Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DSLR v Consumer Image quality

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 22, 2005 2:40:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
latter.
Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
and a FZ20.
Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
wait a year or two yet?
DonB
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:01:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Under most conditions you would have a hard time telling an 8 x 10
print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
you need a DSLR.

The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
soft.

Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
have the photos.


Scott
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:23:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109106115.766736.252450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Under most conditions you would have a hard time telling an 8 x 10
> print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
> just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
> and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
> problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
> photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
> then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
> you need a DSLR.
>
> The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
> I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
> soft.
>
> Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
> with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
> have the photos.

There's something to be said for this. While I'm still learning the ins and
outs of my D70, I'm thrilled with the lack of shutter delay. It feels and
acts just like my 35mm cameras. With my point and shoot digital I could go
out and have lunch while it focused and "finally" tripped the shutter.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:57:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> Taking a GOOD picture with the 828 REQUIRES several factors to fall
into
> place all at the same time.
>
> NO STRONG BACKLIGHT!
> NO SHARP CONTRAST EXTREMES!
>
> Very carefull adjustment of flash level if flash is used.
> Avoid sparkling jewelry on subjects.
>
> SHOOT IN MANUAL
> CROSS YOU FINGERS
>
> (and wave a chicken over your head while chanting "I hate Sony for
this" over
> and over again")
>
> OR... Just use the F-717 to get the picture if you gotta use a Sony
use their
> best one..
>
> I'm STILL glad I didn't sell the 717 when I bought the 828.. (I sold
the V-1
> instead).
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

Gee Larry why do you feel the need to SHOUT so much?
I have now shot close to 20,000 photos on the F828 and for the most
part it works very well. The 8 x 10 prints looks great, last year I
photographed our canoe clubs team in the Molokai Hoe long distance
canoe race and gave each of the team members a CD with all the photos
on it, they where blown away by the quality of the photos.

Having said all that, the 20D produces photos with much more detail and
it a lot more fun to use. There is in fact enough detail from the 20D
that it will not all be visible on an 8 x 10 print.

Scott
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:59:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB


IMO, the main thing that distinguishes
digicams these days (both point 'n shoot and
DSLRs) is the sensor size. Not surprisingly,
manufacturers go out of their way to hide and
obfuscate that particular statistic. Given
good optics, the sensor size will be the main
determinant of image quality.

There are certainly good things to be said
for the portability and compactness of non-SLR
cameras (both film and digital.)

If I were taking photos mostly of people and
wanting mostly "candid" photos (as opposed to
formal portraits) I'd work with a nice light
point and shoot camera.

I particularly like the tilt/swivel LCDs on
some of the consumer digicams (eg. my Canon
G2.) It lets me get some interesting angles
and perspectives that I can't capture from a
conventional viewfinder.

When I'm hiking deep in the backcountry (where
weight counts) I take my Canon G2.

If image quality is the main thing, you want
the largest possible sensor size, and these are
mostly found in DSLRs. Taken a couple of steps
farther, if image quality were the MAIN thing,
you'd shoot MF or LF film...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 22, 2005 7:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thankyou all for your valued comments.
The thing holding me back from going to dslr is probably because I have
become used to pulling out a consumer model and just taking a shot,
which is excellent 90% of the time. I sort of cringe at going back to
an array of lenses, clutter , finding a safe place to put one down
while changing, etc etc. Probably got lazy! But also my wife's Lumix is
pretty capable, so I'll wait it out a little because technology moves
so quickly.
DonB
I
February 22, 2005 7:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109106115.766736.252450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
biphoto@hotmail.com says...
> Under most conditions you would have a hard time telling an 8 x 10
> print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
> just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
> and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
> problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
> photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
> then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
> you need a DSLR.
>
> The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
> I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
> soft.
>
> Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
> with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
> have the photos.
>
>
> Scott
>
>

Taking a GOOD picture with the 828 REQUIRES several factors to fall into
place all at the same time.

NO STRONG BACKLIGHT!
NO SHARP CONTRAST EXTREMES!

Very carefull adjustment of flash level if flash is used.
Avoid sparkling jewelry on subjects.

SHOOT IN MANUAL
CROSS YOU FINGERS

(and wave a chicken over your head while chanting "I hate Sony for this" over
and over again")

OR... Just use the F-717 to get the picture if you gotta use a Sony use their
best one..

I'm STILL glad I didn't sell the 717 when I bought the 828.. (I sold the V-1
instead).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:08:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing.

If image quality is your thing, you will find that at size A4 a cheap 3 MP
point and shoot is not much different than a Canon 1Ds Mk II or a 4x5 view
camera on film. All of them look just about the same with a small print.

