The penny has dropped . . . ?

[Sutton Warrior]

Though I agree that compacts are getting better I dont agree they are on equal terms with a dslr yet.

 

If you compare a picture at full size of a 6mp compact and a 6mp dslr you will see the difference in quality for sure. Its only really when you squash them down when you find it hard to spot difference.

 

If anyone disagrees please take a 100% crop using there compact. I will then do the same using my dslr.

 

Joel

 

 

I dont think any one is saying compact are better, I certainly am not. What I do say is that for 'my needs', ie this medium and average album type prints they are more than adequate, in fact as you say "squash them down" to level the playing field. Technology has really come on since the days of film compacts v their SLR counterparts. One has also to take into account how a photographers wishes his/here work to be viewed, grainy, blurred, misty, colour cast or even stark and sharp. With such variation, modern compact have every chance of pleasing and competing on equal term. However in the extremes compacts more obviously loose out as one would expect. Begs the question, "how often do we use or need the extremes"?

 

SW

[Newt]

Den - we will provide every opportunity for you to give your new camera a serious workout. The spare battery power will certainly be a good thing to have and hopefully you have plenty of Gb of memory card space available.

 

We can give these nice folks a good comparison too since I use my trusty compact point & shoot camera and will also be taking bunches of photos of the same things.

[Snatcher]

Is this WW3??????????????????????

 

Calm down.Only have a digital myself but have been lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time for the odd decent shot.

 

Only got into this camera stuff last September after our annual leek show in my local boozer. I normally splash all of my winnings down the pan but decided to invest it in my first digital camera.

 

I bought it with the sole intention of taking/posting up fish shots on the forums - well I have just been carried away.

 

Sorry what was the question

[poledark]

JK,I am quite willing and interested enough to give it a try...just one question though how do I crop 100% ?

 

 

I can only do you 8mpx/5mpx/or 3mpx though.

 

Snatcher, what has ww2 got to do with a semi serious discussion on the merits of one type of camera over another? I am willing and eager to learn, not just here for an argument.

 

For what it's worth, I bought my first digi , a Sony FD 73(?) floppy disc .5 mpx, about 10 years ago Still took good pics...Carl Zeiss glass :)

 

Den

Edited August 27, 2007 by poledark

[nursejudy]

this has got me interested too,what is 100% crop,my camera does 10 mgpixels then lower settings...

[Sharkbyte]

Hi All

 

Definitely no need for an argument, my response to the thread was simply to balance out the pro compact advice that is more often than not dished out......Ok, and maybe to address some of the more unsavoury comments about DSLR users

 

The other week some chap was asking for advice as to how his £500 was best spent. If I remember correctly all the advice indicated saving a load of money and opting for the Canon compact that's currently in vogue. I did point out the bonuses of a DSLR but this was buried by those who had already given their views on the compacts.

 

Hardly balanced advice, was it.

 

Now, had I invested £300 odd quid in a top of the range compact, it would have been £300 wasted. They simply do not offer the performance and versatility of a DSLR. There's no denying that they can and do produce stunning images in the right hands (same as a DSLR) but a crisp lunar eclipse (minimal cropping and noise), kingfisher at 10m in low light or the one I'm currently working on, bat in flight taking moth, pitch black, f18...no chance.

 

It all depends on what you wish to photograph.

 

Many of the compacts now sport 10 mega pixels+ but due to the small sensor size this can become an irrelevance. You will have far less control over the depth of field than with a larger sensor and experience noticeably more noise at higher iso's.

 

Maybe, it's time to explore the flip-side of the photography forum and offer constructive criticism, not just on gear but maybe the photos posted. No nastiness, just honest appraisal with constructive advice? It's a shame to see, for instance, a member regularly overexposing their shots when with a little advice and a push of a button they'd could nail the exposure from then on after. Photoshop is not the answer, other than for a little tweaking or it's highly creative functions, I'd say best left alone.

 

I know that I would have liked to politely explain my reasons for picking / not picking certain shots in the recent Natures Palette comp. A couple of entries could well have clinched it, with a slight change in technique.

 

PS. 100% crop - When you post pics up on AN, most of the time you'll be resizing, for instance the camera takes an image of 3504x2336 pixels, you'll then 'compress' it to, for example, 800x533 pixels. To the eye, the original image fits within it's new dimensions but in reallity many of the original pixels have been discarded. A 100% crop is when you take out, for instance, a 800x533 pixel selection / piece from the original image. There's no compression (well minimal if saved at maximum quality ie 100% jpeg) and all original pixels remain, the only pixels discarded are outside of the selection.

[J.K]

Dont worry, I think this is a healthy conversation and will benefit everyone

 

Im up for a comparison. Maybe if we get 3 compact users and 3 dslr users to post 3 100% crops each this will prove or disprove what has been said. Using 3 different people will hopefully allow to get a better 'range' of results ??

 

You never know, we might find some interest information

[poledark]

I am still puzzled by 100% crop..is this just an expression used to describe cropping from,say, 3500x2300, down to 800x600 ? I thought you meant reducing the amount of pixels down by 100%.

 

So, if I start with 3264x2448, what should I crop down to ?

 

There is another test I sometimes use, and that is to zoom in, one click at a time on the PC to see when the pic starts to degrade, really only usefull to check for fake fishy pics

 

Looking forward to the answers,

 

Den

[J.K]

Too make a 100% crop

 

Load your original into what ever graphic program you use.

 

Zoom in 100% to your picture you wish to crop.

 

Select the crop tool. My one looks like

 

Then select part of the picture

 

So from this original (you will have to pretend this was 3264x2448 or what ever size your camera produces)

 

 

The 100% crop

 

 

 

A 100% crop lets you see actual pixels not compressed pixels.

 

p.s

 

The above is not a sample to be compared with a compact camera as it was taken through a magnifying glass lol.

Edited August 28, 2007 by J.K

[Steve Burke]

I don't think that there is any doubt that a digital SLR will produce higher quality pictures than a digital compact. However, the differences are far from huge, and for many won't be as important as the picture itself - if indeed they even notice the differences anyway!

 

So posting up comparisons won't really help.

 

Those who are more interested in the technical quality of their photographs will of course notice the differences as they'll look more carefully. This is often a hobby in itself, as it was with me and telescopes. Such people will of course prefer an SLR.

 

Others may be more interested in their photographs simply as pictures, or a record of the fish they catch. For some of these a compact may be a better bet.

 

For fishing, the right compact IMO is actually superior to a digital SLR for the reasons I gave on a recent topic.

 

I also said "So one solution may be to buy a compact such as a Canon Powershot for fishing, plus a digital SLR if you're really into other types of photography. However everyone's needs are different, and so there's no "right" answer."

 

In this photography is the same as many others things. A Rolls Royce in many ways is better than a Mini. But in a big city give me a Mini any day!

Edited August 28, 2007 by Steve Burke