50/1.4
at f1.4). A 5D+85/1.2L or 50/1.2L would be much shallower.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the DOF is already too extreme (again, a matter of taste).

I think it's looks better if both eyes are in focus:



--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com
 
Maxwell Smart said:
ljfinger said:
The smaller sensor cameras never hold an image-quality advantage.
They hold a size advantage (if you like a small size) and a cost
advantage.
Click to expand...
Never say "never". Surely there are some situations in which the
huge DOF of a small-sensor camera is desirable or even necessary.
Click to expand...
I said never, and I meant never. You can always get the same DOF with a large sensor camera as you can with a small sensor camera if you need it. This is because both systems are capable of reaching beyond the diffraction limits which are optical and have nothing to do with sensor sizes.

I can get the same DOF and detail with my 5D as I can with my tiny 1/4" CCD camcorder.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Your shots fail to show any motion blur of the tires, etc...so all sence of speed is lost.
Robert N said:
Paul49M said:
A P+S camera is fine for static shots but try photographing a
moving subject with either a P+S or camera with electronic
viewfinder. Impossible. I am interested in motorcycle racing. SLR
for me.
Click to expand...
Last year I visited the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco. I'm pretty
sure I'll take better pictures with my FZ50 this year:









--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

 
ljfinger said:
I can get the same DOF and detail with my 5D as I can with my tiny
1/4" CCD camcorder.
Click to expand...
Forgot the image! ;-)



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top