The only time it makes any difference is when you start to enlarge the
picture for any reason. You can enlarge a 4x5 piece of film a lot more than
any digital before you start losing image quality.

A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
manufacturers' marketing departments. Consider the "sensor size" of the eye
of an eagle, or even a human eye, and the relative quality of that sensor
vs. any camera or film. (I suppose a human eye could be defined as a 150 MP
sensor, but only about 16 MP are used for color vision -- the rest simply
give a rough outline of light and dark. One may note, too, that small
children, whose eyes are not fully developed, may still "see" something like
digital noise, which disappears at about age 5 or so. The physical size of a
human eye is not all that large; the eye of an eagle is much smaller yet
sharper with better color vision.) I wonder how much the image recorded by
the eye could be enlarged before you began to see significant degradation,
but I digress.

Anyway, I suspect that we are far from the limit in what can be crammed onto
an imaging chip.
February 22, 2005 9:00:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.


When I go to DP review and download the images from a D70, and a Coolpix
8400, I can easily see differences in noise in solid fills. I can also
easily see differences in resolution in detailed areas.

I can see the differences on the screen, but they are much more obvious
in prints.

Bob
February 22, 2005 10:11:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just spent a long weekend traveling around and photographing a lot of
different environments in the dead of a cold New England winter --
seaside villages and dunes, forest trails, railroad scenes, etc. --
with my Oly 5060. For much of the time I had a couple of conversion
lenses tucked into my jacket and a spare battery in my pocket. That's
it. Not even a camera bag. The results were really fine, even in low
light (a lot of noise talk is pretty exaggerated I think) . What wasn't
fine I could fix up quickly with Photoshop. My sense is that it is all
cost-benefit analysis at a time when new dslr products are still pretty
pricey and many have a lot of bugs to be worked out as the megapixel
parade calms down. Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
only be met by a dslr go for it. Or some old lenses looking or a new
home. Otherwise, the high end prosumers offer portability, no dust on
sensors, not much to fiddle with and some stunning images. I'd wait a
year or two and in the meantime really get a good sense of what you
really need. This is not to say that you cannot get real added value
with a dslr, but don't leap until you no longer have to try to figture
it out. Most of us have yet to fully exploit or appreciate the features
on our cameras. When they are exhaused and we know what more we need
it's time to move on.


oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty
pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk
about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far
greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more
expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with
the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB
February 22, 2005 10:14:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109113065.943606.277930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
biphoto@hotmail.com says...
> Gee Larry why do you feel the need to SHOUT so much?
> I have now shot close to 20,000 photos on the F828 and for the most
> part it works very well. The 8 x 10 prints looks great, last year I
> photographed our canoe clubs team in the Molokai Hoe long distance
> canoe race and gave each of the team members a CD with all the photos
> on it, they where blown away by the quality of the photos.
>
> Having said all that, the 20D produces photos with much more detail and
> it a lot more fun to use. There is in fact enough detail from the 20D
> that it will not all be visible on an 8 x 10 print.
>
> Scott
>

The CAPs are for emphasis, not volume!

I'de use italics if they worked....

I do get frustrated about the camera the 828 should have been, as opposed to
the camera it is...

Im around 20,000 exposures myself, so I shouldn't complain.. But I do break
out the 717 if the backlight situation getss bad (which it does every day of
a horseshow at around 2 PM at the venue we use most).

The arena is completely open at one end,(essentially it is a building with
only 3 walls, with a 40 skylighted ceiling and a 150x250 foot floor) and
first thing in the morning, and again late in the PM the sun comes in that
open end full blast, giving me the strongest backlight in the solar system
for a couple of hours a day.

So I cant use the 828 (or at least cant use it in that direction) for a good
chunk of the day.



Like I said, FRUSTRATING!
February 22, 2005 10:31:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

12x with image stabilization
DonB
February 22, 2005 10:33:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well said, thanks Ron
DonB
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:52:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Its got me wondering...What the replacement will be from Sony..In regards to
the-F828....If they can harness the noise...Should be a great camera...So
I'd wait...And the Canon-350...Could be a winner...

--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB
>
February 22, 2005 11:09:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB
>

If you can't see the difference, or consider it not worthwhile, then I would
keep waiting....
For me DSLR offers more than just the quality difference there's also the
flexibility of the system, just like SLR's in the film world, but if you
don't need it then save your money etc...
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:22:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Feb 2005 11:40:49 -0800, oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:

>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
>digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
>because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
>with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
>latter.
>Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
>their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
>and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
>than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
>and a FZ20.
>Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
>DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
>E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
>wait a year or two yet?

