| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/14/2007 06:20:55 AM · #1 |
I was wondering if any one would be interested in taking a second shot of their submission with a 'lesser' camera than what they have.
That way when voting is over we can see the picture as an outtake, to see if there are differences.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:32:14 AM · #2 |
In my observations of the challenge results here over the past 2+ years, I would say the camera makes little if any difference in terms of scores & positioning. And I'll be the first of several people to refer you to Joey's earlier challenge entries with a 1.3MP camera as an example.
On the other hand, I blame my lack of a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II for my poor performance over these past years. :)
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 06:32:35. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:48:20 AM · #3 |
Yes and no, it depends on what you are going to shoot - you can hardly compare a P&S with 6 MP and 3x zoom to a full-frame dSLR with 12MP and various lenses. I could have made some of my better shots with my P&S camera, too, and you wouldn't see the difference. But when it gets to macro, extreme wide-angled or telephoto shots, there is quite a difference (note: some P&S cams, like the Canon S3IS have excellent macro abilities, better than what my current equipment can do). Also, with a camera with higher resolution (let's say Canon 5D with 12.8 mpx), I had had the opportunity to care less for the crop while shooting.
At the end of the day it is still the photographer that makes the picture, but depending on the equipment, not anyyone can make any picture.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:49:49 AM · #4 |
Ive often taken a photo of the same subject with my camera phone to see this diferance. The diferance between a 9mp Camera and a 2mp Phone is quite a bit, I wouldnt recomend taking challenge pictures with a phone :)
These were taken before I started here
A. 9mp Fugis9500
B. 2mp w800i Sony Ericsson
 |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:52:09 AM · #5 |
I'll go for at least a little bit. If nothing else, the satisfaction of using a nice camera makes me want to take photos more. :) It inspires learning.
Eyewave has it right that there are many specific situations where good equipment will do a job that a simple camera cannot match (fast apertures, IS, narrow DOF, flash/studio lighting, good dynamic range, high ISO performance for low light).
But I'll also agree there are a lot of photos that could easily be taken on lesser cameras and most viewers won't know the difference, particularly with good lighting, and at 640 pixel (or 4x6 print) end result.
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 07:52:53. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:14:23 AM · #6 |
For what use?
Artistic vision? Gear won't provide that.
The ability to actually pull off that artistic vision can be affected by gear of course. If the vision is a fisheye view, a macro shot or a close up of lions fighting on the african plains then then ye ol' point and shoot won't do too well.
A camera is a tool. Better tools generally give better results, with less effort.
shooting a wedding? (or most other pro endeavors) then yes, gear matters a great deal as you're expected to get the shot, every shot, every time and make them all pretty with no retakes...so 1.2 lenses, fast focus, weather proof, high ISO performance can mean the difference between getting the shot or not.
Do you watch PBS? The Woodwright's Shop and Norm Abram - both are wood workers and do amazing things with completely difference sets of tools. I can cut a board and pound a nail, but I could not make a chair in either mans' workshop with the tools they use, regardless of the plans or vision I may have of said chair. I bet either could do so in my garage with my poor selection of tools, but they won't be as fast as at home with what they are familiar with. I would still bet my house their chairs would be better than mine.
Why would a photograph be any different?
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:15:25 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Shadowi6:
Ive often taken a photo of the same subject with my camera phone to see this diferance. The diferance between a 9mp Camera and a 2mp Phone is quite a bit, I wouldnt recomend taking challenge pictures with a phone :)
These were taken before I started here
A. 9mp Fugis9500
B. 2mp w800i Sony Ericsson
|
I like the phone pic better....
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:24:03 AM · #8 |
I'll chime in to agree totally with Prof_Fate and eyewave.
What I've found since I got my DSLR is that the range of situations in which I get a good shot is greatly expanded from my P&S. But within a narrower range, they're basically equal in terms of image quality. But as Prof_Fate said, DSLRs can make it easier.
