[bigshot]

I have a D200 and an SD880. The resolution on the two is identical, so they print out as big as I want regardless of which one I use. The Canon has beautiful color- actually better right out of the camera than the D200. The optics of the Canon are great too. The main reason to use the D200 over the Canon is for low light (better high ISO, better flash), action (better focus tracking, better speed), more flexibility (opportunity to use lenses for specific purposes) and to a lesser degree, the advantage of shooting RAW for flexibility in post processing (wider dynamic range).

But I could shoot an image of a few people standing on the street in daylight with both cameras at a midrange focal length and stopped down to f/8 and you would be hard pressed to see any difference at all in image quality.

The only image quality advantage a D700 would give over these two cameras in practical application would be better low light performance.

The major difference between digital cameras in my experience is speed and flexibility- not the ability to print large. I did a portrait shoot years ago on a 3 mp Olympus P&S that ended up being printed on 18x24 posters. It looked totally sharp. The trick was that the Olympus had really good optics. The lens is what makes the difference, not the camera.

Here are a couple of examples of the SD880 operating at the absolute outer edge of its ability. These are super high ISO, extremely low light, high contrast images in a very non standard white balance setting. These were handheld at more than one second (braced against the wall) but the IS worked pretty well anyway.

http://latenightcoffeeshops.blogspot...o-skyline.html

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The lens is what makes the difference, not the camera.

Up to a point, of course.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I could shoot an image of a few people standing on the street in daylight with both cameras at a midrange focal length and stopped down to f/8 and you would be hard pressed to see any difference at all in image quality.

I have yet to seen any point-n-shoot camera giving me sharper images than a DSLR with a prime lens...

mid range focal length? 50mm primes are the sharpest lens available.

 

[bigshot]

I think too much emphasis is placed on differences between lenses that don't even account to a gnat hair's difference. A ten megapixel image blown up to 100% on a computer screen would be more than three feet across. Blow it down to a size that relates more to normal scale for prints and there's no difference whatsoever.

Under ideal lighting, it's possible to get a tack sharp image from a P&S, a DX camera, or a FF camera. The differences between them are all about how they deal with less than ideal or downright lousy lighting conditions, not sharpness.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think too much emphasis is placed on differences between lenses that don't even account to a gnat hair's difference. A ten megapixel image blown up to 100% on a computer screen would be more than three feet across. Blow it down to a size that relates more to normal scale for prints and there's no difference whatsoever. Under ideal lighting, it's possible to get a tack sharp image from a P&S, a DX camera, or a FF camera. The differences between them are all about how they deal with less than ideal or downright lousy lighting conditions, not sharpness.

But you see, there are people out there obsessed with sharpness. They don't care if you can't tell a difference at 8x10, or 10x15, they want the sharpest picture possible, no compromise. I see nothing wrong with that.

If people are talking about finding the best lens for sharpness, they have gone beyond the point of just being content with 8x10's. They want the sharpest image possible, bar nothing.

I have sympathy for these people, because I myself am one too. ^_^

 

[choka]

What is wrong with wanting the best picture quality I can afford? What is wrong being a sharpness freak?

Choosing a p&s over a dslr just because it "does not make a difference" on a computer screens is almost like you are saying you prefer skull candies to hd800/t1/d7000/[insert_your_favorite_highend_can_here] even when you can afford it, because you don't need the quality.

It is not just sharpness. How about dynamic range? Noise in the shadow areas? Depth of field?