You've answered your own question about image quality. If you can't
tell the difference, then what's the issue?

I disagree with you on quality, even at ISO-80 that thing is much more
noisy than a DSLR.

See the noise in the blue sky:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20/sample...

Compare to a Canon DSLR, the 10D at ISO-100:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/10d/samples...

The other big difference between the DLSR and FZ20 is interchangeable
lenses, so ask yourself, are you going to ever need this? I love my
300 on the D70 (it becomes a 450mm) which isn't much further than the
FZ20's 35mm eq. effective 432mm. On the other end, you'll be limited
to effective 36mm. Problem for some, not for others.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:40:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB
>

I don't know if it's a similar comparison to yours, but 8x10s from my 4MP Kodak
DX6490 are significantly inferior to the 7.5x10 prints from my 6MP Nikon D70.
The prints from the Nikon are better in every way: detail, colour, contrast,
jpeg artifacts, depth of field, etc.

The Nikon does retail for double the original retail price of the Kodak so it
should produce significantly better prints.


--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
February 23, 2005 12:53:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


is the image quality worth the difference?

Ken Rockwell, on his website, has an informative article about this. He
maintains that the non-interchangeable-lens cameras are essentially ported
over from the manufacturers' video lineup, and that if one were to spend an
equal amount on a consumer digicam vs. a DSLR, the DSLR would give better
performance.

He writes, "Even the most expensive and exotic camera that is not a true SLR
is going to be slow and a pain to use. Many expensive digital cameras are
still just very complex point-and-shoot cameras that take way too long to do
anything."

I personally use a consumer digicam and it meets my needs. I still use 35mm
and MF when I require focal length lenses that are outside of my digicam's
zoom range, or when I want the higher resolution of film.

Here is the URL for the full article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:29:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
<christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:


>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
>have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>manufacturers' marketing departments.


In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
image quality?

In the presence of noise, more signal is always
desirable. It certainly works that way for film,
and in fact for any other physical measurement
that I know of.

Your argument is curious, because sensor size is
one thing that the "marketing departments" have
taken pains to obscure -- at least for their
point & shoot / consumer models.

For a number of reasons, that sort of obfuscation
doesn't work in the DSLR market.

Now, it's possible that not all 15.0 x 22.7 mm
sensors are equally efficient at creating
images... but I haven't seen any hard data at
all on that topic.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 23, 2005 2:02:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote in news:1109101249.765477.235140
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?

If you are happy with what you get from what you have then I fail to see
how spending money is necessary!

However on quality of image try taking photos in less than ideal
conditions.

Try in low light where you need ISO 1600 to get the shot, my Canon 10D can
do that with noise that would be acceptable for most uses (I also have a
lens with f1.8 and another lens with IS). Isn't the FZ20 limited to a max
of ISO 400? I think my 10D has lower noise at ISO 1600 than the FZ has at
ISO 400.

Try sports photos where you need very fast AF and low shutter lag. These
photos were taken with a cheap lens (only f5.6 and 2nd rate focusing motor)
and using AF: http://www.gigatech.co.nz/Superboats2005.htm

Try photos of birds in flight or planes in flight at an airshow. How much
telephoto can you get on the lens on your compact digicam?


In summary: There are advantages to using a D-SLR, if you don't need the
features then you don't need to buy a D-SLR.

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:26:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB

Often it is not until your image is enlarged and in PRINT that you notice it's
shortcomings.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:30:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109117527.316574.136540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Thankyou all for your valued comments.
> The thing holding me back from going to dslr is probably because I have
> become used to pulling out a consumer model and just taking a shot,
> which is excellent 90% of the time. I sort of cringe at going back to
> an array of lenses, clutter , finding a safe place to put one down
> while changing, etc etc. Probably got lazy! But also my wife's Lumix is
> pretty capable, so I'll wait it out a little because technology moves
> so quickly.
> DonB
> I

