Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital camera I have owned

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 12:08:52 AM

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

Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.

Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
the top, the newest on the bottom.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original

I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
adding a few more cameras to the list.

Scott

More about : digital camera owned

June 26, 2005 2:43:16 AM

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

Scott W wrote:
> Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
>
A very interesting excercise!
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 5:09:28 AM

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

Rick wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119755332.288904.317220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> > photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> > height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> > of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> > advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
> >
> > Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> > the top, the newest on the bottom.
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
> >
> > I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> > adding a few more cameras to the list.
>
> Scott, is that Keauhou in the background?

Boy are you close, that is Kailua, I paddle out of Keauhou, which is
south about 6 miles.
You are looking right at the Kailua pier.

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 5:41:43 AM

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

Rick wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119773368.215572.196720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> > > "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119755332.288904.317220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> > > > photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> > > > height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> > > > of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> > > > advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> > > > the top, the newest on the bottom.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
> > > >
> > > > I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> > > > adding a few more cameras to the list.
> > >
> > > Scott, is that Keauhou in the background?
> >
> > Boy are you close, that is Kailua, I paddle out of Keauhou, which is
> > south about 6 miles.
> > You are looking right at the Kailua pier.
>
> Ah ok, thanks. I couldn't figure out which hotel that is
> (directly above the palm tree in the center of this shot).
> Is it the King Kam?

Yup, that is the King Kam.

You can make out a bit of Old A. behind.

Here is the whole photo, it might make it a bit easier to figure out
just where you are looking.
http://www.sewcon.com/photos/IMG_8133.jpg

Do you or did you live here?

Scott
June 26, 2005 9:49:40 AM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119755332.288904.317220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
>
> Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> the top, the newest on the bottom.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
>
> I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> adding a few more cameras to the list.

Scott, is that Keauhou in the background?
June 26, 2005 12:30:00 PM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119773368.215572.196720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rick wrote:
> > "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119755332.288904.317220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> > > photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> > > height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> > > of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> > > advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
> > >
> > > Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> > > the top, the newest on the bottom.
> > >
> > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
> > >
> > > I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> > > adding a few more cameras to the list.
> >
> > Scott, is that Keauhou in the background?
>
> Boy are you close, that is Kailua, I paddle out of Keauhou, which is
> south about 6 miles.
> You are looking right at the Kailua pier.

Ah ok, thanks. I couldn't figure out which hotel that is
(directly above the palm tree in the center of this shot).
Is it the King Kam?
June 26, 2005 12:53:05 PM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119775303.617315.163880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rick wrote:
> > "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119773368.215572.196720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Rick wrote:
> > > > "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119755332.288904.317220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> > > > > photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> > > > > height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> > > > > of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> > > > > advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> > > > > the top, the newest on the bottom.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> > > > > adding a few more cameras to the list.
> > > >
> > > > Scott, is that Keauhou in the background?
> > >
> > > Boy are you close, that is Kailua, I paddle out of Keauhou, which is
> > > south about 6 miles.
> > > You are looking right at the Kailua pier.
> >
> > Ah ok, thanks. I couldn't figure out which hotel that is
> > (directly above the palm tree in the center of this shot).
> > Is it the King Kam?
>
> Yup, that is the King Kam.
>
> You can make out a bit of Old A. behind.
>
> Here is the whole photo, it might make it a bit easier to figure out
> just where you are looking.
> http://www.sewcon.com/photos/IMG_8133.jpg

Thanks. What a great shot. I'd never seen Kailua from that
angle before.

> Do you or did you live here?

Just a frequent visitor to the island since 1990. Me and the
SO are planning to move there someday.
June 26, 2005 2:03:05 PM

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

Scott W wrote:
> Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
>
> Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> the top, the newest on the bottom.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
>
> I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> adding a few more cameras to the list.
>
> Scott

Very interesting exercise - and VERY interesting pictures - but I find
myself wanting more details:

1. What focal length were the cameras at when you took the pics (35mm
equivalent)?
2. How many megapixels are we talking about (eg HP Photosmart - 1.3
Mpixels? 2.1?)
3. What lens on the 20D?
4. What file format was used, and what compression level, if any?
5. Not to open a whole can of worms, but - did you consider a pic with
35mm film scanned at a similar resolution to compare?