Another example is depth of field. You just can't get too narrow a DOF on a P&S because of the size of the sensor.
All of that said, look at my top 10 shots, which include a ribbon and 6 scores over 6.5. Every one was taken with a P&S.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:30:00 AM · #9 |
| Better tools, on the whole, will produce better results, but only within the combined limits of the tool and the person using it. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:38:22 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Another example is depth of field. You just can't get too narrow a DOF on a P&S because of the size of the sensor.
|
I disagree...
Taken by  bubeltrubelwith Canon S3IS, 27th in "Shallow DOF"
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:16:31 AM · #11 |
Well, DOF always has to be qualified by subject size. All else being equal larger sensor could be even narrower DOF in the same shot. (Assuming you could focus close enough).
By the way, this is a nice shot. Great job bubeltrubel
There are situations where the 'better' equipment is not necessarily the most expensive. I'd like to see a Canon 1D with a top-of the line ultra wide lens take this narrow DOF shot. :) As  eyewave said, there are actually some shots where my old P&S can do better than my DSLR, such as closeups.
Oh, here's another argument. In my wife's hands, my old P&S is definitely a far better camera than my DSLR. Even on green square mode. Give her the fully auto IS big-zoom hold-in-one-hand camera any day. :)
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 09:17:11. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:23:51 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Another example is depth of field. You just can't get too narrow a DOF on a P&S because of the size of the sensor.
|
I disagree...
Taken by bubeltrubelwith Canon S3IS, 27th in "Shallow DOF" |
That's still a lot of DoF compared to what you can do with a larger sensor.
 |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:26:13 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
There are situations where the 'better' equipment is not necessarily the most expensive. I'd like to see a Canon 1D with a top-of the line ultra wide lens take this narrow DOF shot. :) As eyewave said, there are actually some shots where my old P&S can do better than my DSLR, such as closeups.
|
Though there's a difference between better and wrong equipment. If you use the wrong lens on the SLR, you are right, you couldn't get that DoF, but that's part of the joy of SLRs, you can always change the lens to one that's more appropriate (if you are willing to spend the money)
For ~80% of shots, the camera really doesn't matter much at all. How much of the remaining 20% you can get depends a lot on the camera. More expensive cameras let you perhaps go further in terms of pushing that performance limit, but come with the disadvantages of more choice, more control, heavier equipment, more expensive, less subtle, and so on.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:27:54 AM · #14 |
In my opinion, if you have a DSLR and a multitude of lenses, then you will find you have greater flexibility and the ability to be a bit more creative than you would with the majority of P&S cameras.
Also, for moving subjects/wildlife etc I find that the low lag on the focus/shutter for DSLRs allows one to capture a `moment`, where as with a P&S, that moment can pass all too quick for it to keep up.
However, as mentioned below, I agree that the skill lies with the photographer and not the equipment. You give an artist a stick and a cavewall to paint on you might get an good picture. You give an artist the highest quality paints & canvas and he will prodcue a masterpiece. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:30:00 AM · #15 |
Here's a challenge for you:
Two of these were taken with my Canon Powershot A80, and two with my Canon 20D. Can you guess which are which?
    |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:34:53 AM · #16 |
"Handheld macro with my trusty old Canon Powershot A80."
That one was taken with the A80.. :-) (the one with the yellow background)
however I will admit the image quality is consistant throughout... point well made there Rox.
(images 1 & 3 taken with A80, 2 & 4 with the DSLR)
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 09:37:00. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:35:26 AM · #17 |
Shallow DOF is easy with a peashooter as long as it is a static and controlable situation. You place the subject x amount of distance away from the background, you get in close and wala.
Try the same thing with a peashooter in a candid situation or one where you can not move objects around in your shot. Not so easy...more times than not you will end up with deep dof, snap-ish shot.