You won't be always grabbing a lens.
80% of my quickie grab-shots are with my basic all-around lens, which sits on the camera
in my bag. DSLRs work like point-and-shoots if you want them to.
It's just that when you WANT the control, flexibility, and speed...you have it available
to you.
-Mark²
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:47:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron" <rkgood@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1109128296.085854.94700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I just spent a long weekend traveling around and photographing a lot of
> different environments in the dead of a cold New England winter --
> seaside villages and dunes, forest trails, railroad scenes, etc. --
> with my Oly 5060. For much of the time I had a couple of conversion
> lenses tucked into my jacket and a spare battery in my pocket. That's
> it. Not even a camera bag. The results were really fine, even in low
> light (a lot of noise talk is pretty exaggerated I think) . What wasn't
> fine I could fix up quickly with Photoshop. My sense is that it is all
> cost-benefit analysis at a time when new dslr products are still pretty
> pricey and many have a lot of bugs to be worked out as the megapixel
> parade calms down. Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
> only be met by a dslr go for it. Or some old lenses looking or a new
> home. Otherwise, the high end prosumers offer portability, no dust on
> sensors, not much to fiddle with and some stunning images. I'd wait a
> year or two and in the meantime really get a good sense of what you
> really need. This is not to say that you cannot get real added value
> with a dslr, but don't leap until you no longer have to try to figture
> it out. Most of us have yet to fully exploit or appreciate the features
> on our cameras. When they are exhaused and we know what more we need
> it's time to move on.

I think you make some good points above.
What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most simple cameras to assess
your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how much they "needed"
something until they had it available to them.

This is why the phrase, "I didn't know what I was missing!" comes from.
Often times, it isn't until a person has a new capability avaiable to them (like lack of
shutter lag, or major depth of field adjustments--like with a DSLR) that they suddenly
realize what all the fuss is about.

This is why I think anyone considering spending with a few hundred dollars of the 300D or
D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.

How does one know what one needs when they don't really understand what's out thre first
hand? -This doesn't mean buying a 1Ds Mark II, but it might mean it's worth a low-end
DSLR.

-Mark²

> oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
>> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
>> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
>> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty
> pleased
>> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
>> latter.
>> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk
> about
>> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
>> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far
> greater
>> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
>> and a FZ20.
>> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more
> expensive
>> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with
> the
>> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
>> wait a year or two yet?
>> DonB
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:54:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:gyWSd.116204$0u.42705@fed1read04...

> I think you make some good points above.
> What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most simple cameras to assess
> your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how much they "needed"
> something until they had it available to them.
>
> This is why the phrase, "I didn't know what I was missing!" comes from.
> Often times, it isn't until a person has a new capability avaiable to them (like lack of
> shutter lag, or major depth of field adjustments--like with a DSLR) that they suddenly
> realize what all the fuss is about.
>
> This is why I think anyone considering spending with a few hundred dollars of the 300D
> or D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
> It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
> having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.
>
> How does one know what one needs when they don't really understand what's out thre first
> hand? -This doesn't mean buying a 1Ds Mark II, but it might mean it's worth a low-end
> DSLR.
>
> -Mark²

Wow! Lots of typos up there...sorry.

I would like to add to the above that although I owned a crummy film camera for years, it
wasn't until my dad gave me my first SLR film camera that photography really took off for
me. Real control breeds real interest in ways that you just can't foster without it.

-Mark²
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:55:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger, while I normally agree with your work, I'm not at all sure about
this bit..

>The human eye with normal vision has a image
>resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels.

Your website seems to argue that you simply multiply the ability of the
eye to resolve detail, by its angle of view.

But hang on a tick!!! The eye is only sharp in a *very* small angle -
I would guess less than a 5 degree cone! It fills in the rest with
memory and 'false' resolution by assumption. To prove that, I use the
following `party trick` when I take photography classes, and I would
invite you to do the same. You will need an assistant.

Get the assistant to write a sentence, out of your sight, on a piece of
paper, in thick black letters about an inch high. Then, stand about 20
feet away from a blackboard, upon which is a dot or cross. Stare
*fixedly* at that point, and then invite your assistant to slowly bring
the paper towards that point on the board. Note how close it has to be
before you can actually read it...

Similarly, stare fixedly at these words. Can you read a sentence that
is, say, just four lines above it without moving your eye? No cheating
from memory!

If you are claiming that we have 500 megapixels, then you must be
allowing the eye to wander off in all directions, gathering data as it
goes. By that definition, I reckon the angle of view is therefore a
360 degree sphere, and by moving sideways... well on the way to
infinite resolution!!

I don't think a value for the eye's 'resolution' is of any use. Visual
acuity, and our ability to resolve detail *when staring right at it!*,
is something quite different.

Maybe it is just semantics, but I think it is an interesting concept,
and most folk who are confronted by the `party trick` are quite
surprised by it...
February 23, 2005 5:58:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:


> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.

Stop looking at 200% crops and make some real prints from full size files.


