Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Picture Quality

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 11:28:30 AM

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

I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?

More about : picture quality

Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:13:54 PM

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

s6 wrote:
> I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
> shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
> difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
> from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?
>
>
While this isn't engraved in stone, and individual experience may be
different, generally, the more expensive cameras have better sensors,
and better lens systems, and smarter electronics to give you a better
picture. Else, why would an informed buyer PAY MORE?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:21:57 PM

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

"s6" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:D 6A0e.12790$hu3.273@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
> shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
> difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
> from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?
>

I don't buy the idea that a dslr is necessarily that much better than a
point and shoot. Any high-end point and shoot with a "good" lens should
produce an image that rivals a dslr, given the same megapixels. But, as
others have said, it depends. People buy dslr's because of their
versatility, superior flash options, and the ability to change lenses and or
purchase any lens you want for the camera to suit your needs.

Also, because of the added costs and r&d, dslr's tend to be much faster,
both in startup and shooting times. They also tend to focus faster with
less searching and fussing.

So, you should be able to take better photos with a dslr, but it depends on
the subject, and a lot on the photographer. It may also depend on how much
work you are willing to put into the image "after" it's been shot.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:02:01 PM

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

>I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
>shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
>difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
>from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?

There's an enormous difference in quality.

Given a single print, you won't always be able to tell which camera it
came from, but if you take the same shot with a good dSLR and a good
P&S, the dSLR will give you a better picture.

If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH better
picture.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:02:02 PM

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

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

>>I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
>>shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
>>difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
>>from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?
>
> There's an enormous difference in quality.

That's far too broad a statement.

At low ISO settings, (100-200) most people can't tell the difference
between a DSLR or point and shoot image. Functionally they're
the same.

At ISO 400 and higher, DSLR's have lower noise. They can generally
take cleaner shots at ISO 800 and 1600. This is because DSLRs have
larger sensors that gather more light and require less amplification.

The 35mm lenses that most DSLRs use have much wider apertures than
the fixed lenses on point and shoot cameras. This allows for a narrow
depth of field which is better for portrait work and isolating subjects
by blurring backgrounds.

Note that there's also more to it than the camera body. A DSLR with a
cheap lens will be more likeley to produce worse images than the average
point and shoot. (I'm thinking of Samyang and Phoenix lenses with
optical quality plastic lens elements).

If you go to www.dpreview.com you can check camera reviews and see
samples from DSLRs and pont and shoots.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:08:15 PM

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

Number of pixels is the same...
Size of pixels is larger in DSLRs - this means higher sensitivity and less
noise...
Lens quality, shutter lag, focus speed, CPU speed, viewfinder, flash,
battery life, card write speed are (generally) all better in DSLRs.

Could you tell from a print? Depends on print size and other variables. Also
depends on the photographer...
P+S cameras take great pictures of stationary subjects outside on sunny days
;-)
DSLRs allow great pictures in a much wider range of conditions..

Some pictures could only have been taken on a DSLR, and some are obviously
done on a P+S... but outside of this, no I don't think you can reliably tell
the difference. YMMV

Guy

s6 wrote:
> I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
> shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really
> a difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or
> a file from each of the camera tell which came from which type of
> camera?
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:12:05 PM

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

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>> I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point
>> and shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there
>> really a difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a
>> print or a file from each of the camera tell which came from which
>> type of camera?
>
> There's an enormous difference in quality.
>
> Given a single print, you won't always be able to tell which camera it
> came from, but if you take the same shot with a good dSLR and a good
> P&S, the dSLR will give you a better picture.
>
> If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH better
> picture.

Why?
Are you comparing off-camera flash on a DSLR with on-camera flash on a
P&S?

David
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:12:06 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>
>>>I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point
>>>and shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there
>>>really a difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a
>>>print or a file from each of the camera tell which came from which
>>>type of camera?
>>
>>There's an enormous difference in quality.
>>
>>Given a single print, you won't always be able to tell which camera it
>>came from, but if you take the same shot with a good dSLR and a good
>>P&S, the dSLR will give you a better picture.
>>
>>If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH better
>>picture.
>
>
> Why?
> Are you comparing off-camera flash on a DSLR with on-camera flash on a
> P&S?
>
> David
>
>
Not necessary. MOST P&S cameras have the flash in the camera body,
which puts it rather close to the lens, and makes the problem of
'red-eye' worse. Also, DSLRs usually have more powerful flash systems,
even when using the built-in flash.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 24, 2005 6:25:15 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:9NA0e.4580$Ab.2150@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
> >> I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point
> >> and shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there
> >> really a difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a
> >> print or a file from each of the camera tell which came from which
> >> type of camera?
> >
> > There's an enormous difference in quality.
> >
> > Given a single print, you won't always be able to tell which camera it
> > came from, but if you take the same shot with a good dSLR and a good
> > P&S, the dSLR will give you a better picture.
> >
> > If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH better
> > picture.
>
> Why?
> Are you comparing off-camera flash on a DSLR with on-camera flash on a
> P&S?
Probably so. An off camera flash is preferred if for no other reason than
reducing the likelihood of red eye (no, it won't eliminate it completely).
Also, the dSLRs seem to have more powerful processors that do a better job
of matrix metering.
Jim
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 7:05:17 PM

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

Jim wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> message news:9NA0e.4580$Ab.2150@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>>> I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point
>>>> and shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there
>>>> really a difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a
>>>> print or a file from each of the camera tell which came from which
>>>> type of camera?
>>>
>>> There's an enormous difference in quality.
>>>
>>> Given a single print, you won't always be able to tell which camera
>>> it came from, but if you take the same shot with a good dSLR and a
>>> good P&S, the dSLR will give you a better picture.
>>>
>>> If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH
>>> better picture.
>>
>> Why?
>> Are you comparing off-camera flash on a DSLR with on-camera flash on
>> a P&S?
> Probably so. An off camera flash is preferred if for no other reason
> than reducing the likelihood of red eye (no, it won't eliminate it
> completely). Also, the dSLRs seem to have more powerful processors
> that do a better job of matrix metering.
> Jim

Yes, but you can use off-camera flash both with DSLRs and many ZLR cameras
(high-end point and shoot if you like), so the comaparison isn't valid.

I am unsure about your point on metering - I think it takes little
processing power to work out an exposure from the metering. In principle,
P&S may do it better as they can meter at every pixel, whereas DSLR may do
it better because the metering is not on the sensor. The high-end P&S
have a range of metering modes just like DSLRs.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 7:20:55 PM

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

"s6" <x@x.x> writes:

> I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
> shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
> difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
> from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?

Often, yes. Especially at high ISO settings, because the biggest area
of difference is usually in the "noise" levels.

In addition, the DSLRs often have better lenses put on them than are
built onto the P&Ss, and sometimes have better image-processing
circuitry or simply use lower JPEG compression levels, all of which
make small to medium differences.

All these things will be more obvious in big prints than small prints,
of course. But the noise levels in my Epson 850Z at ISO 400 are very
*very* visibly higher even on-screen than the noise levels in my Fuji
S2 Pro even at ISO 1600, for example. This is not a small or subtle
difference!.

Consider this 850Z shot:
<http://tinyurl.com/57ram&gt;
(full URL is <http://www.dd-b.net/perl/picpage/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/dat...;).
This was shot at 1/63 sec. f2.2 ISO 400. That's not bright light, but
it's not really seriously dim.
Note the blue noise blobs in the shirts of both people standing at the
collating racks in the foreground.

Compare that to this S2 shot:
<http://tinyurl.com/4r4w4&gt;
(full URL is
<http://www.dd-b.net/perl/picpage/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/dat...;).
This was shot at ISO 800 intead of 400, 1/20sec at I think f1.4,
i.e. it was pretty dim in there. See how much cleaner it is even when
reduced to a screen-size jpeg?

That's generally typical, as much as a single pair of photos
representing only two cameras can be, of the kind of difference you'll
see between P&S and DSLR results under fairly challenging
circumstances. Shooting people in bright light would show far less
difference.

Note that the full URLs are long, will probably wrap, and you may well
need to reassemble the pieces manually to use them. The tinyurl
shortcuts are easier to use, but I know some people don't like to
click on blind links; hence I have included both. The full URLs may
be more useful in archives in the future, possibly -- if my website
lasts longer than tinyurl, which I'd guess is rather a tossup.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 7:24:01 PM

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

joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:

>>I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
>>shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
>>difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
>>from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?
>
> There's an enormous difference in quality.
>
> Given a single print, you won't always be able to tell which camera it
> came from, but if you take the same shot with a good dSLR and a good
> P&S, the dSLR will give you a better picture.
>
> If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH better
> picture.

Well, using the built-in flash on my Fuji S2 doesn't seem to work any
better than using the tiny weak close-to-the-lens builtin flash on any
other camera (for all the obvious reasons).

Using my SB-80dx bounced off the ceiling, maybe with the fill card,
*does* produce much better results; but it also produces much better
results on my Epson 850Z than the builtin flash on the 850Z produces.
Using my White Lightning monolights generally produces even nicer
lighting than that -- whether it's on film, on my 850Z, or on my Fuji
S2.

I don't think I can actually agree that DSLRs work better with flash
in general; though all DSLRs can be connected to external flashes
which can be used to produce much better lighting, and not all P&S
can.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 24, 2005 7:24:02 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> I don't think I can actually agree that DSLRs work better with flash
> in general; though all DSLRs can be connected to external flashes
> which can be used to produce much better lighting, and not all P&S
> can.


I heard of the technique of putting a red filter (bottle cap or
something) over the in-camera flash & using the infrared that escapes to
trigger multiple slave flashes designed for that purpose. Kind of a cool
technique, no wires. Presumably a disposable film camera could do this.
March 24, 2005 7:28:15 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> Consider this 850Z shot:
> <http://tinyurl.com/57ram&gt;
> (full URL is <http://www.dd-b.net/perl/picpage/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/dat...;).
> This was shot at 1/63 sec. f2.2 ISO 400. That's not bright light, but
> it's not really seriously dim.
> Note the blue noise blobs in the shirts of both people standing at the
> collating racks in the foreground.
>
> Compare that to this S2 shot:
> <http://tinyurl.com/4r4w4&gt;
> (full URL is
> <http://www.dd-b.net/perl/picpage/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/dat...;).
> This was shot at ISO 800 intead of 400, 1/20sec at I think f1.4,
> i.e. it was pretty dim in there. See how much cleaner it is even when
> reduced to a screen-size jpeg?
>
> That's generally typical, as much as a single pair of photos
> representing only two cameras can be, of the kind of difference you'll
> see between P&S and DSLR results under fairly challenging
> circumstances. Shooting people in bright light would show far less
> difference.


Great examples. PS the guy in that second shot look like he's 8-foot
tall leaning his head down not to hit the ceiling <grin>.

As well as those show the point, here's a pic on a DSLR with a bad lens
that looks worse than a pocket sized 3MP P&S with a good lens.

Bad blur on a D70 with a 28-200 3.5-5.6
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/California/Bay-Area/Livermore...;


Good blur on an Oly C3030 f/2.8
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/California/Bay-Area/San-Rafae...;
and that's a major crop!
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 7:30:02 PM

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

"s6" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:D 6A0e.12790$hu3.273@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
> shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
> difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
> from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?

Beyond what others have said...

Don't forget the glass. The difference can be substantial comparing the
small lens on a point-and-shoot to say a nice Canon "L" lens. However I must
say some of the pictures from my friends Canon A95 look very similar to the
ones taken with my Digital Rebel and kit lens! But generally speaking.....
while my Fuji S602Z P&S goes out to 200mm but it cannot compete with the
70-200 f/2.8 on my Rebel or 1D. My point is, with that lens the quality of
your images can suddenly go from hobbyist to pro.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 7:38:01 PM

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

>> If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH better
>> picture.
>
>Why?
>Are you comparing off-camera flash on a DSLR with on-camera flash on a
>P&S?

Yes. And event he on-camera dSLR flashes are further away from the
lens than the flashes on P&S cameras. With camera manufacturers
investing so much R&D in swivel LCD screens and such, I'm surprised no
one has manufactured a good flash....

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 8:05:50 PM

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

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>> If you have to use a flash, the dSLR will give you a MUCH, MUCH
>>> better picture.
>>
>> Why?
>> Are you comparing off-camera flash on a DSLR with on-camera flash on
>> a P&S?
>
> Yes. And event he on-camera dSLR flashes are further away from the
> lens than the flashes on P&S cameras. With camera manufacturers
> investing so much R&D in swivel LCD screens and such, I'm surprised no
> one has manufactured a good flash....
>
> -Joel

Well, that's an unfair comparison, in my opinion. I do agree that a
separate flashgun can give better results, but these are equally
applicable to both SLR and non-SLR cameras.

On the Nikon 8400 the built-in flash is 57mm off the lens axis, and about
60mm on the Nikon 5700. Not a lot!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:00:31 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:08:15 -0000, "Bigguy"
<gtittley@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:

>Number of pixels is the same...
>Size of pixels is larger in DSLRs - this means higher sensitivity and less
>noise...
>Lens quality, shutter lag, focus speed, CPU speed, viewfinder, flash,
>battery life, card write speed are (generally) all better in DSLRs.

I'm surprised by your reference to battery life. Is this correct? I
would have expected that bigger sensors, more processing power and
faster focussing with bigger lenses would add up to (much) higher power
consumption.

At Christmas my Z10 managed a week on a single battery charge, in which
I took over 250 photos and did *extensive* reviewing. How much better do
DSLR's manage?

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:00:32 PM

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

Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:tvr541pgl83n9ufo9821ek030setabcrje@4ax.com:

> I'm surprised by your reference to battery life. Is this correct? I
> would have expected that bigger sensors, more processing power and
> faster focussing with bigger lenses would add up to (much) higher power
> consumption.

And Image Stabilizers.

Then again, dSLRs tend have heavy-duty batteries and insanely powerful add-
on options.

For example:

http://www.digitalcamerabattery.com/

> At Christmas my Z10 managed a week on a single battery charge, in which
> I took over 250 photos and did *extensive* reviewing. How much better do
> DSLR's manage?

With a 20D, 750+ exposures over a few weeks with a single standard (BP-
511A) battery installed. (As an experiment - I had a second battery
waiting). Then I finally got the battery handle which, among other things,
puts the second BP-511A in it.

It would take another experiment like the above to find out just how much
longer the new setup would last, but I'm just not curious enough. Knowing
that the camera is simply not going to run out of power unless I'm
shipwrecked somewhere is quite enough.

I also picked up a cable to let one of the above-mentioned external
batteries power the camera, but it sits unused.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:00:32 PM

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

Stephen Poley wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:08:15 -0000, "Bigguy"
> <gtittley@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Number of pixels is the same...
>> Size of pixels is larger in DSLRs - this means higher sensitivity
>> and less noise...
>> Lens quality, shutter lag, focus speed, CPU speed, viewfinder, flash,
>> battery life, card write speed are (generally) all better in DSLRs.
>
> I'm surprised by your reference to battery life. Is this correct? I
> would have expected that bigger sensors, more processing power and
> faster focussing with bigger lenses would add up to (much) higher
> power consumption.
>
> At Christmas my Z10 managed a week on a single battery charge, in
> which
> I took over 250 photos and did *extensive* reviewing. How much better
> do DSLR's manage?

The SterlingTek 511A replacement in my 20D Canon is just 50 or so shots
into the Low-Battery symbol after about 1,100 shots with plenty flash
and review. I am eager to see how long it goes after the L-B symbol
showed up.


--
Frank ess
March 24, 2005 9:13:09 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:o rC0e.4658$Ab.1465@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> On the Nikon 8400 the built-in flash is 57mm off the lens axis, and about
> 60mm on the Nikon 5700. Not a lot!
Those are both P&S cameras...
However, the distance between the lens and the built in flash of a D70 is
about 100mm. This distance is not enough to help with the red eye effect in
my dog's eyes. Using an SB600 increases the distance to about 6 1/2 inches.
This arrangement reduces the red eye of my dog, but the construction of
canine eyes precludes total elimination.
And, if you really want to help the flash along, you can put it on a
bracket. I usually use both the built in flash and the SB600; the multiple
sources does help with red eye.
Of course, one could use a bracket with a P&S camera if it had a flash
mount.
Jim
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:20:17 PM

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

Jim wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> message news:o rC0e.4658$Ab.1465@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> On the Nikon 8400 the built-in flash is 57mm off the lens axis, and
>> about 60mm on the Nikon 5700. Not a lot!
> Those are both P&S cameras...
> However, the distance between the lens and the built in flash of a
> D70 is about 100mm. This distance is not enough to help with the red
> eye effect in my dog's eyes. Using an SB600 increases the distance
> to about 6 1/2 inches. This arrangement reduces the red eye of my
> dog, but the construction of canine eyes precludes total elimination.
> And, if you really want to help the flash along, you can put it on a
> bracket. I usually use both the built in flash and the SB600; the
> multiple sources does help with red eye.
> Of course, one could use a bracket with a P&S camera if it had a flash
> mount.
> Jim

Yes, a clear advantage to the DSLR, However, any camera allowing a
separate flash gun can be used to reduce red-eye, and allow bounce-flash
etc. You just need select cameras with those features.