I often print my pictures large. 10mp is just enough to print 16x20 without seeing jpg artifacts. I know because I used to shoot with a d70s which is 6mp only and the 16x20s are full of jpg crap. I always shoot RAW. Sometimes I have to crop my photos. Sometimes I wish I have more pixels so I can crop more and still maintain a good print quality. I almost only use prime lenses (exception: tokina 11-16mm and nikon 70-300vr) because I always want as much usable pictures as possible. I use primes because they are sharp. I use primes because have large apertures giving me much more creative freedom when I need that. I use the sharpest lenses that I can afford to buy because I don't have to blame my equipment when I don't get the shot I want. It will be my problem, my lack of skills, my fxxx up, my own stupid fault. Not because I bought a compromise that rockwell claimed is more practical but not actually. Not because I carried a p&s with me. Not because I shot a jpg with a cloudy white balance when it is midday making the whole picture YELLOW. I've only shot for a bit more than 3 years, not 10, 20, 30 years like some of you guys can claim. I know I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING, AND NEVER WILL, but I shoot as much as I can. I read about it as much as I can. I talk to as much photogs as I can and I show them my stuff to see what more I can do.

Wherever I go, I carry a luggage case with me, full of lenses. 11-16 (gonna sell this soon), 20/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.2, 90/2.8, 105/2.8. When I actually leave the hotel or car, I pick at least 3 of those that I know I will use with me. That's how I travel. I don't need your sympathy. I love what I am doing. I love photography.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Choosing a p&s over a dslr just because it "does not make a difference" on a computer screens is almost like you are saying you prefer skull candies to hd800/t1/d7000/[insert_your_favorite_highend_can_here] even when you can afford it, because you don't need the quality.

No, saying...

It doesn't really matter if you can only see a difference between two cameras by blowing the image up on a monitor to the equivalent of 3 by 4 feet.

is the same as saying...

It really doesn't matter if the only way to tell the difference between two sets of headphones is to turn the volume up to ear shattering volumes.

Scale matters. It's perfectly fine to want to have equipment capable of resolving beyond your ability to perceive it. But once you reach that level of image quality, there are much more important things to worry about. That's when your attention should shift from your equipment's specs to your own technique and creative strategies. In good lighting situations, a nice 10 MP P&S can shoot images that look as good as any DSLR. It's under adverse conditions that the DSLR outperforms the P&S. But even then, the results you achieve depend on your ability to use your equipment to utilize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses. That's the same with a prime lens as it is a superzoom.

By the way, if you can see jpeg artifacts on 16x20 prints from RAW files from your DSLR, something is wrong in your workflow. There should be no jpeg artifacts in RAW files at any size. Something is compressing your images somewhere along the line. However, if you really need to print over three feet across, you should be using a medium format film camera anyway. The difference between 10 MP and 12 MP is pretty much imperceptible. You need at least double or triple that to get any practical increase in resolution.

Dynamic Range: Not an issue in well balanced lighting situations
Noise in the shadow areas: Not an issue because in good light you can shoot at low ISOs
Depth of field: A P&S can actually give you wider range of depth of field sharpness than a DSLR.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the way, if you can see jpeg artifacts on 16x20 prints from a 10MP DSLR, something is wrong in your settings.

I said I can see artifacts in 6mp, not 10mp. I am a computer science graduate. I did grad school specializing in computer graphics. I work on CG research now. I am saying I know a tiny little bit about image settings.

 

[bigshot]

The amount of artifacting is dependent on the degree of compression not the resolution of the sensor. It's best to set the compression so it artifacts at a level below the resolution of the camera. Your blowups should have been fuzzy from lack of resolution before they were spoiled by artifacts. Since the problem was jpeg artifacts, you probably had the compression turned up too high, or your camera wasn't doing a good job of compressing the images. The quality of compression is actually more important than the amount of megapixels.

I've blown up 3MP jpegs from the Olympus 3030 to that size with no problems. Admittedly, that was a pretty remarkable camera with an f/2.8 lens that was optically as good as any lens I've ever used. Several pro photographers used the c3030 back in its day. As I said, with good light, the sharpness usually isn't the problem in digital cameras. The problem is usually the way the exposure and white balance is set in auto modes, or as it was in your case, the compression. If you shoot manual and/or RAW, that doesn't make as much difference.

