Image Quality of DSLR vs Prosumer


Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 19, 2004
427
0
16
East, Macpherson
#1
I am wondering :confused: by purely comparing just the "image quality" alone, is the output of a DSLR (eg. D70 or 300D + 80-200mm f2.8 lens) better than a prosumer (eg. Pansonic FZ20 with f2.8 throughout) at the same settings (ISO, fine quality, etc....), exposure, focal length(taking into consideration of 1.5-1.6 crop factor of the DSLR) and at 3 megapixel (since the former is 6mp and the latter 5mp)? :dunno:

If yes, how much better? Is there going to be a great difference if it is only going to be developed on 4R to 6R size?
 

dkw

New Member
Dec 10, 2003
1,051
0
0
CCK
Visit site
#2
Under optimal shooting conditions, modern prosumer cams will give you great pics, and I think will be difficult to tell apart from DSLR at 4R size. That's why I still hold on to my P&S digital from years ago. :)

The difference is in actually making the shot. Faster focus, better low light performance, greater control for DOF, flexibility in lens selection, that's the advantage of the SLRs.

Cheers,
 

Snowcrash

New Member
Jan 18, 2002
1,537
0
0
Western SG
Visit site
#4
Fuji Olykon said:
I am wondering :confused: by purely comparing just the "image quality" alone, is the output of a DSLR (eg. D70 or 300D + 80-200mm f2.8 lens) better than a prosumer (eg. Pansonic FZ20 with f2.8 throughout) at the same settings (ISO, fine quality, etc....), exposure, focal length(taking into consideration of 1.5-1.6 crop factor of the DSLR) and at 3 megapixel (since the former is 6mp and the latter 5mp)? :dunno:

If yes, how much better? Is there going to be a great difference if it is only going to be developed on 4R to 6R size?
Different people have different "image quality" tolerance level.

I personally like to shoot at iso 400 / iso 800 in low light working condition. So I either stick with an film compact with 800 film or use an dslr.

And at f2.8 for the 80-200. The DOF will be different from the fz20.

Note the word 'different' not better. Some like more DOF, some less.

I will choose base more on usage level, whether one like the fast respond of an Dslr, or can work with the shutter lag of an prosumer cam.

when more people give you their humble opinion... you will realise there is no clear cut answers in terms of choosing DSLR or prosumer
 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#5
i have grow to dislike the saturated colours and 'unsmooth' gradations of my digi compact prints. Ever since i used a DSLR, the prints on compact never seem to do justice. the noise levels and artifacts bothers me alot, as with the strong saturations that make the colours so unnatural.

but its just me, unless the digicams improve on the sensor size and abilty to do clean files at high ISO i'm still using film cameras for compacts. Nothing satisfy me yet, that's why i have sold all the digicams we own and just invested in another film camera today.

sign. :dunno:
 

MrRabbit

New Member
Nov 5, 2004
43
0
0
#6
Noise on Prosumers and compacts are HORRIBLE....

I'm so used to jacking up iso on my previous DSLR that i almost fainted when i shot some 100 pics at iso 200 w Pro1.

and the focusing lag... bothers me a lot.. i don't mind if the shots are a bit noisy.. but when u wanna capture candid or some action w P&S.. when the adrenaline rushes u to click the shutter.. what do u get?..

the cam taking a few seconds to do focusing, u can see in the lcd that the lens go to sharp to blur... then back to sharp.. and finally after some careful "Calculation", the green box! finally..

well, just my experience, i know lots of camera have better response time now.
 

madison

New Member
Dec 3, 2003
169
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#7
I own the full range of digicams, from PnS, Prosumer to a DSLR now. Now I have a Yashica, Olympus, Minolta and a Canon (not telling which is PnS, prosumer or DSLR :bsmilie: ). So I tot I could share my tots here.

