Photo Comparison

[jpresley]

One is shot with a new camera: ISO80, 6mm, 0ev, f2.8, 1/100 at it's maximum resolution and highest quality compression.

One is shot with an older camera: ISO200, 18mm, 0ev, f4.5, 1/50, Flash Fired, at it's maximum resolution and highest quality compression.

One camera is a Canon IS790 the other is a Sony DSC-7. Taken 11/2010 and 10/2002.

Looking at both, do you not see worse jpg compression in the newer photo (right)? What else could it be? I'm assuming the newer, higher resolution camera might use more compression? Any other ideas.

We get significantly better low light/no flash results with the older Sony than the newer Canon. Wouldn't a 10mp camera give better results at ISO320 than a 3.2mp camera at the same ISO?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

I don't see JPEG compression artifacts in the image taken with the newer camera. However, I do see aliasing artifacts on high contrast edges. These 'jaggies' often are seen with high quality cameras when their images are downsized.

The older camera's image is softer (and I think does the subject more justice), and so resists the jaggies better than the newer camera. See this article for an explanation:

http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com/2010/12/problem-of-resizing-images.html

(The Moire effect described in the article is a kind of aliasing.)

What software did you use to make these images smaller? I do know that Photoshop does not implement downsizing properly, and so shows artifacts such as jagged edges.

What I do to avoid this kind of problem is to turn off sharpening in the camera, and instead sharpen my image after I downsize it. For my best images, I'll downsize using better algorithms than what is found in Photoshop.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[billzilla2000]

Apple to oranges - differing settings, totally different cameras, different subjects, lighting, etc.

If you want to try to prove a theory about MP, use identical subjects, lighting, settings - otherwise it's pointless, sorry to say. Also, JPEG output quality and settings effectiveness can vary wildly from one camera to another even if MP resolution is the same.

 

[slowhands214238]

Useless comparison...strictly subjective in an uncointrolled te$t (...coin and te$s intended)

 

[jpresley]

I did not resize the images. I captured a 660x800 pixel area from both photos in Photoshop.

I realized they were not apples to apples. Newer camera had better conditions, in my opinion (lower ISO, etc.) Neither camera has the ability to adjust sharpness within the camera, to my knowledge.

Still reading your link. Thank you.

 

[jpresley]

That was kind of the point. Older camera, lower MP, higher ISO (worse conditions) vs. newer camera, higher MP, lower ISO...

 

[mszak51]

That was kind of the point. Older camera, lower MP, higher ISO (worse conditions) vs. newer camera, higher MP, lower ISO...

Are you suggesting that the image on the left is better than the image on the right?

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Sharpening is built into most or all digital cameras, from what I've read. DSLRs typically have weaker anti-alias filters compared to point-and-shoots, and that can cause aliasing artifacts, but typically the greater sharpness is considered a good trade-off.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[beshannon]

That was kind of the point. Older camera, lower MP, higher ISO (worse conditions) vs. newer camera, higher MP, lower ISO...

Are you suggesting that the image on the left is better than the image on the right?

That is what it sounds like to me, so the OP should go on using the old camera and be happy.
--
My Smugmug photos http://www.brianshannonphotography.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My 500px photos http://500px.com/brianshannonphotography/

 

[mszak51]

That was kind of the point. Older camera, lower MP, higher ISO (worse conditions) vs. newer camera, higher MP, lower ISO...

Are you suggesting that the image on the left is better than the image on the right?

That is what it sounds like to me, so the OP should go on using the old camera and be happy.
--

That's a bit dismissive. This is a beginners forum - people come here to learn.

Each of those images have different qualities - if the original poster can get an understanding of what they like better about the older photo, they can probably replicate that with the new camera, as well as have the opportunity to take photos that are outside the capability of the older camera.

So, it takes an open discussion about the images themselves.

(BTW, Brian - I like your beach photos!)

 

[Leswick]

I'd like to add that different lenses at different (or same) focal lengths can perform differently = less contrast, bla bla. I'd suggest that you redo the tests and then decide which is better and which camera you might prefer. Make sure the lighting, model and everything is the same....if you introduce "auto" anything...then you might as well not even attempt the test (it will lack accuracy). Then compare.

Leswick

 

[billzilla2000]

Then, no offense, but you need to illustrate that very point - don't post totally different images with differing exposures, camera settings, scenes, etc.

If you want to show that the older lower MP camera is 'better', you have to take a picture of the same thing with the same lighting and similar or identical camera settings, otherwise you're not proving anything.

 

[beshannon]

(BTW, Brian - I like your beach photos!)

Thank you very much

--
My Smugmug photos http://www.brianshannonphotography.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My 500px photos http://500px.com/brianshannonphotography/

 

[ChrisLumix]

Looking at both, do you not see worse jpg compression in the newer photo (right)? What else could it be? I'm assuming the newer, higher resolution camera might use more compression? Any other ideas.

No, the complete opposite (after expanding to full size). The earlier picture has (superficially) more contrast but when you look closer, it appears very "processed". Whereas the newer shot looks much more natural and doesn't look processed at all.

--

Panas0n!c Lum!x FZ-38 (The word "LOSE" is spelled "LOSE"! It's not spelled "LOOSE", ok?)

 

[wmsson]

Just another example of very poor controls. I have hundreds of these bookmarked, time to start a blog about it I think.

If you want to compare two cameras, you need an identical photo. The exact same photo with all the same conditions. Anything else just brings into play other factors that people will argue about...quite the opposite of what the scientific method is suppossed to cause.

Both of these photos look quite acceptable to me, no surprise as most any camera available will take acceptable photos, they wouldn't market them otherwise, but to get down to the nitty gritty, which one takes the better photo, the photos have to be the same, the same lighting and subject,equivalent settings in camera, everything identical or equivalent. And for more than just one image. Some cameras excel at certain types of photos but do more poorly with other types of photos. so this photo comparison fails for proper controls in more than one area. IOW, it's useless for comparison. And therfore any assumptions made by comparing them are useless.

 

[jpresley]

Thanks to everyone that responded. I learned something from most responses, which I appreciate. This is one of those things where the more you learn the more you realize you don't know.