Reading mode: Light Dark

Which gives higher IQ?

Which gives higher IQ?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
Smaug01

Smaug01

Veteran Member
Messages
7,263
Solutions
9
Reaction score
7,581
Location
Chicago area
A basic 28-300 (equiv.) "walk-around lens" on an APS-C SLR or a high quality fixed lens on a 1" sensored bridge camera? Let's say Nikon D3300 w/ Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 vs. Panasonic FZ1000 with its 25-400 lens at 28, 50, 100, 200, and 300mm equivalents. Assume the same resolution output file.

Would I be wrong in assuming that the built-in lens of the FZ is higher quality than the Tamron?

If not, is the lens better enough to make up for the much smaller sensor?

I often discourage the walk-around lenses on the basis of low optical quality, compared to primes or narrower zooms. Now, I'm second-guessing myself.

I'm just wondering if someone who buys an APS-C SLR with an ultrazoom lens and just leaves it on is really better served than someone with a smaller-sensored camera with a superior lens.

As a measuring stick, let's also be realistic here: Assume image is compressed and viewed on a typical 21" monitor. Which would look better, or would we be unable to tell?
 
Depending on what f/stop you shoot at and the conditions; there should be little to no difference between the two at normal viewing size. Even kit lenses and most super zooms are pretty good these days at their best f/stop and if not used at their extreme zoom ends.
 
How about at their worst f-stops and at the extremes of the zoom range?

Here, the Panasonic would have a small advantage, since 300m equiv. isn't the extreme tele, and 28mm isn't the extreme wide.

We tend to shoot these lenses wide open a lot, so there's that too.
 
Smaug01 said:
How about at their worst f-stops and at the extremes of the zoom range?

Here, the Panasonic would have a small advantage, since 300m equiv. isn't the extreme tele, and 28mm isn't the extreme wide.

We tend to shoot these lenses wide open a lot, so there's that too.
Click to expand...
 
Good question and one for some review site to do some testing on. I don't have those examples but I do have the more extreme case of a 12MP Canon SX50 with 24-1200 equiv. and a Tamron 18-270 used on 18MP APS-C bodies. The Canon is an amazing lens. It's not really awful anywhere in its range. The Tamron is a bit soft at 270 but surprisingly sharp around normal length. Certainly within the overlapping range the APS-C/Tamron combo wins but not always by much. At some point beyond the range of the Tamron (432 equiv), maybe between 700-900 the Canon overtakes it. The main difference is depth of field. There is always more subject separation available with the Tamron shooting from the same spot, however if I want more of a scene in focus the the Canon is the better choice.

So that's an extreme case. In your 1" versus APS-C scenario the same differences would apply but to a lesser extent. In terms of reach that Tamron on an 80D might give me slightly more effective reach (with cropping) than a 24-600 equiv GX3. The other difference of course is that with the ILC route if the lens fails you can get another. Lens fails on a bridge camera the whole thing is dead. A system camera lets you update/replace each part. A good lens might last decades but it won't if it's inside a bridge camera.
 
Compare the green and the yellow curves here: one stop advantage for the APS-C system in terms of light, plus 1 stop less diffraction softening.

Bigger is better.

apertures.png
 
I shot quite a few test charts of my Sony RX10 versus a Sony A65+Sony 18-135 zoom lens. The RX10 gave better resolution, especially when you look across the frame.

The particular question you posed concerned a Tamron 18-200 that costs $199. That is a lot of zoom for not much money. It will suffer in image quality. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is an older lens. Zoom lens design has improved a lot the last ten years. And zoom lens design is a lot easier with a smaller sensor. I would expect a Panasonic FZ1000 to give better resolution than that particular lens mounted on any APS-C body.

I have no direct experience with the particular camera and lenses you asked about. But in general, I have found I get what I pay for and lenses with wide zoom ranges costing less than $200 I find disappointing in image quality. I steer clear of them now. I assume you chose that lens because you were looking to define a system that would be about the same in cost as an FZ1000.

The Tamron 18-200 I use on my Sony A6000 is a fine lens though. It cost quite a bit more than $200 though.
 
Last edited:
apertures.png




90bfb42efed54eeda4c497fe92470d5d.jpg







--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci
 
Donald B said:
K7 sigma 18 200



%100 crop



--
Olympus xz1, e-pL5 , EM5 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9.
Click to expand...
Donald,

Both your insect macro photos and these portraits are great work. I think providing examples for viewing is always the best is possible. Very few people here do this for various reasons.

Thanks for sharing,

--
Ryan N.
1. When in charge, ponder. 2. When in trouble, delegate. 3. When in doubt, mumble.
- James H. Borden (Author)
Gallery at http://www.rneihiphotography.com/
 
OpticsEngineer said:
I shot quite a few test charts of my Sony RX10 versus a Sony A65+Sony 18-135 zoom lens. The RX10 gave better resolution, especially when you look across the frame.

The particular question you posed concerned a Tamron 18-200 that costs $199. That is a lot of zoom for not much money. It will suffer in image quality. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is an older lens. Zoom lens design has improved a lot the last ten years. And zoom lens design is a lot easier with a smaller sensor. I would expect a Panasonic FZ1000 to give better resolution than that particular lens mounted on any APS-C body.

I have no direct experience with the particular camera and lenses you asked about. But in general, I have found I get what I pay for and lenses with wide zoom ranges costing less than $200 I find disappointing in image quality. I steer clear of them now. I assume you chose that lens because you were looking to define a system that would be about the same in cost as an FZ1000.

The Tamron 18-200 I use on my Sony A6000 is a fine lens though. It cost quite a bit more than $200 though.
Click to expand...
This is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm working under the assumption that a custom-designed, top quality lens for a smaller-sensored camera is usually of better quality and a better match (no compromises for where the lens must be mounted, because it is always mounted in the optimal place) than a walk-around lens for an APS-C camera.

You're right, I was looking at approximately equivalent prices, all-up. What if we remove the price barrier for the SLR, and get what is considered a top quality all-around zoom? Can it match the quality and custom bonuses of a top quality, all-in one bridge camera on 1" sensor? Even then, I'm skeptical.

As an optics engineer, you undoubtedly have a better feeling for it.

JACS' point about equivalent lens speed is valid, of course; not sure about diffraction, since we're talking about wide open vs. wide open.

I don't have an APS-C SLR any more, nor do I have a 28-300 for my Nikon D610. (I'd pay return shipping) If someone will loan me a lens, I'll shoot a comparison shot. But that will be full frame, which may not be a fair fight.
 
...you kind of ignored optics quality and added f-stop considerations back in. I specifically assumed shooting wide open with both lenses. (as would be done with sports, wildlife, and indoor photos)
 
Smaug01 said:
...you kind of ignored optics quality
Click to expand...
Optics plus format is usually better with larger sensors. This is why people are spending tens of thousands for those Phase Ones, etc. So this is an additional plus for the APS-C that I thought was obvious.
Smaug01 said:
and added f-stop considerations back in. I specifically assumed shooting wide open with both lenses. (as would be done with sports, wildlife, and indoor photos)
Click to expand...
Wide open with the 1 inch sensor means stopped down compared to APS-C.

Bigger is better.
 
Smaug01 said:
A basic 28-300 (equiv.) "walk-around lens" on an APS-C SLR or a high quality fixed lens on a 1" sensored bridge camera? Let's say Nikon D3300 w/ Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 vs. Panasonic FZ1000 with its 25-400 lens at 28, 50, 100, 200, and 300mm equivalents. Assume the same resolution output file.

Would I be wrong in assuming that the built-in lens of the FZ is higher quality than the Tamron?

If not, is the lens better enough to make up for the much smaller sensor?

I often discourage the walk-around lenses on the basis of low optical quality, compared to primes or narrower zooms. Now, I'm second-guessing myself.
Click to expand...
+1 Second guess yourself! :) LOL.
Smaug01 said:
I'm just wondering if someone who buys an APS-C SLR with an ultrazoom lens and just leaves it on is really better served than someone with a smaller-sensored camera with a superior lens.
Click to expand...
I am one of those people.

