I saw the photos on the posted website before I read the rest of your post and what is stated is very true. The thought I had looking at the photos was the composition. Composition (including lighting in composition) is the most important aspect in photography. A beginner with $7,000 in equipment will be out done by a pro with a small unsophisticated P&S. However, results from a professional will be greater with the $7,000 than the small P&S. The difference may not be noticeable on a website or even a 4x6 photo. But it will be noticable when the photo is enlarged or cropped. The DSLR will will be sharper, less noise and greater dynamic range (again when enlarged or significant cropped).
Image Quality of DSLR vs advanced P&S?
- Thread starter ejg62
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I saw the photos on the posted website before I read the rest of your post and what is stated is very true. The thought I had looking at the photos was the composition. Composition (including lighting in composition) is the most important aspect in photography. A beginner with $7,000 in equipment will be out done by a pro with a small unsophisticated P&S. However, results from a professional will be greater with the $7,000 than the small P&S. The difference may not be noticeable on a website or even a 4x6 photo. But it will be noticable when the photo is enlarged or cropped. The DSLR will will be sharper, less noise and greater dynamic range (again when enlarged or significant cropped).
Good or great photos can be produced with any camera, in the right hands.
The original question was about IQ - and the superior sensors, superior lenses etc of the slrs simply produce better IQ.
But life is not all about IQ.
The original question was about IQ - and the superior sensors, superior lenses etc of the slrs simply produce better IQ.
But life is not all about IQ.
WetLens
Contributor
Interesting thread. Especially in light of our recent trip to the Bahamas where my wife - an inexperienced photographer - shot with a G10, Ike housing, and DS51 strobe. I've been trying to take underwater photos since high school in the late sixties (a Brownie Starmite in a plastic bag...). I shot the entire week with a D90, switching between a 60 macro, 16-85 zoom, and a 10-17 zoom. I definitely had the edge on equipment and experience. Guess what? She came back from several dives with photos that blew me away. As others have said, she was able to adapt to nearly any situation and pull off a photo. The turtle that swam by when I had my 60 macro, the 1/2" nudibranch in the sand when I had my 16-85, the octopus - when I had the right lens, but the sun was so bright that I could not see the screen well enough to make proper adjustments (my bad...) - all cases where she came away with the goods while I was left frustrated. With some more practice, better understanding of composition, and learning to position the strobe, she is going to come away with photos nearly on par with what I can get out of the D90. And... she packs the entire set-up in a backpack vs. my roller carry-on, camera bag, and port case in my dive bag...
Now, the virtues of the D90 in the housing... I love it. It is almost as good as when I was shooting a Canon F1 w/speedfinder. I am just now beginning to get shots on par with what I was able to get with that system. I migrated to an 8008s in an Aquatica housing, then a D70 in an Ike housing. While I got some results, I was often left frustrated. The D90 has resolved nearly all of my frustrations as it was a joy to use.
In any case, there are plusses and minuses to both systems. I like my dSLR, but I will not take anything away from the capabilities of the G10 in the right hands...
My 2009 Sea Dragon photos (D90): wetlens : photos : Sea Dragon 2009
My wife's Sea Dragon photos (G10): wetlens : photos : Marie's Sea Dragon 2009 Photos
Now, the virtues of the D90 in the housing... I love it. It is almost as good as when I was shooting a Canon F1 w/speedfinder. I am just now beginning to get shots on par with what I was able to get with that system. I migrated to an 8008s in an Aquatica housing, then a D70 in an Ike housing. While I got some results, I was often left frustrated. The D90 has resolved nearly all of my frustrations as it was a joy to use.
In any case, there are plusses and minuses to both systems. I like my dSLR, but I will not take anything away from the capabilities of the G10 in the right hands...
My 2009 Sea Dragon photos (D90): wetlens : photos : Sea Dragon 2009
My wife's Sea Dragon photos (G10): wetlens : photos : Marie's Sea Dragon 2009 Photos
marcaumarc
Contributor
Puffer Fish,
The question that was asked, and the question I answered was whether DSLRs are capable of taking higher quality images than P&S, and the answer is totally yes. This question is not about the talent of the photographer or what they can accomplish with less than ideal equipment. I totally agree with you that the photographer is more important than the camera, but that's not the question here.
A current DSLR with good lenses is a more sophisticated machine with better sensor and higher quality optics than any P&S.
Some guy in his backyard was the first to see the recent asteroid impact or whatever it was on Jupiter, but the Hubble is capable of taking better images than the telescope that dude had in his backyard.
