DSLR in full auto vs P&S in full auto

[ConradM]

Ok, let's try this again - Both pics are cropped, no PP shooting in Auto.

This one is at 88mm


55mm


I think that's as close a comparison as I have. Both sets of pics are pretty old.

Still not an accurate comparison.. the P&S isn't focused on the dogs face... the DSLR is.. so hardly a valid comparison.

Need similar poses, focal length, focal points.. etc..... for comparison. These are too dissimilar!

It still wouldn't matter. Changing the focal length, the pose or anything isn't going to make up for the fact that the P&S image is just lower quality. You guys are pulling at strings.

 

[ConradM]

The comparisons in this post seem to me to show a P&S that has a poor lens on it

This. It's clear the P&S has a much lower quality lens than kit lens on the DLSR, and most compact/bridge cameras aren't going to be any better than this. Even my Canon Powershot G9, which is from Canon's "flagship" line of P&S cameras, had bad chromatic aberration like that. The CA is simply terrible on the sample photo posted, and is visible even when the photo isn't enlarged. Now I think most beginning photographers have more important things to worry about than the quality of the glass on their camera, but the very fact that the glass is crappy and can't be changed to something that's even equal with the kit lens of the DSLR means the DSLR will take higher-quality photos (not considering composition/artistic ability), everything else equal. The chromatic aberration is probably also worsened by the fact that compact cameras have smaller sensors, making defects in the glass appear larger and more noticeable, in the same way that defects in the lenses of DSLRs become apparent when shooting with extremely small apertures.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[cgipson1]

really? hmmm..

Are these P&S or DSLR? (please excuse the watermark!)

 

[TCD photography]

P&S.

Checking the exif confirmed my suspicions...

 

[Ballistics]

It still wouldn't matter.

And you know because you have 2 side by side comparisons of everything identical? Oh you don't? So then how could you possibly commit to a statement which you
have no factual evidence to back it up with?

The issue here is, too many people like yourself are committed to things they have no experience in, only because it is a commonly repeated statement. Also known as parroting.
Parroting information because you think it sounds right, vs actually having the real world experience to satisfy your argument are 2 totally different things.

Fact of the matter is, those 2 images that you shot could have easily been taken with both a DSLR and a point and shoot camera. To say that the things listed don't matter further prove your inexperience
and close mindedness. You are honestly telling me, that is the best image you can provide from a $400 camera?

 

[Derrel]

Ok, let's try this again - Both pics are cropped, no PP shooting in Auto.

This one is at 88mm

55mm

I think that's as close a comparison as I have. Both sets of pics are pretty old.

This proves what? That you can take poor pictures with both cameras? Auto can't be your only control in an experiment like this. The lighting, angle, pose, background, vantage point, distance from subject, and so on are different. This isn't a close comparison. I'm not saying that a P&S won't be outmatched by a DSLR most of the time, but at least make a comparison on a level playing ground.

No replies now?

So at 10:40pm to 2:40am you were expecting what? Is this you thinking that you made some sort of immaculate indisputable point?

Just got back after a three-hour shopping trip...what these two comparison photos show is a crappy lens performance in the top photo...see the purple fringing that is contaminating the boards of the fence??? It's subtle enough that many beginners will not see it, but it is one thing that is causing the P&S photo to look sub-standard--all over. Even the dog's fur does not render "sharply"...this purple fringing can be 1) longitudinal CA, which is typically GREEN out of focus fringing in front of the point of focus, and PURPLE CA behind the point of focus...this is now commonly called "bokeh CA". It cannot be removed in software. 2) On many digicams,purple fringing around dark lines seen against bright backgrounds (telephone wires, tree limbs,etc. seen against bright skies or light-colored objects,etc.)--this is often called "blooming", or "purple fringing", and Canon calls it birefringence I think is their term. Small-sensor digital cameras often have purple fringing, more so than larger sensors.

Ballistic has a good comparison done indoors, with various lenses and a P&S thrown into the mix, shooting a macro-range computer memory module or other type of computer component, and all four images look pretty good...very hard to spot much of a difference. The longitudinal CA (purple BEHIND) the focus plane would NOT SHOW UP in a flat-scene like the computer memory module, and and GREEN longitudinal CA would be very,very hard to see in his green-surface sample.

The BEST Point & Shoot cameras, with VERY GOOD or better lenses, when used at lower ISO values, can make excellent prints and on-screen images. When a P&S is used on a close-up scene, its limited pixel count still puts MILLIONS of data points onto a scene that's hardly larger than a postcard in the real-world. CLOSE-UP shots done with P&S cameras really can look beautiful, and impressive. As long as the light level is fairly high, and the ISO is pretty low, and the lens is high-quality, and technique is adequate for the task. At elevated ISOs of 400 or higher,MOST P&S cameras begin to flag, and badly too....noise,noise,noise--or massive amounts of Noise Reduction applied, lower color saturation, yeeech...

Speaking of lenses with BAD chromatic aberration: the first-generation Canon 18-55 kit lens sold in the USA (not the overseas model, which was an entirely different model) was absolute GARBAGE, and was RIDDLED with CA.I had one for a while....zOMG...it was one of the absolute poorest zooms I have ever owned...it was not a good enough lens for the 20D's 8.2 MP sensor...the lens was utter rubbish, and was roundly condemned by virtually ever reviewer who reviewed the original Digital Rebel sold in the North America market and the EUrope/UK market. The JAPAN market received a much-imporoved lens both mechanically, and optically.

 

[ConradM]

It still wouldn't matter.

And you know because you have 2 side by side comparisons of everything identical? Oh you don't? So then how could you possibly commit to a statement which you
have no factual evidence to back it up with?

The issue here is, too many people like yourself are committed to things they have no experience in, only because it is a commonly repeated statement. Also known as parroting.
Parroting information because you think it sounds right, vs actually having the real world experience to satisfy your argument are 2 totally different things.

Fact of the matter is, those 2 images that you shot could have easily been taken with both a DSLR and a point and shoot camera. To say that the things listed don't matter further prove your inexperience
and close mindedness. You are honestly telling me, that is the best image you can provide from a $400 camera?

I'm not repeating or parroting anything, but thanks for generalizing. Before this thread I'd never even heard of people comparing IQ between a DSLR and a P&S.

No that's probably not the best picture a $400 P&S can provide. But that day, shooting in auto, (which this thread is about) it was. I couldn't have done anything different shooting in Auto, to make that picture higher quality.

What more do you guys want? The lighting conditions are obviously very similar judging by the shadows, the dog is even facing N in both pictures. :lmao:

 

[ConradM]

Ok, let's try this again - Both pics are cropped, no PP shooting in Auto.

This one is at 88mm


55mm

I think that's as close a comparison as I have. Both sets of pics are pretty old.

This proves what? That you can take poor pictures with both cameras? Auto can't be your only control in an experiment like this. The lighting, angle, pose, background, vantage point, distance from subject, and so on are different. This isn't a close comparison. I'm not saying that a P&S won't be outmatched by a DSLR most of the time, but at least make a comparison on a level playing ground.

No replies now?

So at 10:40pm to 2:40am you were expecting what? Is this you thinking that you made some sort of immaculate indisputable point?

Just got back after a three-hour shopping trip...what these two comparison photos show is a crappy lens performance in the top photo...see the purple fringing that is contaminating the boards of the fence??? It's subtle enough that many beginners will not see it, but it is one thing that is causing the P&S photo to look sub-standard--all over. Even the dog's fur does not render "sharply"...this purple fringing can be 1) longitudinal CA, which is typically GREEN out of focus fringing in front of the point of focus, and PURPLE CA behind the point of focus...this is now commonly called "bokeh CA". It cannot be removed in software. 2) On many digicams,purple fringing around dark lines seen against bright backgrounds (telephone wires, tree limbs,etc. seen against bright skies or light-colored objects,etc.)--this is often called "blooming", or "purple fringing", and Canon calls it birefringence I think is their term. Small-sensor digital cameras often have purple fringing, more so than larger sensors.