When on vacation, I'll take my Nikon D5100 and just have my Nikon 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 superzoom. And for when it gets dark, I have my Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens. That's pretty much it.

But I have had a Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 superzoom on my Pentax K100d as well as a Promaster 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 superzoom (which I believe was a rebadged Tamron) on my Nikon D70s.

And if you get those lenses enough light, they can really bang out a great picture.

Here are some shots I took with those lenses way back when, when I was 1st getting into off camera flash . . .

https://flic.kr/p/5L6n98

https://flic.kr/p/5yGgXh

https://flic.kr/p/5BaogX
Smaug01 said:
As a measuring stick, let's also be realistic here: Assume image is compressed and viewed on a typical 21" monitor. Which would look better, or would we be unable to tell?
Click to expand...
But besides just optics . . . to me there are other things to take into consideration.

Things like . . . how quick can you get to the focal length you want. How fast does the camera focus. How short is the trigger delay? And things like that.

Heck. As an experiment, I once shot a cheerleading routine with my Nikon D5100 with my Nikon 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 lens. I had to up the auto-iso to max iso6400. And use aperture priority since my aperture was changing. But the camera was able to keep up. Zooming was manual, so I got to the focal length I wanted to be at quickly. Focus was fast. (cheerleading has lots of light at bigger events). And trigger delay was very, very small. So I walked away with 20-30 shots from a < 2 min routine.

And right after that I did the same thing with my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens. The benefit of using the constant aperture lens was that I was able to peg iso at iso3200 and leave it there. And I was able to set aperture and shutter speed up and forget it, so no surprises from the camera. And I think that helps to squeeze a bit more IQ out of the camera.

When I looked at the images on-screen, both were great. Both were completely usable! Of course, when I pixel peeped, I could just make out some distortion on the 18-135mm lens. But I really had to go looking for it.

Here is one of the cheerleading shots taken with my Nikon D5100 and my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8.

https://flic.kr/p/bXVgMG

But besides all that . . . the benefit of an interchangeable lens camera is that when you want to . . . you can change the lens to something that suits what you are shooting.

Although I don't do a lot of it, I do have a macro lens . . .

https://flic.kr/p/8a5QwP

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/4697290897/in/dateposted-public/

And being able to slap on a constant aperture lens, such as my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 or Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 lens can IMHO really go a long way to getting the shot.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/18703668855/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/15528608821/in/dateposted-public/

As for your Nikon D610. Maybe that Nikon 24-120mm f4 lens would be a good fit. I so wanted to get it when I got my D750, but it was completely out of my budget. :(

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
Thanks for the great, illustrated reply, Tactic. I guess your vote was bigger sensor with worse lens then?

Nice photos for illustration too!

--

-Jeremy
 
Smaug01 said:
Thanks for the great, illustrated reply, Tactic. I guess your vote was bigger sensor with worse lens then?
Click to expand...
I chose that . . . but part of what I was selling was that the superzooms aren't all that bad. LOL.

They just get a bad rap.

My pictures were an attempt to support that position. :)

And given how good high-iso / low light performance of even the entry level dSLR or mirrorless cameras are getting now-a-days . . . it is very easy to walk around with a superzoom and expect to get great shots in a wide range of shooting and lighting conditions.

But the added benefit of the interchangeable lens cameras is that you don't always need to keep that lens on the camera. You can switch it out for something else as the need / want arises.
Smaug01 said:
Nice photos for illustration too!
Click to expand...
Thanks!
Smaug01 said:
--

-Jeremy
Click to expand...
 
Post processing skills - or lack of - would make bigger difference than equipment...
 
R Neihi said:
Donald B said:
K7 sigma 18 200



%100 crop



--
Olympus xz1, e-pL5 , EM5 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9.
Click to expand...
Donald,

Both your insect macro photos and these portraits are great work. I think providing examples for viewing is always the best is possible. Very few people here do this for various reasons.

Thanks for sharing,
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you, its a photography site but hardly anyone ever posts an image to put their view across, mind you I get blasted quite a few times when I object to their post and put a few images up for discussion :)

cheers don



--
Olympus xz1, e-pL5 , EM5 my toys.
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9.
 
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