Why my DLSR camera image taken is not as good compare to a digital Camera

[sweeshiwei]

hmmmm, i don't agree with you on that point.
Have compared photos taken by my D80 vs my previous Lumix FZ10 and friends' PnS cams...
[all as straight-out-of-the-cam JPGs]
The difference is startling. The D80 is MUCH MUCH sharper than any of them. And I'm just using the pathetic kit lens. So I think your conclusion is unjustified.
Mind you, I take most snapshot-style photos on my D80 as small-normal, so each photo is about 500KB or thereabouts only. D80 on small-normal and FZ10 on high quality setting, also the D80 looks sharper.

hi there , thanks for comments.
i think i know what you means. i have yet to try on small- normal setting.
most normally i use large ( the highest full pixel )
well as i say earlier. i though higher pixel the better the image. learned that its not true.
Well. Good point that you have raised.
btw did you use small normal for night mode landscape example the link picture that i have posted?
Do you have other settings like ( Lower ISO ,long shutter speed at higher F stop ) company with?

 

[ombre]

To my surprise, this thread hits 3.2k views.


Anyway sweeshiwei, your last few replies still contain some errors about understanding the DSLR system, maybe you should do a little more reading on 'tutorial' sites first. Usually their literature there are a little more well structured and reviewed, than what we can offer you here, as it is more open-ended, and a lot of guess and check, which missed the point ever so often.

This one helps quite a bit, do check it out. http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/

 

[Anson]

hi there, Good morning,
hmm .. but doesnt the IS function provide the necc support to stabilize the image?
I upgrade my lens to IS from the normal lens. if i still need the tripod, what would be the point to upgrade?

The IS function on your lens only could help but not eliminate shakes... Anything that is more than 1/x it is still recommended that you use a tripod.

Hi Anson,

Thanks for comments. if taking night scene i should use lower ISO?
I tried using lower ISO i will result in darker image. under the same shutter speed setting
for 1/800~1000.

Your ISO, shutter speed & Aperture all work together. if you have a dark scene and have a tripod, best is to lower your ISO & decrease your shutter speed. If you don;t have a tripod then you have to increase your ISO setting with a smaller Aperture number.

.. hmm most photos from dslr need sharpening. ...
mind i say . i always thought the higher the pixel the camera have, the better the image quality. especially when you are shooting from long distance or landscape.
I felt that there will be a lot sharpening for our software if base on my earlier 1st post image.
is there other sharpening software other photoshop?

You can always use your Picture Style from your dslr to "sharpen" your image.

 

[gsv13]

Well i will say keep trying and experimenting with ur DSLR until you get what you are looking at ....just read the 101 for newbie @clubsnap by david wong .this is a good pointer can solve most of ur issues

http://www.clubsnap.com/display.php?file=articles/photography101/photography101.html

except you really have some serious issue with ur equipment .

Your query have really drawn a good number of audience ..infact 3k + ..cheers

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

hi there , thanks for comments.
i think i know what you means. i have yet to try on small- normal setting.
most normally i use large ( the highest full pixel )
well as i say earlier. i though higher pixel the better the image. learned that its not true.
Well. Good point that you have raised.
btw did you use small normal for night mode landscape example the link picture that i have posted?
Do you have other settings like ( Lower ISO ,long shutter speed at higher F stop ) company with?

I think you misunderstood me.
I did not state that using small-normal will produce a sharper image than using large-fine.
Logic tells me that large-fine should be sharper, since there isn't so much loss due to JPEG compression.
To my untrained eye, the difference in quality between small-normal and large-fine, though noticeable, is still acceptable. The difference in file size is obviously noticeable. Loads up much quicker on the PC too!
I usually use either small-normal or small-fine, since I don't print larger than 4R or 5R.
For night landscape, ISO is at minimum or very close to it (100-150), f/8 or f/11 aperture, and a fairly long exposure.

 

[ombre]

...
To my untrained eye, the difference in quality between small-normal and large-fine, though noticeable, is still acceptable. The difference in file size is obviously noticeable. Loads up much quicker on the PC too!
I usually use either small-normal or small-fine, since I don't print larger than 4R or 5R.

I have to disagree here!

Shooting at fine is definitely recommended... shooting at normal results in clipping, depending on how bad the scene is, it can be very very bad.

