What a sharp DSLR picture looks like

[Gondor]

Just want to thank you Ron for an excellent web page, http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html . I don't agree with the following but there's a lot of usefull info there.

"An SLR is a preferred style of camera because it allows the photographer to see exactly what will be captured by the film or sensor without any parallax or distortion. For this reason, high end features have been incorporated into these cameras and the style of camera is sometimes confused with the high end features that go along with it."

A TTL EVF hasn't got parallax problem either and when the resolution gets even better and it updates even faster there will be no advantages with an optical viewfinder. In fact, an EVF has the potential of becoming a WYSIWYG viewfinder, that's something an optical viewfinder cannot become.

I just click on the CANON forum and get all the info I need right
there. This is Sony so I am really interested here in how we get
the SONY pics as clear as possible, tricks, tips, hints, pics,
assesories, anything SONY. I'm sorry but I'm just not interested
in the canon anything HERE. That's why they have a Canon forum
which is neat also. Maybe they should have a ALL CAMERA forum huh?

Do you treat the people who ask the 300D vs. 828 questions in this
forum with such courtesy, or do you reserve this for people who
offer answers?

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

 

[Steve Cavigliano]

I'm embarassed, Ron. I'd expect some of these type of responses in that other forum. Not here :-(

Knowing how much you contribute to all the forums, your post was neither off topic, or an attempt to incite, IMO. As you pointed out, many folks have alluded to softness and other issues with the Canon's. Your post pretty much puts the softness issue to rest (a very nice pic, very sharp and a very cute subject, BTW).

This forum has had the reputation of being pretty open minded. I guess the anxiety about the 828 has everyone on edge. I hope that the personal comments and attacks won't keep you from continuing to be one of the best technical assets in the STF, and the other DPR forums.

I got upset with you for telling Lisa Young, back in Jan/Feb, when she was questioning the difference in images from the 7x7 and the 10D, the she was incapable of understanding the subtle differences that contribute to the much better image quality (my paraphrasing). I'm still not too crazy about what I perceived as a tactless, hurtful, post. But you may have had a valid point. Maybe we are so intent on the trees, we haven't developed enough vision to see the entire forest.

Steve

we have seen enough to know that. If one doesn't KNOW what they
look like they must be living in the dark ages. NO one says the
Canon 10d is not a wonderful camera. YOU PAID BIGGA BUCKS for that
Canon 10d too! So what's your point? This is old hat! We love
our Sony's and this is a SONY forum for lots of different reasons.
ONE BEING it's a damn good camera at a LOT LESS PRICE! Right now
we are busy waiting for our 828 lol we already know about the
Canon's that are out!
Cherylm

--
http://www.pbase.com/slo2k
'The question is not what you look at, but what you see' - Thoreau

 

[venkat]

Ron,
A nice picture and an apt one to demonstrate what you are trying to say..

take a look at one of the pictures i took with my 707. i see little more noise and CA.
This oine is straight out of the camera without any post processing..
http://www.pbase.com/image/23897609/original



Thanks,
Venkat.

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

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

--
Venkat
http://www.pbase.com/ktv

 

[Mark J]

I have a great deal of respect for your digital photography experience and opinions, Ron. Did you have to be so diplomatic in the post? lol

No matter WHAT you say about your Canon camera... in this forum at some point, you are going to get someone who does not like what you are saying (if they have not already expressed this in the following posts?)

Thank you for posting the pics. My DRebel produces the same kind of nearly noise free, sharp, excellent output images..... so I can appreciate what you are saying here. Now..... as soon as the next hot mama camera is introduced in the upcoming expo shows in Jan and Feb, I'll be selling my DRebel for a cam that is NOT crippled in any way I was just about to buy the 10D recently, when I decided to wait for the new generation of cams to intro at the expos.

Have a great day today Ron,
Mark Javer

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

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

 

[TraceyS]

Not everyone on the STF is a pure breed...

In fact, i've ALWAYS been a Canonite - back when i bought my 707 i could have bought a D30, I just dind't htink i deserved it yet. So i bought the next best thing (in my mind).

But, while a member of the STF for the last 3 years, i've always known i'd have an Canon DSLR. Now i do....

BUt i'm not bashing the 828 - the Rebel is was I was ready for, where I was ready to go with cameras....

But the STF is home..... Ron is a major source of knowledge, and he's willing to share it with us. Take it and learn from him....

Tracey

I own:
HP315
Sony P50
SOny 707
Canon Digital Rebel
Canon Rebel G-QD

Jogger,

Ron Par is a long time contributor to this forum.