Not bagging the peashooters (I loved my S50 and Pro1) but being able to control DOF was one of the main reasons I went to dSLR. You should not have to reposition your body or subjects (much) to affect the dof. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:49:44 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Here's a challenge for you:
Two of these were taken with my Canon Powershot A80, and two with my Canon 20D. Can you guess which are which? |
"Handheld macro with my trusty old Canon Powershot A80."
That one was taken with the A80.. :-) (the one with the yellow background)
however I will admit the image quality is consistant throughout... point well made there Rox.
(images 1 & 3 taken with A80, 2 & 4 with the DSLR) |
DOH! I changed everything but that comment!
The noise in #1 really gives that one away. #3 is my 2nd highest scoring entry and I can't seem to do better:(
My point is that the transition to DSLR does not guarantee success (especially when you are stuck with a crappy glass). The learning curve has been so steep for me because I am not focused enough on the technical details that come with a DSLR.
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 09:51:05. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:55:46 AM · #19 |
I feel that if you shoot more than 500 images per month, then you probably should have a better camera than you can afford.
On the other hand, a convenient P&S will likely be carried with you more of the time, allowing many more opportunities to capture the many good shots that slip away if you don't have the time to go get the DSLR out of the car.
It's fun to have a bunch of nifty hardware to tinker with when you have a DSLR and batch of lenses and accessories, but it also multiplies the opportunities to make mistakes exponentially.
If point and shoots could do everything that DSLR's can do, then, shoot, there would be no point in building DSLR's.
Below shot with a simple 3mp HP P&S. Had I left it on auto, then the shot would have been severely overexposed. It is still more about what you do with the camera.
BTW, very nice grashopper shots Rox_rox. I am guessing the last one is P&S
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:56:56 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
My point is that the transition to DSLR does not guarantee success (especially when you are stuck with a crappy glass). |
Absolutely right.
As for your examples, I go back to something I said earlier: within the range of conditions a P&S can do well, there's little difference in image quality. Some P&S cameras do very well at the macro shots you posted, including my Canon S2 IS.
And as Gordon noted, there are other advantages to a P&S, like low weight. That's why most of my 30 day blur project shots have been with it, in fact - I toss it in my backpack to commute with, but I'm not going to lug along several pounds of D200 and lenses.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:15:13 AM · #21 |
1st & 3rd with the A80 ? The noise & lens bokeh is significantly different.
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 10:18:04. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:29:19 AM · #22 |
I am really enjoying reading the responses to the question.
And the examples are great, I wouldnt have any idea which is PS and which dslr in those cases. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:58:30 AM · #23 |
| all 3 that i took with my canon P&S are up in my top 5 "in my highest scores" on my profile... .. i was without a DSLR for about a month.. i had a D50 before and a D80 now.. i just entered my first picture with my D80 and its my worst score ever (so far).. creativity goes a long way |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:59:22 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Simms:
(images 1 & 3 taken with A80, 2 & 4 with the DSLR) |
Originally posted by Gordon:
1st & 3rd with the A80 ? The noise & lens bokeh is significantly different. |
Yep, you guys got it right.
Along with the camera upgrade, I've also had more practice with post editing. The two DSLR shots had quite a bit of noise, but I have learned how to use adjustment layers to blur the BG, thus minimizing noise.
Most of the shots from the shoot with #1 were ruined due to taking my camera from the A/C indoors outside to humid and rainy outdoors and using it in a Ziplock bag to keep it dry. The shots were very noisy with lines streaking across them. I thought my camera was ruined, but DPCers helped me realize that it was heat, humidity and condensation.
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 11:00:30. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 11:18:09 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Another example is depth of field. You just can't get too narrow a DOF on a P&S because of the size of the sensor.
|
I disagree...
Taken by bubeltrubelwith Canon S3IS, 27th in "Shallow DOF" |
I think this has an astonishing DoF, considering the size of the subject:
Nikon Coolpix 5400
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 04:34:48 AM EDT.