There are plenty of fine P&S cameras, but none are DSLR quality, at least not yet.
The question that was asked, and the question I answered was whether DSLRs are capable of taking higher quality images than P&S, and the answer is totally yes. This question is not about the talent of the photographer or what they can accomplish with less than ideal equipment. I totally agree with you that the photographer is more important than the camera, but that's not the question here.
A current DSLR with good lenses is a more sophisticated machine with better sensor and higher quality optics than any P&S.
Some guy in his backyard was the first to see the recent asteroid impact or whatever it was on Jupiter, but the Hubble is capable of taking better images than the telescope that dude had in his backyard.
There are plenty of fine P&S cameras, but none are DSLR quality, at least not yet.
marcaumarc
Contributor
As an aside, I also think it would be reasonable to argue that film can out perform digital in image quality.
if we are comparing a full frame DSLR versus the best P&S.. then you are very correct. However.. not seeing a lot of Canon 1D (or similar camera) images (I am sure they are out there, but just not a lot). If we are talking 12 meg image DSLR's, then it depends on the conditions... If a G10 is shooting in iso 80 and if it is not a high contrast situation.. then the G10 has higher resolution (just check out the resolution charts at Dpreview)..On the surface, those conditions don't exist that often.. underwater, with strobes, they do (depending). Having done comparison shots between a 50D and a G10.. with the right settings.. they are not distinguishable.
There are huge reasons to own a Dslr, but image quality may not always be one of them.
Note: One gets crisp images (using those narrow settings) easily up to 15 x 20 prints with either camera...larger than most people print or view images.
And you are correct about film...as long as we are not talking about a Leica S2
diverdoug1
Contributor
marcaumarc
Contributor
Maybe the best P&S cameras can approach the image quality of a DSLR under optimal conditions. At anything less than ideal the drop-off is really steep for the P&S.
Resolution doesn't equate to image quality. The sensor on a G10 is a little bit more than 1/10th the size of the sensor on a non-full frame Nikon DSLR.
The quality of the lenses also contributes to overall image quality and there's really no comparison there, either.
Resolution doesn't equate to image quality. The sensor on a G10 is a little bit more than 1/10th the size of the sensor on a non-full frame Nikon DSLR.
The quality of the lenses also contributes to overall image quality and there's really no comparison there, either.
I think you can do very well with a P&S, but IQ can be lacking especially on wide angle shots.
As Alcina and others have stated the sensor in many P&S is so much smaller. The other issue is that at smaller apertures you are using a tiny amount of the lens and it just isn't as sharp.
Fuji remains one of the few cameras that has an outstanding P&S sensor with much high DR than others. I've just gotten an F200 and will be shooting it for a couple of weeks. The camera is quite capable of some great images, but it has some weird quirks in it's s/w. Manual control is a joke, but with it's high DR, you kind of just go with the flow.
Jack
As Alcina and others have stated the sensor in many P&S is so much smaller. The other issue is that at smaller apertures you are using a tiny amount of the lens and it just isn't as sharp.
Fuji remains one of the few cameras that has an outstanding P&S sensor with much high DR than others. I've just gotten an F200 and will be shooting it for a couple of weeks. The camera is quite capable of some great images, but it has some weird quirks in it's s/w. Manual control is a joke, but with it's high DR, you kind of just go with the flow.
Jack
Sully3
Contributor
DSlr definitely has an advantage on wide angle.
and photo quality itself is better with a dslr.
However, P&S really has the advantage allowing you to
shoot various different subjects on the same dive.
I have both a canon g9 and a dslr. I use the g9 uw,
and it is great, but the photos are just not what they could be in
terms of sharpness and such as with a dslr.
some of my g9 photos are in the Bonaire August 2009 photos.
notice the lack of wide angle becuase P&S just can't do it well
I do agree with Pufferfish that composition etc has to do with the
photographer but dslr kicks butt in quality. (at least right now)
matt
and photo quality itself is better with a dslr.
However, P&S really has the advantage allowing you to
shoot various different subjects on the same dive.
I have both a canon g9 and a dslr. I use the g9 uw,
and it is great, but the photos are just not what they could be in
terms of sharpness and such as with a dslr.
some of my g9 photos are in the Bonaire August 2009 photos.
notice the lack of wide angle becuase P&S just can't do it well
I do agree with Pufferfish that composition etc has to do with the
photographer but dslr kicks butt in quality. (at least right now)
matt
Similar threads