--
John from Southern California
http://www.pbase.com/johnrweb/disneyconcerthall
http://www.pbase.com/domdom
F707 and 300D

 

[antoine52756]

I have both cameras and these are my thoughts

1) Shallow DOF, Contrast, Noise...The DSLR is a much better camera. It has film like look while prosumer camera pictures has TV feel to it. The Contrast differences shows clearly in the post processing. I rarely had to adjust the contrast and the level in the Photoshop with my DSLR, It's not the case with my F717, I almost had to do it with every single pictures to get it right.

2) Sharpness...The prosumer camera is sharper straight out of the camera most of the time. This is one of my 8 years old son picture that he took with F717,



After 3-4 years using Digital cameras, taking thousands of pictures from S70, F707 , F717 and now the Canon 300D, I know exactly the differences

between them. A few things that I wish it would happen in the F828 which I will upgrade from my F717 are

1) The film like feel (Color, contrast, DOF...) that I am pretty sure it would be much better than F717 in these area because of the better lens.

2) Less noise than F717, usable ISO 400

If F828 meets these 2 criteria! I will consider ebay my Canon 300D and 4 lenses for alot more convenient F828. Otherwise, I will try to keep both, because each camera is better at different purposes.

Have fun shooting everyone and don't worry too much about cameras!

Antoine

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

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

--
Antoine - F717, The Mirror Image
http://www.pbase.com/image/6381098

Antoine - F717, The Mirror Images
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291244987

 

[dave clark28980]

but not really.

If I didn't know Ron better then this statement does sound condescending but I had to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his positive history here.

If one doesn't know Ron, then his statement could sound like the following, “If you guys aren't sophisticated enough to know what a real picture looks like then stick with your toys. Ignorance is bliss. But if you have half a brain then you will want one of these too.”

Ron didn’t really mean it that way but I can understand the reaction some folks had and I anticipated this. Poor choice of words not quite in the style of Ulysses who goes out of his way to pad his comments with feel-good safety-nets. Ron is to the point and a no-nonsense type of guy.

I cringed when I first read Ron's post which I read it only 7 minutes after it was first posted. I almost commented about it then, but decided to sit back and watch the sparks fly. Heheheh

For what it’s worth, Ron is a legend here and has a lot to contribute.

Dave Clark

Ron stated "If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better
than what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you
probably shouldn't get a digital SLR."

Why do you think the above statement is elitist?

Yes, but his comments seem to be coming from someone who has the
mindset "you're not a pro unless you shoot dSLR".

--
John from Southern California
http://www.pbase.com/johnrweb/disneyconcerthall
http://www.pbase.com/domdom
F707 and 300D

 

[Ron Parr]

Dave,

I think a lot of people didn't make it down to my last two sentences:

"[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the difference is worth the effort.]"

I really tried to end in a tone that would not invite the type of reactions that we're seeing here.

Now, to be fair, I do think that there is no question that the image itself is superior to what can be obtained with a small sensor and I do genuinely question the objectivity of those who think otherwise. I didn't think the quality of the image would be an issue for anybody because it seemed fairly self evident to me.

In any case, this isn't the whole story. In fact, the effort I went through to get this sharpness (using a fixed focal length lense and dealing with Canon's flash issues) was part of the story and gave these details so people would think about the issues.

I also warned people that cheap zooms would not be this good.

I'm not surprised that some people might have read it quickly and gotten flustered by it, but I'm surprised that it still came across in a negative way after a careful reading.

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

 

[Stan Robins]

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This blows it away. Taken with a V1; no prime lens; no RAW mode. Note the fine hairs of a 4-year-old along the fingers.



As a pure matter of the physics of optics, your prime lens might well be capable of better resolution better than the varifocal on the V1.

(And for some of the people who commented here and don't seem to have a grasp of the principles involved, a quality prime is always "sharper" than any varifocal at that focal length. Primes aren't confined to "studios." The most serious photographers -- pro or otherwise -- will use a prime when resolution is the most important consideration. Resolution often isn't the most important consideration.)

But the image and lighting you offered here surely don't do your lens or camera justice and don't do anything at all to make your point.