My point was this though... The main determining factor to image quality when shooting under good lighting situations is the lens, and there are a lot of P&S cameras with fantastic lenses. It's a lot harder to make a good FF lens than a point and shoot lens with the same optical quality. Canon, Lumix, etc all make excellent P&S cameras that are capable of taking spectacular pictures in the right conditions and in the right hands. DSLR's only have the edge when the lighting is poor, or when you need specialized lenses like ultrawides or super long telephotos, or fast apertures and fast recycle times for shooting sports or super wide apertures for creating narrow slivers of focus. These situations probably account for a small fraction of what the average photographer shoots.

Advanced amateurs rarely need anything more than what a really good P&S or bridge camera can give them. They usually end up buying much more camera than they need. I discovered that I did this myself when I bought my Canon SD880 and found that it was capable of doing at least 80% of what I was doing with my D200- and doing it just as well. Now, I use the D200 for the things only it can do (low light night street shooting and portraits) and I use the Canon P&S for general walkaround shots. I'm sacrificing nothing in image quality. I could carry around a D3 with a 50mm 1.4 prime and for all intents and purposes get the exact same shots. So why haul around suitcases full of expensive equipment?

 

[choka]

To each their own.

I never get the same shots with a p&s. I will not compromise.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif To each their own. I never get the same shots with a p&s. I will not compromise.

Here Here!
We strive for the best!

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here Here! We strive for the best!

Cheers

 

[jpelg]

The most interesting photograph's I've seen had little to do with whether they were tack-sharp or not.

 

[bigshot]

That's very true. On internet forums you see people arguing about the minute differences in test charts that make absolutely no difference in practice, yet there is little discussion of the things that really matter, like composition, lighting, color harmony, etc. Cameras just capture images, photographers make them.

Great photographers have used very humble cameras to take iconic photographs. Every camera has the potential. It just takes a photographer who knows how to use his tool to its strengths. A P&S might not be as versatile of a tool as a DSLR, but that doesn't mean that it's incapable of taking great shots if it is used for what it is good for. If someone says that they aren't capable of getting great shots using a P&S, that says more about them as a photographer than it does the capabilities of the camera itself.

There are times when a high degree of sharpness is called for, like in Ansel Adams' landscapes. But a DSLR wouldn't really be able to do that any better than a P&S would. For that, you need a large format camera and film. It's actually not really expensive to go that route if that is your particular interest. I've gotten super sharp images with my medium format Mamiya RB67, and they sell for about the price of a good P&S on ebay.

I've been shooting for around 35 years now, and I've tried everything but view cameras. I've found that P&S cameras are best for informal street shooting, DSLRs are best for shooting portraits and fast action, 35mm is best for general nature and B&W, and medium format is best for big landscapes and studio work. One type of camera can't be expected to serve in all types of situations.

Lately, my interests have been in shooting street and people. That means a good P&S and a not too intimidating DSLR. I'm getting good results with my SD880 and D200.

 

[rhythmdevils]

yeah I agree that there are plenty of iconic images in which sharpness doesn't matter. There are limitless ways to use photography. Some images are about the moment, the angle, the perspective, the way things line up in the frame, the history. For those images, sharpness, grain, etc doesn't matter much, and in fact, blur sometimes adds to the feeling of authenticity, and a point and shoot would be fine. Although I'd be curious to know how many of these kinds of images could actually be taken with point and shoots. I think that working with them is a pain in the ***** and holds me back. If it's about the moment, you don't have time to program exposure in the menus to get a usable image

But it's clearly possible.

But there are also images that are about beauty. And if that's the case, then I don't agree that today's point and shoots come close to a D3. Or a D3x for that matter. And I think I could tell the difference even on a monitor, at 600px wide, 72dpi.

I'm not saying that you can't take awesome pictures with any camera, you can, you could make a cell phone image beautiful if you were creative about it somehow. but we seem to be talking about beautiful prints/images in the traditional sense.