slr vs compact - inherrent image quality?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Angus Manwaring - 29 Jan 2006 20:08 GMT

Hi all,
I use a D1X at work and we are hoping to upgrade before long, but
it is hard work convincing people..... :( anyway, I have still been
using film at home, 35 mm and medium format, but decided that as I no
longer have the ability to print and process my stuff (at work) I would
get a digital for home use.

A question then. :)

Assuming you put a D1X and a similar resolution digital compact next to
each other, on tripods, and photograph the same view at the same time,
in light conditions which are generally favourable, is there an inherrent
reason why the D1X with the larger piece of glass, is going to produce a
better result?

Assuming both cameras are in tip-top condition etc etc and the compact
allows you to fine tune the exposure.

In point of fact with the D1X having less than 5 megapixel and many
compacts having 7 plus, is the average compact going to outperform the
D1X?

I appreciate that in many applications the slr is going to win hands down
through its flexibility and range of controls.

All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

Reply to this Message

-hh - 30 Jan 2006 00:49 GMT

> Hi all,
> I use a D1X at work and we are hoping to upgrade before long, but
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> reason why the D1X with the larger piece of glass, is going to produce a
> better result?

Yes.

In short, there's practical (including cost) limitations to the
precision with which you can fabricate a physical object. In most
general terms, the larger something is, when it is made to the same
approximate [performance] tolerances, the ratio of the base dimension
to the tolerance control is effectively a Signal:Noise ratio, where
bigger is always better.

> In point of fact with the D1X having less than 5 megapixel and many
> compacts having 7 plus, is the average compact going to outperform the
> D1X?

That's a potential example of where "all other factors being equal" may
no longer apply, so all bets are off for what the results may be.

-hh

Reply to this Message

David Dyer-Bennet - 30 Jan 2006 05:39 GMT

Yes. Three, in fact.

1. The imaging sensor is better. It's larger, giving inherently
lower noise, and it isn't compromised by having to provide live
video readout in addition to still image capture.

2. The glass is better. At least, if you don't put better glass on
your DSLR, you're wasting your money. The wide-ratio zooms on
P&Ss are not going to give your best performances.

3. The rest of the image processing circuitry is more optimized for
quality (and control) and less for convenience and cheapness.

> Assuming both cameras are in tip-top condition etc etc and the compact
> allows you to fine tune the exposure.
>
> In point of fact with the D1X having less than 5 megapixel and many
> compacts having 7 plus, is the average compact going to outperform the
> D1X?

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

> I appreciate that in many applications the slr is going to win hands down
> through its flexibility and range of controls.

You're quite right that that's a separate set of questions and
comparisons, and they do too often get confused.

Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Reply to this Message

zeitgeist - 30 Jan 2006 09:12 GMT

> Assuming both cameras are in tip-top condition etc etc and the compact
> allows you to fine tune the exposure.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I appreciate that in many applications the slr is going to win hands down
> through its flexibility and range of controls.

when sensors crossed over 5mp in the smaller sized chips the noise and
fringing became a problem.

tell them they can get a kodak slr/n for about $2,500

Reply to this Message

Bernd Steyer - 30 Jan 2006 11:09 GMT

I agree that the SLR result will be probably better, but I doubt that you
can see it. :-)
Your main point here is "in light conditions which are generally
favourable". The larger SLR sensor has a higher S/N ratio. This is today the
main advatange of SLR, better high ISO. At good light, the images are
probably identical.

Reply to this Message

SMS - 30 Jan 2006 23:57 GMT

> I agree that the SLR result will be probably better, but I doubt that you
> can see it. :-)
> Your main point here is "in light conditions which are generally
> favourable". The larger SLR sensor has a higher S/N ratio. This is today the
> main advatange of SLR, better high ISO. At good light, the images are
> probably identical.

The lower noise is one aspect. The other huge advantage is the shutter
lag is almost non-existent on the SLR. Oh, and don't forget the ability
to use different lenses.

Reply to this Message

Bernd Steyer - 31 Jan 2006 09:38 GMT

> The lower noise is one aspect. The other huge advantage is the shutter lag
> is almost non-existent on the SLR.

You mean the faster autofocus of the SLR?

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 31 Jan 2006 11:06 GMT

>> The lower noise is one aspect. The other huge advantage is the shutter
>> lag is almost non-existent on the SLR.
>
> You mean the faster autofocus of the SLR?

Have to agree, my D-SLR is fast to focus but my Sony V1 is almost as fast to
take the shot once it has focused.

Reply to this Message

Marxz - 31 Jan 2006 15:10 GMT

of course the real world never throws you the ideal situation and that's
were the versatility of an SLR will win hands down.

one thing no one mentioned is that compacts have such a depth of field,
even when zoomed in, that throwing a subject in to relief against a
pleasantly blurred back/fore-ground is pretty hard even under ideal
conditions.

Reply to this Message