--
Stan Robins
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/stanrobins/public

 

[Stan Robins]

http://www.pbase.com/image/23898191

--
Stan Robins
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/stanrobins/public

--
Stan Robins
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/stanrobins/public

 

[Ron Parr]

Thanks for your comments. The comment below:

"An SLR is a preferred style of camera because it allows the
photographer to see exactly what will be captured by the film or
sensor without any parallax or distortion. For this reason, high
end features have been incorporated into these cameras and the
style of camera is sometimes confused with the high end features
that go along with it."

is in the general photography section and not the digital photography section.

A TTL EVF hasn't got parallax problem either and when the
resolution gets even better and it updates even faster there will
be no advantages with an optical viewfinder. In fact, an EVF has
the potential of becoming a WYSIWYG viewfinder, that's something an
optical viewfinder cannot become.

I'd agree that EVFs may replace optical viewfinders for many applications in the future. There are some important technical hurdles that must be overcome for this to be a really good solution, but there's definitely a lot of momentum in that direction.

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

 

[Matthew Cromer]

With the much more limited DOF, dSLR pictures often look "sharper" to many people. Much like the way Macro shots from the 717 often look very sharp, because of limited DOF. Perhaps that's what he was trying to show.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

 

[Ron Parr]

I think your full size images helps make my point very well.

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

 

[Ron Parr]

With the much more limited DOF, dSLR pictures often look "sharper"
to many people. Much like the way Macro shots from the 717 often
look very sharp, because of limited DOF. Perhaps that's what he
was trying to show.

I was show the remarkable optical sharpness the lens and accruate rendering thereof. Individual hairs are resolved down the the practical limits of Bayer interpolation and there are no sharpening halos or CA.

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

 

[Greg Gebhardt]

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

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

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

 

[Matthew Cromer]

Very nice picture, Venkat. Very good detail. It does have more noise than the D60 image obviously.
--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

 

[beyonce]

I just click on the CANON forum and get all the info I need right
there. This is Sony so I am really interested here in how we get
the SONY pics as clear as possible, tricks, tips, hints, pics,
assesories, anything SONY. I'm sorry but I'm just not interested
in the canon anything HERE. That's why they have a Canon forum
which is neat also. Maybe they should have a ALL CAMERA forum huh?

I don't think I am the only one here who is interested in both
Canon and Sony and the others can easily avoid posts like this one
since the subject tells you it's not about Sony. Is it so bad to
post something like this? It helps me and perhaps also others to
decide whether to buy a Sony or e.g. a 300D.

True. I guess people can come here and tell you "This is what Fuji color looks like" and "This is how A1's anti-shake works", since many people want to decide between those cameras and sony's too? And also true about "others can easily avoid posts like this one since the subject tells you it's not about Sony". But then, what do we have those different forums for? And this is a Sony forum, why is there post "that has nothing to do with Sony". Sorry maybe I just can't get it. I'm not against that type of posts, but I think it's better that people who want to write such post just use "reply" to answer others or give suggestions, not starting with a post titled "What a sharp DSLR pic looks like"...etc. Sony doesn't even have DSLR's, and what's the point posting a post with such title here anyway? If you think people have questions, you reply them, period. Yeah there's a great amount of info in the post, and yeah he's been doing a lot for peoeple here over a certain period of time, but that doesn't make everything he does right or give him the right to do anything he wants. No offense, I just don't see why we should have a post titled "What a sharp DSLR pic looks like" in this forum. At least make the title sony-related man, this is a Sony forum after all.

Actually, there are lots of posts from people who are openly
wondering about the pros and cons of the different approaches and
there is a lot of brand chauvinism and misinformation flying around
too.

In this context, I don't think an example that contradicts some
common misconceptions, along with an explanation of some of the
issues involved in using such a camera is inappropriate.

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

--
Cherylm

 

[Matthew Cromer]

You don't go through menus to change to MF on the Sony. Just flip the toggle switch on the lens to MF and twist the dial to focus.
--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

 

[Jay Jervey]

-- Jay

 

[dpophyte]

Yes.

Sorry, Dmitry... compare the wiskers on your picture to the wiskers (well, the hair falling over the nose) on the other. Also, there is chromatic ab on the underside of The Hand that Holds the Rodent.

I'm guessing that to fake shallow DOF you focused the camera "too close" to put the hand at the outside edge of the hyperfocal envelope? The hand is the sharpest part of your pic, and the rodent is pretty bleary looking. Yours looks sharp when scaled down to screen resolution though.

There is something about being a parent that makes people inordinantly proud of their photographs based on the subject more than any objective quality. I think Ron is experiencing that with his pic, and I know you are with yours. ;D

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun
but it's sinking; Racing around
to come up behind you again.