--

Stacey
February 23, 2005 6:02:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:


>
> I can see the differences on the screen, but they are much more obvious
> in prints.
>


Exactly, that's why you have to look at prints, not 200% crops to determine
image quality. Color saturation, fringing, balance between color chanels
etc etc all have an effect on final "quality".

--

Stacey
February 23, 2005 6:03:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those
>>who have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>>manufacturers' marketing departments.
>
>
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>


When you're fighting DOF?

--

Stacey
February 23, 2005 6:08:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron wrote:

> Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
> only be met by a dslr go for it.

The main reason I got one, I wanted something the had the 35mm equiv of a
~21mm-50mm zoom and no P&S goes that wide.
--

Stacey
February 23, 2005 7:17:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
message
> news:gyWSd.116204$0u.42705@fed1read04...
>
> > I think you make some good points above.
> > What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most
simple cameras to assess
> > your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how
much they "needed"
> > something until they had it available to them.
> >

Mark:

I like and appreciate the logic of your argument. Ultimately, it will
be some rather obvious and simple truths that move people forward, not
simply what somebody with especially good eyesight or a keen
understanding of the pixel world can explain in engineering terms. I
get beautiful 8x10s out of my old Oly 2020z, which has great optics,
with some PS tweaking. Once behind glass and on a wall they can look
stunning. And, nobody has yet approached them with a loupe and said "My
God, I can tell these are only 2 megapix!" Of course, I can get even
better ones with my 5060 and so it goes. Frankly, for my purposes, the
main advantage of the 5060 is the cropping I can do and a few of the
camera's control features and swiveling lcd (a tremendous plus that
would be useless on a dslr). But then I am not an avid printer. 95% of
what I do is ultimately for the web, including work I do in my
side-business for customers.

Sunday I will be taking the train to New York to photograph the Cristo
Gates Central Park fandango. Lots of walking, subways, etc. I'll have
one very, very small bag with my camera, lenses, extra batteries and
cards, MP3 player, etc. Inconspicuous and light. The way I like it.

I remember all of this in the earlier days of the hi-fi industry. My
local stereo shop was always trying to sell me the cd player that cost
$1500 instead of the one that cost $200 and allowed me to buy,
theoretically at least, $1200 worth of cd's from someone else. The
salesman drove me nuts with technical jargon until I demanded that we
do a blind test with him on the other end. Guess what? You know the
rest of the story. And there is my friend with $5,000 cables. He would
get down on the floor a few feet from one of his speakers and swear
that were I to do the same I could, even with my somewhat ordinary
hearing, tell the difference. Were I somewhat unmoved by this bit of
testing he would show me technical articles. I tried to explain that
for the kind of music I like (primarily jazz from the 40s-60s) $5000
cables and even $15000 speakers might not make much difference. In
fact, I might just hear imperfections I didn't want to hear.

As a long time user of standard SLR's I know the value of the genre. I
just don't think that right now, early 2005, is the time for one to
take the plunge unless one has extra money to burn, or has some very
specific demands like low light shooting or very large prints. This is
not to say that one should go with the most simple, and the decling
prices of dslr's may make them all but irresistable to many. But, ask
me six or eight months from now...:-)

/ron
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:32:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:382rn3F5koud7U3@individual.net...
> rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an
>>>indicator
>>>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those
>>>who have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>>>manufacturers' marketing departments.
>>
>>
>> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
>> image quality?
>>
>
>
> When you're fighting DOF?
>
> --
>
> Stacey

It depends upon which direction you're fighting it... More is not
necessarily better.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
February 23, 2005 10:38:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109161030.851057.4280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
rkgood@charter.net says...
> As a long time user of standard SLR's I know the value of the genre. I
> just don't think that right now, early 2005, is the time for one to
> take the plunge unless one has extra money to burn, or has some very
> specific demands like low light shooting or very large prints. This is
> not to say that one should go with the most simple, and the decling
> prices of dslr's may make them all but irresistable to many. But, ask
> me six or eight months from now...:-)
>
> /ron
>

I agree with YOU!

I have 3 "top of the line" consumer cameras and Though I'm sorely tempted to
run out and buy/order/get the new DRebel Im holding off until at LEAST April,
maybe longer.

The ONLY thing I need to improve is "shutter lag" (even with the Sony 828,
once aware of its foibles, you can avoid them) and I dont want to "waste" a
thousand on a camera and another 500 to 1000 on a lens to give me the same
coverage I get with the Sony 828 or even the Sony 717.

My Fuji S7000 has turned out to be the work-horse of the 3 cameras I use, as
it can be relied upon to come up with the "same" quality photo under most
circumstances..ie no worse with backlighting than without, as long as the
exposure is correct.