Ballistic has a good comparison done indoors, with various lenses and a P&S thrown into the mix, shooting a macro-range computer memory module or other type of computer component, and all four images look pretty good...very hard to spot much of a difference. The longitudinal CA (purple BEHIND) the focus plane would NOT SHOW UP in a flat-scene like the computer memory module, and and GREEN longitudinal CA would be very,very hard to see in his green-surface sample.

The BEST Point & Shoot cameras, with VERY GOOD or better lenses, when used at lower ISO values, can make excellent prints and on-screen images. When a P&S is used on a close-up scene, its limited pixel count still puts MILLIONS of data points onto a scene that's hardly larger than a postcard in the real-world. CLOSE-UP shots done with P&S cameras really can look beautiful, and impressive. As long as the light level is fairly high, and the ISO is pretty low, and the lens is high-quality, and technique is adequate for the task. At elevated ISOs of 400 or higher,MOST P&S cameras begin to flag, and badly too....noise,noise,noise--or massive amounts of Noise Reduction applied, lower color saturation, yeeech...

Speaking of lenses with BAD chromatic aberration: the first-generation Canon 18-55 kit lens sold in the USA (not the overseas model, which was an entirely different model) was absolute GARBAGE, and was RIDDLED with CA.I had one for a while....zOMG...it was one of the absolute poorest zooms I have ever owned...it was not a good enough lens for the 20D's 8.2 MP sensor...the lens was utter rubbish, and was roundly condemned by virtually ever reviewer who reviewed the original Digital Rebel sold in the North America market and the EUrope/UK market. The JAPAN market received a much-imporoved lens both mechanically, and optically.

I don't really understand it, but I know P&S are good at macro shots. That's why I didn't even bother with that thread. I've got some macro's with my sd780is that look great, but anything outside of that and falls way behind a DSLR in IQ.

 

[usayit]

For starters, you can take a look at sample images on a site like imaging-resource to see how they have their test studio setup just as a guideline. You need to identify the variable of interest, determine how to quantify it, then take measurements while controlling all other variables. Its actually quite involved and in most cases the effort is not worth the effort.

For one.... The focus is different (missed) in one of the samples posted. You also have to realize that an exposure taken with auto vs manual is irrevelant in the case of IQ.

 

[ConradM]

For starters, you can take a look at sample images on a site like imaging-resource to see how they have their test studio setup just as a guideline. You need to identify the variable of interest, determine how to quantify it, then take measurements while controlling all other variables. Its actually quite involved and in most cases the effort is not worth the effort.

For one.... The focus is different (missed) in one of the samples posted. You also have to realize that an exposure taken with auto vs manual is irrevelant in the case of IQ.

Do you not realize both pics were taken in Auto? Which again is what the thread is about....

 

[usayit]

Yes. Which is why I keep stating that it is irrevelant.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Does it annoy you to see clueless people walking around with DSLR cameras? Discuss!

Carefull, you're going to strike the nerves of many members of the forum!

 

[ConradM]

Yes. Which is why I keep stating that it is irrevelant.

What? The whole thread is about DSLR's vs P&S's in auto... :lmao:

 

[jake337]

Doesn't bother me at all. It's their money.About the p&s versus dslr in auto.Dslr hands down, especially with a shoe mount flash attached....Without flash, with a kit lens I see them both as being pretty equal depending on the dslr's ISO performance.

 

[ph0enix]

Does it annoy you to see clueless people walking around with DSLR cameras? Discuss!

Carefull, you're going to strike the nerves of many members of the forum!

haha...I have a feeling that most such members will either try to conceal their identity or genuinely not see themselves as being part of that group.