The current PnS cams are so much better now. If u print the pics on a 3R/4R, I don't think u can complain. Just need to know how to better use them (like selecting the correct white balance) instead of just using it fully auto. In the end, it's how you compose your pics that is important. My mum borrowed by PnS for her trip to China recently, and now she thinks she's a damn pro after seeing the printed products. :bsmilie:

Prosumers have much better zoom and macro, and which was one big reason why I bought it. Besides having all the features of the compact PnS, I guess it makes u looks more "pro". It also gives u the opportunity to start toying with things like aperture, shutter speed etc that this site talks about. And makes u wants more... and end up with a DSLR.

I think both both PnS and Prosumers are still poor in the noise department. Use them in at a low ISO setting or in a poorly lit environment, view your pics at 100%, you'll be unhappy with the grainliness and poor contrast. But as I said earlier, they are good enough for the normal photo size. Just be aware of their limitations. My tots. :blah:
 

Aug 2, 2004
513
0
0
holland vee
#8
i think its more on the focusing... fz20 claims to have a shutter lag of 0.006s... hmm also it has a manual focus... just a thot.. if you use the maunal focus... dun think it needs to re focus... taking shots would be faster??? thinking of buying fz20 from sitex... any advice anyone?? :dunno:
 

Paul_Yeo

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2004
2,155
0
0
Sengkang
www.boo.sg
#9
i think prosumer shooting at high iso (eg iso800) may not be as clean as dSLR...

also dSLR maybe more accurate for flash, exposure i think -- correct me if i am wrong........
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
#10
828 :thumbsup: one day i saw a portrait gallery online by fluke. the pic quality very good just by viewing u can tell one,the image size also very big . i look at the EXIF and was stunned that it was by F828?? :eek: cos initially i thought it was done by high end dslr or high res film scan. or maybe they anyhow throw in some misleading EXIF info :bsmilie:
 

Nov 19, 2004
427
0
16
East, Macpherson
#11
Thank you for all you opinions and comments. I am fully aware of the shutter/focusing lag, high noise level at high ISO that exist on the compact or prosumer, though some already got much improvement in these areas. This is also partly why I had bought a DSLR (D70 + kit lens ) and lately a 80-200mm f2.8, whereby the total package price comes up to about S$3K+. Though I have no regrets buying the D70 (beside ability to capture in RAW, the feel is just different) but when comparing this camera setup cost with some Prosumer (eg. Panasonic FZ20 which cover zoom range of 35 to 400+ @ f2.8 and with image stablelizer), the price is >3X and yet looses out on the long reach!

As I mostly shoot landscape and seldom do large prints, I just can't figure out how sharp/good/better the image quality produced by the 80-200mm f2.8 lens can be, as compared to FZ20, taking into consideration that the lens cost as much as the FZ20 and weighs 2X more than the FZ20. Why the lens need to be so big, heavy and expensive to produce a image quality which doubt will be 2-3 times better than the image produced by the Prosumer? Isn't it more justifiable to get a FZ20 camera than just a 80-200 f2.8 lens? :dunno:
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#12
yup, it's probably more justifiable to get a prosumer/consumer digicam if you don't need the good performace, don't need the shallow depth of field and don't need to do large prints.

It's more financially sound to get the appropriate tool for the right job, not the "best" tools.

I have a DSLR but also a compact digicam for times when it's more appropriate.
 

dkw

New Member
Dec 10, 2003
1,051
0
0
CCK
Visit site
#13
Fuji Olykon said:
Thank you for all you opinions and comments. I am fully aware of the shutter/focusing lag, high noise level at high ISO that exist on the compact or prosumer, though some already got much improvement in these areas. This is also partly why I had bought a DSLR (D70 + kit lens ) and lately a 80-200mm f2.8, whereby the total package price comes up to about S$3K+. Though I have no regrets buying the D70 (beside ability to capture in RAW, the feel is just different) but when comparing this camera setup cost with some Prosumer (eg. Panasonic FZ20 which cover zoom range of 35 to 400+ @ f2.8 and with image stablelizer), the price is >3X and yet looses out on the long reach!