PS: I only use the Fuji as a 6mp most of the time.
That is after all what it really is.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:41:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:421BFFD1.2080003@qwest.net...
>
> > Anyway, I suspect that we are far from the limit in what can be crammed
onto
> > an imaging chip.
>
> Not at all; the photon limit has been reached. See:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matt...

Then explain to me, please, why the human eye appears to have a different
photon limit.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:43:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:p arn11peoghkevbse7gcmljctrduk0sv9f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an
indicator
> >of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those
who
> >have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
> >manufacturers' marketing departments.
>
>
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>

In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye have
better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:44:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:

> Roger, while I normally agree with your work, I'm not at all sure about
> this bit..
>
>
>>The human eye with normal vision has a image
>>resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels.
>
>
> Your website seems to argue that you simply multiply the ability of the
> eye to resolve detail, by its angle of view.
>
> But hang on a tick!!! The eye is only sharp in a *very* small angle -
> I would guess less than a 5 degree cone! It fills in the rest with
> memory and 'false' resolution by assumption.

By your argument, one only needs a small patch of high resolution
data in the center inch or so of an 8x10 print (e.g. about 1 inch
in diameter) and the rest can be fuzzy. Obviously the
eye+brain see more than that. Your eye wanders around
even if you are not aware of it. As you view a scene,
you move your eyes around to see all the detail.
This is true whether looking at a photographic print,
or looking at a real scene. Stand outdoors and examine
a real scene and the wealth of detail you can see all around you.
Now produce a photograph with that same detail: the detail
you can see with your eyes in the real world. It can't be
done with a digital camera, 35mm film, or medium format
film. One needs large format film, and 4x5 fine grained
film is about the minimum, and even then it does not have the
detail you experience with one's full field of view.
If you've never seen a big large-format print, at the next
opportunity, do so. It can be like looking
out a window to the real scene.

Roger
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:58:27 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
>
>
>> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
>> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
>> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
>> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
>> and a FZ20.
>
>Stop looking at 200% crops and make some real prints from full size files.


I do both. But there's not much use looking
beyond 100% on the monitor, except for fine
spotting or retouching work on film scans.

I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
judge a digital image. There have only been a few
situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
flaws that were not evident on-screen.

But that does presume a decent monitor that's
properly calibrated. You've done that, right?

When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
of variables, issues, and technologies.

For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
not every image makes it to print. And not
every print makes it past the scrap bin.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:26:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:421BFFD1.2080003@qwest.net...
>
> > Consider the "sensor size" of the eye
> > of an eagle, or even a human eye, and the relative quality of that
sensor
> > vs. any camera or film. (I suppose a human eye could be defined as a 150
MP
> > sensor, but only about 16 MP are used for color vision -- the rest
simply
> > give a rough outline of light and dark. One may note, too, that small
> > children, whose eyes are not fully developed, may still "see" something
like
> > digital noise, which disappears at about age 5 or so. The physical size
of a
> > human eye is not all that large; the eye of an eagle is much smaller yet
> > sharper with better color vision.) I wonder how much the image recorded
by
> > the eye could be enlarged before you began to see significant
degradation,
> > but I digress.
>
> And not factual either. The human eye with normal vision has a image
> resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels. See:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.h...
>

Does it indeed? So how does the eye achieve that resolution with only 6
million cones and somewhere between 100 million and 200 million rods -- most
of which are duplicates or not connected to anything? Maybe Mr. Clark needs
to check his figures again.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:28:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafeb wrote:
> Mostly what I thought we were discussing is
> whether 100% viewing on screen was useful or
> not. I maintain that it is, for critical
> work, or for large prints. In my experience --
> while the print is the end goal, the monitor
> is a pretty good predictor of how good the
> print can be. If detail or tonality aren't
> there on the screen, they're not going to
> magically appear on the print.
>

The problem is that it is easy to fool yourself into thinking there is
useful detail in a photo when there is not, when viewing it at 100% on
screen. The reason for this is simple, at 100% on screen you will see
low contrast detail because it will be fairly low in lines per inch,
but when printed this low contrast detail is no longer visible to the
human eye.

The eye can see detail to 0.7 line pairs per inch for 100% contrast, at
a light level of 23 foot lamberts, this drops to 0.4 line pairs per
inch at 10% contrast. And you can see down to less then 2% contrast if
the line pairs per inch are at 0.1.

What all this means is that you will see detail on the screen that you
will not see in the print.

So you are correct detail will not magically appear when printed, but
it will disappear.

Scott
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So here is an interesting test look at the linked photo, on screen, and
then print out the photo, at 300 dpi. On screen the bottom image has
much more detail but when printed the top looks sharper. Show the
printed photo to a number of people as ask which is sharper.

If there were printed at say 150 dpi then which looks sharper depends
on how far away you are. Step back about 10 feet and you will see the
same effect.

http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg

The point is looking on screen can fool you, there is nothing wrong
with looking at the photo at 100% on the screen as long as you don't
use this as the only judgement for the quality of the photo.

Scott

Scott
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:43:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
> judge a digital image. There have only been a few
> situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
> flaws that were not evident on-screen.

It is not so much that a print will reveal flaws that you can not see
on the screen as the other way around, flaws that you see on the screen
will often not be visible on the final print. The other part of this
is detail that you can see on the screen my not be visible on the
print. As I posted earlier a shot that looks better on the screen can
look worse when printed, again check out the link to the photo and see
which half looks better on the screen and then print at 300 dpi and see
which looks better printed.

http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg

Scott
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:13:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
>
> > The eye can see detail to 0.7 line pairs per inch for 100%
contrast, at
> > a light level of 23 foot lamberts, this drops to 0.4 line pairs per
> > inch at 10% contrast. And you can see down to less then 2%
contrast if
> > the line pairs per inch are at 0.1.
>
> At what distance, and do you assume that viewing distances for
monitors
> and prints are proportional?

It depends of the size and resolution of your monitor, for mine I
figure I need to be back about 4 to 6 feet. It also depends on how
close you view your prints. BTW I am assuming 8 x 10 prints when I say
4 to 6 feet.

> > What all this means is that you will see detail on the screen that
you
> > will not see in the print.
>
> I follow the logic, but in practice I almost always find things in
the
> print that were not obvious on the monitor, and not the other way
round.
> For instance, if I use the clone tool to remove a neon orange "for
sale"
> sign on a dock, I might work at 300% or even 1000%.
>
> At 200% on the monitor it looks nearly flawless, but in the print
it's
> not quite that good.

The eye has can see the lowest contrast detail at at about 0.1 line
pairs per minute (or about 30 line pairs per inch when viewed at 12
inches). If you have a low contrast defect that is blown up large
enough it will be less visible then when it is seen smaller. My guess
is that something like this is going on.

Scott
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:44:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
>
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.

I think this says more for the FZ20 than about DSLR models.
Most consumer digicams have lots of image problems, including
purple fringing at wide angle, bothersome sharpening/JPEG artifacting,
and washed-out highlights. The FZ20 and Minolta A2 seem to transcend
most of these problems.

All(?) DSLR models perform better than the FZ20 at 800-6400 ISO,
but that might not be terribly important to you.

On the downside, lens selection for DSLR is much worse than
what you've got already on your FZ20. It's a pathetic situation
when Sigma makes is the best cost/performance DSLR lens (18-125).
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:49:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> By your argument, one only needs a small patch of high resolution
> data in the center inch or so of an 8x10 print (e.g. about 1 inch
> in diameter) and the rest can be fuzzy. Obviously the
> eye+brain see more than that. Your eye wanders around
> even if you are not aware of it. As you view a scene,
> you move your eyes around to see all the detail.
> This is true whether looking at a photographic print,
> or looking at a real scene. Stand outdoors and examine
> a real scene and the wealth of detail you can see all around you.
> Now produce a photograph with that same detail: the detail
> you can see with your eyes in the real world. It can't be
> done with a digital camera, 35mm film, or medium format
> film. One needs large format film, and 4x5 fine grained
> film is about the minimum, and even then it does not have the
> detail you experience with one's full field of view.
> If you've never seen a big large-format print, at the next
> opportunity, do so. It can be like looking
> out a window to the real scene.


It pains me to admit it, but there is
a good deal of truth to this.

Too bad LF is such a pain in the butt,
and so damned slow and expensive.

You couldn't find two more diametrically
opposed approaches to photography --
digicams and LF.

What's equally annoying to me is that,
of my large prints, most of those that
my wife prefers come from the 10D.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:04:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:


> In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye have
> better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?


The human eye has this thing called
a brain behind it. The human eye has
great resolution over a very small
viewing angle. But the brain can direct
that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
instantly to where it's needed.

In many ways the human eye is a pretty
poor design. Light actually has to
pass through a layer or two of neural
processing tissue before it lands on
the retina!



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:421ca97f$0$39273$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> > In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye
have
> > better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
>
>
> The human eye has this thing called
> a brain behind it. The human eye has
> great resolution over a very small
> viewing angle. But the brain can direct
> that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
> instantly to where it's needed.
>

That explains absolutely nothing. You are saying that the human eye performs
better, despite its deficiencies, because it has better software? Well then,
why can't better software improve the picture on a small digital sensor?

> In many ways the human eye is a pretty
> poor design. Light actually has to
> pass through a layer or two of neural
> processing tissue before it lands on
> the retina!

The eye in this respect is nothing but an extension of the brain. Rods
provide very rough resolution, but tremendous light sensitivity, reacting to
a single photon. The individual rods, however, are poorly connected; often
three or four rods connected to a single pathway. This inefficiency is
probably an advantage in helping to reduce noise.
February 23, 2005 2:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes Bill, I should get out there and take some pictures, and not get
hung up on technology!
DonB
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:44:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > So here is an interesting test look at the linked photo, on screen,
and
> > then print out the photo, at 300 dpi. On screen the bottom image
has
> > much more detail but when printed the top looks sharper. Show the
> > printed photo to a number of people as ask which is sharper.
>
> There's either something wrong with your equipment or with mine. On
my
> screen the top photo is clearer. On my printer, the top photo remains

> clearer at both 150 and 300 pixels per inch (as set in Photoshop).
>
> At roughly 400% it becomes evident that the top photo is a blurred
> (Gaussian?) version of the bottom, and that the blurring masks the
> hideous .jpg artifacts that make the bottom image appear hazy.
Zooming
> in on the tower at 1600% you can see that this is clearly the case --

> The artifacts in the bottom image spray the highlights over
everything.
> Perhaps the top photo was sharpened after it was blurred.
>
> Bob

The bottom photo does not suffer from jpg artifacts. The two photos
have been filtered to have different MTF curves, the top photo has no
detail past a certain point but has high contrast below that, the
bottom photo has a longer tail on the MTF curve but has lower contrast
at lower spatial frequencies.

Scott
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:52:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

> Modern sensors are photon noise limited. The marketing departments
> don't even know this, nor hype it. It is a demonstrated fact. See:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matt...
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

It says "The maximum signal-to-noise is then (52000/(square root
52000) = 228... The only way to improve on the signal-to-noise is to
acquire more photons."

But surely the relevant signal-to-noise ratio is the maximum signal
(for white) divided by the dark noise level (for black). What people
notice is noise in the shadows, whereas noise in the highlights is far
less interesting. There is much to be gained by reducing read noise
even without increasing full well capacity.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:52:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Modern sensors are photon noise limited. The marketing departments
>>don't even know this, nor hype it. It is a demonstrated fact. See:
>>http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matt...
>>http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...
>
>
> It says "The maximum signal-to-noise is then (52000/(square root
> 52000) = 228... The only way to improve on the signal-to-noise is to
> acquire more photons."
>
> But surely the relevant signal-to-noise ratio is the maximum signal
> (for white) divided by the dark noise level (for black). What people
> notice is noise in the shadows, whereas noise in the highlights is far
> less interesting. There is much to be gained by reducing read noise
> even without increasing full well capacity.

What you are saying is the dynamic range of the sensor,
not the signal-to-noise ratio of a single pixel.
They two specifications are different.

Roger
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:07:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:

> "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:421ca97f$0$39273$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>>
>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye
>
> have
>
>>>better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
>>
>>
>>The human eye has this thing called
>>a brain behind it. The human eye has
>>great resolution over a very small
>>viewing angle. But the brain can direct
>>that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
>>instantly to where it's needed.
>>
>
>
> That explains absolutely nothing. You are saying that the human eye performs
> better, despite its deficiencies, because it has better software? Well then,
> why can't better software improve the picture on a small digital sensor?


Maybe someday it will... by waving the
sensor around under the lens. But
prints-on-paper or images-on-screen are
a qualitatively different thing from
human vision (as if that even needed
saying.)


>>In many ways the human eye is a pretty
>>poor design. Light actually has to
>>pass through a layer or two of neural
>>processing tissue before it lands on
>>the retina!
>
>
> The eye in this respect is nothing but an extension of the brain. Rods
> provide very rough resolution, but tremendous light sensitivity, reacting to
> a single photon. The individual rods, however, are poorly connected; often
> three or four rods connected to a single pathway. This inefficiency is
> probably an advantage in helping to reduce noise.


Not sure why you're making this argument.

These are the reasons why photography is
different in a hundred ways from human vision.

They've been written about and documented
extensively, not only by physiologists but
by any number of photographic experts.
Fascinating topics, for sure, but far
beyond what I've got time for.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!