I've not tried to photograph dogs - I usually avoid them - so thanks for
your insight.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 10:29:30 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:13:43 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote in
>news:tvr541pgl83n9ufo9821ek030setabcrje@4ax.com:
>
>> At Christmas my Z10 managed a week on a single battery charge, in which
>> I took over 250 photos and did *extensive* reviewing. How much better do
>> DSLR's manage?
>
>With a 20D, 750+ exposures over a few weeks with a single standard (BP-
>511A) battery installed. (As an experiment - I had a second battery
>waiting). Then I finally got the battery handle which, among other things,
>puts the second BP-511A in it.

Fair enough. Thanks.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 12:20:21 AM

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

Sheldon wrote:
> "s6" <x@x.x> wrote in message
> news:D 6A0e.12790$hu3.273@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>>I understand the advantages of digital SLRs over the top end point and
>>shoots, but if the number of mega pixels is the same, is there really a
>>difference in picture quality? Could someone looking at a print or a file
>>from each of the camera tell which came from which type of camera?
>>
>
>
> I don't buy the idea that a dslr is necessarily that much better than a
> point and shoot. Any high-end point and shoot with a "good" lens should
> produce an image that rivals a dslr, given the same megapixels. But, as
> others have said, it depends. People buy dslr's because of their
> versatility, superior flash options, and the ability to change lenses and or
> purchase any lens you want for the camera to suit your needs.

Incorrect. dSLRs typically have larger, higher-quality sensors than P&S
models. There's more to a sensor than sheer megapixels.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 3:29:06 AM

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

paul <paul@not.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> I don't think I can actually agree that DSLRs work better with flash
>> in general; though all DSLRs can be connected to external flashes
>> which can be used to produce much better lighting, and not all P&S
>> can.

> I heard of the technique of putting a red filter (bottle cap or
> something) over the in-camera flash & using the infrared that escapes
> to trigger multiple slave flashes designed for that purpose. Kind of a
> cool technique, no wires. Presumably a disposable film camera could do
> this.

You might need to turn off red-eye reduction, too, which often
produces a pre-flash which could trigger the slaves. I was
lucky/careful and my first digital P&S had a hot-shoe so I could use a
bounce flash mounted there, or use an adapter to a sync cord for the
studio flash, and didn't have to resort to trickery to trigger the
strobes at all.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 25, 2005 5:09:22 AM

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

Jim Townsend wrote:


>
> The 35mm lenses that most DSLRs use have much wider apertures than
> the fixed lenses on point and shoot cameras.


Really? Which 35mm zooms are "much" faster than the high end P&S zooms?

--

Stacey
March 25, 2005 5:12:53 AM

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

Sheldon wrote:

>They also tend to focus faster with
> less searching and fussing.
>


That's the main difference, this and shutter lag. The dSLR's will have less
noise but at low ISO, I doubt you'd see the difference in prints.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:40:42 AM

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

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:13:09 GMT, Jim wrote:

> And, if you really want to help the flash along, you can put it on a
> bracket. I usually use both the built in flash and the SB600; the multiple
> sources does help with red eye.
> Of course, one could use a bracket with a P&S camera if it had a flash
> mount.

Canon's new A510 and A520 have an optional flash, the HF-DC1,
which includes a bracket, but Canon notes that it can be used
handheld, on a tripod or on a light stand. The HF-DC1 is higher
power than the P&S built-in flashes (it's rated up to 30 feet) and
Canon says it will work with all of the PowerShot cameras except for
the PowerShot 600, 350 and Pro70. They don't say why, but I'd guess
it's because those cameras can't disable their pre-flashes. Most
other slave flashes would probably work just as well, and should
minimize or eliminate red-eye. If it doesn't, I'd guess a small
opaque shield placed over the built-in flash would help as long as
it doesn't block 100% of the light. Spill from around the side of
the shield should be sufficient to trigger the slaves. The A520,
BTW is the new version of the A95. There are a number of minor
changes but the biggest is that the A520 uses 2 AAs instead of the 4
that the A95 uses.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 2:29:17 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:

> Jim Townsend wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The 35mm lenses that most DSLRs use have much wider apertures than
>> the fixed lenses on point and shoot cameras.
>
>
> Really? Which 35mm zooms are "much" faster than the high end P&S zooms?

Often a stop or two, especially at the high end. However, part of the
point is that the DSLR isn't limited to zooms. I frequently use f1.2
and f2 prime lenses on mine.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
!