As I mostly shoot landscape and seldom do large prints, I just can't figure out how sharp/good/better the image quality produced by the 80-200mm f2.8 lens can be, as compared to FZ20, taking into consideration that the lens cost as much as the FZ20 and weighs 2X more than the FZ20. Why the lens need to be so big, heavy and expensive to produce a image quality which doubt will be 2-3 times better than the image produced by the Prosumer? Isn't it more justifiable to get a FZ20 camera than just a 80-200 f2.8 lens? :dunno:
The only way to truly answer that question to your own satisfaction is to get both systems and shoot side by side. Different folk have tried here to answer aspects of it, but in the end, even if they had exactly the systems you are looking at (which I doubt), their preferences are still their own and will not be the same as yours. Obviously 2x the price or 2x the weight will not give you 2x the image quality, it has never been that way. The more high-end you go, the more money you are throwing at small incremental improvements, law of diminishing returns, yes?

P.S. I do think the FZ20 is a great little camera!
 

Snowcrash

New Member
Jan 18, 2002
1,537
0
0
Western SG
Visit site
#14
Fuji Olykon said:
As I mostly shoot landscape and seldom do large prints, I just can't figure out how sharp/good/better the image quality produced by the 80-200mm f2.8 lens can be, as compared to FZ20.

Isn't it more justifiable to get a FZ20 camera than just a 80-200 f2.8 lens? :dunno:
thanks for sharing. Don't forget weight is an issue too when comes to enjoying shooting. I like telephoto lens, but I find myself using my street zoom len more often.

And have you seen a 4R/6R prints by fz20. Go find one and see if you like it.
 

MrRabbit

New Member
Nov 5, 2004
43
0
0
#15
Snowcrash said:
thanks for sharing. Don't forget weight is an issue too when comes to enjoying shooting. I like telephoto lens, but I find myself using my street zoom len more often.

And have you seen a 4R/6R prints by fz20. Go find one and see if you like it.
Since ur doing lanscape.. one very important point is that the widest FZ20 can go is 36mm (vs 28mm of D70 Kit).. of course u can add Wide Converters for a few hundreds more, but hassle of mounting/dismounting and the added weight? plus the funny bazooka like lens.

I personally find the wide range to be much more useful than tele..

Was contemplating between FZ20 and the D70, decided on D70 coz i knew i WILL be hungry after hitting the limitations of the FZ20. sick of playing catch up in the prosumer arena.
 

smallaperture

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,441
0
0
Catchment Area
#16
Just to add that if you shoot sports/action at the long end of the lens, at say 200mm or so, then, the dSLR would handle very much better. This is similar to comparing an M16 rifle with a revolver. You can shoot 300m with the rifle, but the revolver is only good for 50m or less.

Becos the Prosumer cam is so tiny, it is very difficult to hold it steady to shoot a long tele, unless of course, you have the latest VR/OIS to help you steady your shot.
 

Jun 20, 2004
636
0
0
#17
Fuji Olykon said:
Why the lens need to be so big, heavy and expensive to produce a image quality which doubt will be 2-3 times better than the image produced by the Prosumer? Isn't it more justifiable to get a FZ20 camera than just a 80-200 f2.8 lens? :dunno:

well, the lens needs to produce an image circle to cover the 35mm frame, not like those prosumers with their tinny ccds....:)
 

#20
I own both the FZ10 (for 1 year) and 10D (for 1 month).
I use the FZ10 when I travel and it is more convenient for casual shooting. It is light and has exellent reach (432mm). Good macro too, but have to get real close to the subject. I don't use the FZ10 for flash photography. The build in flash is a joke, I don't own an external flash for this cam.
I use the 10D when external flash is required, and on important event that I want to make sure I have greater flexibility with my equipment and flexibility with post processing. Eg. a 6MP image offers greater room for cropping. SLR
macro lens is great, you can focus on the subject from a distant...and shoot in RAW. The cam is heavy but very stable.
I also own a HP 990cxi deskjet, I tried them on small print (4X6), they are almost equally good. Even my 1.2M Olympus shots look good too. I dont go for large print, I believe the 10D will produce greater result due to its higher resolution and lower noise (can be cleaned up by software, but also tend to soften the image slightly). I like both the FZ10 and 10D. My 2 cents.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom