Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:35 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:31 pm 
As I said, the second one seems to have more detail (maybe it comes from a higher dynamic range) especially in the darker parts of the images - but I could be so wrong on this one :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:33 pm 
sooooooo........ was i right??????


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:32 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7972
Location: Germany
#1 is from the Canon IXUS 870IS
#2 is from the Nikon D300 + AF-S 50mm f/1.4G

You can see different effects here:
- See a slight "blooming" in #1 from the upper snow border into the darkness. I assume this comes from the lens of the Canon.
- You can see more details in the far away wood in #2
- The trees in the foreground stand out a little better on #2
- In sharpness I think the second Nikon upload at 100% converted via CaptureNX from RAW shows the same degree of sharpness (even a little more micro-contrast) as the Canon, at least in my eyes. Will be interesting to compare the Siemens-stars.

Exposure was 1/1000 sec, f/5.0, ISO 80 with the Canon, 1/500 sec, f/11, ISO 200 for the Nikon. So both images were essentially exposed at the same EV.

So one can say that under bright light you have to look quite carefully at 100% magnification to see the differences. At 50% magnification it is almost impossible. The only effect remaining would be the lower contrast of the p&s in dark areas of the image.

Btw. I had the hightlight warning "on" in Lightroom when I matched both images to make them look alike and it showed almost identical areas. This is another indicator that both images have a very similar amount of highlight information. I even did a +0.3EV exposure compensation in Lightroom on Canon's jpg to match Nikon's image. That's good for the p&s which I had suspected to blow'em'out.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:43 am 
Thomas, this was one of the more fun threads on the forum :D I think this kind of prove Mr. Rockwell wrong about a compact being equally good 80% of the time, or did it? :) I really like your take on DoF on compact vs. DSLR it show how much you can appreciate a compact camera. Thanks for the review! Have you thought of doing the same with pro lense vs. kit lense, could be fun to see (or have you already done that?)

PS. what's up with the busy(nisen?) bokeh on the 50/1.4 where you close to the tree in focus?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:17 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7972
Location: Germany
Hello Rune, long time no see :D
Weeeeell, I'm not quite sure on which trip Ken is at the mo'. I think it's currently the "film is better than anything else" :wink:
But I would repeat: with enough light it's hard to discern the p&s from the DSLR. And no, I have not compared with another lens as I have no kit-lens available. Closest thing to a kit-lens might be the 18-200 VR. But I really liked the idea to take the lens-quality out of the equation because that's one of the biggest plusses of DSLRs: you can always get a bigger/better glass.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
I agree, a very interesting thread Thomas...

On a sidenote about DOF, some of my friends have babies or young kids and have realised (like most of us here understand) the quick AF and response of a DSLR is better for capturing subjects which rarely sit still.

BUT the inherently larger DOF of a compact means you may still have a greater chance of success with a sharp photo. Indeed those friends with compacts seem to have a greater success rate with photos of their kids than those with DSLRs in terms of focusing.

Of course the DSLR also has advantages in low light, but the bottom line is one system is not necessarily ALWAYS better than the other for this kind of photography. A quick compact may be better overall - so long as the lighting is decent and it can stick to a low ISO...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:53 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7972
Location: Germany
Yeah, my wife just shot an event at school on automatic with the D300. And the dof of the images was not great enough to capture the kids at the other side of the room. Which left some parents dissatisfied :(
If I would have handled the camera I could have tried aperture priority and close the aperture to say f/11-16 vs. the standard f/5.6 the automatic choose. But then the flash would make the problem: Lighting only a few kids in the front row and producing an inacceptable light fall-off to the other side of the room (where natural light came in through the windows).
It is tantamount in those situations to use the minimum flash-filler that balances the natural light. Which in turn means you need to work with pretty wide open aperture. If you need deep dof you have no other chance but to take a camera with a small sensor!

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:00 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7972
Location: Germany
Addendum:
Don't want to sound too critical towards DSLRs. The opposite side of the dof-coin means: You have no chance to achieve the degree of shallow dof on a p&s that so nicely isolates your subject from the surroundings.
As I already said: This is a draw. You just need to know what you want from your camera

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:35 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7972
Location: Germany
And here comes: The dreaded low-light comparison.
"Dreaded" because nobody expexts the small p&s to have any chance, right?
Shot the IXUS at ISO 400, 1/8 sec, f/5.0 plus a little brightening in Lightroom2, the D300 at ISO 1600, 1/15sec, f/5.6, -1EV, both from a tripod! What you see below is a crop shown at 50% magnification, but the differences are already clear. If you click through the image you can have a view at the 100% crop to get a better feeling for the noise and sharpness.

The map:
Image

Well right, not a chance really. And I put the DSLR even 2 ISO steps higher and didn't give it the benefit of RAW-conversion in CaptureNX.
So this point goes to the Nikon.

Summary:
After the third round the scores are 4.5 pts for the Canon vs. 6 pts for the Nikon.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:49 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7972
Location: Germany
Now let's subject the little Canon to some Siemens-stars. Shot with Canon IXUS 780IS at 11mm (=60mm on film), f/4.0, 1/25 sec, ISO 200 on auto-focus.
Shown here is a 100% crop from the center (left) and a 100% crop from a corner (right).

Image Image

The center-crop is very sharp (easily as sharp as the best lenses on a Nikon D300) and has good contrast, while the corner crop turns out a clearly softer both in sharpness and contrast.
See for comparison here.
Looking at the equivalent shots from the D300 you can see that the Canon displays some sharpening artefacts in the centre of the Siemens-star. You can also see some CAs in the corner shot.

As I don't have a standard kit-lens from Nikon I cannot fairly compare both but let me say as much: The Canon zoom holds up quite well and may not be behind a standard kit lens from Nikon at all. But the benefit of the D300 (or any DSLR) is that you can buy better lenses if you
- need more image quality
- more wide-angle or more tele-reach
- better low-light capabilities

I won't award any points here, because the Canon holds up quite well given the principal limitations of a p&s.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:27 pm 
Ive been playing with the IXUS 870 recently and what a lovely little camera,apart from the quality you have shown of images,I really appreciate the in camera editing {great for people who dont own camera software or dont want to spend hours in fron of their computers} I bought the 870 for a friend it was £214 at John Lewis.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group