As for the size... Memory comes cheap these days, your sensor doesn't. Why waste half the sensor when you've already paid for it? Even if you don't need the extra pixels, I think its helpful to put in extra effort to shoot at full resolution, and resize in photoshop... Doesn't take a lot of time, just save it as an action and hotkey it if you really must. Resized pictures are essentially sharper that pictures shot with low resolution.

 

[ellsworth]

Close (or far) is it's own point of view.... Have seen a E410 doing a high ISO shot.... it ain't pretty... :dunno:

whatever it is, far.......

 

[bigbird17]

Well I think a sharp image is subjective. I came from an FZ18 to a 350D (I see you're on a 450D), so I suppose my situation is very much like yours. FZ18 is very similarly spec'ed to your FZ50 with a longer zoom, same sensors, both leica lens.

I think where the DSLR wins is the ability to resolve due to sensor size. if you view your images 800 x 600, really may seem to match a DSLR with normal lens. But so far, I have not seen a single PNS with a decent 100% crop... the max I'll ever go is 66%

My friends using PNS always send me pictures to touch up, and so far, I've always been happy to upgrade to DSLR. I've seen a fair share of models/brand's outputs, and yea, no way PNS will beat DSLR. =) As long as you're not using lousy lenses (like the old kit).

Of course, with a dSLR, you definitely have less noise, faster lenses, and depth of field... which well, is another league all together but it might go OT from this thread so I'll skip it.

what a load of rubbish! have you tried the Rioch GRD or Sigma DP1? or the panny LX-3?

 

[ClipperSG]

what a load of rubbish! have you tried the Rioch GRD or Sigma DP1? or the panny LX-3?

..or the Olympus C5050.. :sweatsm: (ok...it's 2002-old...)

 

[Anson]

whatever it is, far.......

Like I said... to each own.... no point arguing about it.... :bsmilie:

 

[ellsworth]

Like I said... to each own.... no point arguing about it.... :bsmilie:

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[ombre]

what a load of rubbish! have you tried the Rioch GRD or Sigma DP1? or the panny LX-3?

Rioch GRD and Sigma DP1, no, but I remember them being good cameras. Not many own one anyway... the only time I saw the Ricoh was when I was auditioning for a photoshoot and the photog did the test shoot with it.


LX3, yes I've seen. Its bad. Not bad on its own, but if you start comparing with a DSLR... no fight actually. By this I mean where the difference is greatest, IE, noise control. LX3, just like FZ18, FZ28, or FZ50, the noise all creeps in by ISO 400.

LX3 can't resolve to 100% as well by the way, by this I mean, the 16.7% (800x600) sharpness doesn't seem to have degraded one single bit by the time you zoom into 100% to pixel peep.

By no means I am trying to slam your opinion, but lets face the fact that technology is not that advance that something 3.75 times smaller can provide equal output at a higher density.

Given that, also note that we may each have our own subjective perceptions of sharpness. =)

If you still want to disprove me, please do, I'd like to see some ISO800 full sized pictures if you can upload them somewhere.

Actually I did try the LX3 at sitex, along with the G1. The noise performance was not cool... even on the LCD screen.

 

[bigbird17]

Rioch GRD and Sigma DP1, no, but I remember them being good cameras. Not many own one anyway... the only time I saw the Ricoh was when I was auditioning for a photoshoot and the photog did the test shoot with it.


LX3, yes I've seen. Its bad. Not bad on its own, but if you start comparing with a DSLR... no fight actually. By this I mean where the difference is greatest, IE, noise control. LX3, just like FZ18, FZ28, or FZ50, the noise all creeps in by ISO 400.

LX3 can't resolve to 100% as well by the way, by this I mean, the 16.7% (800x600) sharpness doesn't seem to have degraded one single bit by the time you zoom into 100% to pixel peep.

By no means I am trying to slam your opinion, but lets face the fact that technology is not that advance that something 3.75 times smaller can provide equal output at a higher density.

Given that, also note that we may each have our own subjective perceptions of sharpness. =)

If you still want to disprove me, please do, I'd like to see some ISO800 full sized pictures if you can upload them somewhere.

some one is heating up!! come on.. soem older DSLR can hit only iso 800 so you cant compare them like that. my pt is many capable pns can hold their gnd against DSLRs period. this is madness.. anyway seems like you disagree with half the people here so looks like i shan't waste my time here. you want nice pictures are high iso get the D3.

ps: go and and shoot than worry about stats and noise and ISO.. i prefer the enjoyment of travelling and capturing than debating on smth that changes every few mths

 

[mrhobbit]

Comparisons between DSLRs and compacts here are really strange IMO.