My OCD kicking in, I guess.... Thanks for posting!
ECM
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 2:07:07 PM

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

birdman wrote:
> I have done similar comparisons using my 828, D70 and 200ASA color negative
> film scanned at 2000dpi.
> When you start comparing higher definition image sources what you actually
> see on the monitor is not always what you believe you are seeing and not
> what a print will yield.
> To a great degree in comparing the Canon and Sony you are comparing jpeg
> algorithms and not what the sensors and lenses are capable of producing. The
> algorithm that enhances edge contrast/sharpness in a particular scene to
> your liking will look best.
> You should compare a raw and jpeg of the same scene to see what the camera
> has done to the image with its in-camera jpeg processing. More often than
> not, in my experience, the jpeg is far from optimal. Basically, it stinks.
> In my personal tests, using digital raw formats, because of the two
> megapixel difference in resolution enlarged sections from the Sony 828
> images on a monitor almost invariably appear sharper and more detailed than
> the 6mp D70 images. Because of the appearance of film grain on an enlarged
> section of a film scan both digital images look "better" on a computer
> monitor even though they may actually contain less pictorial information.
> However inkjet prints are a different matter than what you think you see on
> a computer monitor. For the most part the prints are indistinguishable as to
> source. That doesn't mean there are no differences between the prints, just
> that it is not clear which originated from digital and which originated from
> film sources. More often than digital afficinados would like to admit the
> film images print better because of the superior dynamic range of color
> negative film, a quality that can be missed on a computer monitor.

The last two photos in thegroup, the F828 and the 20D were both done
from raw, the whole image was save at the lowest compression level.

I put this group together just for fun, I have been orginizing my
office and came across all my old cameras so I though I would see how
things have progressed. The thing that does not show up in the photos
is how much improvment in the human factors part there has been. The
first digital I owned did not have a screen to view the photos you
took, it would take several seconds to take the photo and then several
more to save it to the memory card.
Each camera has gotten faster and easier to use, the 20D is a pure joy
to use.

With regards to dynamic range I find that I get more from my digital
cameras then I do from my scans of my negative film.

Scott
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 2:19:48 PM

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

ecm wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> > photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> > height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> > of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> > advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
> >
> > Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> > the top, the newest on the bottom.
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
> >
> > I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> > adding a few more cameras to the list.
> >
> > Scott
>
> Very interesting exercise - and VERY interesting pictures - but I find
> myself wanting more details:
>
> 1. What focal length were the cameras at when you took the pics (35mm
> equivalent)?
> 2. How many megapixels are we talking about (eg HP Photosmart - 1.3
> Mpixels? 2.1?)
> 3. What lens on the 20D?
> 4. What file format was used, and what compression level, if any?
> 5. Not to open a whole can of worms, but - did you consider a pic with
> 35mm film scanned at a similar resolution to compare?
>
> My OCD kicking in, I guess.... Thanks for posting!
> ECM

The resolutions were as follows,

Photosmart 640 x 480 (and soft at that)
Ricoh 1280 x 960
Nikon Coolpix 995 2048 x 1536
Sony F828 3264 x 2448
Canon 20D 3504 x 2336 (kit lens)

I tried to come close to matching the field of view of all the cameras.
The focal length for the 20D was 34mm, so taking into account the 1.6
factor this would be the same as about 55mm for a 35mm camera.

I have done some comparisons between my 35mm film camera and my Sony
F828, after which I quit shooting film. Film is a real hassle here and
just not worth shooting.

Scott
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 8:34:12 PM

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

Bob wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2005 20:08:52 -0700, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
> >photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
> >height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
> >of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
> >advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
> >
> >Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
> >the top, the newest on the bottom.
> >
> >http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
> >
> >I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
> >adding a few more cameras to the list.
> >
> >Scott
>
> It's hard to compare cameras when you have to re-sample the images... obviously
> the 'bigger' camera has an advantage...
>
> What I used to do was take a picture of exactly the same thing with each camera,
> and 'downsize' ALL of them to the same small size, say 640x480. I'm not sure how
> valid this is either! It's always better to pick whole numbers to re-sample,
> like x2 or /2 ... you can get close this way...
>
> Another thing I tried was to take a picture of a scene so that a certain piece
> was always the same size... for example, if 1 camera was 3000x2000 and another
> one was 1500x1000, I would frame the larger one on twice the area... so the
> pixels on screen would be the same scene... Again, I'm not sure how valid this
> is either!
>
> I sold my old Kodak so I can't compare it to new pictures unless I try to copy
> an exact old picture... on the same date and time!

Well shinking down to 640 x 480 would be a bit of a waste for the 8 MP
cameras.

This was just a fun thing I put together, not really compare one camera
to the next, other have done a much better job of that then this. I
just got a kick out of having a graphical way to look at the
improvements in my cameras over the last 7 years.

It is interesting to note that all the cameras as still working, the
oldest was bought in eary 1998.

Scott

Scott
June 26, 2005 8:49:08 PM

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

I have done similar comparisons using my 828, D70 and 200ASA color negative
film scanned at 2000dpi.
When you start comparing higher definition image sources what you actually
see on the monitor is not always what you believe you are seeing and not
what a print will yield.
To a great degree in comparing the Canon and Sony you are comparing jpeg
algorithms and not what the sensors and lenses are capable of producing. The
algorithm that enhances edge contrast/sharpness in a particular scene to
your liking will look best.
You should compare a raw and jpeg of the same scene to see what the camera
has done to the image with its in-camera jpeg processing. More often than
not, in my experience, the jpeg is far from optimal. Basically, it stinks.
In my personal tests, using digital raw formats, because of the two
megapixel difference in resolution enlarged sections from the Sony 828
images on a monitor almost invariably appear sharper and more detailed than
the 6mp D70 images. Because of the appearance of film grain on an enlarged
section of a film scan both digital images look "better" on a computer
monitor even though they may actually contain less pictorial information.
However inkjet prints are a different matter than what you think you see on
a computer monitor. For the most part the prints are indistinguishable as to
source. That doesn't mean there are no differences between the prints, just
that it is not clear which originated from digital and which originated from
film sources. More often than digital afficinados would like to admit the
film images print better because of the superior dynamic range of color
negative film, a quality that can be missed on a computer monitor.
June 26, 2005 10:32:20 PM

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

On 25 Jun 2005 20:08:52 -0700, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Just for fun today I got out all my old digital cameras and took a
>photo of the same scene. I then up-sampled them all to have the same
>height (2448 pixels) and cropped out a 640 x 480 piece. Note because
>of the aspect ratio of the 20D vs the F828 it gives the F828 a slight
>advantage even so the 20D looks much sharper.
>
>Here is a link to all 5 images merge into one, the oldest camera is on
>the top, the newest on the bottom.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45299951/original
>
>I have to wonder what this will look like in another 10 years, after
>adding a few more cameras to the list.
>
>Scott

It's hard to compare cameras when you have to re-sample the images... obviously
the 'bigger' camera has an advantage...

What I used to do was take a picture of exactly the same thing with each camera,
and 'downsize' ALL of them to the same small size, say 640x480. I'm not sure how
valid this is either! It's always better to pick whole numbers to re-sample,
like x2 or /2 ... you can get close this way...

Another thing I tried was to take a picture of a scene so that a certain piece
was always the same size... for example, if 1 camera was 3000x2000 and another
one was 1500x1000, I would frame the larger one on twice the area... so the
pixels on screen would be the same scene... Again, I'm not sure how valid this
is either!

I sold my old Kodak so I can't compare it to new pictures unless I try to copy
an exact old picture... on the same date and time!
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 4:21:51 AM

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

In message <fmaub1doc9pjeuapi3u1t0ouiqnl70ka5v@4ax.com>,
Bob <FlintsTone@nospam.com> wrote:

>What I used to do was take a picture of exactly the same thing with each camera,
>and 'downsize' ALL of them to the same small size, say 640x480. I'm not sure how
>valid this is either! It's always better to pick whole numbers to re-sample,
>like x2 or /2 ... you can get close this way...

Better yet to print them all at the same size, at a print resolution
that won't be a bottleneck for comparison. Or, you could upsample a
portion from each to the same size, at about 200% of the one with the
most pixels, and then stand back from the monitor. This keeps the
screen itself from having an influence, and exposes any false sharpness
due to under-sampling.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!