Why compare noise issues when the LX3 has an ultra fast wide angle lense?
Kit lenses start at F3.5. Both have IS

In similar lighting conditions, I am sure you realise the LX3 can shoot at lower ISOs by the very virtue of its fast lense. Not to mention slower shutter speeds due to the focal length.

No point comparing PNS and DSLR like this.

I used every single FZ series, and trust me, the FZ20 with its 35-500/F2.8 lense is something I would pick for a walkabout as compared to a 350D and a Kit lense(which is also more expensive than the FZ20 last time i saw it)

Why all the unneccesary debate? Prosumers exist in the market when low end budget DSLR also exist. The fact that both exist and are doing well means that there is a market for both.:thumbsup:

 

[ombre]

some one is heating up!! come on.. soem older DSLR can hit only iso 800 so you cant compare them like that. my pt is many capable pns can hold their gnd against DSLRs period. this is madness.. anyway seems like you disagree with half the people here so looks like i shan't waste my time here. you want nice pictures are high iso get the D3.

ps: go and and shoot than worry about stats and noise and ISO.. i prefer the enjoyment of travelling and capturing than debating on smth that changes every few mths

Haha cheers i'm not heating up. =P But anyway I do shoot high ISO a lot, and thats why I upgraded.

Anyway just to confir, I went over to Dpreview to see their charts... not sure if you see it the same way but the LX3 shows noise even at ISO 80 =P

I never disagreed that LX3 is a good camera... but the price point is so close to a DSLR? You'd pay for that? I can't imagine why unless you need a compact, since LX3 doesn't have a versatile zoom range either.

 

[bigbird17]

Haha cheers i'm not heating up. =P But anyway I do shoot high ISO a lot, and thats why I upgraded.

Anyway just to confir, I went over to Dpreview to see their charts... not sure if you see it the same way but the LX3 shows noise even at ISO 80 =P

I never disagreed that LX3 is a good camera... but the price point is so close to a DSLR? You'd pay for that? I can't imagine why unless you need a compact, since LX3 doesn't have a versatile zoom range either.

no worries bro.. actually i think Dpreview is paid by these companies man.. i prefer the iso 3200 film :bsmilie:

actually my ideal kit be a GRD or a GX100 with my DSLR. u should see some done by a friend of mine with his GRD. won him a few competitions already.

 

[ombre]

Comparisons between DSLRs and compacts here are really strange IMO.

Why compare noise issues when the LX3 has an ultra fast wide angle lense?
Kit lenses start at F3.5. Both have IS

In similar lighting conditions, I am sure you realise the LX3 can shoot at lower ISOs by the very virtue of its fast lense. Not to mention slower shutter speeds due to the focal length.

I feel that this is where the main misconception lies though. Many feel that F2 is tough... but it took me 1/60s, F2 @ ISO 400 to shoot in normal shopping malls. Its not fast at all.

And they're essentially the same... say you stop to F4, you're only 2 stops behind, you can easy earn those 2 stops with ISO bump on the DSLR and still produce better results.

Really its about the price point of the LX3. If not I'd have supported it =P

 

[bigbird17]

I feel that this is where the main misconception lies though. Many feel that F2 is tough... but it took me 1/60s, F2 @ ISO 400 to shoot in normal shopping malls. Its not fast at all.

And they're essentially the same... say you stop to F4, you're only 2 stops behind, you can easy earn those 2 stops with ISO bump on the DSLR and still produce better results.

Really its about the price point of the LX3. If not I'd have supported it =P

aiya bro. capture the moment can liao dun worry so much

 

[J-Chan]

well theres more to a photograph than just noise, pixels, focal lengths, shutter speeds, sharpness etc..

 

[ombre]

well theres more to a photograph than just noise, pixels, focal lengths, shutter speeds, sharpness etc..

aiya bro. capture the moment can liao dun worry so much

Taking a balanced point of view, true, no disagreements there.

Noise and sharpness isn't everything in photography, but just for me, I find it very hard to PP a picture with noise, abit irritating when masking.

Anyway I think about time this thread closed too.